Metered Internet

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Metered Internet

2008-08-23 11:36:07

SGT_Dicklewicz: Member; +33|6616

Been reading lately about how the Internet companies are thinking about metering your Internet. I have seen articles that say it will be as low as 40GB a month and up to 250GB in this article. Of course in the end we will all have to pay more for the same service (or less service). I got curious about how much internet I use a month. Second link is for a program ShaPlus bandwidth meter. I installed this to see how much I actually use. I am up to 6.5 GB after 5 days. Just curious because 40GB a month seems real low. I think I could live with 150-250 GB a month. Just looking for opinions and thought the bandwidth tool was worth sharing.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 … -caps.html

http://www.shaplus.com/bandwidth-meter/

2008-08-23 11:49:30

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6462

This is new?

Almost all big ISP's in the UK have bandwidth caps, and all the rest of the 'Unlimited' providers still have a pesky 'Fair Usage Policy' which basically has a clause stating "It's unlimited to a reasonable degree, if you download a lot we'll restrict you and cap your Internet".

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-08-23 11:58:41

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6444|The Twilight Zone

I was measuring my Download/upload rates and its lower than it should be. And the connections is poor as it is(170Kb/s).

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-08-23 13:08:30

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
This is new?

Almost all big ISP's in the UK have bandwidth caps, and all the rest of the 'Unlimited' providers still have a pesky 'Fair Usage Policy' which basically has a clause stating "It's unlimited to a reasonable degree, if you download a lot we'll restrict you and cap your Internet".

We don't have that here... yet.

Our connections vary, but there is no limit as to how much you download.

2008-08-23 13:12:03

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6698|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:
Uzique wrote:
This is new?

Almost all big ISP's in the UK have bandwidth caps, and all the rest of the 'Unlimited' providers still have a pesky 'Fair Usage Policy' which basically has a clause stating "It's unlimited to a reasonable degree, if you download a lot we'll restrict you and cap your Internet".

We don't have that here... yet.

Our connections vary, but there is no limit as to how much you download.

That's what they tell us anyways.

Verizon has been known to mysteriously cut people off with no explanation.

2008-08-23 13:13:26

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Uzique wrote:
This is new?

Almost all big ISP's in the UK have bandwidth caps, and all the rest of the 'Unlimited' providers still have a pesky 'Fair Usage Policy' which basically has a clause stating "It's unlimited to a reasonable degree, if you download a lot we'll restrict you and cap your Internet".

We don't have that here... yet.

Our connections vary, but there is no limit as to how much you download.
That's what they tell us anyways.

Verizon has been known to mysteriously cut people off with no explanation.

Here's something I don't get. If we do ever switch to this officially, won't it kill online gaming? I mean, consider the data transfer involved in just one game of BF2.

2008-08-23 13:14:26

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6698|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

We don't have that here... yet.

Our connections vary, but there is no limit as to how much you download.
That's what they tell us anyways.

Verizon has been known to mysteriously cut people off with no explanation.
Here's something I don't get. If we do ever switch to this officially, won't it kill online gaming? I mean, consider the data transfer involved in just one game of BF2.

I think it's actually fairly low bandwidth, it's just that speed is paramount. I'm going to install that tracker and see for myself.

2008-08-23 13:19:44

Rosse_modest: Member; +76|6767|Antwerp, Flanders

I've managed to survive with a 20 GB download cap for years, of course I don't download that much, I basically only use my internet for browsing websites and gaming online.

Only switched over to a 40 GB subscription because I have 3 devices connected where the 20 GB one only allows 2.

2008-08-23 13:21:30

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6462

Turquoise wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

We don't have that here... yet.

Our connections vary, but there is no limit as to how much you download.
That's what they tell us anyways.

Verizon has been known to mysteriously cut people off with no explanation.
Here's something I don't get. If we do ever switch to this officially, won't it kill online gaming? I mean, consider the data transfer involved in just one game of BF2.

Online gaming isn't that bad... it's not comparable at all to downloading music/films or constantly surfing the internet 20-hours a day.

We've had it here since the beginning of home broadband really, probably because our national phone-network isn't as new and advanced as the one you have in the USA. A lot of your connections in cities and suburbs runs on cable and fibre optics whereas here over the pond we're still running broadband over copper telephone wires. You typically won't find anything faster than 8-12Mb unless you're in one of the exclusive inner-city areas with cable coverage. Hence the need for restrictions and bandwidth limits; a national grid of people all downloading 100's of gigabytes worth of data over a nationalised phone-network simply doesn't work. I do agree that the UK's phone grid needs a major revamp and update... I think they're aiming to overhaul it by 2012.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-08-23 13:27:58

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's what they tell us anyways.

Verizon has been known to mysteriously cut people off with no explanation.
Here's something I don't get. If we do ever switch to this officially, won't it kill online gaming? I mean, consider the data transfer involved in just one game of BF2.
Online gaming isn't that bad... it's not comparable at all to downloading music/films or constantly surfing the internet 20-hours a day.

We've had it here since the beginning of home broadband really, probably because our national phone-network isn't as new and advanced as the one you have in the USA. A lot of your connections in cities and suburbs runs on cable and fibre optics whereas here over the pond we're still running broadband over copper telephone wires. You typically won't find anything faster than 8-12Mb unless you're in one of the exclusive inner-city areas with cable coverage. Hence the need for restrictions and bandwidth limits; a national grid of people all downloading 100's of gigabytes worth of data over a nationalised phone-network simply doesn't work. I do agree that the UK's phone grid needs a major revamp and update... I think they're aiming to overhaul it by 2012.

I guess this just points out why having a limit here is nothing more than companies being greedy. If our system is advanced enough here to handle unlimited use, then there shouldn't be any limit -- especially when you consider that our systems were half paid for by government funds. We've basically got telecoms making shitloads of money off of what should be considered at least partial public utilities.

Hopefully, we'll instead move in the FIOS direction on a national level without any limits.

2008-08-23 13:31:37

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6462

Oh yes I definitely agree that America doesn't need download/upload limits. You have far advanced technology running your national networks that are more than capable of providing for everyones' needs and bandwidth. Here in the UK the limits are in place because the national grid would probably crash or slow to a total halt during peak-periods if everyone was allowed to download freely on our aged networks.

It's the same corporate-strategy as the plans to 'prioritise' Internet surfing into 'premier' bandwidth pipes and the like. Remember when that plan was drafted up a few months ago, only to be met with worldwide criticism and anger?

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-08-23 13:52:18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

Uzique wrote:
Oh yes I definitely agree that America doesn't need download/upload limits. You have far advanced technology running your national networks that are more than capable of providing for everyones' needs and bandwidth. Here in the UK the limits are in place because the national grid would probably crash or slow to a total halt during peak-periods if everyone was allowed to download freely on our aged networks.

It's the same corporate-strategy as the plans to 'prioritise' Internet surfing into 'premier' bandwidth pipes and the like. Remember when that plan was drafted up a few months ago, only to be met with worldwide criticism and anger?

Yep... I can only hope the anger holds up against the massive telecom lobbying. Maybe if we could get fuckers like Ted Stevens out of office, we'll be ok.

2008-08-23 13:55:32

mikkel: Member; +383|6592

I've never really understood why some ISPs insist on deep packet inspection, restrictive and publically undefined traffic limitations, and all the other degradation of service they do. The way I see it, it's a clash between short-sighted bean counters and engineers where the bean counters, as always, come out first, even if their views are ridiculous.

Spending millions of dollars on packet inspecting hardware and software, development and maintenance, just so they can save a little more than they would if they decided to actually upgrade their networks when the needs arise. This is why US and UK Internet connections are horrible. They save in the short run, and when all the other providers, who upgraded to be able to actually deliver the products they sell, are enjoying their excellent networks and freedom to implement new and better services, these textbook examples of what not to do are left with obsolete networks, dissatisified customers, uncompetitive products and a bottom line that doesn't come close to letting them do what's needed to move out of the communications stone age.

Incompetent economists dealing in diciplines that they do not understand.

2008-08-23 13:56:31

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6611|Mhz

Turquoise wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

We don't have that here... yet.

Our connections vary, but there is no limit as to how much you download.
That's what they tell us anyways.

Verizon has been known to mysteriously cut people off with no explanation.
Here's something I don't get. If we do ever switch to this officially, won't it kill online gaming? I mean, consider the data transfer involved in just one game of BF2.

Gaming non-stop for 30 days you'd struggle to get to 1GB. Mines capped to 60GB, I'm a moderate downloader and heavy gamer, I've never got close to my limit.

2008-08-23 13:57:05

SGT_Dicklewicz: Member; +33|6616

I just played a 13 minute round of Combat Arms. Between that round and logging in I used 27megs in 13 minutes. Over 100meg an hour to play a game? That seems quite high to me.

2008-08-23 13:57:36

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:
I've never really understood why some ISPs insist on deep packet inspection, restrictive and publically undefined traffic limitations, and all the other degradation of service they do. The way I see it, it's a clash between short-sighted bean counters and engineers where the bean counters, as always, come out first, even if their views are ridiculous.

Spending millions of dollars on packet inspecting hardware and software, development and maintenance, just so they can save a little more than they would if they decided to actually upgrade their networks when the needs arise. This is why US and UK Internet connections are horrible. They save in the short run, and when all the other providers, who upgraded to be able to actually deliver the products they sell, are enjoying their excellent networks and freedom to implement new and better services, these textbook examples of what not to do are left with obsolete networks, dissatisified customers, uncompetitive products and a bottom line that doesn't come close to letting them do what's needed to move out of the communications stone age.

Incompetent economists dealing in diciplines that they do not understand.

Agreed... Out of curiosity, what country probably has the most advanced internet system overall?

2008-08-23 13:58:47

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That's what they tell us anyways.

Verizon has been known to mysteriously cut people off with no explanation.
Here's something I don't get. If we do ever switch to this officially, won't it kill online gaming? I mean, consider the data transfer involved in just one game of BF2.
Gaming non-stop for 30 days you'd struggle to get to 1GB. Mines capped to 60GB, I'm a moderate downloader and heavy gamer, I've never got close to my limit.

I'm guessing that if you ever have to download content for a game, that brings you a lot closer to your monthly limit.

2008-08-23 14:05:31

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6611|Mhz

Turquoise wrote:
TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Here's something I don't get. If we do ever switch to this officially, won't it kill online gaming? I mean, consider the data transfer involved in just one game of BF2.
Gaming non-stop for 30 days you'd struggle to get to 1GB. Mines capped to 60GB, I'm a moderate downloader and heavy gamer, I've never got close to my limit.
I'm guessing that if you ever have to download content for a game, that brings you a lot closer to your monthly limit.

Downloaded 3 full games this month alone, about 20GB, 2 patches 800MB ish so far this month add on about 400MB worth of gaming still, nowhere near the 60GB limit.

2008-08-23 14:08:29

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Gaming non-stop for 30 days you'd struggle to get to 1GB. Mines capped to 60GB, I'm a moderate downloader and heavy gamer, I've never got close to my limit.
I'm guessing that if you ever have to download content for a game, that brings you a lot closer to your monthly limit.
Downloaded 3 full games this month alone, about 20GB, 2 patches 800MB ish so far this month add on about 400MB worth of gaming still, nowhere near the 60GB limit.

What country are you in? (if you don't mind my asking)

I think I might start a thread seeing what everybody's cap is across the world. It seems like it would be interesting to compare limits and if it has affected gaming and other internet stuff.

2008-08-23 14:09:03

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6462

Turquoise wrote:
mikkel wrote:
I've never really understood why some ISPs insist on deep packet inspection, restrictive and publically undefined traffic limitations, and all the other degradation of service they do. The way I see it, it's a clash between short-sighted bean counters and engineers where the bean counters, as always, come out first, even if their views are ridiculous.

Spending millions of dollars on packet inspecting hardware and software, development and maintenance, just so they can save a little more than they would if they decided to actually upgrade their networks when the needs arise. This is why US and UK Internet connections are horrible. They save in the short run, and when all the other providers, who upgraded to be able to actually deliver the products they sell, are enjoying their excellent networks and freedom to implement new and better services, these textbook examples of what not to do are left with obsolete networks, dissatisified customers, uncompetitive products and a bottom line that doesn't come close to letting them do what's needed to move out of the communications stone age.

Incompetent economists dealing in diciplines that they do not understand.
Agreed... Out of curiosity, what country probably has the most advanced internet system overall?

I actually read that some of the Scandinavian states are piloting some insanely-fast fibre optic services, even to really remote villages and tiny obscure areas. Don't know if that was just a pilot-test of the technology or a long-term plan...

I would probably suspect somewhere like America or Japan though, for overall cable and high-speed coverage. France is quite good I understand as far as Europe is concerned. Ethiopia is way out front in the African league-tables with their 30k dial-up modems, connected together using a sophisticated network involving some 317 camels and 3,000 miles of cotton string.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2008-08-23 14:09:54

mikkel: Member; +383|6592

Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... Out of curiosity, what country probably has the most advanced internet system overall?

Without a doubt, the southeastern Asian countries have the best deployments across the board. High population densities and demanding users make for excellent networks.

2008-08-23 14:10:54

TheEternalPessimist: Wibble; +412|6611|Mhz

Turquoise wrote:
TheEternalPessimist wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

I'm guessing that if you ever have to download content for a game, that brings you a lot closer to your monthly limit.
Downloaded 3 full games this month alone, about 20GB, 2 patches 800MB ish so far this month add on about 400MB worth of gaming still, nowhere near the 60GB limit.
What country are you in? (if you don't mind my asking)

I think I might start a thread seeing what everybody's cap is across the world. It seems like it would be interesting to compare limits and if it has affected gaming and other internet stuff.

UK, I don't think anywhere else does it, it's down to our rather poor telecoms structure, it needs regulating otherwise it'd collapse. I do agree with it though, it works, my Broadband has been pretty much flawless since I got it, I know plenty of people on uncapped ISPs that do nothing but compain about the shitty service they get.

Last edited by TheEternalPessimist (2008-08-23 14:14:47)

2008-08-23 14:11:03

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

mikkel wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... Out of curiosity, what country probably has the most advanced internet system overall?
Without a doubt, the southeastern Asian countries have the best deployments across the board. High population densities and demanding users make for excellent networks.

So, I'm guessing as Uzique has stated, America is best for long distance coverage, but these countries are best for quality of coverage.

2008-08-23 14:17:23

aimless: Member; +166|6116|Texas

Doesn't Japan have the fastest internet for its consumers?

2008-08-23 14:22:10

mikkel: Member; +383|6592

Turquoise wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Agreed... Out of curiosity, what country probably has the most advanced internet system overall?
Without a doubt, the southeastern Asian countries have the best deployments across the board. High population densities and demanding users make for excellent networks.
So, I'm guessing as Uzique has stated, America is best for long distance coverage, but these countries are best for quality of coverage.

The US is pretty terrible across the board. Much of it is a lack of unbundling of the local loops, and a relatively very low population density. Much of it is described in detail in the many broadband quality and penetration reports out there that all rank the US very low. In Denmark, for example, more than 50% of households will have access to 100Mbps fibre to the home links within a few years through utility company optical fibre deployments. Contrast that with the US, where the percentage of households without access to high-speed Internet connections was still in the double figures last time I checked.

Fancy bar graphs are worth a thousand words:

https://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0805/percentage-fiber-broadband.png

Pages: 1 2

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Metered Internet

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Metered Internet

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

TheEternalPessimist wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Board footer