Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Entity
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I'm calling Shens, why? Because any midsize or larger ISP will cap their d/l - upload limits, and most can control how much bandwidth is flowing through the pipes. The reason they cap it is so that nobody slows down their network. If they were really concerned they would have just capped him even more, and sent a letter notifying him why. I have never heard of any company, who has limits set on their routers/switches/backbones, sending out a letter such as this imbecile has posted. There's a reason why companies with caps of for example, 500K, will charge more if you want 1MB, 1.5, or 2MB/sec bandwidth. I don't know how big Rogers is, but it sounds like they aren't some little new sht startup company who would just open up their pipes and allow UNLIMITED bandwidth transfer speeds... Almost all larger broadband companies have caps set in place, allowing for idiots who do use alot of bandwidth.
nanyangview is full of sht!!
Um...
Um, from your link: "Network capacity is sized in Mbps, not GB per month. Degradation starts to occur when the bandwidth demand exceeds the bandwidth supply. I would like to think that the network is designed (and upgrades planned) based on peak loading (in Mbps) rather than average bandwidth usage per month (in GB)."
Realize that Comcast is a large company with many localities who can regulate their own little "provinces" of jurisdiction... of course some are going to be asshles to their customers. That's like saying, all policemen in the state of Pennsylvania follow the rules. If a cop is having a bad day, he's going to punish the perp in the way HE feels necessary, just as some of the Comcast divisions are behaving. I think it's safe to say that 8 out of 10 users (which is the majority) are going to be ok with Comcast, just as 8 out of 10 officers won't break the rules.
Back to the first quote in this post. Comcast (in most cases) is not going to sell more bandwidth than they could provide. Even if they DID, they could cap anyone they wanted to. Hell, I can cap anyone coming off my router who's using P2P if I want, and I do it all the time. I don't see why a company would threaten to cut someone off based on total GB's d/led, that's irrelevant because the company can calculate the maximum GB's d/l in a month [24hoursX30Days(.015GB/sec)]. Furthermore, most companies do not sell their services by maximum GB d/l but maximum bandwidth speed. I can't see how, legally, this threat would fly when someone has paid for 1.5MB/sec access to their services.