Online bandwidth hogs to be cut off at trough?

They are using false logic in a sense. I do lot's of huge downloads because of my work in graphics. I'm already paying a lot extra though. I pay for the fastest speed available, even though I can seldom download at those speeds. I probably pay $60 a month more than most people now. If they hit me for the size of downloads they need to stop charging me for the faster speeds. If they do this, I'll just start getting my stuff through the mail on disks instead of paying them. If I do that, I'll cut back to a cheap account and they will loose that revenue also.

I suspect it is the Gamers they are after.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus

What the heck, my cities wired for fiber 100x current cable speeds I could blow past those limits in an hr when it's available which is soon...

I think that is still a long way off. Anchorage was one of the first cities to have fiber but it does not benefit the home or office user. Running a fiber connection to an existing structure is very expensive. Not very many could afford it unless they were building a new home. For fiber to be useful, there can not be even an inch of other conduit between you and the source. Imagine the cost of replacing all the coaxial cable and / or phone lines before it could be implemented. I think that is still a couple of decades off and somebody will have to pay for it worldwide. I believe there are only a few universities directly connected with the new Network now.

start - run - CMD

ipconfig /release
ipconfig /renew
ipconfig /flushdns

Originally posted by C0bzz
You have it easy.

25gb download limit, 1.5mb DSL, for $80 AUD. HOORAH FOR AUSTRALIAN INTERNET!!!! Before they brang in the new metering system I could pull over 3gb a day and 60gb+ a month.

Which reminds me, I really need to slow down, might not go on internet for a week maybe.

THANKS TELSTRA!!!

[edit on 23/6/2008 by C0bzz]

Hehe, you just have it bad, still on telstra?

I'm with iinet, and I get 50gb a month, and on adsl2+ up to 24mbps, but since I'm 2.6k away from the exchange, the snr limits me to about 13mbps.

So I can still download at about 1Meg a second, within Australia. Outside of Aus, the crappy link out to the rest of the world is a bit slower. Usually abut 500-800kb/s.

Get off telstra if you can, they also charge you for Uploads too, iirc. So what you upload (if you upload) counts toward your 25GB a month.

And at least we don't have to pay more if we do go over our cap, sadly tho Id prefer that, but instead we get rate limited to 64kbps - And that is ridiculous, worse than dialup as it isn't steady, it drops excess packets instead. Meaning web pages time out, emails are slow, anything with lots of flash/animated content is impossible.

And ultimately, if people (as someone above stated) end up cancelling their internet connections because they want to hog the internet 24/7 but are forced into quotas, ALL THE BETTER FOR US! it may bring the price back down, as ISP's wont be forced to pay more for excess bandwidth limits thanks to people abusing the system thinking it's not their problem.

I know of people in the Netherlands who have 100mbps up/100mbps down speeds, with no quotas. who gloat about how much they binge....

guess its time cut off my internet to the world. I personally didn't mind people using my wireless connection, but now that this stuff happening, I think I'll protect my connection.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by mopusvindictus

What the heck, my cities wired for fiber 100x current cable speeds I could blow past those limits in an hr when it's available which is soon...

I think that is still a long way off. Anchorage was one of the first cities to have fiber but it does not benefit the home or office user. Running a fiber connection to an existing structure is very expensive. Not very many could afford it unless they were building a new home. For fiber to be useful, there can not be even an inch of other conduit between you and the source. Imagine the cost of replacing all the coaxial cable and / or phone lines before it could be implemented. I think that is still a couple of decades off and somebody will have to pay for it worldwide. I believe there are only a few universities directly connected with the new Network now.

Correct the building for it in Tempe Az sits right behind ASU, There is also city wide wifi available.. Test setups have ben done and people have it in home use in Texas, long Island and California in small, very small sections... Tempe will be one of the first small cities up, (why I am here) the building was completed behind Mill Ave just a few months back... In addition to ASU, Google has also put in quite a large server farm so this is happening...

But yes country wide allot longer, this is why I am saying they are going to make us pay for bandwidth, to pay for the building of the Fiber system.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by mopusvindictus]

30-50GB / month.

Download consists of saved on your computer or all info streamed into oyur computer. Seems like all these websites i look at at would add up real fast. Checking out porn sites with 100's of pics?

I guess i dont know the definitions of how they add the data. I assume you have a meter to see where you are at. Cuz 30GB/month doesnt seem like alot.

Gaming seems like it would be expensive

What about people that have large downloads/uploads for legitimate use? VPN users and such. I do network support for a rather large hotel chain and we have plenty of users connecting through VPNs for business purposes transmitting insane amounts of data over a 24 hour period. Not to mention skype users are total bandwidth hogs. It's insane, I really wonder what an unlimited account would cost, and even if offered would it be a total red flag for "you're doing something naughty!"

reply to post by _Phoenix_


Cartels, dude, will be created and all providers will be doing it...or they will find their way through back door - legislation.

Originally posted by skyblueff0
guess its time cut off my internet to the world. I personally didn't mind people using my wireless connection, but now that this stuff happening, I think I'll protect my connection.

I would suggest that as the FIRST thing to do when you turn on a wireless modem or router. Say what you will about security, but if someone can access your wireless bandwidth, they can lock you out of your modem or router and take it all for themselves. Perhaps even hack into your network of computers. And they can do it all from a laptop in a car across the street from your house in a matter of minutes (if they are good enough). Lock that bad boy down. WEP is your friend and their mortal enemy.

It seems to me that this whole capping and restrictions is just a subtle way to limit pirates and P2P. This goes back to the RIAA and MPAA and how they are fighting to get the ISPs to slow piracy and sharing down for them. Putting sharp limits on download caps combined with speed limits is something of a suckerpunch to torrents, PirateBay and other P2Ps. It is a pathetic attempt and I have to agree that as long as there is competition with less restrictive offers, there will always be a reason for the Big Boys to prolong these changes, or at the very least implement them with very loose restraints.

See I like to play a lot of PS3 online games and PC games and bandwidth limits is a big problem.


There should be NO bandwidth limit because really it can be fixed. Instead of Bandwidth deleting its self at the end of every month. Just have the servers do it daily.

Meaning what is downloaded will be deleted from the servers and stored on your computers. There is a simple way to fix this. Companies just don't want to admit it. Bandwidth in general is really nothing at all....just a lame excuse company's come up with to get more money.

Some people say that 30 to 50 gig's a month is to much. But I download and average of 20-1000 gigs a month with me and my family along with online games. This would be a very unfair act when they advertise "unlimited" even though they are very unfaithfull to thier contracts.

reply to post by xweaponx


I think you are misunderstanding the term "bandwidth". It is literally the capacity of the network in terms of volume of data that is transmitted, not information stored on servers.

reply to post by Argytis


What on earth are you downloading to reach 1TB a month? Thats around 500 films worth of data!

As for online gaming, i shouldn't worry about that. The amount of data transferred between the client and host is quite small.

reply to post by Mad_Hatter


my package says Unlimited download
i want it to stay that way,

not that i count how much i download but its way over 70-100+ monthly

hopefully this doesnt happen in the UK

reply to post by bodrul


depending on who your with and what you pay, they already have limits. You can pay £40 a month and get 20Mb/s from Virgin with no limits, to £5.99 a month for a 2Mb/s with 5GB limit from Tiscali. The thing is that there are many, many providers out there and all have different tier's and prices.

Unlike in the USA, where the market seems to be dominated by a couple of big players, in the UK anyone and his dog is offering broadband from Tesco through to BT. There is plenty of choice, so do not fret.

Those who want unlimited and fast packages can pay a premium, those who just want to surf occasionally will get the cheapest and everything in between.

reply to post by stumason


im with SKY (£10 , 16mb connection unlimited data)
we dont really get more then 10mb max here though as in transfer rate, only new houses with the BT fibreoptics testinng or those with cable , but those can get clogged up when its busy

to add your right about the US, they dont have any competition at all

[edit on 24-6-2008 by bodrul]

reply to post by bodrul


In my eyes, the best value for money is cable from Virgin media. Decent price and you get the speed you pay for.

As for this whole fibre myth...

Twisted copper pairs, as in the normal phone line, isn't very good at long distance, high speed transmission. Coaxial cable is another thing entirely.

However, Virgin have been very crafty in their advertising. They claim to offer fibre optic broadband, but they don't really. What they have is coaxial copper cable connection to the DP (cabinet in the street) and then there is a small multiplexor in there which is fibred into the core network.

Over short distances, you can get up to 140Mb/s down a copper cable. This is what they connect your home with, not fibre as they state in the adverts.

To be honest, everyone creams their pants when they see "fibre optic" mentioned, as they assume it's fast. It's not actually of any real benefit when your talking short distances to the DP's, not with the speeds that most people would be wanting.

It's all a marketing gimmick.

You don't need fibre to home, you just need fibre to DP, then cable to home would suffice.

I haven't read the article yet, but the idea of it sounds good to me.

Service is no different than an actuall physical product. I guess the best idea I can come up with at the moment is a rental (anything). If you use it more than others, then yeah, you should pay more for it.

Is there anything wrong with that?