how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2003-10-01 16:44:46: Rogers, like Comcast, begins taking action against 'bandwidth hogs' without clearly defining what constitutes excessive use. ..
| |
page: 1 · 2  |
 
TheChosenOne2
I Will Bring Balance
join:2003-08-17
Deep River, CT | Lawsuit Waiting to Happen It's only a matter of time before Comcast suspends the account of the wrong person. | |
| | c0mmander
join:2001-10-03
| Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen indeed. they can't advertised "unlimited" when it really is limited. class action time!
(ex: back in 1996 when AOL first offered 56k unlimited for $19.95/month and they got so clogged many users couldn't even dial in, hence a class action lawsuit followed and they had to pay out big for their failure to delivery the advertised unlimitless) | |
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen said by c0mmander  :
indeed. they can't advertised "unlimited" when it really is limited. class action time!
(ex: back in 1996 when AOL first offered 56k unlimited for $19.95/month and they got so clogged many users couldn't even dial in, hence a class action lawsuit followed and they had to pay out big for their failure to delivery the advertised unlimitless)
Yeah that was great. Lawyers made millions, I got a $3 credit. Whoopee. | |
| | | | 
FLECOM
Bay Networks Freak
Premium
join:2003-03-03
Miami, FL | Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen yes but its still a slap in the face for these retarded companies that should see it coming | |
| | | | | 
jinjimbob
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13 | Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen Slap in the face of who? It only affects the low people on the pole, the CEOs will still get millions.
Anyone who mentions class action lawsuits is just making all prices go up. | |
| | | | | | 
Dirk Daring
join:2000-08-03
Ashburn, VA | Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen ...only of that company. Competitors will jump all over a price increase of another company. We it right in the DSL vs Cable war.
--
CD buying policy: I only buy blanks. | |
| | | | | | | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen said by maartena :
It does not say what is unlimited. I think unlimted access means you have internet 24/7. It does not say it refers to the amount of data transfered. I think cable lawyers can make an argument here.
This argument has been made before. The issue I see with it however, is that unless you define what is limited or unlimited, the definition is left up to the person reading the statement. I think those cable lawyers will have an issue defending that.
Of course what they'll do is make sure the user is made out to be this terrible bad person who is a burden to all users yadda yadda.
The biggest problem Comcast and the others have at the moment, is that if they are going to impose limits or set up some kind of "bandwidth use moral standard" then they need to clearly define what it is, and not hide behind the legalese of the AUP.
There have been mentions before that bandwidth hogs really do not exist. That the cable cos throttling of the bandwidth delivery is creating their own bottlenecks, and that if they rolled out a bigger pipe, this wouldn't be an issue. This may or may not be true...but regardless, they need to be forthcoming when asked what the cap is.
K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com
"On a clear disk you can seek forever" | |
| | | | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen said by GlobalMind :
said by maartena :
It does not say what is unlimited. I think unlimted access means you have internet 24/7. It does not say it refers to the amount of data transfered. I think cable lawyers can make an argument here.
This argument has been made before. The issue I see with it however, is that unless you define what is limited or unlimited, the definition is left up to the person reading the statement. I think those cable lawyers will have an issue defending that.
They would look to what the contract/AUP said (that the customer agreed to) regarding limits for clarification. Since that lists some restrictions to "unlimited", Comcast would have an excellent case.
It all depends on what the contract, not the advertisement says. | |
| | | | | |
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen said by joebear29 :
They would look to what the contract/AUP said (that the customer agreed to) regarding limits for clarification. Since that lists some restrictions to "unlimited", Comcast would have an excellent case.
It all depends on what the contract, not the advertisement says.
I'm not so sure. I think it still would come down to they have to define what the limits are, and then show by evidence that you exceeded this number, and that you had at your disposal information to determine your usage and thus ability to comply.
In the case of AUPs that simply state that you can't hog the network to the detriment of other subs, they would need to provide evidence to that end.
Now, what Comcast and GigaNews have done which is great is an agreement that says you can have 1GB of news transfers a month free. Not only is there a specific limit set, but you are informed what it is..AND Giga has a facility to track your usage and see where you are. Great!
Now, do that for the modem connection itself and they can start bitching about who downloads how much. Until such a time as they can give the user a reliable monitor, AND state exactly how much is too much - I think it is still open for discussion.
K.
--
TheGlobalMind.com
"On a clear disk you can seek forever" | |
| | | | | 
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by GlobalMind :
The biggest problem Comcast and the others have at the moment, is that if they are going to impose limits or set up some kind of "bandwidth use moral standard" then they need to clearly define what it is, and not hide behind the legalese of the AUP.
There have been mentions before that bandwidth hogs really do not exist. That the cable cos throttling of the bandwidth delivery is creating their own bottlenecks, and that if they rolled out a bigger pipe, this wouldn't be an issue. This may or may not be true...but regardless, they need to be forthcoming when asked what the cap is.
K.
The other big problem is simply a matter of money. The data-measuring systems that come with the installed cable equipment work fine by itself, give a fairly accurate count, but are not easy to handle.
Right now, a sysop has to manually go into the system, find the corresponding modem hardware address and match that with a username, and manually get the amount of data that has been transfered to/from a certain modem.
If a certain cap is implemented, there are usually also (financial) penalties in place. E.g. cap of 30 Gigs, and $1 for every gig above that. It would be an ENOURMOUS amount of work for the sysops to go in and get all the information required.
The system can be automated though, but at a COST. Computers can be put in place that automatically get the amount of data downloaded at the end of the month, send the information to the billing department, and they can bill accordingly. Just as being done with Video On Demand these days.
Another INVESTMENT that has to take place is a portal for users where cable users can check how much data they have downloaded at a certain point in time. You cannot expect from users (even if it is freeware) to install software on their systems to correctly measure their data. Plus the fact that won't even WORK for people who connect more then one computer with a router.
I bet that many subscribers are families. They don't know how much they download, and the head of the family does not care. The kids do their homework. They play ball in the weekend. They have friends to go to. Who cares if a sharing program is running 24/7 on one of the kids computers, The Internet works for dad when he wants to check his sports, news and online banking, right?
So to tell the users how much they have been downloading, they should implement a fully automated system that tells them how much. Warning e-mails when you have 10,5, and 1 Gbyte of data left to spare. A system that is real-time, and not updating just every few hours or so. There's more MONEY they need to spend.
Besides from the technical and educational issues, there is marketing. No company wants to be the FIRST to implement limits, as there is a danger that the customers will switch to DSL. If you set it too low, customers will massively switch over to DSL, if you set it too high you are only gonna catch a few nerds that never unplug themselves from the Matrix. Would it be worth the investments for that?
Nobody exactly knows where to draw the line, and nobody wants to draw the line first. But with families having 3, 4 or more computers on a router, sharing programs that make things easy for them, and the increasing size of music, video and software the amount of data transferred will be on the rise. And files will probably never get much smaller.
In essence: Nobody knows what to do, and nobody wants to be the first to do it.
--
»www.deanforamerica.com - You have the power to make a change! Support Howard Dean 2004 | |
| | cricky2pare
join:2003-07-26
Waukegan, IL
| Why is it so hard for Comcast to come out clean and specify what is considered excessive use? Saying that their service is of unlimited use and then suspending the user account sounds like a business crime. My ISP have bandwidth caps and they specify what the limits are. So as a user, it is now my responsibility to follow that or live with the consequences. But how come SBC doesn't have that limit nor suspend their clients for excessive use?
My first post, be nice. | |
| | | | | | | 
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen said by Omega :
After I had broadband for about 2 months, I ran outta stuff to download, I do not see how they can think up of so much stuff.
The user in question was capturing multiple simultaneous streaming radio feeds 24/7. By his own admission it was an insane amount of data. | |
| | | | 
freightliner
join:2003-09-11
Portland, OR
| said by Omega :
I agree.
Now I am against caps and whatever, but these people have to be downloading a lot. It has to be at least 50GB+ per month.
After I had broadband for about 2 months, I ran outta stuff to download, I do not see how they can think up of so much stuff.
I imagine it is uploading as well as downloading - bandwidth goes both ways - lotta folks have servers out there with 1 terabyte plus of warez, movies, mp3 etc., etc. and they are up 24/7 often with 3 or 4 clients upping and downing - the bytes add up... | |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by Omega :
...
I do not see why Comcast is having such trouble with telling people how much they can and cannot download.
It's because they want it both ways - they want to be able to get rid of the "bandwidth hogs", but they don't want to say they have caps or limits. Typical business posture. | |
| | | 
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| said by cricky2pare :
Why is it so hard for Comcast to come out clean and specify what is considered excessive use?
For the same reason your local all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet doesn't have a sign saying "ALL YOU CAN EAT, but we reserve the right to kick you out if we think you're pigging out."
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
| | | bod
join:2002-07-16
San Jose, CA
 ·Etheric Networks
| My guess would be that they're not using a fixed threshold for bandwidth consumption to gauge who they consider 'bandwidth hogs'.
I suspect they're probably picking the top few percent of customers, those who consume far more bandwidth than their cost models allowed for. I bet if you looked at a histogram of usage, the vast majority of residential users would be at the far left, and there'd be a few users over on the right side. Those are the people they're losing money on, and don't want as customers.
Even though they're offering fixed-pricing to consumers, their providers are not offering it to them. Their pricing models are based on assumptions of a low usage ratio - i.e. you only use a few percent of the bandwidth available to you, averaged over the month. They are assuming that you have to sleep, go to work, have a social life, etc.
So 'excessive use' isn't something they'll be eager to nail down for you. It's corporate speak for 'doesn't fit the profile we assumed'. And they want the freedom to adjust that profile without having to change the terms & conditions of the contract they have with you.
Since they're offering fixed-pricing, they can't adjust it - so they adjust their costs. That means changing pricing or outright cancellation of those customers that contribute disproportionately to their bandwidth bill.
I'm not defending it, just trying to shed a little light. I'm not even in that industry, so I may be a little off-base. But I'm pretty sure that's the business principle at work here.
Paul | |
| | | | | | SkyDude
join:2000-11-19
Raynham, MA
| You may think a lawsuit is in the wings, but as far as Comcast is concerned, any user that has a dispute that can't be settled via internal resolution must agree to binding arbitration. In addition, no one can sue Comcast as part of a class action.
A number of industries have included this asinine codicle in their user agreements, and they have been upheld by some courts.
Read the letter closely. If there was ever a case of having their customers by the short ones, here it is.
And we thought AT&T was a pain.......... | |
| | 
plk
bo may sleep in loft
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Ogden, IA | Just wondering how this will play into the spam issue. Once they set limits of this type, then a spammer is stealing so to speak. This means your own ISP can't spam you. Just a thought. | |
| | | joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| Re: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen said by plk :
Just wondering how this will play into the spam issue. Once they set limits of this type, then a spammer is stealing so to speak. This means your own ISP can't spam you. Just a thought.
Heh, I've used AOL pay by the hour back in 1995ish. Then, you had to use your monthly hours (a whooping 5) to download AOL updates.
I don't think the amount of spam one gets would be remotely material to a 50 gig a month download limit. | |
| 
Big Time
Fuster Cluck
Premium
join:2002-10-19
Washington
|  Reasonable Use?
Unlimited Internet*
* Some restrictions apply. You can't have unlimited use, but we can't tell you how much you can have
Seems like they are making things that much harder on themselves by not setting a hard limit. If it's going to happen, have the jewels to come out and say: 30/50/whatever GB per month. Like it or lump it, and be done with the drama.
--
I don't believe in political jokes. Too many of them get elected. | |
| | 
lazarus_
join:2002-08-31
Resolute, NU
| Re: Reasonable Use? When they say unlimited they mean "unlimited connection time" not bandwidth/traffic.. now if they would only make that clear and say what the caps are..(Or just stop using the word unlimited..)
--
-=Do Not Click This=-
[text was edited by author 2003-10-01 17:01:38] | |
| | | madmix
join:2003-08-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
| Re: Reasonable Use? "When they say unlimited they mean "unlimited connection time""...
Unlimited connection time!!!? HAH!
When I was with them (for the short time after they took over ATTBI) the connection was off more than it was on. But that's another story lol :-D | |
| Sarge_0321
join:2002-06-27
San Diego, CA
| STOP ADVERTISING UNLIMITED!!! Cell phone companies don't do it. Neither should they.
Every OTHER industry sets hard limits.
Whether is a miles on an auto-lease or minutes for a long distance phone account.
Why is it so hard NOT to advertise unlimited file transfers?
Sarge | |
| | 
clyde_
It's A Chrysalis, Not A Cocoon
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Easley, SC
| Re: STOP ADVERTISING UNLIMITED!!! said by Sarge_0321 :
Why is it so hard NOT to advertise unlimited file transfers?
Because those caps aren't really there to help the customer, they're there to maintain the status quo profit margins for the ISP. By being purposely unspecified the ISP can easily get rid of customers that cost them more then projected amounts by claiming they past some user limit. It could very easily become a tool to create a user base that all has the same usage amounts and keeps bringing in the same profit. It's just a low blow designed to keep the pockets of the ISP filled with money and nothing about helping the customer understand what the limits of their service are.
--
"It's a butterfly!" -- kid from the MSN 8 commercial
[text was edited by author 2003-10-01 18:36:32] | |
| | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: STOP ADVERTISING UNLIMITED!!! But it does allow flexibility. Say a customer streams 1 gig every month for a year then the 13th month they stream 50 gigs. The 14th month they stream 1 gig again. This leaves flexibility because they do not have to charge the customer or shut them off because they went over one month.
It also leaves them the ability to cancel or charge the guy that streams 50 gigs every month for twelve months. Why should the customer that streams one gig a month have to pay the same as the guy that streams 50? That one customer streaming 50 gigs takes away from the download speeds of the 1 gig customer.
Absolutely, profit for the ISP. It is also the ability to stay in business, provide medical benefits to its employees, and provide those braces for little Timmy. No one can blame anyone for wanting to make a profit. It is that profit that makes it possible to provide you with broadband to begin with. | |
| | | |
clyde_
It's A Chrysalis, Not A Cocoon
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Easley, SC
| Re: STOP ADVERTISING UNLIMITED!!! Fine, if the 50 gig donwloader is so detrimental then tell them up front that there are hard and set limits that have consequences if they go over them. In the real world there are numerous limits that have values of variance that are understood up front. Drive over 65 MPH and you're speeding, my cellular any time minutes are good through 9PM to 7AM and on weekends, drinking alcohol under the age 21 is illegal, etc. Why can't Comcast come up with a number like many of the other ISPs have? Or are they afraid if they set a set cap they'll lose some of their customers that bought into the "unlimited and use at any time!" service that ISPs constantly hype about?
--
"It's a butterfly!" -- kid from the MSN 8 commercial | |
| | | | | keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| Re: STOP ADVERTISING UNLIMITED!!! They should post limits, but I can see why they don't. I think just about everyone can agree that 200 gigs is excessive though.
Marketing and flexibility. The way they have it set up now they are only making the people they sent the letters too angry. Post the limits and it becomes a marketing problem, not a technical problem. Right now they can still eliminate the excessive users while not "scaring" away potential users. | |
| 
Irenic
join:2000-05-02
Montreal, QC
| Soon... There will come a time when these companies will have to realize they must set a consistent policy. Either there are caps, or there aren't. And if there are, there should be clear numbers.
Customers' bandwidth usage is not going to go down with increasing file sizes, flashy websites, P2P, gaming, etc. So they might as well do what my ISP did and make premium packages that have higher, or no, limits and advertise them as such. I gladly pay 50% more knowing that I will not be bothered about my usage. I am sure there are many others with the same opinion. | |
| | GeeWhizz6
join:2003-09-21
H9H-2s5
| Re: Soon... Problem with Videotron is it costs too much for Vidéotron Extreme, you are either paying $70CDN on a 12 month plan or $85CDN with a 12 month plan.
Where as I am only paying $35CDN and no one telling me how much I can or can not upload or download with my DSL connection. Sure 4Mbps is much faster than my 1.5Mbps, but I don't slow down during peak times.
As far as Rogers Internet goes, I would of thought they learned their lesson with Bell Sympatico set up/download limits in Jun 02 of 5gb down and 1gb up. I am still wondering just how many people left bell, well I can count 1 me and I won't go back to them.
www.canadianisp.com/
[text was edited by author 2003-10-02 08:56:54] | |
| buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Presque Isle, ME
 ·Great Works Internet
·GWIS Internet Solu..
| Come On Companies... If you say unlimited mean it, my cell phone has unlimited minutes, but there are some restrictions, in fact there is a whole 2 page booklet explaining those restriction in painfully long winded detail. but for my broadband the only mention is... "The ISP Service may not be used to engage in any conduct that interferes with Operator’s ability to provide service to others, including the use of excessive bandwidth."
In my mind (as a low paid consumer, therefor companies don't really care about what I think) the caps they put on my modem are what control the "excessive bandwidth" issue. | |
| B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| VoIP Too Same controversy regarding "unlimited" in the realm of VoIP providers. Users are occasionally bounced for violating terms of service when they use too much time on the "unlimited" plans. Now, many of these appear to have been telemarketers trying to abuse "home" plans, but it does sound as if normal people have fallen into that murky net. If I recall, some of the VoIP vendors are more up-front about their real limits than others... Some don't even allow occasional telecommuting unless you purchase a business plan.
-- B | |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: VoIP Too said by B :
Same controversy regarding "unlimited" in the realm of VoIP providers. Users are occasionally bounced for violating terms of service when they use too much time on the "unlimited" plans. Now, many of these appear to have been telemarketers trying to abuse "home" plans, but it does sound as if normal people have fallen into that murky net. If I recall, some of the VoIP vendors are more up-front about their real limits than others... Some don't even allow occasional telecommuting unless you purchase a business plan.
some VoIP providers will even place you into a business plan and charge you [without your authorization] *coff* Vonage *coff*
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| 
slonocode
join:2001-07-28
Ann Arbor, MI
| Seems like a strategy If these companies were to just come out and institute bandwidth limits they would probably meet strong resistance. The issue would be Caps vs. Unlimited.
It seems they have managed to manipulate the situation to their advantage. Now the issue is "Please just tell me what the caps are!". So when they finally do set limits it's seen more as a relief than a problem. | |
| 
jose3030
Premium
join:1999-08-17
Manassas, VA | Comcast sets a cap, I leave DSL for me.  | |
| |
See 14 replies to this post | |
InfamousCow
Milk is overrated
Premium
join:2003-09-23
Collegeville, PA
clubs:
| I think that this may apply here. What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
-is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
-is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
»www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/bus···faqs.htm
--
The day of the Bovine is at hand! MoO | |
| |
See 13 replies to this post | |
corster
Premium
join:2002-02-23
Ottawa, ON
clubs:  | Can't find the article...... Rogers user here, just was looking through the National Post and can't seem to find any reference to this. | |
| | jpaik
join:2002-01-09
Oakville, ON | Re: Can't find the article...... National Post Oct. 01/03, Financial Post section, page FP3.
HTH.
--
Every morning my cornflakes tell me what to do. | |
| 
quetwo
@acd.net
 from:
bbennettdpn
| There is a distinction, however... I work for an internet provider in the Midwest, and we do offer 'unlimited' useage of our service, etc. Same catches. However, there is a clear distinction of users who are using the system, and those who are abusing it. When I run my monitors, and I see bw utilization above 90% for more than 24 hours, that's an automatic flag for me. Trends are what we look for. If granny is going to WindowsUpdate and downloading all the patches for 4 straight hours, who cares? However, those who abuse our network, (pirates, etc.) are those are in violation of our TOS. If I see a user who has 10's of giggabytes of downloads per month, I will contact them and tell them to slow down, or loose their privilages to our network.
We don't have a set cap, and don't need one. If you know you aren't doing anything illegal, then don't worry. If you are worrying, then think about your actions.... | |
| |
See 18 replies to this post | |
mitska
join:2001-12-25
Sarasota, FL
·Comcast
| unlimited huh? I still have a major problem with ANY service that claims to be unlimited yet is not. I hear lots of people claiming if you dl an album of mp3s you are a thief...yet when you outright lie and commit what looks like deceptive or fraudulent advertising...somehow people who do dl a lot(of whatever) are labeled hogs or pirates.
Seems like a lot of crap to me. | |
| 
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Restrict, inhbit or otherwise interfere .... Actually, based on the Rogers letters I've seen, Rogers is NOT imposing limits based on its "bandwidth limits" Term of Service, but rather on its "causing service problems for others" term ... which may or may not be accurate, but given the performance issues in some areas may well be true. The two people I've heard of receiving these letters were exceedign 40GB per month. See term 7g here ... »www.rogershelp.com/help/content/···/EUA.PDF
There haven't been enough reports of letters and where the users are located to determine whether 7g is probable. | |
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: Restrict, inhbit or otherwise interfere .... Some have commented that Rogers claims unlimited bandwidth use by the following statements in their FAQ asking why the caps were removed ...
"Due to the changed competitive environment, Rogers has decided to cancel its plans to set monthly usage allowances with charges for additional usage on all Rogers Hi-Speed Internet services. Rogers Hi-Speed Internet customers will continue to enjoy unlimited Internet usage."
Even with caps they would have claimed unlimited Internet usage on the basis of availability of access.
And the concept of not having monthly usage allowances with charges for additional usage is not the same as unlimited bandwidth.
Granted these are technicalities of language ... but that's what corporations rely on. | |
| | | 
b_zen
Premium
join:2002-07-24
Saint Louis, MO
clubs: | Re: Restrict, inhbit or otherwise interfere .... Uncle B_zen's Daily Prediction:
We are going straight to Karl Bode's Billing by the Byte article... »Billing By the Byte
--
Just Be! | |
| 
gruggni
Oxygen Gets You High
join:2003-07-28
Corpus Christi, TX
| I wonder Excessive use and bandwidth hogs.
I believe this is to deter automated downloading in bulk. Some p2p providers allow people to queue up downloads until they are either canceled or downloaded. If it's not songs, then it's movies, or short movie clips(porn).
It's easy to setup a newsreader to download files from newsgroups which have gigs of data waiting to be downloaded.
Newsreaders can be automated to download every *.mpg or *.mpeg file on a newserver. Imagine how long that could take and how much BW it would use throughout the day.
With the RIAA looking to stop sharers, the ISP's have to either deal with subpoenas or try to prevent them. I think this is an attempt to lose the customer base whom are file sharers. Regardless, they need to be clear in their policies as to how much is too much.
So it comes down to this: If the ISP notices that you are using too much BW then you must be doing something illegal and your account will be suspended.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-01 19:06:32] | |
| | desreversti
join:2002-09-03
San Antonio, TX
| Re: I wonder said by gruggni :
Excessive use and bandwidth hogs.
I believe this is to deter automated downloading in bulk. Some p2p providers allow people to queue up downloads until they are either canceled or downloaded. If it's not songs, then it's movies, or short movie clips(porn).
It's easy to setup a newsreader to download files from newsgroups which have gigs of data waiting to be downloaded.
Newsreaders can be automated to download every *.mpg or *.mpeg file on a newserver. Imagine how long that could take and how much BW it would use throughout the day.
With the RIAA looking to stop sharers, the ISP's have to either deal with subpoenas or try to prevent them. I think this is an attempt to lose the customer base whom are file sharers. Regardless, they need to be clear in their policies as to how much is too much.
So it comes down to this: If the ISP notices that you are using too much BW then you must be doing something illegal and your account will be suspended.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-01 19:06:32]
I use my Road Runner connection to download around 50-150GB/month. I'm not a pirate, but I use a lot of that bandwidth for getting UNLICENSED anime, or then sometimes I will have Launch or Sputnik7 going on one computer while I am on the other... Why you might ask? So I can legally listen to my favorite music on demand. Granite it's not the best quality, but it's free and legal, so not all people are doing something illegal with that type of bandwidth. | |
| | LadyBug4u2
join:2003-01-04
Punta Gorda, FL
| Hey Gruggni you wrote
"So it comes down to this: If the ISP notices that you are using too much BW then you must be doing something illegal and your account will be suspended"
Thats so full of bull so what you are saying that when my children want to listen to a music station back home in Florida they must be doing something Illegal, because they are using too much bandwith. Yea Right with 4 pc's connected to one hub, it is pretty easy to rack up 20+gb a month, and don't forget about the movie trailers out there and streaming video
just a quick look here you can see that there is alot of music on the net
»launch.yahoo.com/launchcast/stat···ault.asp
and then you can watch movies over the net from here
»tesla.liketelevision.com/liketel···me=guide
or if you want you can watch soaps from here
»download.soapcity.com/scdd/appli···ace=main
And now tell me I am or my children are doing something illegal.
All of these places require a alot of bandwith | |
| | |
gruggni
Oxygen Gets You High
join:2003-07-28
Corpus Christi, TX
| Re: I wonder I said legitimate uses. Listening to web radio for the time being is still legal. The comment I made focuses on p2p users. Using p2p software acts like a server on your broad band connection. ISP's don't like customers to use servers because they consume bandwidth. P2P apps should be banded because of the server disclaimer.
The thing is,the policies are not exactly crystal clear on what is right or wrong. Is unlimited really unlimited, the answer at this time is no. If you are downloading from your isp's newsgroups, they probably won't cut you off. People also try to use free dns and ip services to put personal servers on the net. This is not accepted by ISPs. Check terms of services for your isp and find the activities that are not allowed and see how your applications and activities can somehow be refered to as restricted activities.
If nothing else call your ISP up and ask, is doing this and that ok. Get it in writing if possible.
Nuff said.
By the look of things, p2p will probably become a restricted application.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-03 17:00:25]
[text was edited by author 2003-10-03 17:01:56]
[text was edited by author 2003-10-03 17:05:13] | |
| 
blueeyesm
join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| About damned time I am finally happy Rogers' is implementing this policy. Before Sept 1, my bandwidth was exceeding 1Mbit for download, and upload was at 192kbps. Now that the students have moved into the area two days later, my bandwidth, from 6 am to 2 am, did and does not exceed 50kbps download!
Why is this? At first, I thought, "ok, with the recent barrage of worms on the 'net, things must be slower than usual, but people will clue in and get their systems patched." After 2 weeks, and not being able to even connect to the mail servers via an email program, nor through their web-based email service, I called Rogers' and complained. 2 more weeks went by, and I still could not download a web page (btw - it took me 3 min 40 sec to download this page.). I called again and only to learn that it is a network related issue and that the techs will get around to fixing, but there is no ETA.
This leaves me to believe that there are way too many people on the shared feed from Rogers' within my city are hogging bandwidth (because the network is set up so the central equipment is used by Waterloo). They are downloading massive amounts of movies , music, programs, etc. that usually are copyrighted!
How do I know this? I have talked with a lot of the students and other people in the local area who use the service. They feel that they should be able to download as much as they want, like it's an 'All-you-can-eat' service. You don't get that with electricity, or water, or even gas all required necessities in today's world. I must applaud Rogers' move to suspend these accounts.
They also want to share programs, music, and play games online as much as they want with no restrictions. They want it at a low cost.
Once it is explained to them that the connection they use is actually shared like a public pool, and that the more space in the pool they take up for their own, illegitimate use (meaning mass downloading and the like, not legitimate reasons like FTPing school work to their account), the less others can enjoy said pool, even though we are all paying the same amount. The dim light turns on in their eyes and then seem to understand why Rogers' takes this course of action. | |
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil
| The key is COMMON SENSE!! I still stand firmly by my opinion that the working concept here is common sense. I bet most of these people are the same ones being subpoenad by the RIAA for uploading too much music. Unlimited doesn't mean it's OK to download 50GB a day. I get unlimited long distance from SBC for $20 a month. No fineprint. The only catch is that it is a RESIDENTIAL service. If I decide to be a telemarketer and use it for that, I'm in trouble. Probably the same thing is going on with those cable users.
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
|
K112
@keen.com | Games? How to games play into this? Wouldn't people who play games online constantly come close to these limits, or am I misunderstanding? | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
K112
@keen.com | As an aside.. How can you say this: "Unlimited doesn't mean it's OK to download 50GB a day." and not see the inherent problem with it? Unlimited DOES mean it's ok to d/l 50gb a day. LIMITED means it's not. There is a very clear distinction. | |
| 
Shamayim
I already have a Messiah.
Premium
join:2002-09-23
| FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED Sound of approaching siren . . .
ISP: "I stopped you for exceeding the speed limit."
Driver: "What speed limit? There's no sign."
ISP: "That's your tough luck."
The problem we have here is a failure to communicate.
--
"tick...tick...tick..."
»www.jtf.org/
[text was edited by author 2003-10-01 19:42:47] | |
| |
See 47 replies to this post | |
| |
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0
·Rogers Hi-Speed
Host:
Rogers
Bell Canada
| Re: That guy uses too much.... That's not the way fixed rate plans work. If you want a "by the bite plan" then ask the Australians what they think of it. The problem is that your monthly fee really can only cover a limited amount of bandwidth.
In the old days of @home, where @home paid for the unlimited bandwidth, the individual companies didn't have to worry or worry their subscribers. On the other hand look at what happened to @home ... they were going to use portal revenue from excite to fundd the bandwidth ... and we all know what we thing of portals and portal advertising. @home went broke trying to push a flawed system, and now the cable operators (and indirectly the DSL operators) have to go and clear up the @home legacy of expectations. | |
| | | | | | |
|
·
·