4 ms·

While codecs might get better, 480p is small potatoes compared to 1080p. Moving 100kB/sec (when adding both upstream and downstream) all the time is pretty eas

by modoc 18y ago

While codecs might get better, 480p is small potatoes compared to 1080p. Moving 100kB/sec (when adding both upstream and downstream) all the time is pretty easy. Seeding legal torrents on the "unlimited" line I signed up for, could easily exceed that. If you're doing VOIP, running a couple legal torrents, and watching HD content from unbox, etc....

mdasen 18y ago
You have an "'unlimited' line" from Comcast? Did you get that in writing, because their website doesn't seem to indicate anywhere that it's unlimited. In fact, in the first 5 pages of google results, the only time Comcast uses the term unlimited with their internet service is to say "High-speed bandwidth and network resources are not unlimited." (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Klr&q=unlimited+site:comcast.com&start=0&sa=N http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&..., http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4567 http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4567). In fact, it's impossible to be unlimited since that would imply infinite bandwidth per second. Once it isn't infinite bandwidth per second, you can interpret "unlimited" in a number of ways. You want it to be unlimited in terms of bandwidth transfer. Comcast could argue (if they ever used the term unlimited) that it is referring to how long you are allowed to be online and not how much you can transfer. There are lots of legal things that cost money. Running your computer 24/7 costs more money (in electricity) than running it 8 hours a day. Go yell at the electric company! This isn't a matter of legality vs. illegality or proper use vs. improper use. The fact is that resources (whether it be bandwidth, electricity, or food) is limited. With bandwidth, it's easy to accommodate heavy users which is awesome (unlike electricity and food which generally scale up linearly in costs). That's great! It doesn't make bandwidth magic and there are still limitations. Yeah, limitations suck whether it be the fact that bandwidth needs some sort of metering or the fact that I can't transport myself across the country Star-Trek style. To be successful, one needs to understand, accept, and work within limitations to create and act in ways that work.
- modoc 18y ago
  Try this: http://www.google.com/search?q=comcast%20advertising%20unlimited http://www.google.com/search?q=comcast%20advertising%20unlim... You'll see that they have lawsuits against them for falsely advertising unlimited internet access, as well as many reports of them advertising "unlimited" services. Sure, feel free to argue that unlimited would really be infinite bandwidth, infinite transfer speed, etc.. That's fine. I'm also fine to pay more money. Maybe I get 250GB for my base rate, and then a reasonable fee for overages, providing there's a way to monitor my usage (like my cell phone). I'm happy to pay for what I use. Just don't cut me off:) Wait, bandwidth isn't magic!? :) edit----- Imagine if the water company said "for a flat $50 per month, you'll get our great 6 gallon/minute water service!", and then, 4 years later changed the deal to say "only up to 2,500 gallons per month, then we cut you off", that's a big change, and not one for the better.
  - mdasen 18y ago
    It's a tough situation :). On the one hand, it isn't as good as it used to be (as you point out with the water company analogy). On the other hand, that also points to the fact that people can just be wasteful of what is a communal resource - or they can just use more because they're ridiculously thirsty people, either way, less for others/more required. Hopefully, Comcast will keep the cap high and offer rates scaling up linearly (or preferable logarithmically). I guess I'm a bit luckier than most people since I have the option of FiOS, Comcast or RCN and both Verizon and RCN offer service at 20Mbps (with Comcast being the slow-poke at 8Mbps). Most are limited to cable or DSL. So, I don't have the same concern on a personal level that Comcast will decide in 6 months to move the cap down to 150GB or 100GB or 75GB. I just have other options. If Comcast tries to pull that, I hope the government steps in since they do have monopolies in most areas they serve (because who would use DSL). Maybe a nice formula specifying norms and standard deviations could be created that would automatically set and raise levels as people's bandwidth consumption increased? That sounds like a good plan? This way providers have to keep up with the times (so they can't just start offering crap service hiding behind caps), but it still deals with the issue that there are some people who just use, use, use way outside the norm.

by modoc 18y ago

mdasen 18y ago

You have an "'unlimited' line" from Comcast? Did you get that in writing, because their website doesn't seem to indicate anywhere that it's unlimited. In fact, in the first 5 pages of google results, the only time Comcast uses the term unlimited with their internet service is to say "High-speed bandwidth and network resources are not unlimited." (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Klr&q=unlimited+site:comcast.com&start=0&sa=N http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&..., http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4567 http://www.comcast.com/customers/faq/FaqDetails.ashx?ID=4567). In fact, it's impossible to be unlimited since that would imply infinite bandwidth per second. Once it isn't infinite bandwidth per second, you can interpret "unlimited" in a number of ways. You want it to be unlimited in terms of bandwidth transfer. Comcast could argue (if they ever used the term unlimited) that it is referring to how long you are allowed to be online and not how much you can transfer. There are lots of legal things that cost money. Running your computer 24/7 costs more money (in electricity) than running it 8 hours a day. Go yell at the electric company! This isn't a matter of legality vs. illegality or proper use vs. improper use. The fact is that resources (whether it be bandwidth, electricity, or food) is limited. With bandwidth, it's easy to accommodate heavy users which is awesome (unlike electricity and food which generally scale up linearly in costs). That's great! It doesn't make bandwidth magic and there are still limitations. Yeah, limitations suck whether it be the fact that bandwidth needs some sort of metering or the fact that I can't transport myself across the country Star-Trek style. To be successful, one needs to understand, accept, and work within limitations to create and act in ways that work.

modoc 18y ago
Try this: http://www.google.com/search?q=comcast%20advertising%20unlimited http://www.google.com/search?q=comcast%20advertising%20unlim... You'll see that they have lawsuits against them for falsely advertising unlimited internet access, as well as many reports of them advertising "unlimited" services. Sure, feel free to argue that unlimited would really be infinite bandwidth, infinite transfer speed, etc.. That's fine. I'm also fine to pay more money. Maybe I get 250GB for my base rate, and then a reasonable fee for overages, providing there's a way to monitor my usage (like my cell phone). I'm happy to pay for what I use. Just don't cut me off:) Wait, bandwidth isn't magic!? :) edit----- Imagine if the water company said "for a flat $50 per month, you'll get our great 6 gallon/minute water service!", and then, 4 years later changed the deal to say "only up to 2,500 gallons per month, then we cut you off", that's a big change, and not one for the better.
- mdasen 18y ago
  It's a tough situation :). On the one hand, it isn't as good as it used to be (as you point out with the water company analogy). On the other hand, that also points to the fact that people can just be wasteful of what is a communal resource - or they can just use more because they're ridiculously thirsty people, either way, less for others/more required. Hopefully, Comcast will keep the cap high and offer rates scaling up linearly (or preferable logarithmically). I guess I'm a bit luckier than most people since I have the option of FiOS, Comcast or RCN and both Verizon and RCN offer service at 20Mbps (with Comcast being the slow-poke at 8Mbps). Most are limited to cable or DSL. So, I don't have the same concern on a personal level that Comcast will decide in 6 months to move the cap down to 150GB or 100GB or 75GB. I just have other options. If Comcast tries to pull that, I hope the government steps in since they do have monopolies in most areas they serve (because who would use DSL). Maybe a nice formula specifying norms and standard deviations could be created that would automatically set and raise levels as people's bandwidth consumption increased? That sounds like a good plan? This way providers have to keep up with the times (so they can't just start offering crap service hiding behind caps), but it still deals with the issue that there are some people who just use, use, use way outside the norm.