Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | they have not boot me off yet
April 2009 (Incoming: 205,248 MB / Outgoing: 90,514 MB)
only 50% is p2p got to watch my tv shows in Crisp HD(and other shows download for every one eles in the house)
Rest of it is youtube,web pages,gamming . etc... from the other computers that others use |
|
watice
join:2008-11-01
East Elmhurst, NY
| said by Anonymous_  :April 2009 (Incoming: 200278 MB / Outgoing: 86134 MB) same here. guess they leave areas where FIOS is being deployed alone.
March 2009 (Incoming: 97391 MB / Outgoing: 206600 MB) |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Anonymous_
Is that number from TWC or your router ? |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | router why? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Just wondering if TWC had a meter yet 
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | even if they did i would not use it as i do not check slowrunner email |
|
innoman
-
Premium
join:2002-05-07
Raleigh, NC
clubs: | reply to en102
The way to fix all of this would probably be to stage a cancel TWC day. If they get enough account cancellations, they will change their tune. |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
1 edit | reply to Anonymous_
How about quit stealing content.
There are plenty of free legal alternatives now. |
|
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by NOCMan :How about quit stealing content. There are plenty of free legal alternatives now. I have him beat and its all legit. technet subscription, linux distros and hulu.
no disconnection notice hear yet. |
|
rawwhide
Zer0
Premium
join:2000-09-03
Zero
clubs:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
2 edits | reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan :How about quit stealing content. Hmmm. Don't assume he is stealing because he is using P2P. To many legit things to get now and plenty of alternatives that are free. I use P2P for Linux distros and a variety of other legit stuff.
I have argued for years now that streaming media would come into its own and caps were a way to squash this. ISP's are starting to directly compete with old cable TV business models and these cable companies are not happy realizing what if's. What if most people move from current cable television to online television? Cable TV companies and even at&t, which is now deploying u-verse, will lose customers to the internet side as more and more people drop the current TV business model for an internet TV. These companies realize that they control the internet ISP side. You can guess what the answer is to stop these what ifs, yep caps and overage charges. Especially, as streaming media quality increases. As the speeds increase so to will quality which will put more people over or beyond caps. Anyone here imagine watching on demand streamed video content over the internet 15 years ago?
--
To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish. |
|
Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| reply to NOCMan
said by NOCMan :How about quit stealing content. There are plenty of free legal alternatives now. Please don't start with that nonsense, I implore you.
High bandwidth use != infringing use. It's that simple.
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn
I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB. |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | said by Nerdtalker :said by NOCMan :How about quit stealing content. There are plenty of free legal alternatives now. Please don't start with that nonsense, I implore you. High bandwidth use != infringing use. It's that simple. the only option for "OTA TV" is internet or
TW rip off 50$ or more for basic cable is a rip off as most of the channels they get for free
200+GB is normal internet useage
as there is 6 computers
about 40GB permonth percomputer = 200GB
my brother and my Cousin game that they play uses 3mbps Total  |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
|  reply to Anonymous_
Re: they have not boot me off yet
said by Anonymous_ :only 50% is p2p got to watch my tv shows in Crisp HD(and other shows download for every one eles in the house) I run 9 PC's in my home, 2 DVR's, we game, watch youtube, watch internet content legally downloaded on to our DVR's from DirecTV and we use about 40GB per month.
The problem with your consumption, is it isn't "normal". Most homes download a few GB per month. The use my family gets from Comcast is much higher than normal, what you are doing is significantly higher network use.
When a bunch of neighbors have significant above "normal" use the provider must either limit access (put on caps) or build infrastructure (increase costs to customers beyond what would be justified for a "normal" residential user).
Torrent HD content may be nice (I've never used torrent so have no idea), however it likely isn't legally obtained.
Why should your neighbors suffer lower internet performance or higher bills to permit your probable theft of copyrighted video programs?
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Pandora
ISPs do not pay by the GB they pay by peak Mbps. So ANY amount of GB download during non peak hours costs the ISP absolutely nothing (0) extra. Both the transit costs and the hardware costs are solely determined by peak Mbps.
Downloading EXCLUSIVELY between 11pm and 8am a 5Mbps customer can download over 500GB a month without slowing down his neighbors or costing the ISP anything extra. This is why the monthly GB cap does not address the issues of ISP costs or congestion. There are methods to control peak hour congestion (costs). One of these is to use proticol agnostic throttling during peak hours, Comcast now uses this during peak hours. The reason cable companies are pushing caps so hard is to protect their video product from the huge competition that is rapidly growing on the internet. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by Lazlow :Downloading EXCLUSIVELY between 11pm and 8am a 5Mbps customer can download over 500GB a month without slowing down his neighbors or costing the ISP anything extra. This is why the monthly GB cap does not address the issues of ISP costs or congestion. While the logic here is true, most people use their bandwidth during peak times... that's why they're called peak times.
The charge that is often made here is that bandwidth restrictions (either though caps or metered billing) is in direct response to demand caused by streaming video.
So either:
1) Everyone here is wrong and streaming video is not the concern, and capacity can be managed by pushing heavy transfers outside of peak hours.
or
2) The concern really is due to massively concurrent streaming video (ie, all concentrated in peak evening viewing times), and the per-GB numbers are based around the costs to expand the capacity of the pipe to meet peak demand. |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
|  reply to Lazlow
It would make sense for caps to be instituted to peak times only. Excessive downloading during peak hours either costs more for infrastructure (increased rates) or results in greater congestion (lower performance).
People who regularly use a lot of bandwidth during peak hours are harming their neighbors IMO.
The case I responded to was a poster who admitted to using torrents to download HD video programs. Generally this is copyrighted material downloaded illegally. The usage was very high. He tried to explain it by claiming he had a lot of PC's.
I have a lot more PC's on my LAN, probably more game consoles, and also currently 6 VOIP accounts and use far less than half his bandwidth. I was pointing out that his use is excessive, despite his justification.
My provider (Comcast) has provided a definition of excessive as 250GB per month, which I think is very fair.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
2 edits | espaeth
That the majority of customers use their bandwidth during peak hours, I would agree with. However, if you talk to the majority of high bandwidth users(the so called "bandwidth hogs") they are specifically avoiding peak traffic hours. They do this for two main reasons. First with all the congestion during peak hours they really do not get much downloaded (GB/hr) during those hours. Second ISPs have (for years) watched who is causing the problem(congestion) during peak hours on the channel and tend to go after those people first. Essentially if you do not cause a problem for us(the ISP) we will leave you alone. So the monthly caps do not address the congestion issue.
As far as streaming goes: the majority (at least today) of high bandwidth users are also usually on the high end of tech savvy. Virtually all streaming video can be saved to disk(if you are skilled enough). So for the tech savvy there is no need to stream during peak hours. When the less tech savvy users (non "bandwidth hogs") start streaming they will be increasing the load on the channel. As pandora pointed out, they are still below the caps. This means that peak Mbps will go up significantly without breaking the caps and you still need to upgrade the system to handle the load. Again it is usually not the few(1%) "bandwidth hogs" which are downloading a lot during non peak hours that are causing the congestion. It is the majority (85%?) all downloading a little bit (relative) all at the same time (peak hours) that causes the congestion.
Again I would point you to TWC's 10K, they are spending $146 million (for HSI hardware, bandwidth, etc) for revenues from HSI of $4.2 BILLION. |
|
pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| As I said, bandwidth consumption when there is no contention has no cost. I agree with that. However, consumption during peak periods costs.
I'd be very supportive of a cap during peak times only.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Pandora
There is a problem with using caps at all. When (and NOT if) enough people are streaming and you try to have set peak hours (for the cap), a large number of people will "discover" how to save to disk rather than live streaming. This will make peak hours become a moving target(4-10 this month, 10-2 next month, ect). This is why I think the only way out(other than just keeping up with system upgrades) is to use a congestion based, proticol agnostic, throttle (when the channel is congested everybody gets throttled back to their fair share). That way if there is congestion everybody gets throttled back and when there is not congestion you can run full steam. The risk with the throttle is that they will overuse it and not upgrade the system to keep up with traffic loads.
The other thing is to look at the numbers. The increased Mbps is NOT costing them all that much money (hardware or transit). Again, I will point to the 10K numbers, $146 million in costs(transit and hardware) for $4.2 BILLION in revenues. The costs of the extra Mbps is really a drop in the bucket. While labor is not included in those numbers, the increase in labor costs (excluding initial installation) will be minimal(the customer/labor ratio will remain essentially constant). It is a pretty safe bet that they will spend far more on PR expenses to recover from this mess, than the increase in labor would have been to manage the the extra equipment. |
|
