[Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap Page 2
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
 
Links: Reply New Topic
Forums » AT&T » AT&T Southeast » [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap
page: 1 · 2
Airwolf7 @ 18th Jun 05:35PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

I wonder if those caps are in gigabytes GBs (1000 to the third power) or gibibytes GiBs (1024 to the third power)?

Hard drive manufactures were sued because they sold hard drives that cheated people out of some of the gigabytes they paid for. The truth of the matter is that hard drive manufactures sold people hard drives that actually were the size that they advertised.

Western Digital gave in and settled even though they were right! »www.wdc.com/settlement/docs/document20.htm

The 320GB Hitachi Travelstar 7K320 hard drive I installed into my laptop really is 320GB even though Microsoft Windows tells me it is not.

Maybe the lawyers should have sued the SOB that decided kilo means 1024 instead of the 1000 that kilo really stands for.

.
--
It is not possible to achieve 'equality' between things that are, fundamentally, not equal!
reply
HKM @ 19th Jun 12:22PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

Don't get me started on Binary vs SI prefix. As google has cache of my BS from Slyck forum trying to explain idiots what is the difference between memory and storage unit scales.

When we talk about bandwidth (not to be confused with IOPS) in sense of RX/TX rate we use SI metric prefix. But at the same time we use Binary prefix to measure the data we receive and send using memory storage unit to allocate and designate data from host to end user.

The CAPs on ComCRAP and other ISP is done using SI Prefix that way they can get away if you know what I mean as done by HDD industries.
reply
ShadowTek @ 19th Jun 01:11AM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

quote:
768 kb/s DSL service: 20 GBytes.

Actually, I forgot one last calculation: the amount of constant bandwidth you would be limited to under the proposed caps.

20 GBytes / 30 days / 24 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = 7.7 KBytes

So basically, that turns back the 768k service to having a maximum potential that is almost exactly that of a dam dailup modem, with about 5 KBytes for download, and about 2 KBytes for upload.

Now *that's* shockingly pathetic.

So. lets do the math on the rest of them.

1.5 Mb/s DSL service with a 40 GByte cap = 15.7 KBytes per second
3.0 Mb/s DSL service with a 60 GByte cap = 23.1 KBytes per second
6.0 Mb/s DSL service with a 80 GByte cap = 30.8 KBytes per second
Uverse wih a 150 GByte cap = 57.8 KBytes per second
.

I guess we're all just gonna have to party like it's 1999. :/

Poor.
reply
rhapsody @ 19th Jun 09:25AM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

and when might these caps be implemented in the old bellsouth territory?
reply
anon @ 19th Jun 11:19AM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

This is absolutely pathetic.. This sorta crap comes along when ATT is allowed to offer TV services and when they decide to look at the bandwidth issues, they stick it to the costomers rather than god for bid.. Upgrade their capabilities.. This is sad and pathetic.. I can understand a generious cap of 250 gig to limit the upsidedown wheelchair cool kid from constantly downloading all day and night 24/7, but christ, we are getting to the times of video downloading and conferencing.. Even movies are being streamed now.. If this is allowed to continue, it'll be technology regression, not progression.. Sure they will make bank, but its all for a false reasoning.. They just want another cell cash cow plan.... They need to choose which service they want to provide and let that be it.. Obviously offering, Cell, landline, Dsl, and Uverse is giving them too much.. Especially being they LOBBY and reduce our odds of having more than the two party provider system (( ATT and Comcast in my case )).. I want to see at least three realistic landline providers in all areas, with an opening for more that can actually make it happen..

I'm sick of this crap...
reply
NetFixer @ 19th Jun 12:29PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

said by rhapsody :

and when might these caps be implemented in the old bellsouth territory?
When might the first preemptive missile strike from from the DPRK vaporize Oak Ridge?

I only ask because presumably if one has a functioning crystal ball, one can predict both things. :uhh:
--
We can never have enough of nature.
We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life pasturing freely where we never wander.
reply
anon @ 19th Jun 01:18PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

Hmmm, I have AT&T DSL in Boone, NC. AT&T are you listening? You may implement these caps at the behest of ABC, NBC, CBS, RIAA, MPAA, etc and provide free takedown notice services to them at OUR expense but if you implement a cap I am leaving. My words mean nothing to you. But my wallet will. Dollar signs and decimal points are the only things that matter so I will vote with my dollars and leave when/if the caps are implemented. Don't even try with the BS about bandwidth. You guys have fiber running to nearly all of your CO's and one of the largest backbone networks in the world. My words won't matter but my wallet will. My wallet has a bigger mouth than a human being. It will speak loudly if caps are imposed.
reply
rhapsody @ 19th Jun 01:36PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

said by NetFixer :

said by rhapsody :

and when might these caps be implemented in the old bellsouth territory?
When might the first preemptive missile strike from from the DPRK vaporize Oak Ridge?

I only ask because presumably if one has a functioning crystal ball, one can predict both things. :uhh:
LOL... True,
I was just curious of anyone had any inside info.
reply
NormanS @ 19th Jun 01:57PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

Probably at the same time as they are implemented in the old SBC territories. Beyond the current test markets, that is.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
reply
NormanS @ 19th Jun 02:01PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

said by dialupvictim :

This is absolutely pathetic.. This sorta crap comes along when ATT is allowed to offer TV services ...
That is the point. The providers of TV programming don't want the competition from alternate delivery mechanisms; i.e., Internet video streaming sites. AT&T has to pay for the content for their IPTV product (Uverse), and they have to make contractual agreements with those providers. "No caps, no content": So say the providers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
reply
rhapsody @ 19th Jun 09:43PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

Why isn't this well known?
why does ATT and others cook up some PR bs that states that more bandwidth costs more.
While it does, hasn't the cost on the whole, gone down in recent years?

It just seems to be another loss the consumer will absorb.
reply
ShadowTek @ 19th Jun 10:03PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

When might the first preemptive missile strike from from the DPRK vaporize Oak Ridge?
On the 4th of July, I think. At least that's what I heard. The Dear Old Lady is supposed to be launching a flurry of "test" missles eastward around that time.

I only ask because presumably if one has a functioning crystal ball, one can predict both things. :uhh:
Sorry, but my crystal ball hit it's bandwidth cap and got shut off.

Boss Hog decided to block me from using it to watch old reruns of MacGyver.
reply
HKM @ 20th Jun 02:05PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

Because of majority of stupid people out there who don't know anything nor care we all have to suffer for them along with them without knowing it. Its up to us to raise awareness to expose these BULLSHIT for what its worth. If CAP is established under false pretense of managing network during peak hours for congestion along with outrageous BULLSHIT overage fee then we should all pick up the phone and stick it to them.

I mean it works hence what happened to TWC? As folks started to drop their bullshit tier in response to CAP they got scared and they went back to hiding and the ISP who try to go with CAP based policies dropped it and stole TWC's customers.

FACT: Price of software/hardware switch, pipe for bandwidth cost is going down.
FACT: Fixed CAP (not to confused with provisional/sync rate) haven't been successfully proven to reduce network congestion during peak hours.

Even with all these BULLSHIT the panzy ISP's claiming its done to protect all subscribers (but we know its done to protect their best interest and not ours ). Even when the price of bandwidth with all these so called "loss" that haven't yet been proven based on their own Q report they are still charging 1000x higher. So with the money why are these dimwits not upgrading their infrastructure to deliver the service that is needed for capacity that is demanded?

^ (rhetorical question)
reply
NormanS @ 20th Jun 12:32AM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

People want their entertainment. Not many are resistant to paying the piper for his tunes; even if the fee is exorbitant.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
reply
ShadowTek @ 20th Jun 10:06PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

said by HKM :

FACT: Fixed CAP (not to confused with provisional/sync rate) haven't been successfully proven to reduce network congestion during peak hours.
I, for one, would react to a cap by saving up my bandwidth for the first half of the month, in order to make sure I had enough, and then spend every last drop of it near the end of the month so as not to waste any of it. Considering that many other people would very likely do the same thing, that would result in *real* network congestion, as everyone would be hitting it hard all at the same time every month.

If people don't have to worry about planning their usage around some silly cap, they will just download things whenever they feel like it, which will result in a nice random distribution of network usage.
.

And why the hell do they have to impose over-use fees with caps anyway? Why can't you just flag a user when they go over their designated cap, assign their traffic a lower priority, and then reduce those user's bandwidth to give priority to unflagged users during periods of *true* network congestion?

That sounds like the most logical solution to me.
reply
HKM @ 21st Jun 12:36PM:
Re: [Xtreme] What's the official stance on a bandwidth cap

said by ShadowTek :

That sounds like the most logical solution to me.
lol what part of the whole BS that they are doing is illogical do not understand? If they used logic then it would defeat the reason for them doing it. As for the there main reason behind it is to generate revenue based on the BS that haven't yet been proven with hard data to even suggest these type of foolishness.

But I agree with you if you do have a CAP of let say 100GB/month for example and your cycle resets at end of the month whichever is the last date then you should spend all your time downloading/uploading to hit it to 99GB so you can stick it to your ISP. As we say unused bandwidth is useless bandwidth, use what you pay for and don't be an idiot for not taking what is yours.

The whole point of CAPs is to reduce the cost of bandwidth for ISP on BS service that they didn't anticipated when they created useless unproven model that is now outdated. Don't forget that there haven't been sufficient open data available from major transits that suggest that their is even a surge, this is all useless tactics is to stall folks and to discourage them of using bandwidth claiming it slow down everyone else. If they can't provide service then they shouldn't be in the business of offering false BS claiming its unlimited in first place and count on users not to fall for their bluff.

The ISP is being paid for the service which they are making a killing even with all these BS talks so where is the money going? Its sure hell didn't go to building the infrastructure or we wouldn't be here having this convo. This whole BULLSHIT is done by Cable Ops who didn't want its main source of income from TV revenue jump to Internet as content provider run on top of them and make a killing and ISP get nailed for it with flat fee. Even when that flat fee is 1000x higher than the cost of the service that is charged by backbone provider for providing them the bandwidth.

Bottom line is the demand for bandwidth is booming regardless of all BS data by so called fake groups that has no way of knowing as they only measure some pipe in some random place. If other country is doing it so why can't we? I mean after all they have overcame these problems ooh wait they didn't have them to began with that is why they have superior network and is not run on 30years old copper wire nor useless coax as they going pure fiber for 6-7years.

PS: We need a new website with 1000000s of member who will act like a union if ISP do not yield at our feet they will face the wrath of our wallet. So let it be AT&T aka Death Star so if they establish CAP we all just say FU for CAP and move on while they get beheaded by stockholders lol.
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC