• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do bandwidth caps on home internet use really benefit average users?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
spidey07 said:
And I'm laughing all the way to the bank phokus and there isn't anything you can do about it.
Click to expand...

Phokus said:
Spidey> *types tons of bullshit without regard to truth*

*gets called out on it with facts refuting said bullshit*

Spidey> HAHA I HAVE MONEY

You are literally retarded and you could have saved all that worthless shilling by just pointing out your bank account in the first place.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. It's another non-answer in a long line of non-answers. Oh, and anti-just about everything.
 
spidey07 said:
And I'm laughing all the way to the bank phokus and there isn't anything you can do about it.
Click to expand...

DrPizza said:
Back on topic, I'm wondering why the industry shill still hasn't answered this:

and


Most reasonable would be to have a cap for peak time, and no cap for off-peak.
Click to expand...

Isn't this what the felons do for network management on that big island in the South Pacific? 😛
 
spidey07 said:
Not this shit again. This is why this board cannot understand how the Internet works. You guys simply don't understand how it works. You come up with useless analogies that just don't and cannot apply. High speed, with many subscribers, with high density = cheap. The converse is also true.

If you have a problem with it or think you can do better, then by all means run your own ISP. Until then you're clueless on what is required.

I swear, you guys are like the old man on the block shaking his fist at the power company.
Click to expand...

It's because American teleco's and cableco's don't want to GIVE Americans real broadband like 100mbps service. It can be done very easily and when local towns try to wire themselves with fiber they get sued.
 
I tried to stay within 250GB for months ... but one month (last Nov) I HAD to do a lot of backups and broke 6TB~ on comcast...they called me, said to not do it again or they'll shut it off for 12 months.

since then, I hover around 400-700GB per month.
 
Spidey lulz, Spidey lulz,
Does whatever a spider can
Spins a web, any size,
Catches n00bs just like flies
Look Out!
Here comes the Spidey lulz,

Spidey lulz, Spidey lulz,
unfriendly neighborhood Networkman,
Wealth and fame are his reward,
even though,
He's ingnored,

Here comes the Spidey lulz!!!!
 
plasmabomb said:
spidey lulz, spidey lulz,
does whatever a spider can
spins a web, any size,
catches n00bs just like flies
look out!
Here comes the spidey lulz,

spidey lulz, spidey lulz,
unfriendly neighborhood networkman,
wealth and fame are his reward,
even though,
he's ingnored,

here comes the spidey lulz!!!!
Click to expand...

lololol
 
DrPizza said:
Back on topic, I'm wondering why the industry shill still hasn't answered this:

and


Most reasonable would be to have a cap for peak time, and no cap for off-peak.
Click to expand...

Because the main points of congestion are on the aggregation links that connect many access huts. Those links are under constant load with not a huge change between peak and off peak hours. The goal is to reduce the overall load from abusers so the overall capacity of those links is kept to good service levels, otherwise when you upgrade those links the abusers will just consume the rest of it.
 
spidey07 said:
Because the main points of congestion are on the aggregation links that connect many access huts. Those links are under constant load with not a huge change between peak and off peak hours. The goal is to reduce the overall load from abusers so the overall capacity of those links is kept to good service levels, otherwise when you upgrade those links the abusers will just consume the rest of it.
Click to expand...

HaHa.
Spidey can't even understand the reality of SLEEP and WORK.
Most people sleep at night and work during the day. Yet, Spidey claims they use the internet during those hours, the same as when they are home in the evenings.

When Spidey makes absurd claims like these I literally LOL!!!!!
btw what the fuck is an "access hut" Google turns up nothing. And "link aggregation" is just another way of saying more traffic....


btw watch for next thread in a few days. Seems bandwidth caps actually REDUCE speeds for the average user.
 
Last edited:
techs said:
HaHa.
Spidey can't even understand the reality of SLEEP and WORK.
Most people sleep at night and work during the day. Yet, Spidey claims they use the internet during those hours, the same as when they are home in the evenings.

When Spidey makes absurd claims like these I literally LOL!!!!!
Click to expand...

Do you understand what aggregation layers/routers do? The peaks and loads at the access huts will fluctuate and be somewhat bursty. All that is combined to form a combined load at aggregation - that's what they do - aggregate into much larger links.

When you take all of this aggregate usage then yes, it's not as bursty with wide peaks and valleys as you think. This is why it's nearly impossible to explain complex network design and traffic engineering to novices, it's a complex subject without useful analogies.
 
spidey07 said:
Because the main points of congestion are on the aggregation links that connect many access huts. Those links are under constant load with not a huge change between peak and off peak hours. The goal is to reduce the overall load from abusers so the overall capacity of those links is kept to good service levels, otherwise when you upgrade those links the abusers will just consume the rest of it.
Click to expand...
ntomonth.gif


As an example, Comcast's TATA links fluctuate from 30% to 100% daily. If what you're saying is true, then it should be at or near 100% constantly, buts its not.

:hmm:
 
spidey07 said:
Because the main points of congestion are on the aggregation links that connect many access huts. Those links are under constant load with not a huge change between peak and off peak hours. The goal is to reduce the overall load from abusers so the overall capacity of those links is kept to good service levels, otherwise when you upgrade those links the abusers will just consume the rest of it.
Click to expand...

her209 said:
ntomonth.gif


As an example, Comcast's TATA links fluctuate from 30% to 100% daily. If what you're saying is true, then it should be at 100% constantly, buts its not.

:hmm:
Click to expand...

So basically less than one third of capacity if being used during off hours, i.e. overnight.

Therefore Spidey is either completely unaware of how the internet works, or he is just a flat out liar.

Which one do you think?
 
spidey07 said:
Peering links aren't the same as aggregation.
Click to expand...
Peering links fit the definition of aggregation since if someone wants to access something outside of the ISPs network, they're going to have to traverse a peering link. But that aside, it still doesn't explain why the usage is fluctuating and not flat if the aggregation links are in used near capacity all the time as you say.
 
Last edited:
ViviTheMage said:
I tried to stay within 250GB for months ... but one month (last Nov) I HAD to do a lot of backups and broke 6TB~ on comcast...they called me, said to not do it again or they'll shut it off for 12 months.

since then, I hover around 400-700GB per month.
Click to expand...
6TB in one month?! What were you downloading? At that point, if you control the servers, it makes sense to mail drives to the site.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top