|
Latest Netflix data shows the perils of bandwidth caps
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 19 May, 2011
Following in the footsteps of other ISPs like Comcast, AT&T began its broadband bandwidth caps earlier this month, giving subscribers "generous" caps of 150-250GB, depending on your subscription package.
The company claimed that only 2 percent of all users ever go over 250GB, so the cap will hardly affect anyone.
New data from Netflix (via DSL) makes it abundantly clear that those ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Zoo_Look
Suspended permanently
|
21. May 2011 @ 17:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Um... wow... look at it this way... UNLESS every home subscribed to a ISP has one physical line running from the house to the ISP servers and is the ONLY household to use that physical line, there MUST be some kind of line sharing going on.
Why are you even trying to argue otherwise?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
21. May 2011 @ 17:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Um who implied there wasn't a share Um.... Um... that has nothing to do with the why should I pay for usage subject Um... that was seemingly in dispute Um.... Um...
Like I said before let?s try to make some sense here, or maybe not Um??
:)
|
|
Zoo_Look
Suspended permanently
|
21. May 2011 @ 19:30 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.
To which I repliedQuote:
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.
The point of which was obviously lost on you and others. If everyone spends all day every day in their house, that does not make a difference to how many people can use their own house, if everyone spend 24 hours a day every day downloading stuff, that will have an effect on other people using their internet since as the lines are shared you will be saturating it so they can't connect.
|
Senior Member
|
21. May 2011 @ 20:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Quote:
This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.
To which I repliedQuote:
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.
The point of which was obviously lost on you and others. If everyone spends all day every day in their house, that does not make a difference to how many people can use their own house, if everyone spend 24 hours a day every day downloading stuff, that will have an effect on other people using their internet since as the lines are shared you will be saturating it so they can't connect.
It should not, as you have a bandwidth limit per account and it doesn't matter if there is one or 500 people using that line as you cannot exceed your ALLOWED bandwidth. Providing that the engineers did their job correctly and the company (ISP provider) hasn't oversold their system. If that is true then there would be no ill effect on others in your shared tree. The problem is they over sell what they are capable of providing and of course lie about the service you are supposed to have, then they turn it around that those damn downloaders are taking all of your service it's their fault for using what is provided to them, when in fact the ISP is not doing their job. This is normal standard business these days, they keep lying and we keep paying more.
|
|
Zoo_Look
Suspended permanently
|
22. May 2011 @ 11:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh boy... so you are now agreeing with the statement that a landlord complaining about overusing an apartment (which affects no-one else) is the same as an ISP complaining of overusing an internet connection (which does affect others)?
|
|
jimmurray
Junior Member
|
22. May 2011 @ 11:49 |
Link to this message
|
This is all moot. My ISP is a BS outfit called MediaCom and I pay for a speed of 20 but in reality according to speedtest.net I average around 1.2 . When contacted MediaCom insists that it is due to the use on my "node" which serves two distinct communities that are about 25 miles apart. When I attempt to download from Netflix I must wait till the complete movie is downloaded or I can expect to see a movie in three second bursts. I have modern equiptment too. An i5 computer system, a PS3 (not that thats a good thing right now) a Wii and a vizio apps TV. Netflix has same response on all of the above EXCEPT after about 11PM when the "node" is not used by most households.I can't wait until the new fiber optics lines are in place by ATT and I hope to get reasonable bandwidth. As of now, MediaCom is the only game in town other than dial-up but I am signed on with internet phone service through MediaCom so I would have to dump my cheap phone and go with ATT again. Sux being rural but we choose where we live. So in retrospect the bandwidth cap probably wouldn't hurt me since im not on line fast enough to rack it up.
jimmurray1946
|
|
Zoo_Look
Suspended permanently
|
22. May 2011 @ 11:54 |
Link to this message
|
If they implemented a data-cap, you COULD possibly see an improvement to be fair. A cap would force other people to either reduce or reschedule their downloading/data use, thereby at least giving you a chance to use some decent bandwidth yourself.
|
|
jimmurray
Junior Member
|
22. May 2011 @ 12:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
never looked at it that way but you probably are right, the cap just might help in my case.
jimmurray1946
|
|
Zoo_Look
Suspended permanently
|
22. May 2011 @ 12:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's one of the reasons why ISPs bring in caps (the other being profit of course). Without a customer getting an adequate service, there is no incentive for that customer to stay with them. In your case, the only other option may be to go without entirely, but in large cities, a disgruntled customer can use another provider... and a customer with poor service is normally pretty disgruntled!
|
|
jimmurray
Junior Member
|
22. May 2011 @ 12:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
AHh the life in the big City... I'm from San Francisco originally and remember the first tv we got was in 51, we had 4 stations then, 2-5-7-9 then got 3 and 13. That was a big deal.. When the UHF stations came in we were crazy with viewing. Now no one can live without 500 +- channels.. Ah for the good old days.....anyhow it the 20's now and life goes on..
jimmurray1946
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. May 2011 @ 12:35
|
|
Zoo_Look
Suspended permanently
|
22. May 2011 @ 12:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
[offtopic]
Over here (UK) we are in the throes of switching off our UHF terrestrial TV signal in favour of digital encoding... from 5 channels to at least 90 (depending on reception).
I have to say, I am impressed that broadcasters and the like can say 86+ channels of repeats of those original 5 and a variety of shopping channels could be considered an "increase in choice, with a far greater selection of quality programming." (according to the pamphlets)... add to that the fact that if the digital transmitter your tuned to goes down, you lose all your channels, whereas before, if a transmitter went down, you had a loss of 2 channels tops (bbc1 and 2 were from the same transmitter), and I am not sure digital TV can REALLY be called an improvement.
[/offtopic]
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. May 2011 @ 12:46
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
22. May 2011 @ 15:29 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Quote:
This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.
To which I repliedQuote:
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.
The point of which was obviously lost on you and others. If everyone spends all day every day in their house, that does not make a difference to how many people can use their own house, if everyone spend 24 hours a day every day downloading stuff, that will have an effect on other people using their internet since as the lines are shared you will be saturating it so they can't connect.
It should not, as you have a bandwidth limit per account and it doesn't matter if there is one or 500 people using that line as you cannot exceed your ALLOWED bandwidth. Providing that the engineers did their job correctly and the company (ISP provider) hasn't oversold their system. If that is true then there would be no ill effect on others in your shared tree. The problem is they over sell what they are capable of providing and of course lie about the service you are supposed to have, then they turn it around that those damn downloaders are taking all of your service it's their fault for using what is provided to them, when in fact the ISP is not doing their job. This is normal standard business these days, they keep lying and we keep paying more.
Eloquently put, I've been trying to say this for the last couple of days, but Alzheimers keeps setting in...
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
22. May 2011 @ 15:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
If they implemented a data-cap, you COULD possibly see an improvement to be fair. A cap would force other people to either reduce or reschedule their downloading/data use, thereby at least giving you a chance to use some decent bandwidth yourself.
It's just garbage to think some else has to modify their life style to benefit someone else when society as a whole works just as hard. I.e., if you and I both work at the factory doing the same labor, why should you have to wait till later in the evening to enjoy your computer access just so I can have mine now all because the ISPs are too cheap/greedy to supply proper access (which they are masquerading as data caps).
Interesting thought anyway...
|
Senior Member
|
22. May 2011 @ 20:41 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Oh boy... so you are now agreeing with the statement that a landlord complaining about overusing an apartment (which affects no-one else) is the same as an ISP complaining of overusing an internet connection (which does affect others)?
I always was in agreement with that which does affect the Landlord (ISP Provider). You really don't seem to get it do you. And no people using what they have, and are permitted to or allowed, doesn't affect others as I stated before if the ISP has done their job, which is the point here.
I knew you were not capable of comprehension....
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
22. May 2011 @ 20:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Mr Movies I see the point you are trying to make. The ISP sells at a certain band width and now they don't want to honor it. It is obvious they didn't think people would ever actually use that much. Now they know better so they changed their rules. It is their sand box. Not liking it will only make you grumpy.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. May 2011 @ 21:30
|
Senior Member
|
22. May 2011 @ 21:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
You nailed it Mez. Years ago I joined LifeTime Fitness they swore they wouldn't over book so I went with them and signed up. Within 6 months they were over booked and I quit them but it was a fight to get my money back. Now maybe they thought I would become a member, and many others of course, but not use the gym or they are just money greedy and don't care about service. Either way they lied to me and are negligent in their manor.
Now with that should I blame the other people for using the gym that they paid for too? Or do you hold Life Time accountable for over booking? It is pretty obvious who is at blame here.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. May 2011 @ 21:35
|
|
Zoo_Look
Suspended permanently
|
22. May 2011 @ 22:11 |
Link to this message
|
So your statement thatQuote:
Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.
was in contradiction to your recent post thatQuote:
I always was in agreement with that which does affect the Landlord (ISP Provider).
|
Senior Member
|
22. May 2011 @ 22:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
So your statement thatQuote:
Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.
was in contradiction to your recent post thatQuote:
I always was in agreement with that which does affect the Landlord (ISP Provider).
You are totally lost! WOW.... Give up you lost or better yet you are lost!!
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. May 2011 @ 20:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
You nailed it Mez. Years ago I joined LifeTime Fitness they swore they wouldn't over book so I went with them and signed up. Within 6 months they were over booked and I quit them but it was a fight to get my money back.
As you might expect, I don't take being shat-on any better than you. I guess we must be men of principle.
|
Senior Member
|
24. May 2011 @ 20:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
You nailed it Mez. Years ago I joined LifeTime Fitness they swore they wouldn't over book so I went with them and signed up. Within 6 months they were over booked and I quit them but it was a fight to get my money back.
As you might expect, I don't take being shat-on any better than you. I guess we must be men of principle.
Here Here... :)
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
25. May 2011 @ 11:35 |
Link to this message
|
@Zoo_Look - Changing from analog to digital broadcast did the opposite for my household. We went from 5 watchable channels to zero. Range is more important for digital broadcasts than analog. I could deal with a bit of snow and static since I live so far out (about 30 miles north of downtown in a major metropolitan area here in the States). All the transmitters were south of downtown and were right at the 45 mile range. Trying to watch new digital TV stations is like trying to listen to a horrifically scratched CD even with a $100 antenna.
I'd switch to TV over my Internet connection, but between data caps and the 1.5mb/s max speed they provide in my area I've found alternative methods to watch TV.
|
