ISP says using the internet is like eating Oreos

[Nineshadow]

14 minutes ago, Nicholatian said:

When fiber comes to Siberia, let me know.

 

These arguments are really pathetic.

Is there fiber in Alaska or am I missing something?

[zacRupnow]

15 hours ago, Ramamataz said:

No no no. How about shut your fucking mouth you greedy asses. You make more than enough money to fix and implement more cabling and equipment to provide better internet.  If I keep paying you for data or internet, you shouldn't be able to limit my ass, unless IT CLEARLY STATES " THIS IS A LIMITED INTERNET PLAN " and none of that fine little print bullshit either where a consumer is tricked into purchasing a internet plan that does't look limited but in the end is. 

 

Stop with the BS companies. 

From a US perspective they have been getting Taxpayer money for over 20 years to update infrastructure and haven't done a damn thing with it because in the early 2000s the internet was removed from the Title Utility where the government (FCC) can force regulations and force them to upgrade as promised with Title money from 20 years of citizens taxes.

[normpearii]

I don't mind paying for different tiers of bandwidth.

I don't mind paying for different tiers of data caps.

What I do mind is having both separately capped.


If you limit bandwidth, it already limits how mach data you can use in a month. 

 

If you limit data, you run the risk of running out, but now you have someone with no data left and you end up with slower speeds at the beginning of every month instead of steady trends day by day.

If you can't handle the amount of bandwidth, don't sell higher speed packages you can't cope with, or invest in better infrastructure to support the bandwidth your overselling.

 

Double dipping your Oreo's in a shared class of milk is not the solution.

[TheKDub]

14 hours ago, Zyndo said:

95%? not a chance. Not a chance in hell lol. My dad owns the small local internet company I work for... we have a few thousand customers. I'm not going to divulge information on what we make or don't make as a business, but consider this.  Growing up we were never rich. there was always food on the table, and I got to play sports, we went on about 3 vacations throughout my childhood so we had enough money to live on. we were comfortable and had enough. we are not rich. my dad has never owned a new truck, our house was never huge. we never had a house in the country nor a cabin at the lake. he makes a reasonable amount of money, but no more than a reasonably paid worker at any other company (and he doesn't get any pension or benefits that he doesn't otherwise set aside for himself either).

 

If he was able to get 95% income from these customers we would be fcking loaded. "You don't know what you're talking about".

 

There is no way google can offer 1000mbps for 70 bucks a month (on current available technology without taking a significantly massive loss in the process). wherever you heard that number you must be incorrect.

 

If ISP's were truly greedy pigs, they would offer perfect internet (infinite bandwidth, infinite data) and charge you 1000 bucks a month for it. if such a thing was possible, that is what greed would look like. "You don't know what you're talking about"

 

I'm not talking about the small local ISPs, I'm talking about the giant nationwide ISPs such as Comcast or Time Warner.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html

 

As for this:

Quote

There is no way google can offer 1000mbps for 70 bucks a month (on current available technology without taking a significantly massive loss in the process). wherever you heard that number you must be incorrect.

https://fiber.google.com/about/

 

"Google Fiber starts with a connection that's up to 1,000 megabits per second. Super fast downloads. TV like no other. And endless possibilities."

https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/

Fiber 1000 plan, which is 1000Mb/s upload and download for $70/month, with no data cap.

 

And you were saying?

[Lurick]

59 minutes ago, TheKDub said:

 

I'm not talking about the small local ISPs, I'm talking about the giant nationwide ISPs such as Comcast or Time Warner.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cables-97-pro_b_6591916.html

 

As for this:

https://fiber.google.com/about/

 

"Google Fiber starts with a connection that's up to 1,000 megabits per second. Super fast downloads. TV like no other. And endless possibilities."

https://fiber.google.com/cities/kansascity/

Fiber 1000 plan, which is 1000Mb/s upload and download for $70/month, with no data cap.

 

And you were saying?

 

Hell, there are ISPs offering 10Gb internet for a few hundred a month so the ability to offer gigabit for $70/month is perfectly reasonable, the other poster has no idea what they are talking about.

 

https://www.engadget.com/2015/10/16/tennessee-gigabit-broadband/

 

Edit:

Just thought about it but he might have been referring to true 1:1 gigabit speeds which nobody would ever offer.

[TheKDub]

2 minutes ago, Lurick said:

 

Hell, there are ISPs offering 10Gb internet for a few hundred a month so the ability to offer gigabit for $70/month is perfectly reasonable, the other poster has no idea what they are talking about.

 

https://www.engadget.com/2015/10/16/tennessee-gigabit-broadband/

 

Edit:

Just thought about it but he might have been referring to true 1:1 gigabit speeds which nobody would ever offer.

 

If by 1:1 gigabit, you're referring to gigabit upload and download, that's what google fibre offers.

[Lurick]

1 minute ago, TheKDub said:

 

If by 1:1 gigabit, you're referring to gigabit upload and download, that's what google fibre offers.

Should have clarified, in that case I was referring to the over-subscription ratio where every person can use full gigabit speeds at the same time.

[koolerone]

15 hours ago, Zyndo said:

There is no way google can offer 1000mbps for 70 bucks a month (on current available technology without taking a significantly massive loss in the process). wherever you heard that number you must be incorrect.

well, you're wrong, my family has google fiber and we get gigabit for about $70-$80 (not exactly sure, but its around that price) a month soooooo

[escape093]

Quote

Imagine you are out for a walk and experience a sudden, irresistible craving for Oreo® cookies. You only want to spend two dollars, which means that you will be able to buy a two-pack or maybe even a four-pack but for sure you cannot get the family size of over 40 cookies. For that many, you have to spend more. Of course, it would be nice if your two dollars bought you the right to eat an unlimited number of cookies, but you know that is not the way our economy works.

And that's not the way data works, either. You can run out of Oreos, but you can't run out of data.

 

Hopefully his second name is accurate to how he'll kick the bucket.

[Doobeedoo]

Greedy manipulative shits. Luckily where I am we don't have data caps, but fiber infrastructure is expanding super slow so that sucks.

[PlayStation 2]

Found the Hillary supporter.

 

That being said, yes, using internet is like eating Oreos: I don't give a shit, and I eat until I'm too lazy to do so.

[Sakkura]

14 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Found the Hillary supporter.

 

That being said, yes, using internet is like eating Oreos: I don't give a shit, and I eat until I'm too lazy to do so.

As if Trump isn't bought and paid for too. He's got so many secrets he's the first presidential nominee since Gerald Ford not to release his tax returns.

 

Anyway, Obama seems to have put in place an FCC commissioner that is actually bringing some progress, so the best bet for that to continue is Hillary.

[LeChef]

I don't understand how people see caps as a solution. If bandwidth is the problem, one should limit speed. The amount of data doesn't matter. By limiting bandwidth it just takes longer to send. 

 

Setting a cap on the data is a solution for people that do not understand simple math. 

[spartaman64]

yea didnt you know that GBs of data are mined in the dense forests of congo so they are very hard to get

[ZarosTenjin]

Formerly worked in internal software development at an ISP in Germany (datacaps are basically a non thing outside of the mobile entwork here), data transfer comes at a cost. if you're dedicated you can calculate it down to every packet send. It is not free!

 

Little info bout Germany: Most of the telephone infrastructure(Which is used for DSL) is owned and operated by the equivalent of AT&T. Reason is privatized former national run company. However per law they are required to make the infrastructure avalable at a competitive costs to other companies. (Local ISPs etc.) They charge those local ISPs by estimated average traffic going through. This is how the costs for the non AT&T comapnies have to be calculated. AT&T on the other hand is responsible for maintenance which is partly financed via the rent and party via their own contracts. Oh also 99% of the telephone infrastructure in germany is udner the earth not running above it, mkaing maintenance more pricey.

 

From what i've seen the 'powerusers' that move enough data to make the ISP operate at a monthly loss for them are torrenters. They get send a letter after sustained extreme use that either they stop using so much or their contract will not be renewable. Most stop after that. But that is like 0.001% of the customerbase. I.E: We had a customer we put our monitoring on that had an average data traffic of over 2TB per day, pretty much moving data 24/7 , we were pretty sure torrenting was the cause. Letter was send and the traffic went down to normal levels.

 

A Datacap is basically a more primitive way of stopping those powerusers and earn a buck on the side. The Problem with caps is that nothing stops ISPs from determining the average or 'enough' traffic from looking at the customers that are like age 60 or older. Makes nice graphs to show, oh look but out self determined average user only uses this much traffic.

 

Basically after rambling for way too long. Theres two ways to approach this. Datacaps which give an incentive for the company to screw over their customers to fulfill their obligation on maximizing profit.

Or to handle it case by case on extremes and trying to get more customers through being able to say 'No Datacaps here!'.

 

Former is incentivised in america cause theres no competition to offer a better deal.

Latter is used germany because competition is enforced by the state through forcing owner of the infrastructure to share.

 

I should sleep. GN. Sorry for the rambles.

 

To be on topic. Fuck that oreo thing, its dishonest and just bad practice.

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, ZarosTenjin said:

From what i've seen the 'powerusers' that move enough data to make the ISP operate at a monthly loss for them are torrenters. They get send a letter after sustained extreme use that either they stop using so much or their contract will not be renewable. Most stop after that. But that is like 0.001% of the customerbase. I.E: We had a customer we put our monitoring on that had an average data traffic of over 2TB per day, pretty much moving data 24/7 , we were pretty sure torrenting was the cause. Letter was send and the traffic went down to normal levels.

(Sorry for cutting down you comment but its too long to quote the whole thing.)

 

Now this is interesting, i have a torrent client constantly seeding (linux distros of course ) at 2 Mbps(the plan we have is a 40 down, 4up) but i never got a letter from the ISP...

[kiska3]

35 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Now this is interesting, i have a torrent client constantly seeding (linux distros of course ) at 2 Mbps(the plan we have is a 40 down, 4up) but i never got a letter from the ISP...

That is only 21600MB, or ~21.6GB per day, just a little over 1% of the guy that used 2TB of data

 

Calc

Spoiler

I am assuming that the speed is 2 megabits

2mbps * 86400 seconds = 172800 mb / 8 = 21600 MB

 

[System Error Message]

The thing about data caps is that when companies offer too little bandwidth they should expect to see a higher % of utilisation compared to gigabit internet. Unlike oreos you cant consume the networking devices or cable. Electricity is used instead. Unlike with oreos if you want more you have to buy as it has to be manufactured and shipped. With the internet, once you're connected you can use it as much as you like as long as the physical architecture (cables, switching) are still there.

 

They are greedy evil companies. Most of the US ISPs are owned by the same person so its basically a monopoly and every ISP that has ever monopolised have ruined the progress of internet in the country they monopolise.

 

Just build a proper network architecture and a design which allows easy upgrades rather than sticking to old technology and blaming others. Technology has advanced even in software that p2p is now widely used for a lot of things from games to steam downloads, even akamai when it comes to loading images and videos on internet, or even web content. Gone are the days where we would get content from a single machine. It is said that on average the consumer uses 30% of subscribed bandwidth. That holds true if the lifestyle, usage and bandwidth are balanced. Skew the bandwidth and you will see the usage change drastically. Too low bandwidth will see a high average use. High bandwidth will see a low average use. Its all about providing the bandwidth needed and not trying to psychologically reduce the usage.

 

Smart ISPs use QoS rather than blaming heavy users.

Tier 2 and Tier 1 ISP networks do not have data caps, just the interconnects and backbone limitations and it is this limitation that needs to be managed such as with QoS rather than blaming people. National ISPs are usually tier 2 and many screw up by not building a good backbone.

[jagdtigger]

5 minutes ago, kiska3 said:

That is only 21600MB, or ~21.6GB per day, just a little over 1% of the guy that used 2TB of data

 

Calc

  Reveal hidden contents

I am assuming that the speed is 2 megabits

2mbps * 86400 seconds = 172800 mb / 8 = 21600 MB

 

Thats only the fix traffic, on top of that there are other not so fix traffic is going on too. On the weekends(or when im taking out my leave) for instance i have a lot of things going on so that 40/4 connection is maxed out . If i could help it i would upgrade to the 150/15 plan but my father is really stubborn(im still living with my parents because the apartments in my town is freaking expensive).

[kiska3]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Thats only the fix traffic, on top of that there are other not so fix traffic is going on too. On the weekends(or when im taking out my leave) for instance i have a lot of things going on so that 40/4 connection is maxed out . If i could help it i would upgrade to the 150/15 plan but my father is really stubborn(im still living with my parents because the apartments in my town is freaking expensive).

Lets say for instance that you manage to max out your connection for 24 hours, downloads would be 432GB and uploads would be 43GB, rounded down, that would be still be 475GB per day, still 25% of the 2TB download. Also one interesting tibit is that 5 months ago, Telstra our "national" carrier offered free data with no limits, and truly it was without limits

Calc and story about that

Spoiler

Download:

40 Mbps * 86400 = 3456000 Mb = 432000 MB = 432GB

Upload:

4 Mbps * 86400 = 345600 Mb = 43200 MB = 43.2GB

 

Story about Telstra: http://www.news.com.au/technology/gadgets/mobile-phones/telstra-data-guy-wont-apologise-for-downloading-content-blames-telstra/news-story/8be29c422c006ce106cf8ceb089c5cb7

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-04/telstra-free-data-day-sets-record-amount-of-downloads/7296534

 

[Monte_Carlo]

Okay mediacom... You compare yourself to cookies.  Where does the milk fit into this analogy?  Or the creamy good center that makes oreo delicious...?  Does this analogy include the reverse oreo cookies, and health issues relating to overindulgence of a product? 

 

Nabisco... if you are reading this.  I am very very willing to subscribe to an unlimited oreo service for a flat fee a month.  I'll even pay extra for milk.  

 

Joking aside... ass analogy.  Why not compare yourself to a service instead of a product?  Water, electricity, health insurance, a video streaming service... or a even a library.  A repository of knowledge with some hidden gems if you know where/how to look. (usually free of charge...)

 

 

[System Error Message]

bastically tier 1 ISP is international, tier 2 is national and tier 3 is local. The ISP you sign up with to get internet to your home is tier 3 but some ISPs are both tier 2 and tier 3. Like i said in my previous post, none of the tier 2 or tier 3 ISPs have bandwidth caps from the tier 2/tier 1 ISP that they connect with. They essentially have a backbone or line with a set bandwidth (could be the whole wire or just part of the bandwidth (i.e. 10Gb/s out of the 100Gb/s capacity). So data caps are essentially greedy. Sure some users are very heavy but other ISPs have learnt and uses QoS and manages the bandwidth so that everyone can get the bandwidth they pay for and during peak times more important services are given priority. Infact not making full use of the of the network feels like a sin. Its a bit like having a PC which can clearly overclock a few hundred Mhz more without voltage changes but not doing it. People should be pushing hardware to the limits as much as they can rather than trying to restrict use. If you wear out a CPU from excessive use than thats data that would be helpful to others though CPUs would take decades to wear out from 100% constant use..

 

Essentially these ISPs are trying to push you to their sponsors or products like their own media service or website which gives a worse deal compared to whats out there. Like with some if LTT's latest videos, people have been selling GPUs above the msrp. Its not that they cant do it but because they all talk to each other and agree to hike prices for greater profit as they know no one will do anything about it. Its the same case with ISPs, they all use the same backbone and they all talk to each other and try to squeeze every last penny from you, if they can make you pay for no reason they will rather than to actually earn the money.

[Donut417]

If this is true. Then Comcast needs to bring me Milk. Just saying. I cant have Oreo's with out Milk. 

[ZarosTenjin]

On 28.9.2016 at 10:24 AM, jagdtigger said:

(Sorry for cutting down you comment but its too long to quote the whole thing.)

 

Now this is interesting, i have a torrent client constantly seeding (linux distros of course ) at 2 Mbps(the plan we have is a 40 down, 4up) but i never got a letter from the ISP...

sorry, was on vacation stretching my legs and taking time off from the web

 

Every ISP their own? The ISP i worked at is small and regional and if something like that is done it happens on internal policy.

[Donut417]

On 9/28/2016 at 4:24 AM, jagdtigger said:

(Sorry for cutting down you comment but its too long to quote the whole thing.)

 

Now this is interesting, i have a torrent client constantly seeding (linux distros of course ) at 2 Mbps(the plan we have is a 40 down, 4up) but i never got a letter from the ISP...

Maybe you are not causing too much congestion. I remember when Comcast had the Hard 250Gig cap. Some people would go over and not even hear a word. Some would go over and Comcast would flip their shit. If your not causing issues to the network at large, then ISP's generally dont give 2 shits.