The "Official" advertisements state "up to 100 times faster than dialup". They dont advertise any given speeds. Which is a wise thing to due in this day and age.
Please state your service provider here!
- Thread starter JSz
- Start date
Andem said:
Well in a way yes, keep in mind the "Up to 100 times faster than a dialup connection" doesnt tell you what type of dialup connection. But for sanitys sake and to keep you all stopping guessing, they base it of of 28.8k modems.
Although, I can truely say I get much faster than 100 times faster than that
Oh yes, and I thought I'd add, Im one of those users who dont abuse my connection.. Im generally pretty low on downloads, aside from system updates, and Linux Distrobution downloads when I decide to re-update my nix boxes.
Connection is mostly used for video connferencing (vary rare), voice chats (occasionally), irc and Coding PHP/SQL/C/C++ on remote linux systems. Although I dont "abuse" my connection, I do believe that SOME providers have way to low caps, shaw has nicer caps, and I havent gone anywhere close to using them. Although there was that one day I downloaded 3gb worth of a linux distro and they called me up asking what I was doing, told them, and thats the only experience I've had with them.
Great quality, great speed, great price for your money. If you live in an area that offers Shaw) highspeed, I'd recommend it anyday.
Connection is mostly used for video connferencing (vary rare), voice chats (occasionally), irc and Coding PHP/SQL/C/C++ on remote linux systems. Although I dont "abuse" my connection, I do believe that SOME providers have way to low caps, shaw has nicer caps, and I havent gone anywhere close to using them. Although there was that one day I downloaded 3gb worth of a linux distro and they called me up asking what I was doing, told them, and thats the only experience I've had with them.
Great quality, great speed, great price for your money. If you live in an area that offers Shaw) highspeed, I'd recommend it anyday.
frubsen said:
So you wouldnt think running a pubstro on your home system using Cable would be abuse? With say 30+gb a day coming in and loads going out? Thats abusing the service, and a lot of people do it, thats one of the major reasons CAPs were implemented. Not to effect those of us who use our connections heavily at times for real life purposes but to get rid of the bandwidth sucking users who just run servers off of residential service lines.
CAPs have always been in place for Commercial lines, and thats no brainer there. Commercial links have always had to pay for their traffic, that is unless they lease their own DS-1 or DS-3 line, which from personal experience running a few ISPs, is quite expensive.
There is abuse of Connections out there, wether you want to admit it or not. Its not all some big fairy tale they made up.. although I do agree they blew it totally out of proportion.
Any ISP who says their Internet is Unlimited than that means you can download as much as you want. They can't say its unlimited but when you start downloading a lot a day then call you up and say "Oh your downloadingto much, can you please cut back." They advertise their service at unlimited so they shouldn't complain about people who use their Intrenet to its full extent.
I agree with frubsen to a degree. If they advertise unlimited, it should be unlimited.. But if you're on cable, you should respect the network resources and cut back. This service is for everyone to share, and especially if the node is overcrowded, you should cut back on how much you download. It's only fair to your neighbours. Unfortunately, Rogers doesnt do as many upgrades as Shaw did when they were in the area.
When they advertise unlimited and have caps they are advertising unlimited time not data amount. Not agreeing with the practive just stating the truth.
Well we are telling you what it means. When you read the small print on their contracts before signing you'll know for sure. Or just visit my website and you'll see if there are caps or not. Doesn't mean I agree with their advertising unlimited but have caps.
Bob is right, all the contracts (you sign when they come and install it) and their TOS "unlimited internet" means you can Stay connected for an unlimited amount of time, it does not mean data transfer is unlimited.
Well...as far as I'm concerned, If there is no cap limit I will download as much as I can. They already soak us on howm uch they charge us and then they complain about us downloading too much. Maybe they should use the money we pay and upgrade their service so that for cable users the internet doesn't slow down when someone is downloading constantly.
You do realize that bandwidth costs money? I was speaking to one of my ISPs today and some of the DSL ISPs that if a user uses more then 1.2 gig per month they start to actually lose money on that customer.
That is our problem as well.. Lets say most users average 3gb a month, and the provider starts losing money after lets say 2gb per user a month, where do you think those losses are going to come from?
Yep thats right, out of everyones pockets as prices will rise so they can continue to provide the services. Rogers is stuck in this dilema now, they are losing hordes of money, but really Rogers has never been good with money, thats not the point though... In the end we all pay for the bandwidth via rate increases.
Yep thats right, out of everyones pockets as prices will rise so they can continue to provide the services. Rogers is stuck in this dilema now, they are losing hordes of money, but really Rogers has never been good with money, thats not the point though... In the end we all pay for the bandwidth via rate increases.
What other 22 dollars. These competitive ISPs have to rent the local loop from bell for each connection at 22 dollars a month. Say they sell the connection to their customers for 32 dollars a month, that leaves them only 10 dollars a month per customer for SGNA spending (that is monies spent that don't make them any) such as technical support, lease of the building, networks maintenance, upgrades, repairs. And oh bandwidth, which costs them about 2 dollars per gig.
So there is really no room for profit if you want to compete against Bell.
So there is really no room for profit if you want to compete against Bell.