how-to block ads
|
Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Somerset, NJ
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by baineschile  :Maybe when people stop downloading pirated movies and software at a staggering rate, ISPs wouldnt have to do it for everyone. Thanks a lot, piraters, for making the experience rough for everyone How is this going to be rough for everyone? | |
|  
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to If caps become commonplace then you can kiss the online backup industry goodbye. A lot of people have digital media collections that exceed 250G. | |
| |
Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Somerset, NJ
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to Yes, but how is that rough for everyone? baineschile talks about how this won't affect a lot of people because according to him 250gb is more than substantial for an average user. Read his reply a few posts down.
said by baineschile :Downloading an unbox movie - 3gigs VOiP 1 hour chat - 30Mb/hr (approx) Surfing Clips - 250-500Mb an hour (1024x768 max) So, if you download 2 movies a day (180 gigs/mo), chat on the phone 2 hours a day (about 4 gigs/mo) and surf for video clips 3 hours a day (about 40 gigs/mo), you are still using less than the cap 224gigs. But cmon, who does all that? said by baineschile :You would be incorrect. No normal residential person can come up with a 100% legal excuse to use more than 250 gigs/mo I'm a little confused why baineschile thinks this will be rough for everyone when according to him "no normal residential person" will ever trigger it. | |
| | | 
baineschile1
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs. | |
| | | | 
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by baineschile1 :
I support the whole "all you can eat buffet" style internet, but the problem is the people that spend all day at the buffet, and eat 75 lobster tails. That has driven up the cost of business for EVERYONE, now comcast has to implement technology to govern all of this, which will of course, come with costs.
Sounds good, but its just not true. | |
| | | |
meh37
@verizon.net
thumbs down from:
TKJunkMail
| A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed. Comcast should spend more money on upgrading their network instead of their corporate headquarters... it's not like they aren't making plenty of profit off of their customers. | |
| | | | | 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by meh37 :
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by funchords :said by meh37 :
A packet is a packet is a packet => first come, first served. Everyone has the same opportunity to use, or not use, their connectivity. We all pay for 24/7 access up to a certain speed, depending on the tier you choose. If a network is congested, then you have the same opportunity to wait for your turn as everyone else does. That's what it means to be on a network, especially one being used by more people than the number for which it was designed.
Awesome! I hope you don't mind that I stole this. And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products.
Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
4 edits | Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by TKJunkMail :And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products. If that's true, then I don't care.
A lot of people that don't know much about how the Internet was designed have tried to define Network Neutrality based upon their ideas of who might exploit the Internet and how (such as Yoogle paying an ISP to delay or degrade Gahoo's traffic).
But the root idea that the network neutrality principles are about is preserving the Internet's history of non-discrimination.
said by TKJunkMail :Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users. For God's sake, Comcast has a right to manage its network. It also has a responsibility to follow the standards and practices that have evolved the Internet to this point.
Managing the network doesn't mean delaying, degrading, or denying access to people who are acting legally and within the confines of their service agreements.
If someone is exceeding their service agreement, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Shut them off.
If Comcast's technology cannot handle so many users, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Stop selling subscriptions.
If Comcast is unwilling to upgrade their network as fast as user demands indicate that they should, then Comcast has a right to manage its network. Create lower tiers.
No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS.
Comcast, with 14 million HSI subscribers under it, is trying to create an Internet where there is a penalty for people to use or innovate with high-bandwidth applications. And while there's always been a limit to a subscriber's bandwidth, Comcast is trying to create a second limit.
And while they're conducting this so-called trial of these non-disclosed thresholds, how can innovators on the other side of the globe be expected to test against them?
What kind of trial is this? They haven't disclosed anything useful to people that need to be conducting tests during this trial. The one expectation that they have set -- "it'll be like a very fast DSL line" they can't possibly guarantee based on the prioritization scheme that they've been describing up to this point!
They ought to stop this nonsense now.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by espaeth :The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous. You're right, except for my motives. I should have said "Cable." I said "Comcast" because that's the current example.
And I should say "Cable, generally" because it has to do with the size and number of subscribers in the shared bandwidth pool -- and not every Cable and DSL provider has copied every other one.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | | | 
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by funchords :You're right, except for my motives. I should have said "Cable." I said "Comcast" because that's the current example. DSL providers are far from immune from this though -- scan the Qwest and Embarq forums. I have a 5mbps DSL line from Embarq that from June until just last week I could only hit peak rates of just 2.5mbps on, and average rates stayed buried below 1mbps and latency was consistently 300+ms to any Internet destination. Compared to ATT and Verizon, Embarq got screwed because Sprint took backbone and wireless services in the split and those are the divisions that usually keep the ship afloat during LEC infrastructure upgrades.
Embarq did just upgrade the DSLAM from DS3 to OC3 attachment last week, but they had to upgrade the neighborhood mux from an OC12 to OC48, roll trunks, and do a bunch of other pre-work to get there. In talking with the techs, they have something like 80 subscribers off our remote terminal DSLAM -- and it was previously only fed with 45mbps of capacity. If only 9 of those 80-something subscribers were 5mbps users that liked to push their line to the max, that would have worked to saturate the node for everyone.
There are vast areas of network infrastructure among all of the providers that are far from meeting the kind of demand that people want to drive. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by espaeth :said by funchords :No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS. You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail. The entire advertising model for EVERY player in this space is based on BS. To single out a single broadband provider for this practice is simply being disingenuous. Comcast has been the most aggressive in its misleading marketing, ham fisted approach in punishing its users and total disregard of the Federal Communications Comission trying to find out the facts and enforce the law. Cry me a river if Comcast takes the brunt of the wrath of the user community and the federal government.
--
Treason is a matter of dates | |
| | | | | | | | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| said by espaeth :You make it sound like the other providers aren't lying about their capacity. If every subscriber started using 250GB/mo on their $30-$60 FiOS/DSL/BPL/Muni-wifi/DOCSIS/U-verse connection the entire cost model would fail. Lying does not equal reasonable oversubscribing or bandwidth aggregating or statistical multiplexing or whatever they're calling it these days.
I think if a provider can, with 95% or percent assurance or so, deliver a particular tier to a customer who subscribes to it -- I'd be hard pressed to call that ISP a liar. (By the way, that's just my perception -- I'm still looking for an industry model or a consumer standard for oversubscription and it doesn't seem to exist.)
said by espaeth :I have a 5mbps DSL line from Embarq that from June until just last week I could only hit peak rates of just 2.5mbps on, and average rates stayed buried below 1mbps and latency was consistently 300+ms to any Internet destination. That's pretty nasty.
said by espaeth :In talking with the techs, they have something like 80 subscribers off our remote terminal DSLAM -- and it was previously only fed with 45mbps of capacity. If only 9 of those 80-something subscribers were 5mbps users that liked to push their line to the max, that would have worked to saturate the node for everyone. Yeah, that would be a good example of the same effect on the DSL side.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
| |
| | | | | | | | 
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | I can't believe I am saying this, but TK Junk Mail is correct.
While what you state regarding Comcast is true, none of that has anything to do with network neutrality.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp | |
| | | | | | | |
BenAthar
@comcast.net
from:
StreetSpirit
| That is the problem with Comcast. They have no intention of slowing down adding new customers, nor upgrading their bandwidth. Mostly due to the money not being there. Budget woes are plaguing Comcast. With all of the tech's out there and the DOCSIS 3.0 coming out, the network cannot handle the usage due to physical limitations for repairing and replacing outside cabling. Also since Comcast is trying (on paper and in the press) about the 5 9's (99.999%) of Quality of Service. It just don't seem to be that way. That is the problem with large companies and shrinking budgets, not to mention techs starting to become unhappy about not getting plant replaced.
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
I don't believe that there should be limits. Isn't this what Cable companies want to do in the first place, to advance the telecommunications industry and all of the players in it? Time Warner and Charter are trying to, but Comcast wants to be a holdout and direct everything else and not adhere to the same standards as everyone else. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
MadMANN
Premium
join:2005-08-19
·Comcast
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by BenAthar :
I would use another ISP, but since Comcast is the only franchise in this town, I would rather use dial-up or DSL instead.
You can get dial-up ANYWHERE you have a phone connection. What you are really saying is "Comcast is the only provider here that fits my needs/wants." If you really meant that statement, you would not be a customer of Comcast. | |
| | | | | | |
meh37
@verizon.net
| There isn't a network engineer in the world worth his/her salt who would describe Comcast's method of forging [p2p] packets on a 24/7 basis as "network management". Network neutrality also means not unilaterally deciding that some protocol is not "acceptable" on your network, a network by the way that is paid for by all of its customers, including those who use p2p for all too legal purposes. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Alcohol
Premium
join:2003-05-26
Somerset, NJ
| However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade.
Way to go Comcast. | |
| | | | |
DMMJ
@wa.gov
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by Alcohol :However don't you think this is a step in the wrong direction? Everyone knows American broadband is no way as advanced as the worlds, and instead of changing that we're putting limits on our outdated technology so we don't have to upgrade. Way to go Comcast. Correct. China, for example, has a 25Gig/day limit. If ComCast set those kinds of limits, I'd be happy! | |
| | | | | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to How long of a cable do you use to connect to your offsite disk? That's the whole point of online backup. You NEVER have your backup media on the site!
And are ISPs counting their own data backup services in the caps?
cw | |
| | | |
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Hmm.. they'll throttle me back to said by wentlanc :How long of a cable do you use to connect to your offsite disk? That's the whole point of online backup. You NEVER have your backup media on the site! The problem with doing your whole system is that online backups come with real limitations when it comes to time. With 6/1 cable service, assuming you upload at the full 1mbps constantly, it would take you almost 23 days of uploading 24x7 to push 250GB to your upstream backup provider. Heck, even if you had a FiOS 20/20 connection and you could push 20mbps constantly it would take you 27 hours.
Most incidents of data loss aren't of the "my house burned down" variety. Most of the time it's things like accidental deletion, hard drive failure, or other equipment failure that leads to drive corruption. Having some repository of the data locally helps you expedite restores in that event.
You don't need a long cable, you just need 2 USB drives. You keep one drive in an offsite location (ie, I keep mine in my desk drawer at work). Keep the other drive hooked up to your computer for backups. Start off by doing a full backup using a program like TrueImage so that you can do a bare-metal restore to a full functioning system image. Once that backup is complete, take the drive to your off-site location and copy all of the backup files over.
Then take the backup drive home again, and setup backup software to do incremental file-level backups on a daily basis to the same USB drive. Configure your computer to archive just the incremental files to your on-line data backup provider.
If you have a local failure (ie, hard drive failure), you can restore directly from the USB drive very rapidly because you can move data at 10-20MB/sec (80-160mbps). Then in the rare case if you have a full catastrophic failure, you can go to your offsite location to grab the full backup, and proceed with downloading all of the incremental updates you had online. Overall you could probably still be up and running again within a day.
I use a system similar to this for my personal backups -- on average I only make a full backup about twice a year and rely on incremental backups for the duration in between. | |
| | | | 
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| said by wentlanc :You NEVER have your backup media on the site! And are ISPs counting their own data backup services in the caps? cw From the article below. This question is answered. Is this lawful or an anti consumer lawsuit waiting to be exposed? I have no idea.
Frontier Plans To Enforce 5GB Cap In 'December Or January'
Technician hints that Frontier's own services won't count against cap....
»Frontier Plans To Enforce 5GB Cap In 'December Or January'
quote:
we are not currently enforcing this policy and we have been informed that, at the present, the plan is to start the enforcement part of the policy in December or January. . . I do know that we have been made aware that certain activities such as carbonite backup and other services we offer can be excluded from the bandwidth usage.In other words, bandwidth used by Frontier's online storage services won't count against your cap, but similar competing services will
--
It's easier to manipulate non-religious people, Ever hear of Communism?
With out religion your are more suceptable to manipulation. Look at china, they banned religion. It's much easier to manipulate people who don't have any religious convictions. | |
| | | |
|
