Seed every linux distro and other legit torrents you can get your hands on. I broke 600GB/week that way. Before they "raised" the previously non-existent cap anyway.
They sold me mine as unlimited. I made damn sure when I signed up that there wasn't a cap. I asked several times, in person. Six months later, they gave the "good news" that the cap was being raised from 250 to 300. Outrageous.
Four people watching Netflix (h.264) uses less bandwidth than four people watching channel 4 (MPEG2). Comcast likes to pretend you have two different lines.
No, it doesn't slow you down. That's their excuse, and it is a lie. Even if it wasn't, it would be Comcast's fault for selling data rates they can't supply. If I'm paying for 75mbs, I get to use it. A monthly cap does nothing to secure your bandwidth - I could be maxing mine while you're asleep, never interfering with you and still facing an arbitrary cap.
QoS throttling is what keeps your neighbor's torrents from impacting you, not a cap.
Last I checked, many of their channels and On Demand content were MPEG2 streams. That those use more bandwidth than Netfilx's 264 streams doesn't seem to matter somehow. I tried to point that out, but they pretended it was somehow different.
This was about three years ago now, and I since moved to an area they don't operate.
Anyhow, I went to their local office to sign up for service and get my equipment. I asked the rep specifically and in no uncertain terms, "is there a data cap?" The answer was no. To be sure, I explained what I meant - some limit over which I would be charged extra. The answer was still no. This was in June.
In December, I got an email announcing the "great news" that the cap was being raised from 250 to 300GB! So I called them and pointed out that this was complete and total BS, as I had been assured that no cap existed, so they weren't actually raising it they were creating it. The response was, "Oh, there was always a cap, we just didn't enforce it." I asked who was lying to me, the person telling me there was always a cap, or the manager at the service location. Not receiving an answer, I suggested they fuck themselves, sideways, with a chainsaw. Several later calls ended the same way.
I stopped peering linux and other 100% legitimate torrents just in case. I got a call one month that I was exceeding the cap, and had another long phone battle and had to threaten to take it up with the FTC to get them to waive it. I again recommended chainsaw insertion several times. Most conversations I had with Comcast involved that recommendation, as well as pointing out how they lied to me on several occasions.
My new provider, Charter, makes "No Cap" part of their marketing. They have yet to lie to me about anything. Comcast did try to extract an "early cancelation" fee from me when I moved, despite the fact that I made every effort to retain the service, and it was they who broke the contract by refusing to provide service at my new address. Also, when I told them I was moving, I told the woman they better not try to charge such a fee after I made a good faith effort to continue service. She said they wouldn't, since it was their fault and not mine. I was then transferred to someone who said, "$250". They appear to have dropped it.
Comcast lies. The way they do business is abhorrent, and it needs to stop. If someone is filing a class action suit, let me know. I want in.
Thank you! That does give their argument a little more credence, but maybe not enough. For one, it seems their assumption is flawed - based on an expectation that doesn't line up with real-world usage. And so far as I know, the FCC hasn't said that QoS is against the rules, and unlike hardlines, there's no set data rate. The problem isn't the total amount of data used per month, it's peak-hours bandwidth consumption.
AT&T got in trouble for throttling data after reaching a secret limit, which was a dirty trick. On the other hand, throttling during peak hours should be fine - that's just sane traffic shaping, right?
Okay, Holocaust denial and inciting racial hatred are crimes. Fine, whatever. But Facebook isn't the police. It isn't their job to keep people from getting in legal trouble. If someone is trying to break the law in Germany, let them so the police can arrest them. You don't tell a heroin dealer "Shh! You'll get in trouble!", you call the cops.
Are there added costs to cell providers when people use bandwidth, or is it like cable where once the infrastructure is in place, costs are basically fixed?
DNA tests are also time-consuming and forensic labs probably have more important things to do. That said, a DNA registry for pets could have many more important uses than figuring out who to mail the poo to (though I love the idea. Hope they label the package deceptively so people are fooled into opening it).
I suppose that if a municipality has the money, lab time, and desire to do it then they're welcome to do so, but given the testing backlog US cities face I have serious doubts that the results could come back in time to return the poo while still fresh.
That's happened. I think it was a cell tower. Residents were complaining about the supposed health effects, so they turned it off but didn't tell anyone. Complaints continued.
I support users her age and older who are both decidedly less intelligent and so illiterate they don't know what a window is, and they are wholly aware of what it means to wipe a computer. I just don't buy it. Thirty years ago maybe, but now I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know what it means.
Politicians from any party lie for the same reasons as anyone else and about the same general things. That's just something humans are liable to do.
Not sure what the point of those last two sentences is. Something of a non sequitur considering the context and preceding statements. And it pointlessly creates an opening to discuss whether the Left would appreciate having people on the Right define why a person would want to hook up to their wagon. In other words, stop trying to pick a fight. Especially one that will instantly devolve into endless rounds of name-calling.
Slashdot Mirror
Seed every linux distro and other legit torrents you can get your hands on. I broke 600GB/week that way. Before they "raised" the previously non-existent cap anyway.
Oops, did I say "peering" when I meant "seeding"?
They sold me mine as unlimited. I made damn sure when I signed up that there wasn't a cap. I asked several times, in person. Six months later, they gave the "good news" that the cap was being raised from 250 to 300. Outrageous.
Four people watching Netflix (h.264) uses less bandwidth than four people watching channel 4 (MPEG2). Comcast likes to pretend you have two different lines.
No, if I'm paying for 75 megabits per second, and using it, I'm getting what I paid for. The monthly total is irrelevant.
QoS throttling is what keeps your neighbor's torrents from impacting you, not a cap.
I broke 600GB in a week once. May have been 720, but I forget.
Last I checked, many of their channels and On Demand content were MPEG2 streams. That those use more bandwidth than Netfilx's 264 streams doesn't seem to matter somehow. I tried to point that out, but they pretended it was somehow different.
Anyhow, I went to their local office to sign up for service and get my equipment. I asked the rep specifically and in no uncertain terms, "is there a data cap?" The answer was no. To be sure, I explained what I meant - some limit over which I would be charged extra. The answer was still no. This was in June.
In December, I got an email announcing the "great news" that the cap was being raised from 250 to 300GB! So I called them and pointed out that this was complete and total BS, as I had been assured that no cap existed, so they weren't actually raising it they were creating it. The response was, "Oh, there was always a cap, we just didn't enforce it." I asked who was lying to me, the person telling me there was always a cap, or the manager at the service location. Not receiving an answer, I suggested they fuck themselves, sideways, with a chainsaw. Several later calls ended the same way.
I stopped peering linux and other 100% legitimate torrents just in case. I got a call one month that I was exceeding the cap, and had another long phone battle and had to threaten to take it up with the FTC to get them to waive it. I again recommended chainsaw insertion several times. Most conversations I had with Comcast involved that recommendation, as well as pointing out how they lied to me on several occasions.
My new provider, Charter, makes "No Cap" part of their marketing. They have yet to lie to me about anything. Comcast did try to extract an "early cancelation" fee from me when I moved, despite the fact that I made every effort to retain the service, and it was they who broke the contract by refusing to provide service at my new address. Also, when I told them I was moving, I told the woman they better not try to charge such a fee after I made a good faith effort to continue service. She said they wouldn't, since it was their fault and not mine. I was then transferred to someone who said, "$250". They appear to have dropped it.
Comcast lies. The way they do business is abhorrent, and it needs to stop. If someone is filing a class action suit, let me know. I want in.
Leave Beijing if you want to breathe.
Dang, I thought they got in more trouble for that.
Obama can't have anything named after him. Only fair.
The 25th President of the US. He was assassinated shortly after winning a second term.
AT&T got in trouble for throttling data after reaching a secret limit, which was a dirty trick. On the other hand, throttling during peak hours should be fine - that's just sane traffic shaping, right?
Okay, Holocaust denial and inciting racial hatred are crimes. Fine, whatever. But Facebook isn't the police. It isn't their job to keep people from getting in legal trouble. If someone is trying to break the law in Germany, let them so the police can arrest them. You don't tell a heroin dealer "Shh! You'll get in trouble!", you call the cops.
Sure, it's a lot, but does the provider face extra costs in supplying it? I'm really asking.
Are there added costs to cell providers when people use bandwidth, or is it like cable where once the infrastructure is in place, costs are basically fixed?
I suppose that if a municipality has the money, lab time, and desire to do it then they're welcome to do so, but given the testing backlog US cities face I have serious doubts that the results could come back in time to return the poo while still fresh.
I was thinking, "Findings"
Or maybe it's a case of tl;dr
Which they must have been doing if it will only take two years. The infrastructure must already be able to handle it in most areas.
Clearly, the issue is that the school is using G when they should really be using N or ac. The student is just upset about the lack of bandwidth.
That's happened. I think it was a cell tower. Residents were complaining about the supposed health effects, so they turned it off but didn't tell anyone. Complaints continued.
I support users her age and older who are both decidedly less intelligent and so illiterate they don't know what a window is, and they are wholly aware of what it means to wipe a computer. I just don't buy it. Thirty years ago maybe, but now I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't know what it means.
Not sure what the point of those last two sentences is. Something of a non sequitur considering the context and preceding statements. And it pointlessly creates an opening to discuss whether the Left would appreciate having people on the Right define why a person would want to hook up to their wagon. In other words, stop trying to pick a fight. Especially one that will instantly devolve into endless rounds of name-calling.