 FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | well crap. I just figured out that mediacom uses Giganews too. This blows. |
|
|
|
| great marketing bs " our promise of Always Faster Internet".
yeah....bandwidth and usage are not the same. Putting a cap on usage will not speed up your connection during peak hours.
Nice marketing spin. Pure cash grab. |
|
 tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | Not sure of the pricing... ... But those limits don't look too bad. |
|
| Doesn't make sense... quote:
"We’ve implemented the usage allowances to ensure we can deliver on our promise of Always Faster Internet," insists the company, adding that "in reality, only 2% of our users exceed our usage allowances." "Our average Internet subscriber currently uses only 31 GB of data per month, so we don’t expect these allowances to have much impact on our customer base," says the company.
So is Mediacom admitting that that they can't handle 2% heavy users and that they must "cap" everyone else. And like someone said before me, how is "usage" and "speed" related in the first place? Also the last time I checked, these ISP's already have throttle mechanisms in place, ala speed tiers. If congestion was such a big deal, they could simply throttle during peak hours. |
|
| at least their caps line up companies like comcast give everybody a flat cap rate. at least mediacom's caps scale with the package appropriately. ~1TB is not an unreasonable cap for someone who would get the 105Mb package. |
|
| reply to tshirt
Re: Not sure of the pricing... It is better than some of their competition. LISCO and Centurylink for example. Some of their other competitors only offer 1.5mbps DSL. Really they don't have much competition in most markets. |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to FBGuy
Re: well crap. Guess you'll have to upgrade to the 50M package then. Or, you know, only download stuff that you'll actually watch/listen to/use. The horror! |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to nanaki333
Re: at least their caps line up Glad I'm not the only one who doesn't think the caps are unreasonable. 999GB is more than enough for everything I do, and I'd probably get the 50M plan if I was in that area anyway. |
|
 Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | reply to nanaki333
..except that the 50M package has the same cap.
If they did it correctly, it'd be a 1.5TB cap for 105mbps and 1TB for 50mbps. |
|
| i never said it was perfect, but it's a lot more reasonable than comcast's one-size-fits-all cap of 300GB. there's no reason to get anything above the lower tiers on comcast if you get 300GB with 20Mb or 105Mb. |
|
| reply to nanaki333
Hard to see how being restricted to 2% usage is "not unreasonable". 1TB is nothing, for $20 you could get an ancient DSL connection to do that |
|
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT | ... "Welcome to Bob's orchard! Here's your bushel basket. Now remember, you're only allowed to put three apples in it! Enjoy!" |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to Wilsdom
Re: at least their caps line up said by Wilsdom:Hard to see how being restricted to 2% usage is "not unreasonable". 1TB is nothing, for $20 you could get an ancient DSL connection to do that
Speed and capacity are 2 different things. There are a lot of people who are more than willing to pay for higher speed(and quicker access) and don't need to download or upload terabytes of data. For them no caps or very high caps are irrelevant.
It doesn't follow that having a fast link means you have to use the total available bandwidth 24x7 to get your money's worth. But every time the subject of caps and speed arises, we are then inundated by the nonsensical stats of reaching the cap in 73 mins, or 1 day, or 1 week.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
| Interesting I do think it is interesting that they have 1TB limits and their limits grow with speeds. Mediacom must have one of the most robust networks out there to blow Comcast and them out of the water with cap support.
I also find it interesting that such slow speeds have any cap at all. How many with such slow speed "abuse" a network? How in the world could someone with such slow speed abuse a node at all that would cause everyone on the node to suffer thus requiring bandwidth control (assuming they dont pay for more)?
Lastly, I find it very humorous that only 2% of their user's exceed the caps (which caps we dont know) and yet they need to cap all users as a result.
How many users per node exceed this cap?
How is having a cap going to stop congestion?
How is having a cap that allows them to continue on, just pay more, going to stop congestion? |
|
| reply to iansltx
Re: at least their caps line up Yea but what about the homes that have 15 laptops, 7 Xboxes, 9 PS3s, 11 Rokus, 36 pc that try and watch 342 netflix streams while downloading 143 Linux ISOs?
It won't be long before someone here tries to justify why 999GB is unreasonable.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company. |
|
FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to iansltx
Re: well crap. oh, does the limits only include downloading? I was worried that I wouldn't be able to post as much. |
|
| reply to Skippy25
Re: Interesting Because it's never been, and never will be about congestion.
Feel sorry for poor Mediacom. Mediacom isn't making enough money! |
|
Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | reply to battleop
Re: at least their caps line up Let's see..
We have 6 laptops, 4 desktops, 3 Roku's, 2 Xbox 360's, and a home server that tunnels to our main network.
I'm sure we could eat through a TB worth of data in a month.. maybe less. |
|
FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | reply to Linklist
Caps are not about network management either, they are about making more money in any way possible. It's never been about network management. It's about customer management. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| What is really needed If you look at the typical family I would find it hard pressed that even a 15 Mbps link is needed. We always talk Netflix, but netflix only allows 2 streams per account. With the new tech they release a HD stream (720) takes up less than 2 Mbps, so even worst case we are talking about 4 Mbps for 2 streams. OK take two more 8 Mbps. At 15 Mbps you are talking about room left to spare. I was watching streams from the 80's and less than 250MB/hr. Netflix has come a long way. Amazon has some work to do.
Granted w/ a 30 link you can download 2x as fast, but is it worth $20/more -- not really and that's why they are introducing caps, to push people to higher tiers which is pure profit. Caps were created by the actuaries such that a very small % hit them today, but as they know internet grows 30% a year, so in 3 years 30% or more are hitting the honey pot, and who doesn't want $10-$20 more revenue for something that costs $.50 to produce. Pure profit.
I read in TWC that 80% of the people use "turbo" or lower which in my neck is 15/2. I know we are not typical people, but for the masses it works just fine....
They of course start the caps higher, and then the will raise rates on each tier, and lower the cap just like they did in Canada. I mean there you are lucky if you get 60 GB.
Caps do not equal network management, because there are no caps, just price overages. So how can they equate that to network management. What a BIG FAT LIE. Take a look at FCC, almost all of the carriers (sans Frontier) are hitting 100% at prime time WITHOUT NETWORK MANAGEMENT. And Comcase has their own "private internet" running over the same resource constrained pipe, just running on the teetering edge of collapse any second  |
|
