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

[techs]

You're clueless. I can bid out Internet or data services anywhere and have providers begging for it.

You know that your insanely ridiculous posts that are so outrageous actually hurts your defense of cable companies, right?

People who post threads about internet service WANT you to reply to them. Your ridiculous "defenses" of the cable company are actually so wrong and bad they cause people to LOL.

 

[Texashiker]

He thinks 40 Gigs is a reasonable cap, so yes, he thinks everyone is as dumb as he is.

40 gigs is a reasonable cap, its 10X what my current cap is.

To the OP - Setting a limit of 250 gigs is not going to help the everyday user. By the time someone hits 250 gigs, its going to be later in the month. So the common user "might" benefit after the heavy 24/7 torrent users are cut off.

Personally, I would like to see a daily cap. Take that 250 gigs, divide by 30, and you have your daily cap. Go over that amount in 24 hours, and your internet will be cut off until midnight. The heavy users will get cut off by the time the normal user gets on at 6pm - 8pm.

But then again, I think the heavy 24/7 torrents / file sharers need to be cut off. If you want to share music and videos, get a dedicated T1 or better.

 

[techs]

40 gigs is a reasonable cap, its 10X what my current cap is.

To the OP - Setting a limit of 250 gigs is not going to help the everyday user. By the time someone hits 250 gigs, its going to be later in the month. So the common user "might" benefit after the heavy 24/7 torrent users are cut off.

Personally, I would like to see a daily cap. Take that 250 gigs, divide by 30, and you have your daily cap. Go over that amount in 24 hours, and your internet will be cut off until midnight. The heavy users will get cut off by the time the normal user gets on at 6pm - 8pm.

But then again, I think the heavy 24/7 torrents / file sharers need to be cut off. If you want to share music and videos, get a dedicated T1 or better.

While that is an idea that would actually help the average user, I think it would piss some people off. At least some average users would find they were watching a movie on Netflix and get it cut off. Plus imagine coming home and not realizing your kid downloaded a bunch of crap during the day, and you can't get your email or do an important Skype that evening? I think the public would howl.
Also, it wouldn't stop people from downloading their max during peak usage hours. In fact there would be no incentive to not download during peak usage hours.
Unlimited off peak downloading would encourage people to get download managers, p2p apps, etc and set them for timed downloads overnight. EVERYONE wins. Average users and heavy users.
The only people that don't win are the cable companies, because people could then have greater access to entertainement that is not provided by the cable company. And legally if you are a monoply you cannot use your power to hinder competition. Only the cable companies have used YOUR money to buy politicians to write the laws so the cable companies can stifle competition.

 

[Texashiker]

Plus imagine coming home and not realizing your kid downloaded a bunch of crap during the day, and you can't get your email or do an important Skype that evening? I think the public would howl.

Making people mad about overusage will probably help more then it will hurt.

If little johnny abuses his internet while mommy and daddy are at work, they will find out about it later. It wont happen but 1 or 2 times and little johnny will stop.

 

[BurnItDwn]

You just answered your own question.

When you go over 250GB you buy more 50GB more for $10.

That is the option.

Many people will not have that option.
Also, I will be pissed when it costs me $110 a month to get online vs $60.

I'm simply saying that 250GB is awfully low. MUCH to low of a limit in this modern age.

 

[sourceninja]

Not to mention the cap isn't a sliding scale.

If I have 768kbps service I have a 250 gig cap.

If I have 20mbps service.... I have a 250 gig cap.

That alone makes no sense. It's a race to the top. The person who pays more will reach their cap faster and pay more yet again to continue using their connection.

 

[techs]

Making people mad about overusage will probably help more then it will hurt.

If little johnny abuses his internet while mommy and daddy are at work, they will find out about it later. It wont happen but 1 or 2 times and little johnny will stop.

I dunno. Little Johnny can do no wrong in many parents eyes. All the user would know is I paid for internet and I can't get online.

Remember this is the American public we are talking about. The internet is a series of tubes.

 

[Texashiker]

I dunno. Little Johnny can do no wrong in many parents eyes.

This is very true - instead of taking little johnnys computer away from him, the parents will probably get mad at the provider for little johnny going over his limit.

My brother is a deputy sheriff, one night around 1am or 2am he sees this car weaving across the lanes of the road. He pulls the car over, and finds out the driver is stoned. The kid is like 17 years old and has been smoking some weed. Instead of arresting the kid, the parents are called to come get the kid and take the car home. My brother was doing the kid a big favor, as compared to being arrested and impounding the car.

When the mom gets to the scene, she starts yelling at my brother for pulling her son over. In her eyes, the police have no right to pull someone over for weaving across the road and driving dangerously.

Sometime people amaze me.

So if little johnny goes over the limit, the parents are likely to blame the provider instead of admitting that their son was at fault.

 

[techs]

This is very true - instead of taking little johnnys computer away from him, the parents will probably get mad at the provider for little johnny going over his limit.

My brother is a deputy sheriff, one night around 1am or 2am he sees this car weaving across the lanes of the road. He pulls the car over, and finds out the driver is stoned. The kid is like 17 years old and has been smoking some weed. Instead of arresting the kid, the parents are called to come get the kid and take the car home. My brother was doing the kid a big favor, as compared to being arrested and impounding the car.

When the mom gets to the scene, she starts yelling at my brother for pulling her son over. In her eyes, the police have no right to pull someone over for weaving across the road and driving dangerously.

Sometime people amaze me.

So if little johnny goes over the limit, the parents are likely to blame the provider instead of admitting that their son was at fault.

QFAT(quoted for absolute truth)

 

[her209]

You're clueless. I can bid out Internet or data services anywhere and have providers begging for it.

Translation: I can request a quote from local ISPs for Internet service....... just don't ask me how much it will cost though.

 

[spidey07]

Translation: I can request a quote from local ISPs for Internet service....... just don't ask me how much it will cost though.

Actually, no. I can bid it out to anyone and they will beg to get it and prefer to stay away from local ISPs because of poor service. The point being you can get intarweb, but you gotta pay for it.

The prices consumers are paying for their usage is way too low. So up the price or lower the usage. It's just that simple.

 

[her209]

Re: OP

If you assume that a majority of customers will be on their Internet connections during peak hours, then the heavy downloaders have to compete with everyone else for bandwidth. Since heavy downloaders make up a small percentage of the customers, even if all of them stopped downloading during peak hours, the casual user will, at best, experience said small percentage increase in performance.

A rather crude example that illustrates my point: During peak hours, 100 customers share a 100Mbps connection, therefore, each customers gets (100 Mbps / 100 customers) 1Mbps if everyone is using their connection at the same time. Now if 5% of the 100 customers are heavy downloaders and they stopped using their Internet connection during peak hours, then each customer gets (100Mbps / 95 customers) 1.053 Mbps. That's an increase of 5.3% increase in speed.

Problem solved on the ISP's end.

/sarcasm

 

[her209]

^^^ Its still the same increase percentage wise if you assume the 100 customers are sharing a 1Gbps connection.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The prices consumers are paying for their usage is way too low. So up the price or lower the usage. It's just that simple.

Compared to what? Time Warner made nearly a billion dollars in profit this quarter, AT&T made 3 billion. I'm not begrudging them their profits, but I don't think you can say that they are pricing their products to low either.

 

[mmntech]

250GB! That's a ton. Our caps in Canada range from 20GB to 60GB.

I use my internets like mad, but on my most prolific months I have not exceeded 125GB. 250GB is a shit ton.

I would, in fact, be supportive of a 250GB cap. Anyone who needs more should be paying more.

Not only that, but our internet is very expensive here as well. You can't blame population or geography for that either. Smaller countries have faster internet and most of the population is packed into urban areas.

The caps are in place because of lack of infrastructure. Band-aid solution. Supposedly the cost to deliver each gigabyte is very low. That's not the issue.

The internet is rapidly moving to replace conventional communications, but the capacity just isn't there. So yes, the caps do help average consumers in terms of keeping things moving. It's a lot like a toll highway. Collect higher fees as a means of placing restrictions on travel. Keeps the traffic moving for the time being. But, demand will inevitably exceed capacity as the surrounding communities grow.

Broadband needs massive investments. Especially if we want to catch up with the likes of Japan and South Korea.

 

[Phokus]

The prices consumers are paying for their usage is way too low. So up the price or lower the usage. It's just that simple.

LMAO LMAO LMAO, are you retarded spidey? Anyone can look up these cable company's financials and figure out that you're full of shit. Remember when you were crying about how Time Warner was being shafted by how expensive those bitttorrenters and they NEEDED those 40 Gig caps? Turns out that not only were they growing their customer base and revenues but their costs were going DOWN before they announced that they wanted to do their caps. You were about the ONLY one defending time warner and for good reason:

Take a seat you industry shill.

 

[spidey07]

And I'm laughing all the way to the bank phokus and there isn't anything you can do about it.

 

[Phokus]

And I'm laughing all the way to the bank phokus and there isn't anything you can do about it.

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.

 

[spidey07]

There isn't anything you can do about it. It is going to happen. I've told you for years.

 

[DrPizza]

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

You still haven't addressed my point. Since people can still download full tilt during peak hours, the 250gb limit does NOT make everyones service better. In fact it has little or no effect.

Did Comcast lie?

and

Are you really telling us that internet usage doesn't go way up in the early evening hours and way down overnight?
Seriously, do you think we are idiots?
Or do you really believe that bullshit?

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

 

[Paratus]

Came in here for the Spidey Lulz - was not disappointed!

My thoughts: Heavy users are "abusing" the system in the same way their internet connection was advertised as "unlimited".

 

[0roo0roo]

LMAO LMAO LMAO, are you retarded spidey? Anyone can look up these cable company's financials and figure out that you're full of shit. Remember when you were crying about how Time Warner was being shafted by how expensive those bitttorrenters and they NEEDED those 40 Gig caps? Turns out that not only were they growing their customer base and revenues but their costs were going DOWN before they announced that they wanted to do their caps. You were about the ONLY one defending time warner and for good reason:

Take a seat you industry shill.

yep, there is no justification, they have not demonstrated that their systems are under tremendous strain by these so called 2%, it is just about greed. even if the 2% used double their cap, the average is what? 18gb? meaning that that 2% going over makes for an insignificant increase in total traffic regardless. plus they exclude their tv service from the cap, which is essentially unfair competition against hulu and streaming, if they included their tv service under the cap atleast it would be consistent.

 

[Phokus]

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.

Spidey's going to take his ball and go home. He knows deep down that he has no factual argument. It's his MO

 

[13Gigatons]

There isn't anything you can do about it. It is going to happen. I've told you for years.

I hope you are getting paid by AT&T since you are their spokesman. :thumbsdown:

 

[Eos]

Yet, Comcast does have he infrastructure already in place to support many users downloading 24/7 EXCEPT during peak hours of usage. Tens of millions of customers use no internet between 11pm-7am. The problem is the number of users online during peak hours. Bandwidth caps do almost nothing to stop or limit those people during peak hours. So, bandwidth caps don't give the average user greater speeds. All it does is keep high users from utilizing bandwidth that is NOT in short supply during non peak hours.

You can say this over and over but it's not going to be addressed by anyone here in a meaningful way.

<<< New business customer *no longer affecting my neighbors with a saturated node.

*Not really, but that's okay, I wasn't before either. Schedulers do wonders for allowing the neighbors full access to the t00bz.

Here's a fix for the "problem" of heavy bandwidth consumers: throttle connections on download bandwidth when it is active for longer than the amount of time THAT specific connection would take to download a 50mb file.

Small files could download quickly and get the user off the network. Large files would still download, just at a slower pace. Say 1/8th of their max? No one else on the node is inconvenienced, no caps are required because magically everyone now has access to whatever bandwidth is feeding that particular node.

SMART NETWORK MANAGEMENT. Fucking use it. These caps do nothing to prevent congestion.