AfterDawn: Tech news

Latest Netflix data shows the perils of bandwidth caps

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 19 May 2011 13:28 User comments (46)

Latest Netflix data shows the perils of bandwidth caps Following in the footsteps of other ISPs like Comcast, AT&T began its broadband bandwidth caps earlier this month, giving subscribers "generous" caps of 150-250GB, depending on your subscription package.
The company claimed that only 2 percent of all users ever go over 250GB, so the cap will hardly affect anyone.

New data from Netflix (via DSL) makes it abundantly clear that those caps may be "generous" now but they will not be in the very near future.

Netflix now accounts for 30% of peak bandwidth usage in the U.S., with the average user streaming 40GB of movies and TV shows per month.

That number explodes to 80GB per month for users that stream through their Xbox 360 console. Overall, one quarter of all Netflix traffic comes through the 360, second only to the PlayStation 3, which accounts for almost 31 percent.

How long until these console users, who likely also game online occasionally, download DLC and possibly download movies from iTunes HD reach their caps?

Previous Next

Related news

 

46 user comments

119.5.2011 20:11

That's the whole point of these 'generous' bandwidth caps. They are trying to stop any other source like Netflix from gaining any traction on 'their' lines. AT&T, Comcast, Charter all sell cable television/video and want people to watch television and films there, not via 3rd parties 'leeching' their lines for virtually nothing.

It's a crappy situation for us consumers, but who is going to foot the bill for all these expensive Internet lines? Why should a company invest in high quality fibre optic lines if third parties are just going to sell services over them without paying the owner? It's like the road has its own tax, gas. (In the US gas tax pays for some road repair/maintenance.) If that wasn't the case, we would not have 'free' roads.

219.5.2011 22:49

Why should they invest in lines? Because they are going to be charging monthly fees to tons of people...that is where they should be making their money, I could say some mean things about Verizon, but FiOS is great...that is how internet should be done. Unlimited bandwidth both ways, and fast upload speeds too. Yes, they sell TV packages and pay-per-view, and other such stuff...but they let me leave netflix on as background noise for the entire month, or they let me stream a movie from my desktop at home to my workstation at work, as an original quality MPEG2 DVD rip!

FiOS has been kicking around our local cable company...every time they build to a new neighborhood, FiOS takes over very fast. The cable company has been forced to forgo all the bandwidth caps because they are doing bad enough as it is; bandwidth caps would cut their market down to the ever-shrinking area where they are still a monopoly. Of course, this is happening anyway...the cable co has not upgraded their HD-DVR in many years; the hard drive is tiny, the compression is extremely lossy but not compact, and the external hard disk port is disabled by the cable company. I would say they should upgrade their hardware, but the network is actually in worse shape. I just hope they stick around in some form...not because I want their services, but because they keep Verizon honest...and that isn't an easy thing to do.



320.5.2011 8:37

There is truth to what you both say. FIOS is now to the point of caps. Comcast has been raising their bandwidth to keep up with FIOS. There is a new way to multiplex cable. I know a person that helped develope it. Initially it will double the bandwidth but it could speed up to a max of 10x. Comcast may be using it.

Notice who created the report. The great boogie man of the internet! That company sells all the traffic shaping, anti P2P tools and data logging. As its name suggests, the software has many long tenticals connecting to an AI. Usually it keeps to the shadows. All ISP use their software.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2011 @ 9:03

420.5.2011 10:20

Originally posted by tatsh:
That's the whole point of these 'generous' bandwidth caps. They are trying to stop any other source like Netflix from gaining any traction on 'their' lines. AT&T, Comcast, Charter all sell cable television/video and want people to watch television and films there, not via 3rd parties 'leeching' their lines for virtually nothing.

It's a crappy situation for us consumers, but who is going to foot the bill for all these expensive Internet lines? Why should a company invest in high quality fibre optic lines if third parties are just going to sell services over them without paying the owner? It's like the road has its own tax, gas. (In the US gas tax pays for some road repair/maintenance.) If that wasn't the case, we would not have 'free' roads.

Ah, but see, the third party's do pay for their traffic. Netflix (and everyone else) pays for it's bandwidth used. They don't get a free ride on the cable lines.

So the cable company's are double-dipping, so to speak. They hit the stream-er, the stream-ee, then hit the stream-er again if they go over their data cap.

All that cash coming in is the very reason not to upgrade their infrastructure.

520.5.2011 12:05

Who couldn't see this coming? Comcast and others don't have caps to prevent other streaming providers as they can deal with that problem easily in other ways. All providers apply caps for one very good reason, their backbone would collapse if they didn't regulate it. The problem with everything being done on the same line is exactly what Netflix is addressing and is an obvious and know issue from the get go. It's not like this wasn't seen up front as times are changing and that is why you see phone & broadband companies moving to fiber and high speed networks.

620.5.2011 13:32

As I piss & moan redundantly, control, control, control, mixed in with oil tankers full of cash... Comcast, Turner, AT&T (whoever else is on the BFing bandwagon) want to maximize the minimum and then ass rape the consumer 'just' enough to demoralize them enough to keep them from going to the cops, but stand in the shower with a wire brush and scalding water for 3 hours.

One thing I learned in college (all those so many years ago) is that you can make statistics say ANYTHING.

What all those fancy graphs aren't telling you is that folks aren't downloading movies on their consoles (or anything else) because the DL rate is for shite (1) and most of the movies available for download at the time were shite. Both adding up to a double edged sword.

Not to mention, I pay out the ass for a higher bandwidth service (don't hate). So when I HAD Netnuts and more than enough bandwidth to watch a movie unencumbered, Netnuts belched and farted like an $2 epileptic hooker. Thus, indicating that Netnuts STILL is neither up to the task or (like the broadband services) won't step up to the plate to offer the proper service they claim to be able to offer because they too only want to maximize the minimum.

Although I know this rambling sounds close to conspiracy (which I loath) I do admit it reeks of the tired old 80's business model of "you bought it, you deal with it". Which summarizes, if these tired assed companies get to continue to sodomize the consumer with this kind "revolution" (of sorts) when are we (the consumers) going to revolt & burn down (theoretical, let's not start main lining jalapeno enemas here) their golden towers & demand higher expectations.

These same hippie fucks get military individuals executed for frivolous combat actions (debate later, not now) when this guy is paid less than minimum wage has the weight of the world on his shoulders & still has a life of death decision in his hands. Yet the same stupid hippie won't go after the ass wipe gazillionaire who pinched .00002 cents off the cost of brakes on your Toyota that now won't stop, but that shit's OK.

Sorry for the rant & no, I'm not trying to correlate The top 4 communication giants with mass murder (although it would make for a great spy novel), I am saying however... Consumers need to stop falling for the old Roman Colosseum gladiator distraction and start running our noses up the asses of our politicians and capitalists again.

What's the worst that could happen? We actually start getting quality craftsmanship again?


720.5.2011 14:06

It is definitely true we pay way too much for the bandwidth we get and our bandwidth limit should only be what we can use at the moment and not a accumulative amount. Networks have to be balanced and limited but advertising 20M service and only truly getting 3M max, excluding peak times, is a total rip off. Communication companies are the worst and biggest at screwing us and since the gov is in their pockets they get away with murder and monopolies they should not be allowed to have. The only businesses worst are the petroleum companies with the banking/stock-market short behind.

820.5.2011 14:10

What most people don't understand, and it is apparent from earlier comments, is that WE own those "lines", not the telecommunication companies. See those fiber optic lines were put in at taxpayer expense, the telecommunication companies were paid to put them in, but they do not own them. If the telecommunication companies legitimately owned the lines then they could block 3rd party access, however that belief has been disproven by court case after court case where the companies have been reminded they do not in fact own those lines. The companies do however have ownership of the servers that they "rent" out to consumers on a monthly basis to allow them access to the internet, which by the way is supposed to be FREE. So why do we pay so much for access to the internet that is free for the entire world, after we already paid to have those very lines of communication installed by these companies. See in the end we're the ones getting screwed all around, because we paid for all this n the first place.

920.5.2011 14:37

Originally posted by bhetrick:

Ah, but see, the third party's do pay for their traffic. Netflix (and everyone else) pays for it's bandwidth used. They don't get a free ride on the cable lines.

So the cable company's are double-dipping, so to speak. They hit the stream-er, the stream-ee, then hit the stream-er again if they go over their data cap.

All that cash coming in is the very reason not to upgrade their infrastructure.

But the 3dr parties pay a whole sale rate. So it is not really the same. To take the ISPs side for argument's sake...
When they created their rate structure no one was using this kind of band width. Netflix is competing with most if not all cable companies, selling it cheaper. Comcast will sell you more bandwidth with a larger cap for more money.

I can see wanting a lot more service for no extra charge but that might be wishful thinking.

1020.5.2011 14:42

Originally posted by rick930:
What most people don't understand, and it is apparent from earlier comments, is that WE own those "lines", not the telecommunication companies. See those fiber optic lines were put in at taxpayer expense, the telecommunication companies were paid to put them in, but they do not own them. If the telecommunication companies legitimately owned the lines then they could block 3rd party access, however that belief has been disproven by court case after court case where the companies have been reminded they do not in fact own those lines. The companies do however have ownership of the servers that they "rent" out to consumers on a monthly basis to allow them access to the internet, which by the way is supposed to be FREE.
Maybe that is the case in your country but in the US the ISPs own the lines from their servers to the consumers just like the power companies own the lines from the power plants to your house. Because I buy power from a different company and still get charged for the lines, I can tell you for me the lines cost more than the power.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2011 @ 14:43

1120.5.2011 14:57

I ask you all this...........where is the sensibility in capping bandwidth (which I don't mind in principle) at the very threshold of online video streaming kicking into high gear?

That's like going on vacation when you just lost your job and struggle for money.

1220.5.2011 15:13

You are all like kids looking at candy in the candy store and wanting it real bad. Just because you want it real bad doesn't mean you ought to get it for free. That is up to the owner not you. If anything need makes the price go up not down.

Mind you I would like to get something for nothing, we all do including the ISPs. For the ISPs caps are a smart move. Now that they have Sandvines, they can can monitor all their users and know how much bandwith they use. They can stop some users for sucking up all the band width so others get poor service. It is fair. Instead or renting a video you can stream it and save the money and effort. Unfortunatly the ISP has their hand out and wants you to pay them instead of Blockbuster.

1320.5.2011 17:49

Originally posted by rick930:
What most people don't understand, and it is apparent from earlier comments, is that WE own those "lines", not the telecommunication companies. See those fiber optic lines were put in at taxpayer expense, the telecommunication companies were paid to put them in, but they do not own them. If the telecommunication companies legitimately owned the lines then they could block 3rd party access, however that belief has been disproven by court case after court case where the companies have been reminded they do not in fact own those lines. The companies do however have ownership of the servers that they "rent" out to consumers on a monthly basis to allow them access to the internet, which by the way is supposed to be FREE. So why do we pay so much for access to the internet that is free for the entire world, after we already paid to have those very lines of communication installed by these companies. See in the end we're the ones getting screwed all around, because we paid for all this n the first place.
Here, here!!! Other than the electricity and possibly 'access' software needed for those people who don't know how to run around on the net by themselves, the actual 'wear & tear' on the server hardware for access to the net, there doesn't seem to be much more expense other than personal or professional information storage and we have all seen where that will get you now a days. But I have been known to be wrong in the past, but not by a gross margin.

1420.5.2011 17:59

Originally posted by hearme0:
I ask you all this...........where is the sensibility in capping bandwidth (which I don't mind in principle) at the very threshold of online video streaming kicking into high gear?

That's like going on vacation when you just lost your job and struggle for money.
Streaming would still be brilliant if the damn thing would be a bit more fool proof. The host computer still has to 'restart' the video (unless it is a 'live' feed) which takes up computation cycles. Flash and compression will help, but only so much. Throw in the greed factor, the small peter - gotta control human behavior Freudian complex manipulation of what movies or video content is going to actually be available for viewing and that whole copyright mess and we have a whole ocean of sodomizing stink called intellectual property choking the courts for money and control instead of trying actual criminals again.

It boils down to "how can these assholes double tap your wallet 'again' without spending anymore of their money, again". Plain and simple.

1520.5.2011 18:18

Originally posted by Mez:
You are all like kids looking at candy in the candy store and wanting it real bad. Just because you want it real bad doesn't mean you ought to get it for free. That is up to the owner not you. If anything need makes the price go up not down.

Mind you I would like to get something for nothing, we all do including the ISPs. For the ISPs caps are a smart move. Now that they have Sandvines, they can can monitor all their users and know how much bandwith they use. They can stop some users for sucking up all the band width so others get poor service. It is fair. Instead or renting a video you can stream it and save the money and effort. Unfortunatly the ISP has their hand out and wants you to pay them instead of Blockbuster.
Just to clarify... You're 'interpreting' the bulk of the writers here as wining about wanting free broadband internet? And that they can't have it because ISPs have now figured out how the 'big boys' are going to do it in the big leagues... so some folks that happen to have a movie account - can watch a movie on-line are now 'bad guys' & are "sucking down" the band width so we should cap them?

That's a bit absurd, for one... If you have a 3mb service, that's all you get, so I have no idea what you're babbling about. As for what this article/forum is supposed to about is the TOTAL amount of service used in a billing cycle. So what your lesson/comment regarding economics is about eludes me.

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as apposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

I already pay for their TV services and their internet access, to pay additional for theoretical access within is illegal. That is putting all of us into a science fiction world of mind crimes for christ's sake; "Minority Report" here we come...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2011 @ 18:23

1620.5.2011 18:30

netflix pays for it's internet connection to upload that huge amount of data.

consumers pay for an "unlimited" internet connection ranging in speed from 500kb to 100mb speeds.

no one is losing out on costs to keep the lines open.

they should not offer high speed if everyone can't utilize it. why pay for 50mb service if you can't use it.

would kind of suck if only 1 person in a 1 mile radius could use a cell phone.

1720.5.2011 19:10

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
It is definitely true we pay way too much for the bandwidth we get and our bandwidth limit should only be what we can use at the moment and not a accumulative amount. Networks have to be balanced and limited but advertising 20M service and only truly getting 3M max, excluding peak times, is a total rip off. Communication companies are the worst and biggest at screwing us and since the gov is in their pockets they get away with murder and monopolies they should not be allowed to have. The only businesses worst are the petroleum companies with the banking/stock-market short behind.
I agree with you about the bandwidth caps. I also pay for 20M service, but can only get 2.5M per download. That is, unless I go to speedtest.net, or any of other speed testing sites. Then I have a "*there's* my lost bandwidth" moment. ISPs have got to be one of the only types of businesses that can engage dishonest business practice...and get away wit it.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 May 2011 @ 19:28

1820.5.2011 20:22

Originally posted by rick930:
What most people don't understand, and it is apparent from earlier comments, is that WE own those "lines", not the telecommunication companies. See those fiber optic lines were put in at taxpayer expense, the telecommunication companies were paid to put them in, but they do not own them. If the telecommunication companies legitimately owned the lines then they could block 3rd party access, however that belief has been disproven by court case after court case where the companies have been reminded they do not in fact own those lines. The companies do however have ownership of the servers that they "rent" out to consumers on a monthly basis to allow them access to the internet, which by the way is supposed to be FREE. So why do we pay so much for access to the internet that is free for the entire world, after we already paid to have those very lines of communication installed by these companies. See in the end we're the ones getting screwed all around, because we paid for all this n the first place.
WE DON'T OWN THE LAND LINES!!! Whoever gets the benefit of using them pays for them, maintains them, and upgrades them plus possibly a little pay-Ola to the local government to have the privilege and then taxes added on top of that to the provider(s).

1920.5.2011 20:40

Well, as soon as I got their message I opted out of their services in favor of earthlink. Got the same speed over the same lines for $5 a month cheaper than ATT. Plus got three months for $19,95 amonth, and no caps notifications yet. Now, checking if I couldn't do better with their telephone services too. When that happens, goooood Byyyyye ATT!

2020.5.2011 20:48
rpwilso
Inactive

Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.

2120.5.2011 21:11
Zoo_Look
Inactive

Originally posted by rpwilso:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

If that's true, each house in fact needs a separate and distinct line to EVERY provider in existence, and god forbid when a new provider decides to start trading. Every house would then need a new line simultaneously connected on the same (first) day they start trading.

2220.5.2011 21:56

Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Originally posted by rpwilso:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

If that's true, each house in fact needs a separate and distinct line to EVERY provider in existence, and god forbid when a new provider decides to start trading. Every house would then need a new line simultaneously connected on the same (first) day they start trading.
Actually if you have friends & family over they most certainly do share your house or better yet dwelling whether it be rental or owned. Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.

2320.5.2011 22:58
Zoo_Look
Inactive

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Originally posted by rpwilso:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

If that's true, each house in fact needs a separate and distinct line to EVERY provider in existence, and god forbid when a new provider decides to start trading. Every house would then need a new line simultaneously connected on the same (first) day they start trading.
Actually if you have friends & family over they most certainly do share your house or better yet dwelling whether it be rental or owned. Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.
Um... the point is there is ONE household per ONE property... with line rental, several hundred households are connected from the exchange to the central server...

Yuor being argumentative and you know it!

2421.5.2011 10:42

Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Originally posted by rpwilso:
Originally posted by LordRuss:

As for the ISPs needing more of my money, I already pay a premium for access. The rate is established in my contract & duly paid monthly, how often I access it is my business not theirs. This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

Wow. Too true. Great point.
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

If that's true, each house in fact needs a separate and distinct line to EVERY provider in existence, and god forbid when a new provider decides to start trading. Every house would then need a new line simultaneously connected on the same (first) day they start trading.
Actually if you have friends & family over they most certainly do share your house or better yet dwelling whether it be rental or owned. Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.
Um... the point is there is ONE household per ONE property... with line rental, several hundred households are connected from the exchange to the central server...

Yuor being argumentative and you know it!
Um there are several roads to one house Um da your argument still doesn't make sense Um.....

2521.5.2011 12:55

Guys, guys, guys... I just supplied the debate, I don't want it going on in my front room. Take it out side.

Now what does that symbolize? I sure as hell can't charge you money for it. Yet it sounds like the ISPs want to.

It's starting to get muddy here. Our taxes paid for the roads leading to our own homes (here in the US) so that's a mute point (except for Chicago & other township areas where you have to pay tolls for the "privilege" to drive on the roads & I don't know how bad they have that f&$ed up). Electrical wires and cables coming and going from a residence are a one time expenditure that are purchased well below wholesale & recouped within 90 days of purchase under the hospices of the lowest available 'retail' customer account. Corporate America 'ain't' hurting. So I won't apologize for coming off bitchy for not defending them.

Everyone here also knows that these corporate jerk-offs will cram multiple accounts onto one service feed as hard and fast as they possibly can in order to (here it comes again) MAXIMIZE THE MINIMUM! Until greed becomes a executable crime the consumer will never get a fair shake. And before we get a hippie brow beating me over the death penalty I'm talking about ass bandits that swindle billions from Mom & pops of their pensions, professional politicians, tort lawyers, shit like that.

Of course the last paragraph has probably opened a whole new can of worms for debate surrounding control of the human condition & the corruption of greed (blah, blah, blah...) or I've drank from the Wapatoolie Punch tub from the Jonestown 'hoedown' and I'm seeing too many pretty lights.


2621.5.2011 17:16
Zoo_Look
Inactive

Um... wow... look at it this way... UNLESS every home subscribed to a ISP has one physical line running from the house to the ISP servers and is the ONLY household to use that physical line, there MUST be some kind of line sharing going on.

Why are you even trying to argue otherwise?

2721.5.2011 17:54

Um who implied there wasn't a share Um.... Um... that has nothing to do with the why should I pay for usage subject Um... that was seemingly in dispute Um.... Um...

Like I said before let’s try to make some sense here, or maybe not Um……
:)

2821.5.2011 19:30
Zoo_Look
Inactive

Quote:
This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

To which I replied
Quote:
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

The point of which was obviously lost on you and others. If everyone spends all day every day in their house, that does not make a difference to how many people can use their own house, if everyone spend 24 hours a day every day downloading stuff, that will have an effect on other people using their internet since as the lines are shared you will be saturating it so they can't connect.

2921.5.2011 20:39

Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Quote:
This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

To which I replied
Quote:
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

The point of which was obviously lost on you and others. If everyone spends all day every day in their house, that does not make a difference to how many people can use their own house, if everyone spend 24 hours a day every day downloading stuff, that will have an effect on other people using their internet since as the lines are shared you will be saturating it so they can't connect.
It should not, as you have a bandwidth limit per account and it doesn't matter if there is one or 500 people using that line as you cannot exceed your ALLOWED bandwidth. Providing that the engineers did their job correctly and the company (ISP provider) hasn't oversold their system. If that is true then there would be no ill effect on others in your shared tree. The problem is they over sell what they are capable of providing and of course lie about the service you are supposed to have, then they turn it around that those damn downloaders are taking all of your service it's their fault for using what is provided to them, when in fact the ISP is not doing their job. This is normal standard business these days, they keep lying and we keep paying more.

3022.5.2011 11:41
Zoo_Look
Inactive

Oh boy... so you are now agreeing with the statement that a landlord complaining about overusing an apartment (which affects no-one else) is the same as an ISP complaining of overusing an internet connection (which does affect others)?

3122.5.2011 11:49

This is all moot. My ISP is a BS outfit called MediaCom and I pay for a speed of 20 but in reality according to speedtest.net I average around 1.2 . When contacted MediaCom insists that it is due to the use on my "node" which serves two distinct communities that are about 25 miles apart. When I attempt to download from Netflix I must wait till the complete movie is downloaded or I can expect to see a movie in three second bursts. I have modern equiptment too. An i5 computer system, a PS3 (not that thats a good thing right now) a Wii and a vizio apps TV. Netflix has same response on all of the above EXCEPT after about 11PM when the "node" is not used by most households.I can't wait until the new fiber optics lines are in place by ATT and I hope to get reasonable bandwidth. As of now, MediaCom is the only game in town other than dial-up but I am signed on with internet phone service through MediaCom so I would have to dump my cheap phone and go with ATT again. Sux being rural but we choose where we live. So in retrospect the bandwidth cap probably wouldn't hurt me since im not on line fast enough to rack it up.


jimmurray1946

3222.5.2011 11:54
Zoo_Look
Inactive

If they implemented a data-cap, you COULD possibly see an improvement to be fair. A cap would force other people to either reduce or reschedule their downloading/data use, thereby at least giving you a chance to use some decent bandwidth yourself.

3322.5.2011 12:02

never looked at it that way but you probably are right, the cap just might help in my case.


jimmurray1946

3422.5.2011 12:22
Zoo_Look
Inactive

It's one of the reasons why ISPs bring in caps (the other being profit of course). Without a customer getting an adequate service, there is no incentive for that customer to stay with them. In your case, the only other option may be to go without entirely, but in large cities, a disgruntled customer can use another provider... and a customer with poor service is normally pretty disgruntled!

3522.5.2011 12:34

AHh the life in the big City... I'm from San Francisco originally and remember the first tv we got was in 51, we had 4 stations then, 2-5-7-9 then got 3 and 13. That was a big deal.. When the UHF stations came in we were crazy with viewing. Now no one can live without 500 +- channels.. Ah for the good old days.....anyhow it the 20's now and life goes on..

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 May 2011 @ 12:35

jimmurray1946

3622.5.2011 12:46
Zoo_Look
Inactive

[offtopic]
Over here (UK) we are in the throes of switching off our UHF terrestrial TV signal in favour of digital encoding... from 5 channels to at least 90 (depending on reception).

I have to say, I am impressed that broadcasters and the like can say 86+ channels of repeats of those original 5 and a variety of shopping channels could be considered an "increase in choice, with a far greater selection of quality programming." (according to the pamphlets)... add to that the fact that if the digital transmitter your tuned to goes down, you lose all your channels, whereas before, if a transmitter went down, you had a loss of 2 channels tops (bbc1 and 2 were from the same transmitter), and I am not sure digital TV can REALLY be called an improvement.
[/offtopic]

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 May 2011 @ 12:46

3722.5.2011 15:29

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Quote:
This would be akin to renting a house and the landlord bitching about how much time my ass spends actually indoors as opposed to just sleeping and then vacating the premises upon awakening.

To which I replied
Quote:
Except other people don't use your house... THEY DO use the lines that you're connected to. Unless you are saying every house has its own direct link to the central hub of its provider.

The point of which was obviously lost on you and others. If everyone spends all day every day in their house, that does not make a difference to how many people can use their own house, if everyone spend 24 hours a day every day downloading stuff, that will have an effect on other people using their internet since as the lines are shared you will be saturating it so they can't connect.
It should not, as you have a bandwidth limit per account and it doesn't matter if there is one or 500 people using that line as you cannot exceed your ALLOWED bandwidth. Providing that the engineers did their job correctly and the company (ISP provider) hasn't oversold their system. If that is true then there would be no ill effect on others in your shared tree. The problem is they over sell what they are capable of providing and of course lie about the service you are supposed to have, then they turn it around that those damn downloaders are taking all of your service it's their fault for using what is provided to them, when in fact the ISP is not doing their job. This is normal standard business these days, they keep lying and we keep paying more.
Eloquently put, I've been trying to say this for the last couple of days, but Alzheimers keeps setting in...

3822.5.2011 15:37

Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
If they implemented a data-cap, you COULD possibly see an improvement to be fair. A cap would force other people to either reduce or reschedule their downloading/data use, thereby at least giving you a chance to use some decent bandwidth yourself.
It's just garbage to think some else has to modify their life style to benefit someone else when society as a whole works just as hard. I.e., if you and I both work at the factory doing the same labor, why should you have to wait till later in the evening to enjoy your computer access just so I can have mine now all because the ISPs are too cheap/greedy to supply proper access (which they are masquerading as data caps).

Interesting thought anyway...

3922.5.2011 20:41

Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
Oh boy... so you are now agreeing with the statement that a landlord complaining about overusing an apartment (which affects no-one else) is the same as an ISP complaining of overusing an internet connection (which does affect others)?
I always was in agreement with that which does affect the Landlord (ISP Provider). You really don't seem to get it do you. And no people using what they have, and are permitted to or allowed, doesn't affect others as I stated before if the ISP has done their job, which is the point here.

I knew you were not capable of comprehension....

4022.5.2011 20:54

Mr Movies I see the point you are trying to make. The ISP sells at a certain band width and now they don't want to honor it. It is obvious they didn't think people would ever actually use that much. Now they know better so they changed their rules. It is their sand box. Not liking it will only make you grumpy.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 May 2011 @ 21:30

4122.5.2011 21:32

You nailed it Mez. Years ago I joined LifeTime Fitness they swore they wouldn't over book so I went with them and signed up. Within 6 months they were over booked and I quit them but it was a fight to get my money back. Now maybe they thought I would become a member, and many others of course, but not use the gym or they are just money greedy and don't care about service. Either way they lied to me and are negligent in their manor.

Now with that should I blame the other people for using the gym that they paid for too? Or do you hold Life Time accountable for over booking? It is pretty obvious who is at blame here.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 22 May 2011 @ 21:35

4222.5.2011 22:11
Zoo_Look
Inactive

So your statement that

Quote:
Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.

was in contradiction to your recent post that
Quote:
I always was in agreement with that which does affect the Landlord (ISP Provider).

4322.5.2011 22:36

Originally posted by Zoo_Look:
So your statement that
Quote:
Your point, or dispute here, just doesn't make sense.

was in contradiction to your recent post that
Quote:
I always was in agreement with that which does affect the Landlord (ISP Provider).

You are totally lost! WOW.... Give up you lost or better yet you are lost!!

4424.5.2011 20:01

Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
You nailed it Mez. Years ago I joined LifeTime Fitness they swore they wouldn't over book so I went with them and signed up. Within 6 months they were over booked and I quit them but it was a fight to get my money back.
As you might expect, I don't take being shat-on any better than you. I guess we must be men of principle.

4524.5.2011 20:33

Originally posted by Mez:
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
You nailed it Mez. Years ago I joined LifeTime Fitness they swore they wouldn't over book so I went with them and signed up. Within 6 months they were over booked and I quit them but it was a fight to get my money back.
As you might expect, I don't take being shat-on any better than you. I guess we must be men of principle.
Here Here... :)

4625.5.2011 11:35

@Zoo_Look - Changing from analog to digital broadcast did the opposite for my household. We went from 5 watchable channels to zero. Range is more important for digital broadcasts than analog. I could deal with a bit of snow and static since I live so far out (about 30 miles north of downtown in a major metropolitan area here in the States). All the transmitters were south of downtown and were right at the 45 mile range. Trying to watch new digital TV stations is like trying to listen to a horrifically scratched CD even with a $100 antenna.

I'd switch to TV over my Internet connection, but between data caps and the 1.5mb/s max speed they provide in my area I've found alternative methods to watch TV.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive