Reviews:
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| reply to NcezNet
Re: CL to start capping also kept asking for me to get prism. oh wait i can get the tv content from the company that make it. fox,abc, i just using my bw instead of pay them to stream it to me .
band with capping for this company is big bull and to boot i want fiber to the house. i so dam close to the main office and main box(i can read this number on it) that how close i am to it |
|
| reply to ispepi
It's almost D-Day. Have they released a bandwidth monitor yet? |
|
 aym
@embarqhsd.net | Looks like I'll be switching back to Cox once the contract ends. If both sides have bandwidth caps, I might as well go with the side that let me use up the bandwidth faster. I also have more problem and outages with CenturyLink than with Cox. Since I'm a heavy heavy user, I switched to CL. But if CL is going to screw me over too, then I might as well get better service and faster connections. |
|
|
|
| reply to ispepi
Seriously - where's the bandwidth monitor? Why is it on consumers to find ways to monitor usage? I thought the FCC now required companies who wish to impose caps to provide bandwidth monitors. |
|
| reply to ispepi
I would like to see them cap this: |
|
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
 ·NPG Cable
1 edit | reply to ispepi
Absolutely criminal. At a constant 40mbit connection, 13 hours of usage only. Been on Cable for years 10/1 for $65, expensive but it was consistent and no damn limits. If "only" less than 0.5% of users surpass the limit, then why cap it at all? Hypocrites. |
|
| i agree. this is bs. if we make a fuss we could get it turn around |
|
| reply to ispepi
I can verify,they are running a "pilot" program where they silently drop your sync rate. They dropped mine from 1.5 to 640k/sec without telling me and just kept charging me the same. When I finally called,they told me it was a "pilot program" to improve service,and they removed it. Needless to say Im looking for a new ISP. Thats beyond bad service. Im very angry,my service was pretty much useless for the last month and then I find out,it wasn't a malfunction,it was intentional. I bought a new modem because i thought that was the problem. Im beyond angry. |
|
| reply to ispepi
Re: CL to start telling the truth That will never happened, they lie, lie, lie, lie. |
|
| I just ended a two hour conversation with CL. Otsas might just be right. I tried to get anybody (supervisors, incl.) to put something in writing and they refuse; saying they are not authorized to do that. They are playing a shell game and I really feel sorry for the folks who have to work for them. They have played so many games with my service, not to mention the billing problems (which they say is because the SEC changes rules and rates almost daily). I am retired from the legal field and worked with SEC for many years and they do not change anything that quickly.
So, permanent solution is to drop CL and ** change rooms on the Titanic to yet another game player **. What a waste of time and energy this has become. Good luck folks. |
|
| reply to ispepi
Re: CL to start capping BRING IT ON
The best thing that can happen is that they cancel my account. it will save me some time. |
|
| reply to ispepi
If anyone is concerned about the bandwidth they're using, I suggest installing DD-WRT or some other similar firmware on your home router. DD-WRT keeps a nice chart of the bandwidth you use daily/monthly. |
|
| reply to MacSto
Darn right, I actually think it's not a bad idea since I'm on the 6 month no term, $36 40m/20m plan. |
|
dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | reply to questvictim
said by questvictim :I can verify,they are running a "pilot" program where they silently drop your sync rate. They dropped mine from 1.5 to 640k/sec without telling me and just kept charging me the same.
That's unrelated to bandwidth capping or usage. The pilot program you're referring to dropped your speed in response to line conditions- likely your SNR margin dropped below spec for an extended period of time. |
|
1 edit | I've reviewed a lot of monthly bandwidth stats, both in production datacenter settings, and my own residential account. (I use vnstat.)
250gig is a lot...A LOT....for a residential customer. The vast majority of you, including most of you who might think otherwise, aren't even getting close.
There's obviously a lot of irritation over this. But a little Econ101 for you.....unlimited and free rarely work in the real world. Overconsumption is a very predictable result.
With that said, I find it very easy to get irritated about dishonest business practices.
Like....overselling.
Like....selling "no cap" when you know you're about to start capping.
Like....hiding the cap in the fine print.
Like....using the Govt. to eliminate competition
It's a shame that "caveat emptor" is the only advice to give.
But bandwidth is a finite resource. If your torrents run 24/7/365 till you fill your drive up, you'll have to change your habits. If you're even what most people consider a "heavy" user, you probably won't. |
|
| I went & got a new router & installed DD-WRT, so I could look at my usage based on different senarios. You may think 250 gigs is a lot, but with some of these services offered, it can go by really quick.
For instance, there is Netflix, which can use anywhere from 1 gig to 3 gigs per hour (depending on the quality setting). I can say that the lowest quality looks like c**p. Another thing would be Onlive, which uses 2-3 gigs per hour. My wife & Son like using both of these & on the days they use it, I can easily consume 10-15 gigs for that days. So if they were to decide to have a daily marathon, I would easily hit the cap before the month was over with.
said by hossfly:I've reviewed a lot of monthly bandwidth stats, both in production datacenter settings, and my own residential account. (I use vnstat.)
250gig is a lot...A LOT....for a residential customer. The vast majority of you, including most of you who might think otherwise, aren't even getting close.
|
|
| Here's my usage thus far via pfSense WAN->LAN and LAN->WAN for one month and three months. My network traffic consists of TV streaming via hulu, netflix, youtube. Music streaming via BBC radio and ah.fm. A lot of web server transfer between my network and my server in Dallas, TX.
I don't come to the cap of 250GB - however if I do pull a backup, I can consume quite a bit in a days worth of time over 10mbps.
One month:
Three months:
--
--bc |
|
| reply to cscottm
No doubt heavy video users will have to be diligent too. But I repeat, bandwidth is finite. As most of us know too well, it can be exhausted.
Now don't get me wrong. The providers are not honest in their advertising and sales. But common sense should tell people CL doesn't have unlimited bandwidth to sell, even if that's what they were erroneously selling.
Technology marketing as a whole is laden with falsehoods and spin. The frustrating thing for those of us who are technology professionals is our clients, customers, and users believe marketing spin and are floored when someone has to tell them, "Things don't really work that way."
Unlimited bandwidth - Things don't really work that way. Sorry. |
|
| quote:
But I repeat, bandwidth is finite.
It's not _that_ finite.
Assuming we're talking about 250 GiB and not that 250,000,000,000 byte (232 GiB) crap, 250 GiB can be consumed with as little as 97.8 KiB per second continuously for 31 straight days. That's 782.4 Kbps, or about half a megabit per second, give or take.
As someone else noted, a good HD stream from Netflix can run upwards of 3mbit/second and they are looking at hitting 5mbit/second. That's 384 KiB/sec or 2 GiB for an hour and a half movie in the first instance.
I think a common mistake people make when defending caps is they think about a single person's usage. My situation may not be any more common than a single person home, but we use quite a bit here. On the weekends, vacation days from school, or sick days when my two nephews are both home, we run between 4.5 and 5.5 GiB per day. And that's with no Netflix.
That's not abuse. It's simply *use*.
If bandwidth is so finite, why do so many ISP's exist without caps? Time Warner doesn't have them, despite failed prior attempts. CTL didn't have them until 11 days ago. Verizon doesn't have them. None of the muni fiber projects in North Carolina have caps. You can get 50/50mbps from GreenLight in Wilson with no cap. Did someone forget to tell them that bandwidth is finite?
How come serving 3mbit DSL requires capping, but serving 10/10mbps, 30/30, or 50/50 doesn't? Because CTL is using caps for the exact same reason other companies do. To avoid having to invest in their infrastructure. To maximize profit and minimize cost.
Fine. Good for them. They have that right. But I also have the right to call BS on "bandwidth is finite" as an excuse for caps. For wireless, yes. For landline, forget about it. My bandwidth to the DSLAM is finite, but dedicated. It's backhauled with fiber that went in the ground over a decade ago, so that's paid for. That DSLAM (and myself) are out in the middle of nowhere. There can't be more than a dozen people using it for DSL. They could serve 10mbit to every person on it if they wanted.
The proof is in the pudding. I know a lot of people have problems with CTL and so have I, but it wasn't bandwidth exhaustion because bandwidth is finite. For most people it's bandwidth exhaustion because CTL bought a lot of rural territory that's backhauled by T1s, not fiber. And that's the lack of investment infrastructure that should have been made by Sprint et al. a decade ago.
My DSL connection doesn't have speed problems. It's just as fast at 9pm on a weeknight as it is at 5am. It didn't magically get faster on February 1st, 2012, when they instituted a download cap on a DSLAM with like 15 people using it. It was already properly provisioned. It didn't need a cap, *because* it was already properly designed and provisioned. That's what doing things the right way does for you.
Meh, anyway. I don't think we'll hit our 250 GiB cap anytime soon, but a huge chunk of that is because I'm now obsessively watching our usage on the Netgear router we got from the FCC. We've gone as high as 166 GiB before so it's not impossible. What I'll end up doing now is waiting until the last week or two of the month to make sure we're safely under our cap, then download constantly for like a week straight to use up whatever is left to get the stuff I'd like to have but don't need, putting the network under much higher strain than if they just left me alone.
I learned that behavior from my Canadian friend who has been doing that for years, because of his cap. He has 30/2mbit cable and does what I just described above. Moderate usage during most of the month and then he hits it as hard as he can for the last week of the month to get what he wants/needs with whatever is left over.
You can't control people like that. It's just not possible. The best thing to do is invest in your infrastructure and then give people what they want and are willing to pay for.
[Note: I just looked at GreenLight's page. They have a 100/100mbit tier now for $149.95 per month. Quick, someone go tell them that bandwidth is finite.] |
|
| Replacing dated infrastructure (t-1's) has to be paid for.
Of course bandwidth is finite. Everything is. Why are you getting capped with everyone else on CL? I don't think anyone has to give you that answer.
I never said caps were EFFECTIVE. I never said they weren't either. What is effective is not overselling your network. Then peak time saturation isn't an issue. But when you monopolize a market, you can do what the heck you want if you aren't stopped. This is the REAL problem with telcos.
Obviously, they are looking to get fees. They also are looking to put a little pressure on households to put the skids on Little Johnny's torrents....among other things...to help delay the need for upgrades.
You are right. They are going to stall upgrades as long as they possibly can. No business wants to spend money without assurances they're going to have an ROI. And when a business has no competition, it can delay investments for quite some time.
With that said, I wonder how many people who think they're being done wrong here would be willing to pay more for higher caps? How many think they should have "all-you-can-eat" for dirt cheap prices? The modern digital consumer has developed an entitlement attitude that very probably can't be sustained. The content is much heavier than it was just a few years ago, and adjustments have to be made. There is a point where you might have to ask if Grandma, checking her e-mail and visiting ChristianBooks.com needs to pay the same as someone streaming hd movies every night.
Don't get me wrong. I find their approach dishonest. They tuck the cap language away in the fine print. They were still telling people they had no cap to sell them on CL even after they decided to do this. It puts the burden of their oversold infrastructure on the customer.
But I saw this coming 1000 miles away. They are a business, and businesses exist to make money. |
|
