Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

306 comments

Net neutrality at its best (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384434)

Brought to you by the US Congress.

Re:Net neutrality at its best (0, Offtopic)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384464)

Brought to you by the US Congress.

The rat bastards...

Re:Net neutrality at its best (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384534)

Nah... this was brought to us by the lack of US Congress imposing regulation on the wire providers.

well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384456)

mind the gap.

Perspective (4, Insightful)

Andy Smith (55346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384494)

To offer some perspective, here in the UK we have monthly limits that are most commonly in the 15-30Gb range, with a premium limit of 50Gb being offered by a minority of service providers.

Re:Perspective (4, Insightful)

jbuk (1581659) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384532)

up until this year, my Orange ADSL2 connection had a supposed cap of 2GB. Thankfully, it wasn't enforced as far as I could tell.

Re:Perspective (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384686)

2gb/mo wouldn't even handle my email these days with all the uncontrolled spam, let alone being bombarded by all the advertisements on almost every web page in existence.. If the limit here was that low i wouldn't even bother getting service.

Re:Perspective (2, Funny)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384870)

2GB a month wouldn't handle my software updates, even if I used WSUS. Recently, my Mac slurped up a 300MB update, my Windows machines with their apps required a sizable amount of updates, my CentOS machine grabbed a large amount of updates. This alone would fill up a 2GB/month connection.

Re:Perspective (3, Interesting)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384946)

I just downloaded 22 GB of games off Steam and Bliz in less than 2 days re downloading my game s after a system reload.

Doesn't the Geneva Convention say something about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384536)

every citizen having access to HD porn? It just seems unconscionable.

Re:Perspective (5, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384544)

I'm not sure what different perspective I'm supposed to take from your statement. That we should accept crappy limits because the UK does?

Re:Perspective (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384582)

I'm not sure what different perspective I'm supposed to take from your statement. That we should accept crappy limits because the UK does?

Yes. Because if it is good enough for England it is good enough for you in whatever backwards, uncivilized non-England country your cave is in.

Re:Perspective (3, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384602)

You insensitive clod! I live in a hovel, not a cave!

Re:Perspective (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384728)

I'm not sure what different perspective I'm supposed to take from your statement. That we should accept crappy limits because the UK does?

Yeah, no kidding. I thought we were supposed to discuss how everybody in the world has better internet access than the US does.

Re:Perspective (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384734)

I think the perspective is that a lot of people were getting incredibly good service for next to nothing, and should be happy about it instead of complaining that the free lunch is over.

People got over 250GB a month on cable service because they were using available bandwidth that their neighbors were not using. Now that more people have broadband access and more people are using more bandwidth, there just isn't enough to go around on the same wires.

Re:Perspective (4, Interesting)

Shaltenn (1031884) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385120)

The answer is therefore to either: Stop selling the same speeds or upgrade your damn lines. I would rather have a 5mbps connection with no cap that I could utilize fully the entire time than a 30mbps connection with a 250 gb cap and other limitations.

Re:Perspective (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384596)

And I pay $44.99 forcable my connection with SHAW and get 60Gigs of traffic while iWeb sells a dedicated server for $49.99 with 1500gigsof traffic. http://iweb.com/promotion [iweb.com] Yah thats perspective which is funny as the traffic cap was WAAAy higher even 5 years ago.

Re:Perspective (1)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384800)

the cost to provide IP transit into a datacenter is MUCH lower than it is to provide you a Service Level Agreement of that speed/bandwidth into your home.

if you want to see the SLA costs for something like what your hosting provider pays, get yourself a thousand people willing to sign a document stating that they'll provide content that people want (legally, of course) and call Bell Business solutions.

at $300/month for a 1.544Mbps line with 500GB of transfer, you'll understand why your 10-16down/1up Mbps connection might come with the limits it does.

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384610)

And here in Finland, we have no caps at all. (Currently posting from quite affordable 100/10 connection that actually acts as 90/40 connection based on all my tests)

I knew that situation was bad in the US but I hadn't heard that it is so horrible in the UK. I assumed you were part of the modern world. Usually, the more infrastructure has been destroyed in wars (such as WWII) the more modern it is these days as had to be rebuilt and it is easier to keep up with the technology than it is to modernize ancient infrastructure... As USA hasn't been in a war since the civil war (Yeah, I'm aware that they keep sending soldiers offshore but the country hasn't ever been bombed, for example) it isn't such a big surprise that their infrastructure is what it is. But UK was bombed pretty heavily (I think?) so I guess that my rule of thumb doesn't hold true as much as I thought it would.

Re:Perspective (1)

fluch (126140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384976)

Finland is just much more modern than UK or the US. I have lived there for 8 years (before studies brought myself here to the UK). Yes, no data caps there and good speed. It is surprising how much middle age the UK is.

Re:Perspective (3, Interesting)

fluch (126140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384628)

I disagree. I enjoy (here in the UK) unlimited internet usage at a monthly price of less than 14£ (on top of the compulsory phone line rental). And my ISP is far from being local only.

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384808)

Take a look at your contract. The words "Fair Use Policy" will be in there somewhere. If not, which ISP are you so I can switch?

I'm with virgin media, I don't think their policy is quite as restrictive as the GP says but it's certainly not unlimited at full speed.

Re:Perspective (1)

fluch (126140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384948)

I remember a few months in a row were I downloaded 200GB to 450GB data each month. Nobody complained at all for the usage. And no problem with the speed, either...

Re:Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385082)

doing what ?

In Further Perspective (2, Insightful)

The Altruist (1448701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384670)

250GB a month is the equivalent of one dual-layer DVD a day. 3 Terabytes a year. Some of us get by on 5GB monthly. Seriously, what DO YOU DO WITH THAT? Or did Avenue Q already provide that answer?

Why we need high caps (or no caps) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384970)

I have high speed, uncapped internet.

It is very common (several times a week) scenario that I'm in the middle of some 6 hours long video chat through Skype while streaming background music through spotify while I have some big download (such as the latest image of some linux distro) going on and while exchanging youtube links and what not in the said chat while having apache and filezilla running in the background... The list goes on (without even needing to mention the bittorrent). And what is important here: Two things. First of all, I never need to worry about my connection. I never need to think "Uhh... Can I start this download in the middle of this video chat?" or anything like that. I just use internet and my connection is entirely transparent to me. And that is great, even if I don't need it's full capabilities. In fact, it is great just because I know that I won't be using the connection to the fullest!

And the more important thing? This would have been impossible a decade ago. A lot of the services I use couldn't even have existed like that or I couldn't have had this kind of browsing habits that time ago. But as internet connection speeds got higher, people developed services more suitable for high speed internet, which caused ISPs to offer higher speeds, which caused developpers to... etc. So if the internet connections improve at a fast rate, a decade from now we'll have services and browsing habits that we can't even imagine now. But if the internet connections won't improve constantly, some developer somewhere will get a great idea, then realize "Uh... That would take too much bandwith. It's not practical" and we will never get such services.

Re:In Further Perspective (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385208)

5GB a month is ok as long as you exclude video, music, flash (nothing of value is lost) and any software updates/live cds that month. 250GB is still a lot of bandwidth most likely someone watching video/downloading dvds several hours a day. It is doable if you're addicted to visual media. (eg. otakus)

Alternate perspective. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384768)

That's retarded. I download single files larger than 50GB.

Re:Perspective (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384798)

We do? Admittedly my ISP is only the second largest in the UK, but they don't have caps anything like that small. Actually, they don't have caps at all, but if I download more than 1.5GB between 10am and 3pm, or more than 750MB between 4pm and 9pm. That leaves 14 hours with no cap at all. I get about 1MB/s from my connection, so if I saturated it during that period, I'd get about 50GB, plus the 2.25GB I'm allowed at peak times. In a month, I could download around 1.5TB without hitting a cap. Of course, if I actually saturated the connection during the off-peak hours they might complain, but I've never managed to come close to that. Even with iPlayer and occasionally having to download DVD images from my publisher, it's rare to get through more than 10GB/day.

Subsidized Perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384908)

I'm curious what is the difference in US vs UK with respect to the amount each goverment (ie taxpayers) has subsidized the broadband infrastructure.

I understand that following a tradition of telecommunioations subsidies, 90s fiber optic delpoyments had a substantial helping hand.

Limiting broadband in the US would be akin to adding tolls to the interstate system that was build and is maintained largely by tax funds.

I transfer 200gb a week... (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385006)

"To offer some perspective, here in the UK we have monthly limits that are most commonly in the 15-30Gb range"

To add some perspective, here in the US I transfer ~200gb a week, and since April 28th just one of the three always-on PCs transferred a upload/download combined 602gb. That's the media server, which transcodes video delivered from Hulu and Netflix through PlayON [playon.tv] so it's viewable on the TV through a XBMC [wikipedia.org] . I cancelled my TV service nearly 3 years ago and have been relying on downloaded and streaming media ever since.

Even my regular PC, which I use for email, web and occasional Youtube video averages 70gb a month.

If I was limited to 250gb a month I could not watch Hulu or Netflix and would have to closely monitor my Youtube usage. I would also have to install flash and ad blocking software to prevent any banner ads from appearing which hurts the websites I love.

Glad I have Charter.

Want to easily monitor your usage for free? Install Netmeter [metal-machine.de]

Re:I transfer 200gb a week... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385172)

Which was purchased by Comcast after they went bankrupt.

Re:Perspective (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385094)

To offer some perspective, here in the UK we have monthly limits that are most commonly in the 15-30Gb range, with a premium limit of 50Gb being offered by a minority of service providers.

To offer some perspective, here in Poland we have NO monthly limits. There used to be ones, but competition got rid of them. Currently in the capital I can get 120/10 for $60 from one Icable ISP, or 60/6 (120/6 during the night) for $70 from teh second biggest cable ISP.

first one : http://www.komputerswiat.pl/media/1128813/testupc-op.jpg [komputerswiat.pl]

Of course slower speeds are much cheaper. Upload is not p2p capped. I seed about 12h per day with my max upload speed.

Re:Perspective (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385190)

Here in Canada my ISP used to have no cap for 75$/month. Then it switched to 100GB with a maximum penalty of 30$ for unlimited extra GBs, so virtually unlimited was 105$/month. Then the maximum penalty was raised to 50$, so my bill went up to 125$/month.

It was not enough for them. Now there is no limit for the penalty (8$ for each extra GB) but I have the wonderful option of "purchasing" a bundle: 12$ for 30 more GB.

Basically I end up paying more for less every year, and there is no alternative, the telco is even more expensive. There used to be cheap unlimited DSL providers but the telco (which owns the phone line) has put a cap on their lease so the speed is lousy.

So I can get screwed by the cable company or get screwed by the phone company.

Further perspective (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385212)

250GB per month is the equivalent of a T-1 downloading at 51% capacity non-stop.

I'm hoping LTE/HSPA+/WiMax helps (3, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384550)

Sprint is rolling out 4G WiMax. Verizon and AT&T are going LTE. T-Mobile is going HSPA+.

From what I see, these services have some latency problems, but for anything that isn't realtime such as gaming, these might be a suitable alternative to Comcast.

Right now, 4G is not widespread but competition is heating up because of Sprint/Clear's rollout. I'm sure that other cellphone companies will be offering similar speeds.

If it wasn't for the latency, perhaps these services may be a complete replacement for Comcast.

Re:I'm hoping LTE/HSPA+/WiMax helps (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384598)

The 3G networks that seem to be everywhere cap-out at 5GB... they'd have to raise that by 5000% in order to beat Comcast.

Re:I'm hoping LTE/HSPA+/WiMax helps (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384714)

Clear, who is providing 4G services both retail and wholesale via Sprint, has no caps for $55/month for two devices currently.

http://www.clear.com/ [clear.com]

Re:I'm hoping LTE/HSPA+/WiMax helps (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384840)

Right... but a pre-bankruptcy AT&T Wireless (before they were sold to SBC to be part of Cingular, which now calls itself AT&T Mobility) was just starting to roll out spotty GSM, and they had a $99/mo. GSM only unlimited-and-we-mean-it plan. To sales guys in NYC it was great, to the average user it was useless. By the time the national unlimited plans came out, the typical usage restrictions came in.

Re:I'm hoping LTE/HSPA+/WiMax helps (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384812)

Sprint/Clear seem to be implying that they won't have a 5 gig limit but I haven't seen an actual promise. Only implications that the 5 gig limit imposed by 3G providers won't be an issue with their 4G service. It's being marketed as a replacement for home broadband which is something that was never done with 3G. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Re:I'm hoping LTE/HSPA+/WiMax helps (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384880)

Again, right now Clear is in "public beta" more than general release. They want people to max them out so they can figure out where their limits are at this stage, but will they want that in the long term future when the tech is ready to deploy everywhere?

bait and switch? (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384572)

Is this a "bait and switch"? Were the users that signed up for earthlink told there was no cap when they applied?

Re:bait and switch? (1)

JustinRLynn (831164) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384626)

Fortunately most service providers that I've dealt with will allow you to terminate your contract with them at no penalty if they change the terms of service significantly such that you decide that you can no longer use the service. The big issue is that there's usually some limiting date, like say 30 days from the change to exercise that option. Does anyone know if it's a general thing in the information service industry or if it's specific to just the few carriers I've dealt with?

Re:bait and switch? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384636)

Nope. They're giving slight more than one month's notice to a 100% month-to-month customer base.

Re:bait and switch? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384656)

There was no cap when i purchased my service, then comcast bought the company and changed the rules.

FCC, do your damn job. (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384578)

Stories like this make me increasingly wish the FCC would, indeed, move broadband providers back under common carrier rules. Competition would do wonders here. Though I did find it amusing that their FAQ talked about how 40 HD movies would nearly hit the limit, which I think is a good example of how keeping alternative download services off their network is probably the big motivation here. I highly doubt they apply this cap if you buy Comcast brand movies on demand.

Re:FCC, do your damn job. (3, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384700)

I've always thought that the wire/RF owners should be kept separate from the content owners for exact fear of this happening. Comcast would rather you get your TV delivered by their broadcast frequencies, so they provide good but not great Internet service. Look what AT&T and Verizon are doing without any content ownership.

Re:FCC, do your damn job. (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384836)

Didn't congress just send a letter telling the FCC to fuck off on this stuff? Telling the FCC to do their job in light of that doesn't seem quite fair. Or was the letter talking about something different related to net neutrality?

Re:FCC, do your damn job. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384878)

I just want the right to compete with the carriers. I'll pay my portion to run fiber through my neighborhood and to my home and a monthly access fee if my neighbors will. Most of my data stays within the neighborhood anyway as it goes between my home and office. It already costs a small fortune ($1000+/mo on top of $1000's to install) for our 7Mb fiber line to the office anyway so why not shell out a little more for decent bandwidth and no stupid rules. Have been considering setting up a good wifi mesh, with free public access, on my own dime around my neighborhood anyway but fiber would be cool too. I use Roku for Netflix's streaming movies so I also suspect a lot of their limits are imposed more to stop competition than anything else.

it;s about time CSN Phlly comes to directv ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384932)

it;s about time CSN Phlly comes to directv !

Re:FCC, do your damn job. (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385280)

Stories like this make me increasingly wish the FCC would, indeed, move broadband providers back under common carrier rules.

They never were under common carrier rules.

Bait And Switch (2, Interesting)

mindbrane (1548037) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384592)

I live in a metropolitan area with one cable provider and a dsl provider. A few years ago, short on cash, I discovered I could sign up for a six month special with the cable provider (1/2 price), then at the end of 6 months opt out before the full price kicked in. The telco offered a similar 1/2 price, 6 month deal with an opt out at the end of the 6 month period. The good part was both providers allowed me to sign up for another 1/2 price deal after I'd been off their service for 6 months. I played one off the other for about 18 months. It's a bit off topic in terms of bandwidth but if you're getting screwed by the big guys (and you are) you might see if you can play one provider off another in a similar fashion. just thought it might help anyone penny pinching.

8 gigabytes a day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384604)

ought to be enough for anyone!

Couldn't they at least provide a meter? (5, Informative)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384620)

According to TFA, they won't notify if you approach the limit, and the only way to find out your current usage is to call them. Now that's handy.

Re:Couldn't they at least provide a meter? (2, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384694)

grkellm [freshmeat.net] comes with a bandwidth meter.

Re:Couldn't they at least provide a meter? (1)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384726)

ifconfig eth0 | grep bytes # probably not as accurate, especially if there's any LAN-only traffic on the interface...

Re:Couldn't they at least provide a meter? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384750)

I use eth1 you insensitive clod.

Eth0 goes only to the iscsi network.

Re:Couldn't they at least provide a meter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385040)

The third party firmware that you hopefully put on your router will tell you exactly how much you use.

Re:Couldn't they at least provide a meter? (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385134)

More important is how much Earthlink claims I've used.

So? (4, Informative)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384630)

I just checked my Comcast usage. I practically live on the internet. Here's my usage:

15 GB so far this month.

17 GB for April

22 GB for March

15 GB for February

On the list of things I'm going to spend the effort to care about, people who have trouble with a 250 GB cap is far enough down the list I'm afraid I'll never get around to it.

Re:So? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384732)

Where can you check your Comcast usage? Do they provide a web interface?

Re:So? (1)

Almandine (1594857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384794)

Yes, just sign into your account at comcast.com.

Re:So? (2, Funny)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384820)

Awesome, thanks.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384846)

Re:So? (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384934)

Hmm, I'll have to email Comcast. Even after simply logging in, I get taken to the Manage My User Account section with no "My Devices" area (or meter).

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384744)

I used that much in the last 6 hours. Learn to internet.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384760)

Similarly, I have 120G limit. The maximum amount I've used so far was in March @37G. Average month is about 20G.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384898)

And I just downloaded 6 GB today alone. All video files from independent producers. I could download a hell of a lot more, too. It's not difficult to blow past a 120 GB limit legitimately, especially if you do something like netflix on demand. Hell, if I had netflix-on-demand, I'd probably blow past 250 GB without trying, and still have 2 weeks left in the month.

Re:So? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384826)

So? I have a 384kbps/128kbps connection, and I use a fraction of the bandwidth you do. I think nobody should complain even if they lower the cap to 1 GB per month. My logic is that it wouldn't affect me, therefore it shouldn't affect anyone reasonable, since I am reasonable and surf web pages throughout the day.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384838)

I take it that you don't watch much video or listen to Internet radio. 15GB means you only use 0.5GB/day. I get through almost that much just having a 128Kb/s Internet radio stream on for about 8 hours a day. Watching one show on iPlayer can use that much again - more for a film, and a lot more if I watch the HD streams. 250GB is still a lot more than I use, but your usage is very low for someone who practically lives on the Internet.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384852)

Apparently you never use Hulu.

Cause in my house, we have a Playstation 3, 2 computers and both computers have Hulu going on them plenty cause for the most part, we never have time to watch anything on TV when it comes on so Hulu is a great alternative to that unless we want to use torrents. And when you use your computer for your TV, your usage shoots up substantially.

Re:So? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384866)

I watch several HD streaming movies every week, download any number of Windows service packs/Linus distros for work, and of course do lots and LOTS of casual surfing and gaming. I have Comcast 50Mbps and rarely even get to 50% of my cap.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32384868)

On the list of things I'm going to care about, people who don't use much bandwidth are pretty far down the list. Why were you posting again?

Re:So? (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384906)

Do you use your Internet to telecommute, stream (legal Netflix) movies, for VoIP, etc? I get more than 15GB of email a month.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384926)

Today, it's the 250 giggers. Tomorrow, 200. They will ALWAYS try to reduce the impact of the most prolific users. If they manage to get 99.9% of their customers under 250 gigs, they'll drop the limit to 200 gigs. Then 150. Then 100.

Meanwhile, maybe you start streaming HD movies from Netflix and watch your favorite TV shows on Hulu instead of paying $15/month for your DVR. Your 15-22 gigs a month starts going up. Eventually, your increased usage will meet their decreased level of acceptable use. Next thing you know, we'll be like Australia or England.

Re:So? (4, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384958)

A 250GB cap that will NEVER EVER get raised. It seems like a lot now but I can still remember buying a 90 MEGA byte hard drive for hundreds of dollars and being astonished by it's size. I copied ever disc I owned to it and declared I'd never need another drive. Comcasts limit is there for one very nasty reason. Soon we will stream HD strait to your home. This is a cap that will prevent you from watching that stream. That's why its there. To prevent you from having choice. They want to retain their monopoly.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385196)

So an average of 20 GB a month? Thats not living on the internet. Thats a weekend home. Use Netflix streaming, listen to live internet radio or use Hulu instead of cable TV and you can double or even triple your bandwidth usage instantly.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

tabrisnet (722816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385270)

Just this [calendar] month, my flatmate and I have the following stats:

    - Roku: # me, Netflix & Amazon VoD
                    in: 46.67GB 46667040679
                    out: 373.73MB 373734958
    - skuld: # flatmate. anime, Netflix & iTunes
                    in: 43.16GB 43164082021
                    out: 1.61GB 1613538080
    - mimir: # both, mostly me this month. Linux ISOs & anime
                    in: 29.17GB 29172312574
                    out: 549.06MB 549057857
    - total: # other stuff is included in this, I wanted to only highlight the biggest numbers.
            in: 131.38GB 131377255738
            out: 10.67GB 10672545785

And we've done more, mostly a lot more Netflix. the Roku can only download legal content, and 100GB isn't _hard_. I could put on another 30G this weekend (3 day weekend).

Re:So? (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385274)

I nearly went over with Steams Christmas sale!

I'd love a 250GB cap (1)

V50 (248015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384680)

Two months ago my (terrible) ISP decided that the contract we signed was a one way deal, and went from having no bandwidth cap to putting a 20 GB cap on us, with no way to purchase a higher limit. This is beyond asinine, as we are a family of six people, and a 20GB limit is tiny for six people, especially as the usage they claim we use is around twice as much as I measure us using. They probably base it on an assumed 1-2 people. *sigh* I'd kill for a 250GB cap.

I'd love to change, but this is, literally, the only available carrier here. Vote with your wallet my ass.

What makes me the most angry, is how we signed a contract with them for a certain service, then they arbitrarily decide that their contract only applies to us, and they can change the terms all they want.

And yes, I know just because I have a crappy cap, doesn't make a bigger one okay. I just felt like complaining anyway.

Re:I'd love a 250GB cap (1)

tweak13 (1171627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385130)

What makes me the most angry, is how we signed a contract with them for a certain service, then they arbitrarily decide that their contract only applies to us, and they can change the terms all they want.

If you really look at the fine print in the contract, I'm sure it says exactly that.

Re:I'd love a 250GB cap (1)

V50 (248015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385218)

Oh, I'm sure it does too, but that still doesn't make it any less stupid.

Re:I'd love a 250GB cap (1)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385268)

IANAL, but get a lawyer?

250 gb is a shit ton of data though.... (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384684)

When I was on comcast I used to download torrents 24-7 - never even came close to hitting that.

Re:250 gb is a shit ton of data though.... (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384752)

Yep, the people who are most likely to get hit with this are people who are uploading content, copyrighted or not, using workarounds. If you really want to push out your podcast, get a cloud services account for about $50/mo. and you'll have a much more reliable system and all the bandwidth you need.

Re:250 gb is a shit ton of data though.... (2, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384774)

Then you had jackshit for bandwidth. My math might be off, but 250GB 24/7 per month is like a constant 100 kb/s.

Re:250 gb is a shit ton of data though.... (2, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384828)

My connection is 150 kB/s on AT&T DSL. Honestly, I don't even need anything that fast. That was the slowest and cheapest thing I could get.

Re:250 gb is a shit ton of data though.... (1)

Snover (469130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385124)

250 (GB / month) = 797.473874 kilobits / second

Re:250 gb is a shit ton of data though.... (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385166)

Of course, it is impossible to reach with your 64Kb/s connection.

Imagine that there are people with faster connections.

Seriously, this is equivalent to downloading 2 DVDs every day, or 12 Blurays every month.
I guess this is possible with torrent seeding, but I doubt any sane guy is able to look at 2 movies every day.

do what you will. (1)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384718)

People want bandwidth, and people want speed.

from the point of view of a wire technician, I'm happy to announce that I have the solution! I'll run you a wire from wherever you want, to wherever you want! all YOU have to do is pay for the materials, licenses for disturbing public ground, licenses for using common utility poles, licenses for crossing property not owned by you, and minimum wage for my time, and I'll happy provide you a connection uncapped with as much bandwidth as you could ever want, while I hand you a SLA stating that fact.

then I'll get your home, and likely everything you own in trade to cover even a portion of the bill.

as much as we may not like over subscription and the general lack of bandwidth, it's a fact of life that these systems cost huge amounts of money to install, maintain, and peer. hell, the material cost along to get your packet from your property line to the local loop is in the hundreds here in canada. and that won't even get you a finished jack in a new home!

Limits are stupid (1)

kiljoy001 (809756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384886)

Personally, if ISP's in the united states are going back to the early 1990's with bandwidth caps, and on top that of traffic inspection based on what they deem acceptable, the internet is going to be a dull boring place like television is these days (disclaimer: I do not watch television). True most people today will not use that kind of bandwidth, but folks like myself do use enormous amounts of it. It irritates me that companies will quickly cut off high usage users and not offer some kind of reasonable pricing structure knowing they have users that do consume that much. People such as I, would gladly pay for an all you can eat service at a reasonable cost instead of just saying - 250 that's it. Even worse they fail to give users proper tools to determine how much they are using so they can self moderate, allowing them to cast off customers they don't want: people that use the service to the fullest, consuming bandwidth that they may have over sold. Sure it's not as bad as using cellphone based access but hot damn bandwidth limits are annoying (and stupid).

In a related development... (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32384920)

MSDN today sent me an e-mail asking if they can stop sending me DVD shipments because it's all available online. Sorry, not while I'm subject to this. :)

Just Get Business (4, Insightful)

Omniscientist (806841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385102)

After discovering a local ISP wasn't able to service my apartment appropriately, I ended up getting Comcast Business class. You get a lot for a pittance of additional cost (~$20 / month more than residential around here).

One thing that's very different is the support. The support is phenomenally better. You call the phone number, and in seconds a knowledgeable person who is able to speak English well will get on the line (never had to be transferred to someone useful) 24/7. Other than better support, I get two static IP's with the package, and I believe that the business service has no monthly cap. Additionally, and unlike the residential service (where your monthly bill can get jacked up for no good reason) the rates I pay are contractually locked.

So (at least in my area) if you get residential, you're pretty much a sucker.

Re:Just Get Business (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385228)

Just wondering, do they give you Business Class TV service too? ESPN charges more to be shown at a business than it does at home... and those situations make the business TV package a little less attractive than the consumer service.

Last month 73GB of Anime along (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385140)

Here are some numbers, from my house:
1. Anime bittorrent downloads total over 73GB for the last month.
2. NZB downloads for the last month entirely TV shows 230GB
3. VPN connection Bandwidth to Work for the month is about 35GB that's an average based on the last 4 months, used from a VM about 16 hours a day.
3. I get 3000GB a month on my server, and that for only $45, so the same cost a Internet through Comcast and that is 12x what Comcast is giving you.

So basically discounting the Gaming, Browsing, VPN the Web ... I have consumed 300Gb just for Video in the last month, that is 1/10 of what I'm allowed on my remote server for $45 a month, yet I'd be over the limit for Comcast with just this.

250Gb is simply not enough for a month if you plan on moving Video.

Crap (1)

dexomn (147950) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385202)

I kept reading cap as 'crap', it was much more entertaining.

Even with 1.5gb of porn a day.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32385236)

I download a lot of porn. About 1.5gb a day probably. I stream internet radio. I furiously click refresh on sites like slashdot.

I still don't use 250gb.

On the other hand, the 15-30gb limit discussed above in the UK would cause my to riot in the street. That wouldn't even cover my non-porn usage many months.

Also, let's get real people -- I can only "utilize" so much porn a day. Someone who actually watched legit videos on the internet (I really don't, no time) could easily DL more than me.

Verdict? 250gb seems pretty reasonable, anything less does not.

Bandwidth is too expensive (2, Funny)

lucm (889690) | more than 4 years ago | (#32385250)

Maybe archive.org should start to offer its content on tape backup sent with Fedex. Might end up cheaper than my ISP.

I can picture the ads: "Weekly internet: 7$, delivered with a smile".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...