| reply to nanaki333
Re: at least their caps line up Hard to see how being restricted to 2% usage is "not unreasonable". 1TB is nothing, for $20 you could get an ancient DSL connection to do that |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | said by Wilsdom:Hard to see how being restricted to 2% usage is "not unreasonable". 1TB is nothing, for $20 you could get an ancient DSL connection to do that
Speed and capacity are 2 different things. There are a lot of people who are more than willing to pay for higher speed(and quicker access) and don't need to download or upload terabytes of data. For them no caps or very high caps are irrelevant.
It doesn't follow that having a fast link means you have to use the total available bandwidth 24x7 to get your money's worth. But every time the subject of caps and speed arises, we are then inundated by the nonsensical stats of reaching the cap in 73 mins, or 1 day, or 1 week.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care |
|
|
|
 FBGuyPremium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL | Caps are not about network management either, they are about making more money in any way possible. It's never been about network management. It's about customer management. |
|
| reply to Linklist
They are related. I'll accept that ISPs offering deluxe speed packages might not be able to support 24/7 use, but any cap should allow you to use at least 1/3 or 1/4 of the bandwidth. It is in fact nonsensical to offer a connection that can only be used a few hours per month. The difference in the speed for such a small amount of data will not be very perceptible, while the need to ration your use could be extremely perceptible. |
|
