Slashdot Mirror
On Monday, AT&T Customers Enter Era of Broadband Caps
theodp writes "The Age of Broadband Caps begins Monday, with AT&T imposing a 150 GB cap on DSL subscribers and 250 GB for UVerse users, and keeping the meter running after that. The move comes as AT&T's 16+ million customers are increasingly turning to online video such as Hulu and Netflix on-demand streaming service instead of paying for cable. With AT&T's Man in the White House, some fear there's a 'digital dirt road' in America's future. Already, the enforcement of data caps in Canada has prompted Netflix to default to lower-quality streaming video to shield its users from overage fees."
What's just as bad as them trying to force you up from DSL to UVerse (hence the 100/250 cap) the terms they sent out also had a provision where you had to be nice when calling in for service issues or they would cancel your account. I quit two weeks ago because AT$T's attitude still sucks, and the company is still Horrible despite realizing that they now have competition.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I'm tired of having to ask AT&T iPhone customers to refrain from masturbating while riding on public transportation. Hopefully this new cap will help put an end to such obscene displays.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
just like they did when told they would be paying to receive calls on their cells. More proof that the 'free' market is retarded.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
This needs to happen to multicasting too. Maybe through a sin tax on watching any form of video.
I'm sure you meant you had to be "sweet" when you call in. Sacchrine is sweet. It's also known to cause cancer in Customer Service reps.
"Yes I'll hold. Uh Huh. Yep. Yep. That's okay, my name as four consecutive vowels, that's why your email to confirm didn't work... uh huh..."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
LOL, the West is starting to fall so far behind now.
If your idea of quality of life is sitting at your computer playing WoW all day in a cramped apartment, yes.
First you guys lost all of your industry to Asia.
Outsourced - bad, but nowhere near as bad as "lost" may imply. As quickly as tax stops favouring outsourcing and workers abroad start getting treated like human beings, it'll come back onshore.
Most of your university-level STEM students are foreigners.
There are more people living outside the US than inside. Everyone wants to study in the US. So there are more foreigners in US universities.
The United States has had a particularly bad flare-up of religious stupidity over the past few decades.
No, it hasn't. Religious influence on law and culture has been rampant throughout the life of North America. But enclaves of religious stupidity have received an inordinate amount of airtime recently - partly as a neat distraction from important stuff, and partly because it makes the strange new breed of Fanatical Atheist feel better about himself.
The American Dollar is devaluing extremely quickly.
Compared to which other period of fluctuation?
Now you can't even get Internet access that's comparable to what some Asian nations had a decade ago!
Oh no! And twenty years ago hardly anyone could get the Internet at all. We must have been as neanderthals.
I needed more reasons to quit AT&T; maybe now I finally will (we have some other, crappy-in-different-ways competitors here in Madison, WI).
Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
I sit here, 90 miles above the polar circle in the northernmost city in Sweden, and I pay ~52 USD a month for an unlimited 100/10 (guaranteed minimum 60) connection from an RJ-45 jack in my apartment wall. It's an ordinary apartment, nothing special about it, this is something that is generally available. Bask in my smugness, etc.
Emotions! In your brain!
I called at&t customer service and spoke to a nice representative. After listening to my concerns about broadband caps being imposed on accounts, he explained that the rising cost of fuel was effecting the price of delivering the bits to my home, hence the need for the limits on bandwidth. He asked if he could place me on hold for a moment while he talked to a supervisor, when he came back he said had gotten permission to grandfather my account to keep it as unlimited for as long as the account remained open.
(this is probably only sad/funny for people that have actually ever called at&t. feel free to point out all the discrepancies/truths)
Here in South Africa we've always had capped Internet.
What I don't hear talked about a whole lot is the impact these policies will have on the current advertising based model that most of the internet operates under. Under a cap, every advertisement is stealing part of my monthly cap. I want that back, or to be paid for it, or have it blocked. As caps become more of a problem there will be a greater demand for better software to block ads. Eventually the entire advertising based model will collapse.
Maybe part of their plan?
That's just it, I haven't done the chart yet, but aren't most of the big names moving to bandwidth caps?
Does no one else notice that "move your stuff to the cloud" ... takes bandwdith?
Then in that corporate "never give ground" fashion, they'll just ratchet down the caps every 2 years or so.
We all need to go see that movie (Total Recall?) where someone cuts off the air. That's what we're headed to, Bit-Wise.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
LOL, the West is starting to fall so far behind now.
If your idea of quality of life is sitting at your computer playing WoW all day in a cramped apartment, yes.
China
First you guys lost all of your industry to Asia.
Outsourced - bad, but nowhere near as bad as "lost" may imply. As quickly as tax stops favouring outsourcing and workers abroad start getting treated like human beings, it'll come back onshore.
China
Most of your university-level STEM students are foreigners.
There are more people living outside the US than inside. Everyone wants to study in the US. So there are more foreigners in US universities.
China!!!
The United States has had a particularly bad flare-up of religious stupidity over the past few decades.
No, it hasn't. Religious influence on law and culture has been rampant throughout the life of North America. But enclaves of religious stupidity have received an inordinate amount of airtime recently - partly as a neat distraction from important stuff, and partly because it makes the strange new breed of Fanatical Atheist feel better about himself.
China???
The American Dollar is devaluing extremely quickly.
Compared to which other period of fluctuation?
China!
Now you can't even get Internet access that's comparable to what some Asian nations had a decade ago!
Oh no! And twenty years ago hardly anyone could get the Internet at all. We must have been as neanderthals.
LOL China!
I know it doesn't help much, but I recently moved ISPs from AT&T of this. It sounds childish and passive aggressive, but it's easier to do than you think.
1) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=internet+providers
2) When you find the best for you, just ask for free installation on the call. They always do it, if not, go to #2 in the list. (Bonus, new business always gets to a live rep immediately on a call. No waiting)
3) Request a weekend installation
4) Cancel At&t service. There's no contract with AT&T internet.
The only thing keeping you from unlimited data is those 3 steps (the 4th is the pay-off).
It'll be fine, guys. Just switch to a different ISP.
How much would it cost me for a 50 - 100Mbps connection so I can allow my neighbors to download all they want, make it affordable to them at a similar (or cheaper) cost, and have the bill covered?
http://www.stopacop.so -- You have rights. How about standing up for them before they go away?
Maybe the FTC should force them to add a "Not suitable for streaming" disclaimer to all of their advertisements unless their cap can support high quality streaming (2.3GB/hour) for as many hours that a typical household watches TV (6.75 hours/day), which would mean a cap of 465GB/Month.
So it's come to this, has it? Good thing I still have unlimited data on my iPhone. If my home ISP starts capping I'll just have to watch NetFlix over 3G on my phone. :P
If your idea of quality of life is sitting at your computer playing WoW all day in a cramped apartment, yes.
I somehow find it hard to believe playing WoW 24/7 will eat up 150GB per month ;)
Oh no! And twenty years ago hardly anyone could get the Internet at all. We must have been as neanderthals.
It doesn't matter where you were twenty years ago. If you are today where other people were 10 years ago you still have 10 years of catching up to do.
Come on a 150GB download limit, that is okay. If you need your porn faster then 150GB per second then... wait, it is NOT per second? Oh well, 150GB per day is still... not per day either?
Oh dear. You poor Americans... thank god in mainland Europe we have evil state sponsored businesses and no free market so we have a lot of choice of ISP's. But who will I now download my porn from at 100mbit and no bandwidth limit? Oh wait, Japan! Country of un-limitted porn AND bandwidth and now thanks to Fukushima, tentacle porn without special effects!
But I know the perfect way to get the Americans to shit up and enjoy the AT&T dick going up their ass for the thousand time. Here is it. Are you ready for it? Brace yourself:
The way to fix this, is government regulation.
Whoa, see? All the complainers now switched their energy to frothing at the mouth about the free market, small government etc etc and they stopped complaining about the ass raping they are getting. Always works.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Here lemme download a blu-ray movie. How about 4 at the same time? No problem! Sure I might live in the city, with pollution, traffic, inflated prices, and a closet-sized living space. But I have the closest thing to living in the datacenter I can get.
but that doesn't change the fact that he was right :(. My idea of quality of life is a rising income higher than my parents, good schools and good health care. All of those are disappearing fast. Real wages have been stagnant since the 70s, school funding is being slashed (and what little money there is goes to wealthy schools thanks to the property tax scam) and the only thing going up faster than insurance premiums is the speed they deny your claims. Here in Arizona we literally just let two people die because we didn't want to pay for organ transplants.
As for the manufacturing, the big threat to Americans isn't Outsourcing, it's computers & robotics. I know keep bringing this up in my posts, but there is a sleeping bag factory making 2 MILLION bags a year with a total workforce (including salesmen, marketing, accounting and all other non-manufacturing jobs) of JUST 120 people. Fact is, it's not just that we're outsourcing, we just don't need all these people. So far the only answer I've heard to this is "Tough titties, at least they're free to starve to death in the streets".
A free, inexpensive Internet is seen by a lot of progressives as the only hope. China is starting to see some progressive movements (very little, I know) because they have a well educated middle class whose brains work well enough now to realize they're being taken advantage of. If the schools & centralized media fail us, the only hope is people on the Internet. It's not much, but I still like it better than saying 'Oh well, time for 70% of our populace to die in a gutter'.
So, yeah, he was trolling. But ye was also right.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
is a massive exodus of AT&T customers. If you're an AT&T customer, cancel your account NOW or at the next contractual opportunity. If enough customers leave them to make this an unprofitable move, maybe the dark days of metered Internet can at least be put off a few more years.
Having a bandwidth cap per se is not a bad thing from a societal perspective; if there really is a marginal cost to carrying a GB of data you'll only get the socially optimal result if you price bandwidth at that marginal cost. From that perspective the Netflix degradation referenced in the article could be a good thing; if individuals value the higher video quality less than the price of transmitting it, the right outcome for society is for them to see lower quality video at lower cost.
Of course, the marginal price for a GB of data these days is near zero -- (one site pegged it at $.03). AT&T has a fine idea, they're just pricing it 150x too high. The fact that they're able to do so screams market failure/monopoly to me.
READ THIS, & APPLY IT:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35984684
IT works... & yes, I've applied it to FIOS users' system (my niece has such as connection) & even there, it makes a difference in speed, and certainly in online layered security!
APK
P.S.=> I'm on VERIZON DSL here, & it makes a HUGE diff. in webpage speeds most of all, which only helps your overall speed experience (not much help on binaries DL's though, unless you hardcode in the DL link site to the HOSTS file that is, & then it helps hostname/domainname resolution be faster than calling out to remote DNS servers (which MAY be downed or compromised/redirected/dns-poisoned, etc./et al))...
Anyhow/anyways:
Read that link above, & I think you'll find you'll go EVEN FASTER (& it's like a FREE turbo for a car basically)... apk
TL;DR
Is the meter going to be visible, as the customers who choose to do business with them use the internet, or is the goal just to surprise the user at the end of the month with an extra fine?
The caps wouldn't be that bad if the service didn't *utterly* suck.
The gateway they give you is the only thing that works with the service (you can't use your own hardware, or at least nobody has found a way to). It won't do any kind of bridge mode. It won't talk to more than one IP per MAC address, so you can't put a router behind it (unless that router is doing NAT for *everything*). It randomly drops connections, especially long lived ones -- I can't make local backups of my server in a remote datacenter anymore, because the connection will almost never stay alive long enough to transfer the whole ~400MB. Sometimes it starts blocking random incoming connections, even to static, un-natted, unfirewalled addresses -- one day I can't get to my webserver from the outside world for a few hours... the next I can't ssh into my home server ("unknown inbound session stopped" ... of course it's unknown, it's the first packet of a new connection, you piece of garbage). It supports logging to syslog, but outputs a constant stream of useless messages so thick that it's almost useless.
Recently I've started to notice having periodic problems downloading content (like the slashdot style sheet!) from akamai-based sites, which a little bit of goggling shows to be an ongoing U-Verse problem since 2008.
The support sucks massively. If you call with basically any problem beyond "my internet is down" they will forward you on to their "advanced" support department, who has a fee of $39 (might be $29... don't remember)... which they'll charge you even if all they do is tell you that they can't help you and you need to call regular support.
Netflix, on my 24Mbit downlink, varies from "great quality" to "OMG you can barely do SD quality"... many other people report this as well. Some days the performance is great, some days the performance is just absolutely miserable. I'd try to see if there was some common network path causing problems, but they basically disable traceroute for all of their internal nodes (I'm guessing they just stop them from sending TTL exceeded datagrams completely).
You can't switch back to ADSL -- they wouldn't even let me get U-Verse service unless they disconnected my ADSL at the same time. But it is "no longer available" so now I'm stuck with this garbage.
I'd gladly take a usage cap if it meant any of this crap would get better. I'm somehow doubting it, since not a bit of it seems like it's related to network saturation... just lousy service. And my only other choice in this area (AFAIK) is Comcast, who also has caps, along with their own set of problems...
I'd say "welcome back to the 90s" ... but my network worked a lot better back then. So I guess... welcome to the future!
"No, it hasn't. Religious influence on law and culture has been rampant throughout the life of North America. But enclaves of religious stupidity have received an inordinate amount of airtime recently - partly as a neat distraction from important stuff, and partly because it makes the strange new breed of Fanatical Atheist feel better about himself."
Bull-fucking-shit.
I pay a lot for my extreme account. If I get capped or torrents blocked I'll just dump my service. While I'm at, it I'll dump my cable service and save like 2k a year at least. With that cash I can buy whatever I wanted to download. Lately no EZTV streams will work for me. Lame cuz it's like PVR'ing because I pay for extended cable service I just never really use it (wifey does). Maybe I will get a PVR and dump internet down to light. Either way the cable company is loosing money from me.
Calgary, Alberta using Shaw Communications:
High Speed: 60GB limit per month
Extreme High Speed: 100GB per month
Now if you pick the "lite" version of high speed which is 1Mbps then it is limited to 15GB per month .... I highly doubt people with the lite package are watching Netflix.
Where some see a problem, I see a business opportunity. Why not great a deal where by the content providers (Netflix, Hulu..etc) offer to put a cached server in the headend of ATT and Comcasts local networks. It would reduce bandwidth between pairing agreements and save everyone money. Not only that, with sharing of the profits, networks can use the funds to increase data capacity to match the exponential growth in data usage.
Life is not for the lazy.
For $40 I should be able to get 400GB not 150GB. I don't know what AT&T charges of course. Probably around that for data with /w strictly basic phone service. That pricing is insane. Even if users are getting all the extras for phone and paying $20 for ADSL you should get at least 200GB of data. I'm not against data caps. I am against the abuse of these monopolies to further there own entertainment services which don't get counted within the data caps.
No, seriously. Get of your asses. Go outside. Stop watching 7 hours of Netflix a day and crying on Slashdot.
Your life will be better for it. I promise.
AT&T Broadband can now be treated as a utility company and regulated as such.
Nothing bothers me more than hearing this whining. blah blah blah... I want things for free... blah blah blah...
If thats what you want, then GO GET IT.
Want to hear a dirty secret? My ATT internet will NOT be capped starting monday. Why not? Because I decided it would be a better idea to PAY FOR a business account. Those are not capped at ATT, or Comcast.
Yes, it is more expensive than 'residential' service, but it also meets my needs, has better reliability, etc. My Uverse biz acct is also cheaper(and about 10X faster) than the old business DSL I switched from.
Bottom line, you get what you pay for. So don't be surprised when your service gets lumped in with the lowest common denominator. Because, that's exactly what you are.
Get over yourself.
1.2 terabits per month, or ~2.6 million seconds is >400 kbps NONSTOP FOR THE ENTIRE MONTH. That is not bad for basic residential internet access. The ISPs are finally drawing a line in the sand on how much data is 'too much'. More expensive plans should offer more data per month.
Rationing. That is what a monopoly does when it can't/won't keep up with demand. The good news is, uh, well, there isn't any good news.
No offense but...this has been the case over here in Australia since as far back as I can remember and we've dealt with it quite easily. And we've only hit affordable triple digit quotas in the last 3 years.
Quit your whinging.
The regulatory solution would be for the FCC to required ATT to sell their service to resellers at their cost plus say 15%. (There used to be such a regulation, but it was dropped.)
As users of the Internet, we need to take a zero tolerance stance on this type of shennanigan. I would urge any at&t subscriber to immediately contact their support center and demand either no data caps or release from their contracts so they can move to a no cap ISP (thats what I did and I am quite happy with my new ISP). There are several online services that will assist you with locating a new carrier, just do a search for 'find local broadband' on your search engine of choice.
Could anyone inform the other readers (and myself) about perhaps what kinds of things it would take to start up new ISPs? I mean, if we hate AT&T and Verizon so much and it only seems that Google is here pushing the Internet envelop, why aren't more entrepreneurs starting ISPs (other than it is probably expensive, just like any other business startup)?
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
The big lie of omission here is that AT&T doesn't just have an executive in the White House, they've been giving out bribes^Hcampaign contributions to about 75-80% of Congress as well as the president and a lot of other movers and shakers. That's what makes them immune to any sort of government interference. Their efforts completely bipartisan, because AT&T's only ideology is to make more money for AT&T.
I am officially gone from
The way AT&T is measuring it also adds in the protocol overhead, which can be 10% or more. They measure it at the DSLAM, not the customer modem. For instance they show me uploading 10 GB and downloading 97 GB this month. The only uploads I have did for the entire month is some emails that might contain a picture or two, nothing with a large file attachment and I do not use any P2P software that would be uploading. The previous month the overhead that they measured was enough to put me over their 150 GB limit for DSL.
They need to improve their online usage tool too. It is only updated weekly until you go over their limit so you really don't have a precise way to measure daily usage, other than my router which doesn't match what they say I use.
Good.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
And stop crying
If you're in Northern California, you have the option of switching to Sonic.net. Sonic is an independent ISP which has grandfathered rights to lease AT&T DSL lines at favorable rates. They back-haul your DSL link to Santa Rosa, CA, and then connect to the Internet via Cable and Wireless.They have no usage cap and no intention of adding one. Sonic has been slightly more expensive than AT&T until recently. But if you're faced with AT&T's bandwidth cap, they can now be cheaper.
Sonic just sells a data pipe. They don't sell any content over their DSL lines, so they have no incentive to force you into some "entertainment package". (They do resell DirectTV, but that's via a satellite dish and is mostly a sideline for their rural customers.
There's no "packet inspection" nonsense with Sonic. No caching. No funny DNS rerouting. No custom browser. They just pipe through the bits you send and receive. You pay for bandwidth (and it's not "up to 6 mbps", it's "3.0mbsp to 6.0 mbps download, 512kbps to 768kbps upload."). My own line at in that tier measures at about 4.1mbps.
They also have 20mbps and 40mbps services, but they're available only in limited areas.
Sonic also has better policies than AT&T. "Sonic.net, Inc. functions as a common carrier and does not censor." They don't require arbitration; you can go to Small Claims Court if you have to.
Here where I live the choices are AT&T DSL, comcast's "xfinity", dial-up, or satellite. AT&T actually does fine with their service in this area for a consumer-grade line, it's the billing dept that makes one think about sending a bomb in the mail. A cap of any size is disappointing, but in practice not many people will use more than 150GB /month. Yet.
Caveat Utilitor
Your idea is very wrong. As the deregulation (getting rid of semi- and state owned monopolies) of telecommunications happened first in Europe bringing more competition and freeing investment to high speed networking, the northern Europe actually built the high bandwith stuff before the US. It happened already in 90s.
Since then they have been competing quite competitive and been always the first adaptors of new networking technologies. The upgrading in Europe is constant and already in the prices. The actual reason why Americans don't get bang for their buck is the lack of real competition, not the position at adoption timeline.
Although I would call it more "extortion" than a "business opportunity"
Basically, Comcast said to Netflix, "We're gonna shake you down to allow you to put cache servers in our datacenters. If you don't like it, then we're just gonna throttle and DPI the shit out of you."
Speakeasy.net No caps, static addresses, no screwing with your data, no dns funnies, ...what more do you want
Government regulation is NOT the answer.
A functional legal system on the other hand would be. Every free state and every advocate of a free market implicitly assumes a funtioning legal system. With that (meaning all players are forced to play by the rules they agreed on) the free marked with no government regulation would indeed be the best way of doing things.
Right now government regulation would only be a band-aid on a broken legal system that doesn't hold AT&T liable for their false advertising.
If they say they are selling a flatrate they have to deliver one. If only a single of their ads speaks of a flatrate it should be possible to drag them to court and make them deliver on that promise. Easy as that.
No government regulation needed.
After deregulation, In all EU countries there is an "infrastructure manager" (IM) They are responsible for maintaining and expanding the telecom infrastructure. They charge ISPs for using their infrastructure. The ISPs buy this capacity and resell to individual consumers.
Why does this work? The IM is ONLY responsible for infrastructure and it's in their interest to fulfill the market need for more capacity if such a demand exists. Thus it's in their interest to EXPAND coverage and infrastructure because that's how they make money. They're a regulated monopoly.
In the US...
The monopolies (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon) are responsible for both expanding infrastructure AND selling access to end-users. This means that it's in their interest to sell as much end-user service as they can, using the least amount of investment possible. It's not in their interest to expand capacity, unless someone kicks them in the ass because of a lack of capacity.
NB. In the EU, the IM can be an old state telecom that has been privatized. Sometimes a part of the company is also an ISP, but the accounting books must be separated. This type of deregulation works a lot better in some countries than others. The system is not perfect, but IMO it's a lot better than the one in the US.
-Palal
But I use Clear.com -- and I've got 4G mobile and a home WiMax for ~$60 a month. If you just want home -- that's about $40 depending on deal.
You can get 7 mps and 1mps up -- and it has no bandwidth caps (except on the Mobile).
I got rid of AT&T/Bellsouth a while ago and it is cheaper.
I'm also using MagicJack -- which now has a software-only option (rather than using the usb jack) - but I'm not a fan of requiring people to press a series of numbers after using the star key (*).
>> On the downside, I've got T-Mobile for cell phone. And AT&T is going to gobble them up because our government works for corporate profits and nothing else these days.
If anyone knows a way to hack a 4G usb device and pair it with an iPad or iTouch -- let me know. It would be great to give AT&T the shaft.
>> But the ONLY way to solve this problem right now, is to move away from companies with bandwidth caps in droves. The NONSENSE that it costs them money is absurd -- AT&T and other companies got the internet backbone for FREE from the government. Does a bit switch when the power is on cost MORE or less? Their U-Verse is based upon cobbled together T-1 lines (like DSL is cobbling together normal land-lines). So approximately 4 U-verse lines per T-1 (because they don't have dedicated bandwidth) -- so U-Verse CANNOT provide their rated speed all the time. It's a cost-saving measure because they have all this old crap sitting around -- RATHER than investing and going all fiber.
The OTHER reason for bandwidth caps, beyond NOT INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE, is that all of them want to become content providers. So you get content from U-Verse, no bandwidth cap. You get it from NetFlix -- add in the cap.
I'm sure most people know this -- but I just want to create a complete document of my annoyance at this anti-competitie nonsense that passes for "free market."
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
> if reading is "too much '4U'"?
1) Notice how his "TL;DR" is a criticism of your article in the slashdot context. It is not in any way a nuanced criticism, but he found it too long for what he comes to slashdot for.
Your criticism, however, is to insult him. It makes you look worse and him look better, especially when dealing with an audience of professional and largely courteous people.
> why don't you TRY to technically disprove ANY of the 20 points I put up then, instead of doing the "TRUE ANONYMOUS COWARD" mod-down & run?
2) Why should he? Maybe he's busy.
3) You could have made your point much more simply, and it would have been more persuasive. "Using a good custom hosts file saves a large amount of bandwidth and reduces vulnerability to malware. This isn't perfect but helps in a lot of situations." You have a lot of subsidiary points, but they are not especially relevant to a slashdot audience, which already understands what a hosts file does and how it works.
4) [Omitted.]
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Then they'll be happy to sell you the "twice as expensive per month" business class so you can still connect to "the cloud".
Ok, I called my UVerse representative to express my displeasure with a 250GB cap being implemented that I did not agree to. He reassured me the cap was only for DSL users, not UVerse users. I cannot find anything in my TOS about a cap, nor anything on their website that mentions a cap for UVerse, only DSL users. The rep said he has UVerse internet too, and he also would not be happy with a cap, but swears such a thing has not been implemented or will be implemented. So, can someone show some proof that doesn't come from a blog that this actually applies to UVerse customers? I'd like something on AT&T's site, if possible...
today is spelling optional day.
You don't understand how the politics break in the US.
In general, it is the old people who have the money who are complaining about taxes, government regulation and state how the free market will fix everything.
But it's the young people who watch a lot of video over the internet (specifically torrent a lot) and they aren't anti government-regulation in general. Mostly because they wouldn't mind voting some older people's money into their pockets, which is (to circle back) what the old people are worried about in the first place.
So you've created a false dichotomy. Those who are up in arms about caps likely would not complain if the government stepped in.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
If someone is streaming this much data, it's probably worth changing from residential to business internet. The speeds are consistent and there aren't data caps, at least on Charter. The price might be higher but cost is the same if someone is replacing cable with online streaming.
We have Uverse here and honestly I don't use up 250GB a month worth of bandwidth, the problem occurs because my roommates do. 250GB a month may be perfectly normal for one person but when you have a lot of people living in the same apt trying to save money this way, this is going to become absurd, and I know if we start getting charged extra for going over the cap per a month, even if I suggest switching to another company it likely won't happen because of my roommates stubbornly not wanting to switch cable TV providers. In my case I can't vote with my money, but if I lived by myself I would switch right now.
Although they're pushing caps on everyone, many are still not affected due to AT&T's slow adoption of giving customers tools to monitor their bandwidth. DSLreports has had quite a few complaining about how their first attempt at giving a meter for bandwidth monitoring was horribly inaccurate so I assume that is why many still do not have it.
I am on their DSL where I am and I just checked today and there is no tool for me to monitor my bandwidth yet. Since there isn't one, it says that "I do not need to be worried about my usage until there is one in place."
The only reason AT&T is doing this is to try to force you to buy cable TV from them instead of using online streaming services.
This is why Internet needs to be considered a public utility and regulated as such.
Ahem: Can you answer the question in my subject-line above, first??? A simple YES or NO, is all that is asked for in that regard.
Additionally - Is there a forums section here on 'writing style' critique????
I'll answer THAT one for you: No, there is not.
APK
P.S.=> When you get YOUR PHD in English, maybe THEN, you'd actually be SOMEWHAT credible - but, it really wouldn't matter... why?
Well, then again, you'd STILL BE OFF TOPIC no matter how you slice it & this isn't a paper for a grade in academia, nor is it a legal or business correspondence... it's computing oriented technical material, & it's ONLY A FORUMS (that again, has NO section on "writing style critique" either)...
However, even IF you had a PHD in English, it'd be YOUR PROBLEM if you cannot gather the meanings of the words within the context in which they are used (which said context clearly seems to be "over your head", on computing)... apk
...in a country where you're charged for incoming calls! And the most outrageous/hilarious thing about it is, USians think that's completely normal.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:
Use a custom HOSTS file!
It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!
On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:
It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:
---
1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)
AND
2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!
---
In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":
---
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:
----
An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."
and
"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"
Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!
----
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are
Fairly obvious that much occurred here. Hence, the unjustified mod down hit & run away style.
If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:
Use a custom HOSTS file!
It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!
On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:
It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:
---
1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)
AND
2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!
---
In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":
---
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:
----
An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."
and
"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"
Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!
----
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are
If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:
Use a custom HOSTS file!
It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!
On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:
It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:
---
1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)
AND
2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!
---
In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":
---
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:
----
An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."
and
"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"
Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!
----
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35984750
I think THAT may "interest you"...
... * Enjoy (because it REALLY works, & is 100% FREE as well (you already have one, you just have to give it data from reputable, reliable, & regularly updated sources, which that posts lists!)).
APK
Saccharin doesn't cause cancer, hence why the FDA allowed the removal of the warning label. The link was never particularly strong and was based primarily on animal studies which didn't accurately model normal intake. Warning label removal
One thing that strikes me as being worthy of a federal case here is that consumers aren't provided a method of tracking their bandwidth usage. Is AT&T going to make this data available through their online account management? Do users have a way of verifying their own usage? Otherwise, who is to stop AT&T from making up bogus claims about the user's bandwidth?
Good point, but I think those patches would eat them up whether it is played often or only ocasionally.
191 comments and not a single one suggesting founding a new ISP. America, meh.
Waka Waka!
At ~160kB/sec download speed (1.5 Mb/sec DSL) for a month of 100% usage, I would be getting something like 450 GB of downloaded data.
ATT plain DSL accounts supposedly go into overage at around a third of that.
So I have to be careful if I want to run downloads more than eight hours a day, every day for the whole month.
> Ahem: Can you answer the question in my subject-line above, first??? A simple YES or NO, is all that is asked for in that regard.
Yes. I can. But not with a yes or no, because either answer would be slightly wrong. It is relevant the conversation. It is not relevant to bandwidth caps.
> Additionally - Is there a forums section here on 'writing style' critique????
No. There is not. We critique writing style as an integrated part of our discussions. This is because we are Nerds, and Nerds tend to like things that are done well.
> P.S.=> When you get YOUR PHD in English, maybe THEN, you'd actually be SOMEWHAT credible - but, it really wouldn't matter... why?
Funny how you assume I don't have one. Odd how you assume one might make me credible on this topic. An MFA might be more relevant, if you were looking for an appeal to authority. Or experience as a reporter, or a writer.
> Well, then again, you'd STILL BE OFF TOPIC no matter how you slice it & this isn't a paper for a grade in academia, nor is it a legal or business correspondence... it's computing oriented technical material, & it's ONLY A FORUMS (that again, has NO section on "writing style critique" either)...
Asking people to be courteous and restrain from ad hominem attacks is never off-topic. A critique may be genuinely helpful, if we are open-minded about them, reject the parts we disagree with, listen to what others think, and figure out how we should craft our message to better reach our audience. And yes, it is only a forum.
As to the the primary point, yes, having a hosts file that blocks certain ads can certainly help. It should cut the web browsing and DNS component of your bandwidth use. It will not help with Netflix, which is currently the elephant in the room, bandwidth-wise. It does have side benefits, as well as social costs.
>However, even IF you had a PHD in English, it'd be YOUR PROBLEM if you cannot gather the meanings of the words within the context in which they are used (which said context clearly seems to be "over your head", on computing)... apk
Having a Ph.D. in English is not relevant to understanding the meanings of words (with very, very rare exceptions, e.g. Old English roots if you happen to study it).
I have no problem. I am simply going out of my way for you in the hope that you make your points in ways which receive better reception in the future, in which case we will all be a little better off--you will make your points more effectively and perhaps be able to contribute to the community in a more positive way. Truthfully, it is not worth my time, but I thought to stop for a moment and help both you and, to a lesser degree, the person you attacked.
I know the meaning of words, and I know the context. Calling me stupid does not make that less true, and it certainly does not make me more likely to agree with you.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
how many of y'all actually are getting close to 150GB?
I work from home and we have 2 HTPC's that are streaming some netflix or hulu a fair bit (maybe 5hrs /wk ea?) i listen to streaming radio all day at work with a vpn going
this month I downloaded a shit ton of of stuff from technet around the 1st (15GB in one day) and still looking at the WAN Status page on my DD-WRT router I'm right under 60GB for the month. I scrolled back and at xmas time when I got a bunch of new stuff and was playing / downloading stuff for that the highest we got was 94GB, maybe i'm not trying hard enough but I'm having a hard time figuring out how I'd go past the cap (we have a 250GB cap w/ COX..meh).
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
If you think 150GB or 250GB is a "monthly cap", then let me tell you about how it works up here in Canada.
Some ISPs have 35GB/month limits.
Vote with my wallet? Sure. I can have high-speed internet from that company, dial-up internet from that same company or no internet at all.
This is a giant step backward for citizens of the United States. However, this is not an insurmountable problem. AT&T has just created opportunities for the building of community owned networks backed by non-profit corporations. AT&T's greed will drive some market forces. Let's just build an entirely separate internet on fully open standards/source that is totally separate from government and in the control of non-profits. We can use radio and wireless as the transmission means. Americans forget that the consumer is the one that reigns king, not the big boys. We can all vote with our wallets. If this gets big enough, we attract the interest of businesses like Netflix that would want connections to a community-based network. It will be David vs Goliath in modern times and, as history repeats itself, David will win again.
Dude, no one's arguing with you. We're just saying your post was long, boring, redundant and is preaching to the choir on Slashdot.
You could have said:
You might want to update your hosts file to ensure that you don't waste your bandwidth on ____, _____ and _____ . ______.com has a some pre-built hosts files that may be helpful.
Also, since lots of us use Macs, Linux and Android devices, you may want to provide instructions on how to use your hosts file with non-Windows systems.
-- $G
we should start enforcing the idea that ads on sites and streaming should be ELIMINATED.
I'm tired of looking at my internet usage, particularly on mobile platforms where I can be restricted to removing ad based links, some heavy with video, audio, flash and other bandwidth wasting goodies is eating up what I pay for.
It starts adding up and I'm tired of paying for the crap I don't want because advertisers force it down my throat.
You can quit giving orders. first of all. Secondly, you clearly trolling off topic fool, per this answer from you that finally answered my question of "is there an writing style critique forums here, and is the topic here on that much?":
"No. There is not" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
See subject & your answer above, goof - you're off topic right off the bat, so take your trolling ass out of here please... because the rest of what you wrote? UTTER BULLSHIT, period.
APK
P.S.=> FOR EXAMPLE:
"As to the the primary point, yes, having a hosts file that blocks certain ads can certainly help. It should cut the web browsing and DNS component of your bandwidth use. It will not help with Netflix, which is currently the elephant in the room, bandwidth-wise." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
Aha, SO you DO concede my point that using HOSTS files CAN conserve bandwidth (after you doubtless read my posts in their entirety you couldn't HELP but realize that much)... good, a "point in my favor" right off the bat!
The point here was to HELP PEOPLE CONSERVE BANDWIDTH, & you can speed up their access to NetFlix further even, by hardcoding the IP address of that site to your HOSTS as well (not just getting more of your money's worth by blocking out adbanners only).
Funniest part here, is, that recently? During the Fukishima incident in Japan?? The U.S. Military did the SAME IDEA - blocked out doubleclick adbanners to SAVE BANDWIDTH! They didn't use HOSTS for it, but they could have easily to the SAME EFFECT.
---
"Funny how you assume I don't have one." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
Wouldn't MATTER if you did, on 2 grounds here:
1.) An English PHD? Worth shit... face it, it is. It's NOT going to "cure cancer" or anything that will TRULY improve the human condition... & I really don't want to hear some "mile long speech" on how it has or will, ok? It'd just be more OFF-TOPIC BULLSHIT outta you, period!
2.) I've eaten PHD's for lunch... easily, & especially on the topic of computer sciences, not just "english professors", either!
... apk
TL;DR , TL;DR
I'm pretty sure the AT&T U-Verse users in some areas are not ready to receive the AT&T capping treatment just yet, because they promised they'd only do that once a tool is made available for the users to check on their monthly bandwidth usage. Currently (at least, last I checked last week), AT&T didn't have such a thing in place on their web site. (They have a page that says it will give this information out, but appears to only do so for DSL users right now.) Attempts to visit the page, as a U-Verse user, resulted in a brief message saying the feature wasn't ready yet and not to worry about bandwidth usage until it was ready.
1st of all: o much for this UTTER LIE from you:
"Also, since lots of us use Macs, Linux and Android devices, you may want to provide instructions on how to use your hosts file with non-Windows systems." - by salesgeek (263995) on Saturday April 30, @03:57PM (#35986330) Homepage
So, stick to sales, salesgeek... you're market-droid B.S.? Won't work here! I did note ANDROID, specifically in fact, in my init. posts' contents.
APK
P.S.=> Additionally, you may "give orders" where you work, but you "are not the boss of me" (as the brits are fond of saying iirc)... ok? Don't even TRY to tell me "how to post" because that alone makes you QUITE "off topic"... just like the wannabe PHD there also!
NOW - When I post, especially on technical material since the "devils ARE in the details" (not just the 10,000 foot bullshit view you sales drones have)!
I like detail, it tends to leave nearly no stones unturned... & IF you read my post, which you clearly did not??
The links on mvps.org tell ALL there is to know about HOSTS files, including how to use them on Linux, Macs, & other OS besides Windows also... so, so much for your off topic "critique"... apk
Since AT$T pioneered rollover minutes for their cell phone service, maybe they should consider doing the same with their internet service. Just as I don't talk the same amount each month, neither do I download the same each month.
I love them for cell service. Best thing going in my area. If they ever get around to offering their U-verse service here, I'd seriously consider them to replace my current isp, Charter (aka asshats).
The telcos have done *everything* they can to cripple expansive growth, so that *they can save infrastructure investment dollars*. In the offing, they have paid off our legislators and others who are supposed to be looking out for us. Their actions are nothing short of criminal, and are legal only because they pay for the laws that are supposed to "protect" the consumer.
In a word, these capping policies are UNAMERICAN (and, I'm not a nationalist, by any means.) What do these caps do to things like scientific research, education, legal artistic sharing, etc. etc. They *cripple* those innovations, thus crippling the forward promise of Americans, and America. Something HAS to be done; the pure profit motives at any cost of the grotesquely greedy telcos must be legislated. It's time to nationalize these companies, or else slap them upside the head so hard that they will start *serving* their customers instead of crimping their futures.
What's more, we need to start with the people who run these companies; we need to see them for what they are, and the large-scale harm that they do. They may be scions of their individual communities, and good parents, and all that, but they are literally putting us on a path that will disadvantage this country for decades, if someone doesn't put a stop to this egregious insult to information access, invention, and innovation.
Bandwidth is (theoretically) unlimited; we don't need to meter it; we need to *make it accessible*, and let 1000 ideas bloom. From now on, we must *insist* on nothing less - our future depends on it!
Are these 200 Mb/s connections people are talking about in parts of Europe and Asia getting anywhere close to that once you're off the ISP's network? Perusing through speedtest.net worldwide results seems to suggest that world wide, real world speeds are pretty similar. to each other.
When most of the long haul and medium haul fiber was laid, they didn't just bury what they needed, they buried a bunch of it. However most was never connected to equipment (lit up).
This dark fiber is still sitting in trenches and conduits (many were taxpayer funded) running along a huge number of US superhighways, and has not seen a single byte of data.
This is mostly because having additional capacity would remove the artifical limits, increase the supply and cause prices for internet access to drop.
While some companies have problems with "the last mile" (to the home), companies that ran fiber to the home like Verizon, are still attempting to limit bandwidth and create artifical shortages.
I've got a network of Macs sharing my AT&T DSL connection via an airport base station. Only the Mac Pro is hard-wired to the base station, all the other devices are 802.11n. The sum of my network expertise involves setting up WPA2 & MAC filtering on my base station, and occasionally restarting it.
None of the devices, other than the base station, is on 24/7. What software (or other method) can I use to monitor my usage?
Thanks in advance.
>> You can quit giving orders. first of all. Secondly, you clearly trolling off topic fool, per this answer from you that finally answered my question of "is there an writing style critique forums here, and is the topic here on that much?":
> "No. There is not" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
>> See subject & your answer above, goof - you're off topic right off the bat, so take your trolling ass out of here please... because the rest of what you wrote? UTTER BULLSHIT, period.
Seriously?
1) I didn't answer the question "finally." I answered it when you asked.
2) I don't recall giving orders, although I did say that ad hominem attacks generally make you look bad.
3) You are mischaracterizing my answers to your questions. As I said, there is not a separate forum here for critiques, but that does not mean critiques have no place. Also as I said, my answers are relevant to the conversation but not to the underlying topic of bandwidth caps.
4) In what way is it bullshit? Do you consider everything you disagree with or that criticizes you to be bullshit? Or do you simply consider it bullshit because you consider it off-topic, regardless of whether it is valid?
> "As to the the primary point, yes, having a hosts file that blocks certain ads can certainly help. It should cut the web browsing and DNS component of your bandwidth use. It will not help with Netflix, which is currently the elephant in the room, bandwidth-wise." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @03:45PM (#35986224)
> Aha, SO you DO concede my point that using HOSTS files CAN conserve bandwidth (after you doubtless read my posts in their entirety you couldn't HELP but realize that much)... good, a "point in my favor" right off the bat!
1) It is not conceding a point, it is agreeing with you, while recognizing some of the limits and costs of your suggestion. If you looked at my original post, I did not disagree with your point.
> The point here was to HELP PEOPLE CONSERVE BANDWIDTH, & you can speed up their access to NetFlix further even, by hardcoding the IP address of that site to your HOSTS as well (not just getting more of your money's worth by blocking out adbanners only).
A little bandwidth, in the case of Netflix--a DNS request is trivially tiny compared to the bandwidth you save on ads, and compared to Netflix bandwidth generally. It is also not clear that this is "your" money's worth. The advertisements pay for content on many web sites, and cutting into that revenue stream is a cost to society associated with your use of ad-blockers, since it takes away an incentive for content production. On the other hand, that also encourages companies to use less annoying ads, so that people won't bother to block them.
> Funniest part here, is, that recently? During the Fukishima incident in Japan?? The U.S. Military did the SAME IDEA - blocked out doubleclick adbanners to SAVE BANDWIDTH! They didn't use HOSTS for it, but they could have easily to the SAME EFFECT.
I fail to see how that is funny, although it is interesting.
---
> Wouldn't MATTER if you did, on 2 grounds here: ... 1.) An English PHD? Worth shit... face it, it is. It's NOT going to "cure cancer" or anything that will TRULY improve the human condition... & I really don't want to hear some "mile long speech" on how it has or will, ok? It'd just be more OFF-TOPIC BULLSHIT outta you, period! 2.) I've eaten PHD's for lunch... easily, & especially on the topic of computer sciences, not just "english professors", either!
1) You are the one who brought up the English Ph.D. as something that might give my arguments more credibility.
2) English majors don't cure cancer, and a Ph.D. is a piece of paper showing you've done some work. People with doctorates can be good or bad, and smart or dumb. I never said otherwise. As to the human condition, the truth is far more complex than you give it credit for, but I will spare you the mile long speech.
3) I don't care who you've eaten for lunch.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
This is just fucking sad.
Aside from the obvious BS from these corporate goons of ripping us all off, you have another factor. WiFi theft is going to be BIG now. I wonder how many antenna arrays are spawning clandestinely as we speak? I would think the WiFi industry would want to get some lobbyists over to Congress to reign in this highway robbery and giant step BACKWARDS in the information age.
Factor this, when your neighbor Bob gets a $2,874.56 Internet bill because the neighborhood kids all soaked off his open wifi router, he's going to flip out. And so are a lot of people, they aren't going to pay it and people will start leaving in droves to anything that isn't AT&T. I think the market will correct it's self, but in the mean time, there will be people getting burned with monster bills and AT&T are some down right bastards when you owe them money. I had them all over my ass before and they suck. We overpaid them by mistake a few dollars, and we refused to cash the refund check. lol. we figured it would set on the books like a herpes sore for the rest of time if we just ignored it. They have hounded me down now for about a decade trying to get me to take it...lol, I think it grew some interest. It's a weird way to say "fuck you" to them, but it works for me.
Take the Red Pill.
O...M...G
Well, anyone who has any knowledge of how the Internet works knew that there wasn't enough bandwidth for everyone to stream at the same time because the ISP business mode was based on overselling bandwidth. Plain and simple.
Any decent ISP can handle at least a few megabits per second to all its customers at the same time. But in this case, we're talking about AT&T DSL. In most service areas, advertised speeds are limited to a whopping 1.5 megabits per second, with typical speeds being even lower. At most, this is about 500GB/month, which should cost AT&T around $2.50 to provide (generously using $5/TB as AT&T's transit cost). A 6 megabit U-verse package would cost them $10/month at 100% capacity, and AT&T charges $40 for that service.
AT&T *could* handle all that traffic without raising subscription costs, if they were willing to sacrifice 10-30% of their subscription fees to data transit and they made a one-time investment to pay for some minor upgrades to their DSL networks. They just really don't want to.
I don't think this will catch on. Especially with Google seemingly threatening At&t's very existence with their pilot program in Kansas City.
Still, it's interesting to watch. I wonder how many customers over the next few months will leave at&t in favor of a different ISP that doesn't cap.
If I were an ISP (thankfully, I'm not) I would be watching how this goes down with great interest toward the result.
I think I'll do that anyway.
You may now gaze upon my greatness.
I am an ATT DSL customer and I got the same message.
"Here where I live the choices are AT&T DSL, comcast's "xfinity", dial-up, or satellite."
:(
I'm in a similar boat, so really all we have is AT&T and Cable. If those are bad, what is left?
Here's to hoping 4G and WiMAX are as good as they say! But I hear their caps are even worse....
From the looks of it my internet service in 2015 will be slower/worse than my internet in 2001
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
I get internet *only* via ethernet in the wall. I can select between 10/10 and 100/100 for $57/$150 a month respectively. There are no caps and no services attached, not even a firewall or silly nat. They focus on being a ISP. Oh and my ping to the backbone in Norway is around 0.8 ms... It's not as cheap as the 10/2 deals around but then again, it's scaled to be used, not milked.
Trust the very greedy US ISPs to do that.Well,since AT&T DSL is not in my area,I'm wondering when the rest of the ISPs start and force us back to hacking phone codes on dialup.
Geek Hillbilly
Nationalize all the communications wires in the country. All the phone, cable, internet wires. Then let anyone who wants bandwidth rent it at cost + 10% from the department of telecommunications that owns and operates the wires. Every ISP/telco/cable co in the whole country can rent those lines to deliver their services to every single person in the country. Or put another way every single person in the country can pick their cable (from every cable co in the whole country), they can pick their telco (from every telephone company in the whole country), and they can pick their ISP. Only the government would own the last mile, and they would be strictly limited in cost and service. We have national road service, national police service, national water etc, surely the wires are next?
This is proof that AT&T is not a broadband company. If AT&T is going to cap its users, this is AT&T's fault, not the users.
If AT&T cant provide its users with broadband without capping data usage, they are NOT providing broadband, they are simply a shit company incapable of delivering service to its customers.
My advice, CANCEL your AT&T immediately.
Put it this way. Only a shitty ISP/Broadband provider fails to understand that users will always demand increased bandwidth as technology advances.
AT&T is trying to fuck you over. CANCEL your accounts immediately, and TELL THEM EXACTLY WHY.
My advice to AT&T, start improving your shitty networks (internet and cellphone) or go out of business. Light is pretty much easy to produce. Lay down more fiber, and stop being a shitty fucking company trying to rape its subscribers.
I will use this time to acknowledge and praise Verizon for FIOS. I've been with them for years now. I was an early adopter of FIOS, I knew when it was coming. I anxiously awaited FIOS, and gladly left Cablevision to get on FIOS because like AT&T... Cablevision started to cap their users secretly, rather than upgrade their shitty networks.
Verizon brought Fiber to my house. AT&T.. Where the fuck were you?
SEE THE PROBLEM?
AT&T... You're LATE TO THE GAME, and you cant provide service because you refuse to be a quality company. Go out of buisness, the consumer doesnt give a shit if you cant provide a quality service.
It's impossible for any ISP to actually offer unlimited bandwidth to every customer, though some may claim to offer it. Generally they will have an unpublished cap that you don't know about because you haven't hit it yet.
Just pay Verizon $70/month for an unlimited LTE connection on a Thunderbolt. Then tether it and you'll be wire-free.
Maybe AT&T is the only game in town?
I've canceled every service I had with AT&T (including home phone service - I bought a Magic Jack and I'll being using that along with my cell phone which isn't with AT&T) and switched to Comcast business class for internet. No caps for me and more importantly, AT&T will get no more money from me. I will never use AT&T for anything again, unless it's out of my control.
You appear to be very, very confused as to the meaning of "broadband" and "bandwidth".
Broadband indicates that a wide spectrum of frequencies are used in signal modulation. If AT&T are using ADSL, they are using broadband.
Bandwidth refers to the cardinality of that spectrum.
If you're going to rant, pick words which you understand.
Well aside from the fact that some carriers don't allow tethering. I'm willing to bet that cellular could be the elephant in the room that gives wired ISPs the needed competition.
It does not matter. Terms of Service. Trust me I'm a customer of an ISP just like the next joe schmoe, and sure a cap can suck. But ya know what? I got myself into this. Every ISP, cell phone company, land line phone company, etc etc etc all has a Terms of Service, and one of the key things in pretty much every ToS is that the ToS can change at any time to reflect any changes the company wants, and you agree that it is ok with you that they do this and that you agree they are allowed to do this. Do caps suck? Yes. Does having sporadic speeds at times not reflect the advertised speeds suck? Yes. You however are the consumer. It is your responsibility to decide, if the service sucks do I continue to use it or do I move on to another ISP? Complaining to the ISP will not solve anything. Canceling service, and telling them this is exactly why you are canceling service, will not solve anything. For every one customer that cancels, AT&T and other large ISPs have dozens and dozens of brand new customers signing up. It would take mass droves of people leaving which, simply will not happen. Your options are as follows; Deal with whatever terms the ISP hands out. Discontinue service with that ISP and find service with another ISP. Most ISPs are going to have the same terms if not similar terms. And sadly some people WILL live in areas of the country where you may only have one choice of an ISP due to location and services offered in that area. That sucks and I can understand the hassle but unless you are willing to move, you can't really complain too much about having just one ISP in some out of the way boonies rural area, if it bothered you THAT much, you'd relocate. Do I think things should be better? Yes, they should. But this is the country we live in. You make due with what you've got.
Aw Frell this
Our power company has no problem delivering broaadband.
i have no issue with broadband caps AS LONG AS isp's have no issues giving up exclusive rights to geographical areas. as soon as time warner cable introduces caps i intend to petition for the eliination of their exclusive rights via the courts. are you sure you want to take that step time warner?
Wait, switching ISP won't fix anything? How do you figure that?
It sucks to be an American.
TL;DR TL;DR TL;DR
See subject-line:
"1) I didn't answer the question "finally." I answered it when you asked." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @06:17PM (#35987092)
Proving you're OFF TOPIC, as there IS NO WRITING STYLE FORUMS HERE, nor is the article's subject on "how to post according to YOU (the writing style troll)" & you're FAR from an authority on that to begin with.
---
"2) I don't recall giving orders, although I did say that ad hominem attacks generally make you look bad." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @06:17PM (#35987092)
Your constant being off topic & doing your blatantly OFF TOPIC writing style critiques makes you out to be the troll you clearly are... period.
---
"3) You are mischaracterizing my answers to your questions. As I said, there is not a separate forum here for critiques, but that does not mean critiques have no place. Also as I said, my answers are relevant to the conversation but not to the underlying topic of bandwidth caps." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @06:17PM (#35987092)
AND, You're once again, off topic.
---
"4) In what way is it bullshit? Do you consider everything you disagree with or that criticizes you to be bullshit? Or do you simply consider it bullshit because you consider it off-topic, regardless of whether it is valid?" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Saturday April 30, @06:17PM (#35987092)
It's bullshit because you're OFF TOPIC & have been the entire time you've posted here.
APK
P.S.=> I don't think this off topic troll even realizes that there's no "writing style forums" here, nor is the topic of this article on "how to post according to the writing style troll" (who himself is no expert on the subject whatsoever)... apk
Just tried hosts file from mvps.org. I am surfing way faster. It actually works. Thank you.
I live on a small island off the north coast of Vancouver Island in Canada. I can only dream of having caps as high as 150GB. Telus controls the market here and resells through a cable provider to us that lets us have 15GB. If I go over my limit, I get charged $9 for every GB. Even a trimmed down version of Netflix is out of the question. I would cost me $30+ to watch each movie. To make matters worse, there are no video stores up here either. Severe bandwidth caps such as these penalize rural Canadians and we can only hope a new government will change this situation. If only I could be capped at 150GB....
In response to your point 1: You accuse me of avoiding a question by saying I only answer it "finally," and then claim it is off-topic to respond that that is not true. So it is all right when you accuse me of avoiding a question, but horrible off-topic trolling for me to point out that I didn't? Regarding "writing style forums" and "you're FAR from an authority" we have discussed the former, and you have already said the latter (without foundation aside, perhaps, from your beliefs about my posts). Our posts can speak for themselves.
In response to your point 2: You accused me of giving orders. I said I did not. You responded "Your constant being off topic & doing your blatantly OFF TOPIC writing style critiques makes you out to be the troll you clearly are... period." However, I was not criticizing your *writing style*. I was saying your claim--that I was giving orders--was simply *wrong*.
In response to your point 3: Again, I was not criticizing your writing style. I was saying your claims about what I had said were *wrong*.
In response to your point 4: Interesting. We have different ideas about the definition of bullshit, and about what it means to be off-topic, and about style v. content.
In response to your PS: Repeating your position does not make it less false or more true. You are still as wrong on the things you're wrong about and as right on the things you're right about. Calling me names won't change that. As to whether I am expert at "the subject," whether you are referring to bandwidth management or writing style or something in between, you are again making a claim without foundation.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Also, for all your concern about my off-topic-ness, you neither responded to nor acknowledged the part of my post that was directly on point, i.e. about the limitations of a hosts file in conserving bandwidth, choosing instead to attack other points for being off-topic and generally calling me not an expert despite the validity of the technical points I made.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I have DSL from AT&T. How can I check to see how much I have used in a month? What happens as I approach the limit? What happens when I cross it? Could someone please provide me with helpful links, thanks.
During the Fukishima nuclear problem in Japan - the US Militiary blocked out adbanners to gain back bandwidth. They did that via routers rules tables, but the same effect can be had by a normal "end user" easily by using a HOSTS file to do the same.
"A little bandwidth, in the case of Netflix--a DNS request is trivially tiny compared to the bandwidth you save on ads, and compared to Netflix bandwidth generally." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @01:11PM (#35991478)
So you DO concede that blocking adbanners will save bandwidth (to offset some of the capping being done by the likes of AT&T & others)... I don't blame you that, because it's UNDENIABLE, & quite a noticeable speed boost (as well as a potential security measure vs. maliciously scripted adbanners).
Hardcoding IP Address - to - Hostname/Domainname to avoid DNS gets you that much more in speed too!
---
"It is also not clear that this is "your" money's worth.." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @01:11PM (#35991478)
AHEM: Well, it's VERY CLEAR TO MYSELF - as I pay a monthly fee to a broadband service provider for a certain amount of bandwidth... & I WANT ALL OF IT (not 1/2, not some... ALL).
The way I get it ALL?
Simple: Block out crap I do not want to see like adbanners & this also keeps me safe from maliciously scripted adbanners as well, no questions asked (because you cannot get "burned" if you don't go into the malware kitchen, so-to-speak).
---
"The advertisements pay for content on many web sites, and cutting into that revenue stream is a cost to society associated with your use of ad-blockers, since it takes away an incentive for content production." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @01:11PM (#35991478)
Then, they were NEVER serious OR passionate about what they were doing in the 1st place then & were ONLY AFTER THE EASY MONEY...bottom-line/point-blank, in a nutshell, right there!
"The times they ARE a changin'" & more and more folks are using adblock &/or HOSTS files (as well as built in browser block lists such as IE restricted zones, TPL's, FF's own built in list, & Opera's as well).
---
"On the other hand, that also encourages companies to use less annoying ads, so that people won't bother to block them." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @01:11PM (#35991478)
Which STILL CUTS INTO LINESPEED I PAY FOR, so... "no, no senor", I'll keep getting ALL OF WHAT I PAY FOR, via blocking out potentially maliciously scripted adbanners that soak up speed I bought (& I don't want to see them in the 1st place anyhow).
APK
See subject-line:
"Our posts can speak for themselves." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @01:04PM (#35991418)
You're completely off topic & have been for NEARLY the ENTIRE TIME you've been here troll!
APK
P.S.=> OR, is this the:
---
1.) "Writing style critique" section of this forums? Ahem - THERE IS NO SUCH SECTION!
2.) Is this topic & article about how to write posts on forums?? No again!
---
... apk
*cough*Blood Diamonds*cough**cough*. Naw, couldn't be. Must be all those Lazy brown people.
Still, nice try.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Where do you get "twice as expense per month"? Maybe for DSL.
Not for Comcast Business.
It's $20.00 extra per month.
50/10 residential is $169.95 w/ a 250GB cap.
50/10 business is $189.95 w/ no cap, and I can get static IPs, and run as many servers as I want.
(Atlanta region)
The military was probably concerned about it for low bandwidth applications, kind of like how CNN turned off all advertising and just used a text page on 9/11. But as compared to video streaming, it would be much less useful.
> So you DO concede that blocking adbanners will save bandwidth (to offset some of the capping being done by the likes of AT&T & others)... I don't blame you that, because it's UNDENIABLE, & quite a noticeable speed boost (as well as a potential security measure vs. maliciously scripted adbanners).
I agree that it will save some bandwidth. (Which is not a concession, but I suppose is close enough for government work. :)) I agree not because it is undeniable, but because it is true, as I said. It is also a speed boost, although whether it is a noticeable one depends on a lot of variables. Certainly on low end machines or with badly done advertising it can be. And it can theoretically help with security, although NoScript and the like will help more.
I do not think it will significantly offset capping. It will reduce bandwidth. If you characterize it as a loss of a theoretical full pipe... Even if you save 250K/page (I am not sure what the statistics show these days), it would take 600,000 page views to reach the AT&T cap. If movies are ~300 megs, you'd need 1200 page views per movie for the bandwidth savings to keep the movies from reaching the cap, assuming you were at the cap beforehand. So it can help, but if people are using netflix or other broadband sites and utilities it will be a bit of a drop in the bucket.
Even if you have only a 250KBps connection, 250*60*60*24*30/1024 ~= 630 GB, about four times AT&T's cap. If all you did was viewed pages, you would need to save about 15 GB worth of ad bandwidth a day to offset the lost amount. That's A LOT of advertisements, and connections tend to be a lot faster than that. So you save bandwidth, but it's a drop in the bucket.
You pay your ISP for your internet service. They have a huge advantage in negotiating power, but if they change the contract so it has a cap, and you continue to buy the service, you are paying for the service with a cap--not for the bandwidth without a cap. They may be engaging in false advertising by continuing to advertise by bandwidth, but you are getting what they are agreeing in the contract to sell you. If you don't like it, you have to find someone else to provide the service without a cap.
As to the idea that people don't care about content if they are depending on advertising revenue, think about that for a second. Almost all of television is paid for by advertising revenue. Facebook and Google are paid for by advertising revenue. Millions of people who care about content they produce are supported by advertising revenue.
There is also an argument that you steal what they are paying for. Companies have to pay for bandwidth too, and content, for you to look at their page. They provide you some bandwidth and the content as part of an integrated transaction in which you receive both content that you are looking for, to make the transaction worthwhile to you, and advertising they are selling, to make the transaction worthwhile to them. Even if you don't call this stealing, but only describe it economically, it is still a cost to society for ad-blocking.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
See subject-line, & this statement from yourself:
"I agree that it will save some bandwidth." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:26PM (#35992306)
That's all I really wanted to hear: That you DO know that bandwidth you pay for is saved for useful things, especially vs. bandwidth caps per month like AT&T is instituting (per this article's premise).
---
"It is also a speed boost, although whether it is a noticeable one depends on a lot of variables. Certainly on low end machines or with badly done advertising it can be. And it can theoretically help with security, although NoScript and the like will help more." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:26PM (#35992306)
Here are some people, other than myself, that can testify to & "immediately SECOND" what you have stated (& that I always have from the onset here), that there IS A SPEED BOOST & IT IS NOTICEABLE:
"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal
AND, Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM (A Symantec subsidiary):
A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):
---
"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."
Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!
---
"I do not think it will significantly offset capping. It will reduce bandwidth" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:26PM (#35992306)
Above here earlier, I quote you @ the top of this very reply of mine to you stating it WILL save bandwidth, & IF HOSTS FILES DO THAT (and, they do)? Then, you ARE "off setting" caps (putting them off farther into the distance, because you didn't waste bandwidth sucking in adbanners all month long during your billing cycle).
---
"There is also an argument that you steal what they are paying for." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:26PM (#35992306)
Funny: I didn't see any "locked doors" on any of these websites, first of all... & secondly? Too bad - it's still MY MONIES being spent for online time & I want ALL of what I paid for (not 1/2, not just some... ALL!).
They can always go to a "pay model" if they like, as the N.Y. Times has for instance... which has "gone over like a lead balloon" & folks go to their competition now is all by the droves!
APK
Each time you say that, we get a bit further removed from the point. As is clear, we disagree.
As to trolling, "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." [Wikipedia]
I clearly believe your responses have been inappropriate, as they include significant name-calling and derogatory remarks. You clearly believe my responses have been off-topic, as I have pointed out it might be more helpful not to go around calling people names. We disagree.
Also of interest from that article:
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
No, because your OWN WORDS made my point for me!
"Each time you say that, we get a bit further removed from the point." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
Ahem:
---
1.) Is the topic here about AT&T instituting bandwidth caps on users? Yes, it is.
2.) Do HOSTS files save you bandwidth by blocking out adbanners?? Yes, they do (you even said it yourself, for Pete's sake!)
---
Now, given those 2 points?
If you are NOT USING AS MUCH BANDWIDTH A MONTH ON ADBANNERS, YOU WILL BE OFFSETTING THAT BANDWIDTH CAP (lessening how fast you hit it, in other words).
Period!
---
"I clearly believe your responses have been inappropriate, as they include significant name-calling and derogatory remarks." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
I KNOW you've been "off topic" here nearly the ENTIRE time, and I blew you away above on the very point of this article & what I stated can lessen its effects (hosts files usage to block out adbanners).
APK
P.S.=>
"Application of the term troll is subjective." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
LMAO - who are you trying to fool here? You came in here with some OFF TOPIC "writing style troll" post... and kept it up! That's TROLLING TO THE MAX, & the "oldest troll trick in the book"...
Funny how well you read my posts NOW though, eh?
Lastly - You weren't on topic until I pointed it out, and then when you tried to be "on topic"?? See the 1st paragraphs of this reply here... your showing??? Not good! apk
Selective quotation of my words does not change what I said. You are again mischaracterizing my statements.
It will save bandwidth. BUT the bandwidth saved is small compared to broadband bandwidth. It WILL NOT come close to offsetting the theoretical bandwidth lost by a bandwidth cap, from full pipe 24/7 to capped, for even a 250KBps pipe. It WILL in at least certain circumstances save time. It WILL in at least some cases be more secure. NoScript helps more in that department.
Finally, you are not the only person spending money. Your downloading costs other people money too. Paywalls as locked doors are a poor answer because then you are requiring everyone to be inconvenienced. If everyone did what you are suggesting, it would eliminate much of the internet.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
No, because your OWN WORDS made my point for me!
Not sure what you're responding to.
"Each time you say that, we get a bit further removed from the point." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
We do. Hello Pot, this is Kettle.
Ahem:
---
1.) Is the topic here about AT&T instituting bandwidth caps on users? Yes, it is.
2.) Do HOSTS files save you bandwidth by blocking out adbanners?? Yes, they do (you even said it yourself, for Pete's sake!)
---
Now, given those 2 points?
If you are NOT USING AS MUCH BANDWIDTH A MONTH ON ADBANNERS, YOU WILL BE OFFSETTING THAT BANDWIDTH CAP (lessening how fast you hit it, in other words).
Period!
---
You will be "lessening how fast you hit it" as you put it, yes. I never said otherwise. But the gain is limited because most website ads are small compared to video. But that discussion is in another thread.
"I clearly believe your responses have been inappropriate, as they include significant name-calling and derogatory remarks." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
I KNOW you've been "off topic" here nearly the ENTIRE time, and I blew you away above on the very point of this article & what I stated can lessen its effects (hosts files usage to block out adbanners).
APK
P.S.=>
(1) Yes, I know you believe that, for the first part. You've said it repeatedly.
(2) You blew me away on the point of this article? Are you kidding? I never disagreed with the notion of the article. I pointed out limitations and suggested you not make ad hominem attacks. You have a very strange definition of blowing people away.
"Application of the term troll is subjective." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:40PM (#35992406)
LMAO - who are you trying to fool here? You came in here with some OFF TOPIC "writing style troll" post... and kept it up! That's TROLLING TO THE MAX, & the "oldest troll trick in the book"...
Funny how well you read my posts NOW though, eh?
Lastly - You weren't on topic until I pointed it out, and then when you tried to be "on topic"?? See the 1st paragraphs of this reply here... your showing??? Not good! apk
Nobody. You have driven them all away. I read your posts well in the beginning. They were insulting and childish, and remain so. I do not know why you are quoting "on topic." Since you complained about a lack of on-topicness, yes, I replied.
And my showing was fine. You keep quoting me and pretending that the quotes mean something other than what they do, or more than what they do. I am not sure whether it is because you believe it or because you are used to scoring cheap points.
I hope you get better.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
"And my showing was fine" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
LMAO - yea: FINE FOR ME, & helping ME, make MY points here that HOSTS files can save you bandwidth, AND @ THE SAME TIME, GET YOU BETTER SPEED + SECURITY ONLINE!
I.E.-> When you admitted that blocking adbanners saves bandwidth, that's stating it helps offset this "bandwidth cap" being instituted by AT&T + other carriers/ISPs-BSPs!
(LOL, where are my manners? Ah, I just gotta say it: Thanks!)
---
"You keep quoting me and pretending that the quotes mean something other than what they do, or more than what they do. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
ROTFLMAO - See my last paragraph of my reply to you here... & "drink it in and digest it", because you only make my point FOR ME, easily, in your admitting that HOSTS files can save bandwidth & thus, offset hitting a cap in bandwidth earlier than you have to (if @ all, period)!
---
"I am not sure whether it is because you believe it or because you are used to scoring cheap points." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
You're just used to LOSING because of your off-topic trolling is all... lol!
---
"Nobody. You have driven them all away." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
LOL, you mean the OTHER TROLLS, off topic as they were (much like yourself for MOST of this exchange, what w/ your CLEARLY OFF TOPIC "writing critique" trolling, lol!)
---
"I read your posts well in the beginning." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
Then, WHY DID YOU DO YOUR CLEARLY OFF TOPIC "writing critique" trolling for then?
(Answer = SO YOU COULD BE THE TROLL YOU CLEARLY, are...)
---
"They were insulting and childish, and remain so." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
OH, lol, REALLY? LMAO - well, I @ least, STAY ON TOPIC, unlike yourself, troll...
---
"Since you complained about a lack of on-topicness, yes, I replied." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
LOL, you basically HAD TO, because you were way, Way, WAY OFF TOPIC (like trolls usually are).
---
"I hope you get better." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
I endeavor to do so, every day of my existence...
APK
P.S.=> No troll here EVER "gets the best of me"... trolls lack the intelligence to do so is why! apk
See this quote from yourself, yet again:
"It will save bandwidth." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
That's all that really had to be said, & you did the saying of it... period!
---
"BUT the bandwidth saved is small compared to broadband bandwidth. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
Oh, really? Then why did the U.S. Military do the same basic thing during the Fukishima crisis?? To SAVE BANDWIDTH:
---
US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth
---
(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Part of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)
---
"It WILL NOT come close to offsetting the theoretical bandwidth lost by a bandwidth cap, from full pipe 24/7 to capped, for even a 250KBps pipe. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
You said it yourself above: Again - HOSTS can save a user bandwidth - & in doing that VERY THING? It helps you NOT have to hit that limit, sooner, by downloading adbanners!
Period...
---
"IIt WILL in at least certain circumstances save time. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
There you go: HOSTS FILES ROCK!
---
"It WILL in at least some cases be more secure. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
There you go, AGAIN: HOSTS FILES ABSOLUTELY ROCK!
---
"Finally, you are not the only person spending money. Your downloading costs other people money too. Paywalls as locked doors are a poor answer because then you are requiring everyone to be inconvenienced. If everyone did what you are suggesting, it would eliminate much of the internet." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
Too bad, because MY MONEY COMES FIRST! I wouldn't be able to do the internet if I couldn't pay for it, & what I pay for? I WANT ALL OF (not just some, not 1/2, ALL of my purchased bandwidth rating), & if some sites die (and they do)?? That's the LAW OF THE JUNGLE (only the STRONG survive).
---
"INoScript helps more in that department. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
It's useful, but HOSTS actually do it "1 better" on adbanners - & on a VERY SIMPLE PRINCIPAL:
"You can't get BURNED if you don't go into the malware kitchen"
(I.E.-> What you can't touch/see online, cannot harm you!)
APK
P.S.=> Fact is, & you OVERLOOKED THIS:
I recommend NoScript!
I recommend "layered security" in fact... do ALL you can really!
(You'd have KNOWN THAT, if only you would have bothered to read the points I put up in favor of HOSTS files over Adblock &/or DNS Servers alone)
... apk
>"BUT the bandwidth saved is small compared to broadband bandwidth. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
>"Oh, really? Then why did the U.S. Military do the same basic thing during the Fukishima crisis?? To SAVE BANDWIDTH"
The two statements are not incongruous.
Merely because something saves bandwidth, it does not necessarily save enough to be particularly useful in a given situation and with a given net usage pattern. You repeatedly ignore this point.
>"It WILL NOT come close to offsetting the theoretical bandwidth lost by a bandwidth cap, from full pipe 24/7 to capped, for even a 250KBps pipe. " - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @03:54PM (#35992466)
>You said it yourself above: Again - HOSTS can save a user bandwidth - & in doing that VERY THING? It helps you NOT have to hit that limit, sooner, by downloading adbanners!
>Period...
I never disagreed with that. What I say is that the improvement is not great. There is a difference between a fact and its importance.
Did you recommend noscript? Well, good. I did see you recommended layered security, but must have overlooked the noscript recommendation.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
> "I hope you get better." - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @04:14PM (#35992584)
> I endeavor to do so, every day of my existence...
> APK
Good. You might start, when someone points out that you are being childish, by not saying [paraphrasing] "at least I'm not a troll."
As to my showing, it was fine. I agree with your point that the hosts file, if used properly, can save some bandwidth. I do not think the bandwidth it saves is significant in all cases. You view my agreement with the first point as some sort of evidence I did not make a good showing. But real conversations are not binary. I can agree with your point and still have something else relevant to say which diminishes the importance of your point, as here.
> P.S.=> No troll here EVER "gets the best of me"... trolls lack the intelligence to do so is why! apk
Do you just mean that you never seem to lose an argument?
Then why are you posting as A/C? Why, when you were modded down, did you attack a person who found your comment too long and accuse him of not being able to read AND of being the same person who modded you down? Why do you repeatedly call people names? Why do you take quotes out of context and pretend that they state more or other than they do? Why do you pretend you are winning points in an argument when they are points on which we agree?
As the Wikipedia article points out, trolling is subjective. From your POV, I am a troll because you consider me off-topic. From my POV, you are a troll because you are insulting people and are generally not behaving in a way that is normal for the forum. But I do not go around calling you one, because it would not be helpful. I am not trying to fool anyone, I am suggesting that you think about the way you are talking. Your second to last point, about endeavoring to improve yourself every day of your existence, is by far the thing that makes you look best in your most recent response. Notice how it is not insulting anyone. When you go on to insult me in your PS, you look far worse. There is a lesson there. If you truly wish to improve, I suggest you take it.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I don't understand how capping a line would change any usage of bandwidth. For instance 10 homes on a block share a 100mb connection and they all are on the internet at the same time they should be getting 10mb each. Lets say 8 cus we don't want to push theoretical maximums and cause problems. Now say that one person hit their cap and doesn't go on the internet anymore. So now you have homes sharing the same line at 80% the theoretical limit. 80 / 9 = 8.89mbs. Being a shared line everyone else would get a speed bump but the same amount of data is going over the network. On understanding of the internet, it is a shared network so no matter what, the same amount of data should be being pushed through the network. No matter how many people are using it or not. I only pay for 10mb down / 1mb up and when its late at night i can get 20+mb down. But my Upload is always the same at .95mb. But during peek I get 5mb down .95mb up.
And is this cap for both Downloads and Uploads? I'm sure it is.
No what's gonna happen if, for instance, Apple goes download only for it's new OS or other large Applications, sure it won't. The average family I'm sure has atleast 4 computers. Say they were all apples and lion was download only thru App store. I'm sure the size of lion will be about the same size as previous OS which, I think if memory serves, 6.8GBs. 250 / (4 x 6.8) = 9.19% of monthly data has been used. Then there's the software updates iLife, iWork and Final Cut ect. You can see where I'm going with this.
This is wrong. And I'm sure it's all planned this way to keep us "poor" enough so we don't have time to protest or fight back cus we don't time to cus we're working all the time. It used to be in old days whole towns would be burning down company buildings over this. In no way am I saying thats what should be done. But, you have to admit it sure does get the point across. And it works. Pitch forks, torches and angry people!!!
Pitch Forks: check Torches: check Angry People: check - A. LaChasse V for Victory
Can HOSTS files cut down on bandwidth usage?
APK
P.S.=> Yes or No answer is all that is expected, no trolling crapfloods need apply... apk
Don't have to: U make it "too, Too, TOO EASY" Â... lol!
To wit/e.g.:
"I agree with your point that the hosts file, if used properly, can save some bandwidth" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
Ah, Thank you, for answering the question I asked of you here:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35993410
(And, as per usual, vs. off topic trolls? I win... lol!)
---
"you attack a person who found your comment too long and accuse him of not being able to read" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
He apparently couldn't. You said the same thing in essence, & yet? LMAO - You seem to read & respond to my replies & points made in them, even agreeing with them (lol, see above)... & yet, you came in here giving me some "how to post on forums" lesson??
Please... lol!
---
"Why do you repeatedly call people names?" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
I only call a spade, a spade (to quote a phrase)
... & a troll a troll.
---
"From your POV, I am a troll because you consider me off-topic" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
You were! Is this article about "how to post correctly according to Mr. Troll" (lol, you)? No.
(You're a damn troll, & off topic troll @ that, no doubt about it!)
APK
P.S.=> That'd be from the greatest authority there is, & that's the NORMAL PERSON'S POV: Mine ( &, not an off-topic trolls' opinion, which is yours)!
...apk
> That'd be from the greatest authority there is, & that's the NORMAL PERSON'S POV: Mine ( &, not an off-topic trolls' opinion, which is yours)!
Hahahahaha.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
> "you attack a person who found your comment too long and accuse him of not being able to read" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
> He apparently couldn't.
He didn't. That is not the same as he couldn't. You are wrong.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
You DO appear to be just a little "wee bit off", lol...
APK
P.S.=> Why did you run from this SIMPLE question:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35993410
?
( "Inquring minds, want to know..." )
LMAO... apk
Who's evading answering simple questions no less also...
APK
P.S.=> Why did you run from this SIMPLE question:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35993410
?
( "Inquring minds, want to know..." )
... apk
I answered it numerous times.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I answered that question many times.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
As you ADMITTED hosts files can save on bandwidth - case-in-point, e.g./to wit, quoted verbatim from YOU
---
"I agree with your point that the hosts file, if used properly, can save some bandwidth" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35993480
---
So, that being the case, & IN MY FAVOR here?
Well - whatever WAS your "so-called point" here, other than trolling myself off-topic then?
APK
P.S.=> This? This was all just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", lmao!
... apk
As you ADMITTED hosts files can save on bandwidth - case-in-point, e.g./to wit, quoted verbatim from YOU
---
"I agree with your point that the hosts file, if used properly, can save some bandwidth" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @05:42PM (#35993170)
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35993480
---
So, that being the case, & IN MY FAVOR here?
Well - whatever WAS your "so-called point" here, other than trolling myself off-topic then?
APK
P.S.=> This? Man - lol, I just GOTTA say it: This was all just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", lmao!
... apk
Of course you were wrong. Everybody is wrong about something. I have corrected you on so many points I don't know which one I was referring to. All you do is recycle old words and quote things and pretend they must mean other things.
I made numerous points, about why banner ad bandwidth saving is a drop in the bucket next to netflix and modern usage profiles, about how many of your claims were wrong, like claiming the first poster couldn't read, among others. Instead of asking me, why don't you try reading them again? Instead, you latch onto an area we agree on and say it's in your favor. Newsflash: I don't disagree that it can save bandwidth. That is not a point "in your favor," it is simply a point, because we agree. It is not a point I "conceded," it is not a sign that you are "winning," whatever that means, and it is something that I have said many times because you seem to love pointing out that I have said it and pretending it invalidates everything else I have said.
It does not.
You are only pretending it does, either to yourself or to others. Perhaps you are convinced you can't be wrong, so you thread things together and imply they make other things true, when they do not logically follow. You are like the person who responds to "Country X is committing war crimes" with "General so-and-so says country X has done a lot for human rights so you MUST be wrong & I win."
And you have no idea how to engage with intelligent people. You are only attempting to ride over them, which is probably why you say you have eaten people for lunch.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
It looks way better than the condition in India, where unlimited broadband plans are practically unlimited only for the first 8GB, after which the speed is throttled down to 256 kbps from a promised 8 mbps. While the non-unlimited ones charge Rs.250 (5.63 USD) per month upto a 1GB limit. After which it's Rs. 0.60 (0.01 USD) per MB, for a speed of 2 mbps.
Which my MAIN POINT here, was this:
"Newsflash: I don't disagree that it can save bandwidth. That is not a point "in your favor," it is simply a point, because we agree" - by Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) on Sunday May 01, @09:55PM (#35994684)
Which, of course, WAS MY "MAIN POINT" HERE: Using HOSTS files can help you save bandwidth vs. caps on it by ISP/BSP's like AT&T!
APK
P.S.=> Once again - Thanks for helping ME make my point! apk
At least they didn't start at 60GB like Bell and Rogers in Canada and actually make some accounts lower than that...