bboynitrous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,514
I just don't get how they can have the same cap off number since 2006 or 2007. Files get larger and more people stream so keeping that same 250 to 300 gigabytes seems insane.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have no speed issues with Charter. I usually get about 130 down and 4 up, even at peek times. I pay for 100 down and 4 up.Funny that Charter just dumped data caps... But I think they put a big emergency brake on speeds. I never use to get buffering when watching ESPN. Now I can't watch it in the evenings.
[21CW]killerofall;1041953674 said:I have no speed issues with Charter. I usually get about 130 down and 4 up, even at peek times. I pay for 100 down and 4 up.
I feel for people who have shitty ISPs with data caps.
I moved to Comcast Business about a year ago. I knew this was coming. I pay more, but the customer service is night and day plus I have a dedicated IP.
I thought about it, was about to sign the contract. Didn't want a contract and hated the idea of giving that company more of my money.
I just don't get how they can have the same cap off number since 2006 or 2007. Files get larger and more people stream so keeping that same 250 to 300 gigabytes seems insane.
Comcast offers unlimited caps in some areas for $30/month.
Comcast wants to bring cable cuter's away from Cable TV and into Cable Internet apparently.
Like anything else, the more you try to drive up costs, the more competition will stick their ugly head up and say "That's a good opportunity!"
We cut the cable cord ~3 years ago... and Comcast has a monopoly on the area as far as Cable goes.
Cell phone companies are setting a great example for them. Wireless caps almost never rise over time, and the elimination of unlimited data plans was a smashing success. Now most people feel special because their phone company allows them to have ~10 gigs/month or some similar minuscule amount. Obviously wireless and wired internet are not the same, but nonetheless, the execs at Comcast probably feel like idiots for not jumping on that bandwagon sooner.
I'd get it... and split it with my neighbor = No price increase and unlimited BW.
I moved to Comcast Business about a year ago. I knew this was coming. I pay more, but the customer service is night and day plus I have a dedicated IP.
The funny part about this is that people basically predicted this 7 years ago already. Back when they were randomly disconnecting people because they were using too much data, then finally decided to put a number behind it. That number was 250GB. The top tier of the time was 8mbit downloads. Fast forward to today and the top tier is 150 - 250 mbps depending upon the area. So in all that time they were gracious to raise the cap by 50GB (20%) even though the speed increase is around 20 - 30x. I'd say everyone was spot on back then saying they will just throw out a number and never increase it, so that eventually they can start charging for more.
lower netflix quality to SD and it goes a long way.
SD looks okay, even in my 50inch TV.
Gotta check if I can adjust Hulu.
lower netflix quality to SD and it goes a long way.
SD looks okay, even in my 50inch TV.
Gotta check if I can adjust Hulu.
It does not look ok on SD, you are just blind or have a shit tv. Furthermore I shouldn't have to lower the quality of my streaming video. This is a hard wife connection, not cellular. Just because you are ok getting screwed over, doesn't mean everyone else should be.
I do indeed! Fortunately I was able to resolve it here by just getting the highest speed package. Now it wasn't too noticeable on the 30" tv's, but the 52" it was absolutely noticeable.I feel like you react the same way I do when HD video lowers the quality to adapt to available bandwidth. My first reaction is "who the f*** is downloading while I am watching a movie?!" lol
I agree this is for sure not the answer, lets just say everyone is okay with going to SD, once 95% of their customer base is under another bar as far as bandwidth goes, they can shrink the cap even more. The best response to this is if possible move to a new provider or call and complain, enough of these calls at least is something. Silence is consent on the business world.
Most people don't use 2GB/month. Most unlimited plans were implemented when nobody was using 2GB/month. When Android and iPhone came around, data usage skyrocketed.
Wireless and cable are not comparable. There is a limitation on bandwidth on cell towers. The limitations on cable are not similar.
Obviously wireless and wired internet are not the same
Even then, if they upped the data to 500 GB, it wouldn't be bad. 300 isn't enough...esp not if you download software updates, watch netflix and so on.
Good thing we solved net neutrality with monopoly entrenching regulation instead of with competition. Whew dodged a bullet there.
I'm sure giving the monopolies more leeway would've solved it.
I pay for the unlimited and intentionally run my line full bore when not in use (at work, sleeping, etc.). I have a foreign vps with a 20 tb month data allotment. I rarely hit 5 tb on it. I'd estimate that it cost them a penny per GB xfered. I could hit 3 tb easily. If they made me pay for unlimited to get around a bullshit cap I'd try to make them lose money on the deal.
I wonder how long these ridiculous caps will remain in place here in Atlanta, which began this summer. In a house with three grad students, we usually hit 350-450gb a month. However, I did see this beautiful sight outside our house the other day:
Looks like Google is setting up infrastructure in my neighborhood according to the install techs. Summer 2016 can't come soon enough
lower netflix quality to SD and it goes a long way.
SD looks okay, even in my 50inch TV.
Gotta check if I can adjust Hulu.
I'm sure giving the monopolies more leeway would've solved it.
It's not like we have Europe's market where net neutrality is not needed cause you can just pick from a hundred providers in your town.
Actually they have several providers competing for the same homes in most of Europe which puts our market to shame and Especially S. Korea where the best value for service exists. The more you know.
And Regulations are inherently anti-upstart / little guy. Because the Cost burden is disproportionate. And many 'regulatory' situations encourage incest with regulators which encourages entrenchment, either flat out corruption or 'we know' provider XYZ so we'll permit a license or approval or bid for ABC while some unknown gets no consideration. All these things are pro-monopoly.
Actually they have several providers competing for the same homes in most of Europe which puts our market to shame and Especially S. Korea where the best value for service exists. The more you know.
And Regulations are inherently anti-upstart / little guy. Because the Cost burden is disproportionate. And many 'regulatory' situations encourage incest with regulators which encourages entrenchment, either flat out corruption or 'we know' provider XYZ so we'll permit a license or approval or bid for ABC while some unknown gets no consideration. All these things are pro-monopoly.