grabeck
join:2003-07-17
Calgary, AB
| reply to jarthur31
Re: I agree for the most part...
This is what I'm talking about. Jarthur's brings up the main issue customers are dealing with. What would u think the percentage of "abusers" are... 2%? and yet instead of being proactive and public about those people, ISP's try to hide the fact they are making across the board throttles that effect the users who need the bandwidth and speed, yet don't abuse it.
Those who pay for unlimited service are not the issue as to the person above, it's the clowns out there that can't follow a simple rule that is clearly stated to them yet, whine and moan the topic of caps, etc. come up. When an IPS says 100GB/month cap, I fail to see the logic in someone thinking 300-500GB is ok.... really what the hell? |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
 ·Colbanet
| You should note that R0CKY isn't an end-user. He owns the ISP with 40,000 customers that he mentions. He buys 7 gigabits of connectivity from Bell to aggregate DSL subscribers. Bell is throttling individual DSL customers despite the fact that R0CKY's 7 gigabits of connectivity isn't saturated.
If R0CKY's customers use more bandwidth, R0CKY has to buy more GigE connections from Bell. So all arguments for throttling just fall out the window!
R0CKY's ISP has standard 200GB caps on regular accounts, with their "Unlimited" tier intended for users who use 300GB+ of bandwidth. Why shouldn't somebody think 300-500GB is OK when that's what their ISP is selling them? |
|
