768/128 DSL > 15 mbps snake oil

Author	All Replies
thender Glamour Profession Premium join:2004-05-16 Staten Island, NY	768/128 DSL > 15 mbps snake oil With a 100 GB cap why bother even offering it? It's ovvious they can't keep up with their own service. The more I read about broadband here, the more I'm convinced Verizon is the only good ISP in the US.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 15:18:29 ·
dr2500 join:2005-09-09 Lancaster, PA	thank you
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 16:15:33 ·
Shack join:2002-01-17 Bloomington, IN ·Insight Communicat..	reply to thender 100 Gb is much more than the average user downloads in a month. For them the quick downloads will outwiegh the cap. 768 takes a damn long time to download anything large. For 40 dollars I could live with that. Hopefully it would be possible to purchase more download bandwidth for a fair price.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 16:25:46 ·
lesopp join:2001-06-27 Land O Lakes, FL	reply to thender Saying Verizon is good ISP is like saying there are WMD in Iraq.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 16:58:17 ·
travelguy join:1999-09-03 Albuquerque, NM	reply to thender said by thender : With a 100 GB cap why bother even offering it? That's more than 15 SD DVDs a month. You might not be able to run multiple HD streams with that kind of cap, but not many people would have an issue with it.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 16:58:21 ·
jjcrandall join:2004-01-01 Salt Lake City, UT	It would be a BIGGER ISP in the area IF UTOPIA would rollout to more cities than just 3!!! They currently only serve 50% of the biggest city in their footprint..
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 19:31:53 ·
thender Glamour Profession Premium join:2004-05-16 Staten Island, NY	reply to lesopp said by lesopp : Saying Verizon is good ISP is like saying there are WMD in Iraq. Saying 31/9.5 for $55/month with zero limitations is not good is like saying Iraq has always been a peaceful country. said by travelguy : said by thender : With a 100 GB cap why bother even offering it? That's more than 15 SD DVDs a month. You might not be able to run multiple HD streams with that kind of cap, but not many people would have an issue with it. If you need a 15 mbps connection, you need to do more than 100 gigs a month. You're moving backwards with this. It's like the early P4 vs the P3... 600 more MHz, but it performs on par, and in some cases worse. Why bother? I'd rather have an uncapped connection anyday, regardless of speed(so long as it's 768 minimum) than some stupid cap. Saying you can do 100 gigs a month on a 15 mbps connection is retarded. They should worry about getting lower speeds to work before getting into caps. Caps are for third world countries. I hear about this bullshit with ISPs in other countries, but we're America. When we ask for 15 mbps, we want useable 15 mbps.. I could use my monthly cap in 17 hours on that connection. This is a problem. -- The Problem With Music. Our Rationale Time to rewrite the DMCA.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 20:17:42 ·
Shack join:2002-01-17 Bloomington, IN	Not really. The need for Fast download and upload is not only about quantity of data that you move. It is also about how long ittakes to move data.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 21:15:27 ·
thender Glamour Profession Premium join:2004-05-16 Staten Island, NY	said by Shack : Not really. The need for Fast download and upload is not only about quantity of data that you move. It is also about how long ittakes to move data. And how long does it take to wait a month to move said data after you reach your cap?
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 22:30:41 ·
wev567 join:2006-02-25 Pittsburgh, PA	reply to Shack said by Shack : 100 Gb is much more than the average user downloads in a month. So why have a cap, if most people won't exceed it?
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 22:41:10 ·
Shack join:2002-01-17 Bloomington, IN ·Insight Communicat..	reply to thender You don't read well. The majority of users that will never be a problem. I understand for some it will, and I would hope the ISP would be willing to sell more bandwidth to them, or they may need to consider a busniess plan or go with a DSL plan like yo listed. That does nto make this service worthless like you try to portray it.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 22:56:42 ·
thender Glamour Profession Premium join:2004-05-16 Staten Island, NY	reply to wev567 said by wev567 : said by Shack : 100 Gb is much more than the average user downloads in a month. So why have a cap, if most people won't exceed it? People will exceed it once they have a 15 mbps connection. It's there for a simple reason - to tell people like me "our service sucks, use a real ISP like verizon" -- The Problem With Music. Our Rationale Time to rewrite the DMCA.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-26 23:01:08 ·
thender Glamour Profession Premium join:2004-05-16 Staten Island, NY moderated: January 27th, @12:01AM	reply to Shack said by Shack : You don't read well. The majority of users that will never be a problem. I understand for some it will, and I would hope the ISP would be willing to sell more bandwidth to them, or they may need to consider a busniess plan or go with a DSL plan like yo listed. That does nto make this service worthless like you try to portray it. I read very well. I disagreed with what I read. -- The Problem With Music. Our Rationale Time to rewrite the DMCA.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-27 00:01:36 ·
Shack join:2002-01-17 Bloomington, IN ·Insight Communicat.. edit: January 27th, @01:07AM	You are simply being difficult because the this service has a limitation for you. It would not be for the average user. Your comparison to 768 dsl is assinine. So what do you disagree with? The average user uses >100GB? Faster connection are of value to people that do not download > 100 Gb? Or are you just being arguementative.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-27 00:57:52 ·
thender Glamour Profession Premium join:2004-05-16 Staten Island, NY edit: January 27th, @04:09AM	said by Shack : You are simply being difficult because the this service has a limitation for you. It would not for the average user. Your comparison to 768 dsl is assinine. What's asinine is that you can do more on the 768 kbps service than the 15 mbps one. You want to talk about the average user? Fine. The average user doesn't need 15 mbps in this day and age. The average user, with a connection that has low latency, would be fine with 768/128 for web browsing, email, youtube, and other average things. Most people don't need an 850 watt PSU, and this is fine. But it's still shady to say your PSU is 850 watts, than in fine print rate it to be 850 watts at 15c. Same here.Most people don't need 15 mbps, and this is fine. But it's still shady to say your service is 15 mbps, advertise it as the fastest, then put the 100 gig restriction in fine print. This isn't AT&T trying their best to give people a fast connection. This is so they can say "OMG COMCAST IS 8 MBPS BUT WE'RE 15 MBPS, WE ARE TEH FASTAR SERVICE CHOOSE US AS WE ARE THE FASTEST!!" in their commercials and general advertising. And they'll be technically correct, too, but it's still shady. Real PSUs rate their output at 50c, and real ISPs rate their bandwidth without a cap that you can go over in less than one day. This happens everywhere. 5.1 receivers in best buy boast 100 watts/channel but weigh 30 lbs, and you get disappointment because in the fine print, it says peak power, or as tested in some special alternate universe. People buy a speaker rated from 20 hz to 20 KHz but it has no -/+ 3 dB spec, so it could really do half that range. A Thermaltake 2000 RPM, 120mm fan that's rated to 22 dB, but they measure it in another room instead of to the ISO standard of right up in front of it. Yes, technically they are offering 15 mbps, but they're doing it the cheap dirty way - the bare minimum just so they can say that they offer 15 mbps, that's not something I think they should be commended for. This isn't progress, it's just a sidestep disguised as progress, and should be treated as such. -- The Problem With Music. Our Rationale Time to rewrite the DMCA.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-27 04:05:15 ·
GhostDoggy join:2005-05-11 Duluth, GA	reply to thender If they are going to cap they need to come up with a better approach in the capping process. They should have adopted something like X-GB per 1-Mbps service sold. So, if you have 15Mbps sold service (vs 12 Mbps delviered service) then your cap is 15X. Of course, we don't expect intelligence in Utah.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-27 06:45:04 ·
thender Glamour Profession Premium join:2004-05-16 Staten Island, NY	said by GhostDoggy : If they are going to cap they need to come up with a better approach in the capping process. They should have adopted something like X-GB per 1-Mbps service sold. So, if you have 15Mbps sold service (vs 12 Mbps delviered service) then your cap is 15X. Of course, we don't expect intelligence in Utah. Makes more sense than this. At this rate, we should see 200 mbps in ten years with a 200 gig cap.. so useless. -- The Problem With Music. Our Rationale Time to rewrite the DMCA.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-01-29 15:15:06 ·
bohn join:2006-05-30 Scarborough, ON	reply to thender We would kill for a 100 Gb cap per month in Canada. You can lose your shirt or car or even house for just downloading more than 20 gigabytes in a month.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-02-02 20:11:00 ·
GhostDoggy join:2005-05-11 Duluth, GA	Sounds like living in Canada sucks.
	to forum · permalink · · 2007-02-03 07:13:10 ·


Friday, 09-Jan 23:51:48	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 9 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com. page compression OFF