Is that an illegal practice in America?Kmar wrote:
ghey tee n tee, owned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … WuFbtFnXns
I haven't noticed any throttling on Verizon with my unlimited plan, and I use tons of data. I'm pretty sure it's coming though.
And all their subsidiaries too like Virgin Mobileeleven bravo wrote:
Sprint has unlimited data
"Serial downloaders" don't ruin anything for anyone. If they're sold an unlimited subscription, and they make use of it accordingly, then they're doing nothing wrong. AT&T is the problem, not its customers. "Higher backbone" costs is also a completely absurd argument. Any backbone link running at more than 60% capacity is long overdue for an upgrade, and any backbone link carrying more than 60% capacity worth of customer traffic generates more than enough profit for the carrier to scale up. If they're talking about cellular capacity, then in some cases they'll have a valid argument, but cellular congestion can be mitigated at the tower through sane congestion control mechanisms that don't involve blanket throttling of specific users. Sort of like how Sprint does it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
More bandwidth = higher backbone costs. The serial downloaders/streamers ruin it for everyone.
Last edited by mikkel (2012-02-14 19:56:47)
I'm unlimited on VZ but like I said, if I ever change my plan I won't be (grandfathered in). I still get new and discounted phones on the anniversary of my contract as well.eleven bravo wrote:
Sprint has unlimited data
that i can well believe . . .Kmar wrote:
I use much more than the typical user.
Yea its unlimited at 100Kbps down. Thats the speeds I get here with sprint. Sprint won't have 4G(Wimax) installed here. So...eleven bravo wrote:
Sprint has unlimited data
Last edited by Naturn (2012-02-15 10:31:31)
The charging for tethering to me is the biggest load of shit. It is basically a technical obstacle they attempt to throw up.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
More bandwidth = higher backbone costs. The serial downloaders/streamers ruin it for everyone. But of course ATT and other carriers/providers are trying to use it as an excuse to make even more money. If they want to charge per gb or whatever, why not have the ability to carry over the unused amount? If I have a plan for 15gb a month and only use 7, why can't I carry over that extra 8?
We still don't have 4g either, Sprint we 6th largest city in USNaturn wrote:
Yea its unlimited at 100Kbps down. Thats the speeds I get here with sprint. Sprint won't have 4G(Wimax) installed here. So...eleven bravo wrote:
Sprint has unlimited data
It will be here from March (I think it's March)- new ASA guidelines take effect.Camm wrote:
Is that an illegal practice in America?Kmar wrote:
ghey tee n tee, owned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … WuFbtFnXns
I haven't noticed any throttling on Verizon with my unlimited plan, and I use tons of data. I'm pretty sure it's coming though.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2012-02-15 12:49:34)
and we dont have a football teamwest-phoenix-az wrote:
We still don't have 4g either, Sprint we 6th largest city in USNaturn wrote:
Yea its unlimited at 100Kbps down. Thats the speeds I get here with sprint. Sprint won't have 4G(Wimax) installed here. So...eleven bravo wrote:
Sprint has unlimited data
By your logic, they should have enough fiber in place to sustain peak capacity from every subscriber 24/7. You think that is realistic? At this point, with so many bandwidth demands on the system (netflix, torrents, streaming etc), and new ones being invented every day, there's no way that any service provider can keep up with the demand.mikkel wrote:
"Serial downloaders" don't ruin anything for anyone. If they're sold an unlimited subscription, and they make use of it accordingly, then they're doing nothing wrong. AT&T is the problem, not its customers. "Higher backbone" costs is also a completely absurd argument. Any backbone link running at more than 60% capacity is long overdue for an upgrade, and any backbone link carrying more than 60% capacity worth of customer traffic generates more than enough profit for the carrier to scale up. If they're talking about cellular capacity, then in some cases they'll have a valid argument, but cellular congestion can be mitigated at the tower through sane congestion control mechanisms that don't involve blanket throttling of specific users. Sort of like how Sprint does it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
More bandwidth = higher backbone costs. The serial downloaders/streamers ruin it for everyone.
Every part of their argument is a play to get people to buy into the idea that other people are responsible for AT&T overselling their underdimensioned network. The only "other people" with whom the blame could lie are AT&T shareholders. If you're throttled by AT&T, you're just as throttled at noon in the middle of a big city on the most congested of towers as you are at 3AM on a corn field in Kansas as the sole subscriber associated with the cell. It should be obvious that there is absolutely no technical circumstances that warrant what they do.
Wait, what? How are you at all getting that from my post?Jay wrote:
By your logic, they should have enough fiber in place to sustain peak capacity from every subscriber 24/7. You think that is realistic?mikkel wrote:
"Serial downloaders" don't ruin anything for anyone. If they're sold an unlimited subscription, and they make use of it accordingly, then they're doing nothing wrong. AT&T is the problem, not its customers. "Higher backbone" costs is also a completely absurd argument. Any backbone link running at more than 60% capacity is long overdue for an upgrade, and any backbone link carrying more than 60% capacity worth of customer traffic generates more than enough profit for the carrier to scale up. If they're talking about cellular capacity, then in some cases they'll have a valid argument, but cellular congestion can be mitigated at the tower through sane congestion control mechanisms that don't involve blanket throttling of specific users. Sort of like how Sprint does it.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
More bandwidth = higher backbone costs. The serial downloaders/streamers ruin it for everyone.
Every part of their argument is a play to get people to buy into the idea that other people are responsible for AT&T overselling their underdimensioned network. The only "other people" with whom the blame could lie are AT&T shareholders. If you're throttled by AT&T, you're just as throttled at noon in the middle of a big city on the most congested of towers as you are at 3AM on a corn field in Kansas as the sole subscriber associated with the cell. It should be obvious that there is absolutely no technical circumstances that warrant what they do.
In the network core? I'm sure the providers are glad that you've bought into that lie, but even a cursory investigation into the matter would tell you that what you're saying is simply not true.Jay wrote:
At this point, with so many bandwidth demands on the system (netflix, torrents, streaming etc), and new ones being invented every day, there's no way that any service provider can keep up with the demand.
ISPs and cellular providers make their money by overselling. That's why it's been the norm to sell unlimited traffic connections at tiered capacity rather than billing by the byte. That's why ISPs are doing traffic caps while selling their products as "unlimited." They still want the profits from selling expensive connections with no traffic limits to people who turn on their computer once every other day for half an hour to check their e-mail, so they'll never go back to raw metering.Jay wrote:
Instead of instituting throttles, they should simply charge by the GB like AOL used to charge by the minute. The people that use more end up paying more. Think of it like a toll on a highway. The people that drive on that road end up paying the toll. The people that drive the most, pay the most and become most responsible for the highways maintenance.
Then there is zero justification for throttling anyones bandwidth. Sell unlimited, provide unlimited.mikkel wrote:
ISPs and cellular providers make their money by overselling. That's why it's been the norm to sell unlimited traffic connections at tiered capacity rather than billing by the byte. That's why ISPs are doing traffic caps while selling their products as "unlimited." They still want the profits from selling expensive connections with no traffic limits to people who turn on their computer once every other day for half an hour to check their e-mail, so they'll never go back to raw metering.
Yes. That's what I'm saying.Jay wrote:
Then there is zero justification for throttling anyones bandwidth. Sell unlimited, provide unlimited.mikkel wrote:
ISPs and cellular providers make their money by overselling. That's why it's been the norm to sell unlimited traffic connections at tiered capacity rather than billing by the byte. That's why ISPs are doing traffic caps while selling their products as "unlimited." They still want the profits from selling expensive connections with no traffic limits to people who turn on their computer once every other day for half an hour to check their e-mail, so they'll never go back to raw metering.