you said what needed to be said.
that is clearly it.
all these so called people who think queueing up hundreds of these "ISO"s and complaining its their god given right, need a reality check.
i am by no means a bell or att supporter in fact i hate them for over abusing customers. but the idea of cap in of itself is not a bad one. if done in a reasonable manner. theres a reason why bandwidth is NOT free. the reason is equipment and limitations. in some ways it IS like oil. heres the analogy:
those big oil companies manage supply. they dont always produce at maximum capacity. for good reason. if they produce at max capacity, you'll first of all have no room for a spike in demand. or if something goes wrong. your supply will drop and you'll be losing business. in addition, if you always go at max, you'll eventually run out of oil. (again bad thing subjectively)
Now the internet side, imagine isp always running at 100% bandwidth. how do you add customers, you cant. if a piece of equipment goes down. you screwed EVERYONE will complain, so you have to keep some backup capacity or equipment. ok so thats just uber expensive. but that aside.
second of all, the capacity of an isp is LIMITED to the amount of pipes they have to the rest of the world AND the exorbitant cost of equipment that can try to handle those huge bandwidth loads. its not like bits are FREE. ok so under your assumption that bits are free, fine, so then content grows on internet , and such, and you dont charge cap. ok. so when everyone reaches a point where the bandwidth they use is hitting the isp max then what.. meh just let everyone bottleneck? cuz YOU"RE NOT going to magically buy multi million dollar equipment out of nowhere, according to your logic, the bits are free, so it should scale indefinately.. again. fail.
this just shows that bits are NOT free. as much as we'd like to think they are.. as long as demand grows, then the supply is limited because there isnt unlimited bandwidth out there it costs money to build. if we reach a point, where content and users and the amount they use no longer grows, then yes, once isps get to that point, bits would be theoretically "free" minus the maintenance costs and what not.
feel free to debunk my arguments.
heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
Fort Lauderdale, FL
reply to skuv
said by skuv :If you use Bit Torrent and don't throttle it, it would be easy to do the 250GB in minutes thing. said by BF69:
Right... you would do all of your regular monthly web browsing, downloading, hulu, youtube, and Neflix watching all in 7 minutes?
Why do people post this nonsense?
Just because your connection iss faster doesn't mean you're actually going to do everything you already do faster.
You can't watch a Netflix movie any faster just because your connection is faster.
And if you're the type of person that is just going to queue up hundreds of more ripped DVD's from torrents just because you have the new bandwidth, I doubt the cable companies care if you are their customer or not.