Are Cable companies obligated to allow sustained bandwidth advertised?

2009-03-30 19:53:04

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6851|San Diego, CA, USA

Are Cable companies obligated to allow you to use your purchased sustained bandwidth as advertised?

Basically, if they sell 10 Mbps / 1 Mbps, why can't we download continuously at those rates?

2009-03-30 19:55:01

#2

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6004|College Park, MD

I'd like to say yes because I would kill every person in a 20 mile radius if it meant I'd always download at around 2MBps (yes, capital B).

But I'm pretty sure it's technically nearly impossible.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-03-30 20:26:33

#3

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

The Aquinas Protocol. I wish.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-03-30 21:04:35

#4

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

The numbers listed by cable companies are theoretical limits. They are assuming optimal conditions and no one else around you using bandwidth. In addition to this, companies often throttle bandwidth. Why? Because they can.

Telecoms are some of the least regulated companies that exist because they spend a ton of money on lobbyism to make sure they are regulated as little as possible and so that the regulations generally benefit them rather than the consumer.

2009-04-02 03:23:53

#5

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

It's dependent upon the technology used. For example, fiber optic to the home (like Verizon's FiOS...FTMFW) is dedicated bandwidth. You'll always get the speeds advertised. Cable, on the other hand, shares the overall bandwidth between the central office and the individual user, resulting in decreased throughput during high usage times.

Just primarily due to inherent limitations in the media/technology used.

And when I move, I have to give up my FiOS. My choices are either cable or dsl at my new place. Kind of like having to choose which turd to eat: the one with corn or the one with peanuts.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-04-02 03:33:52

#6

Cheez: Herman is a warmaphrodite; +1,027|6741|King Of The Islands

DSL > Cable.

Coz I can get it. Also DSL > Cable.

My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.

2009-04-02 15:06:18

#7

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Cheez wrote:
DSL > Cable.

Coz I can get it. Also DSL > Cable.

DSL sucks where I am. Then again, AT&T sucks in general.

2009-04-02 15:51:51

#8

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6004|College Park, MD

FEOS wrote:
For example, fiber optic to the home (like Verizon's FiOS...FTMFW) is dedicated bandwidth. You'll always get the speeds advertised.

Ahahhaahha, no.

2009-04-02 17:07:42

#9

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7018

dont worry the govt is going to fix all this... just give them a couple of weeks... they are busy on college football and firestation bingo game regulation right now... give them some time...lol...

I have Fios and the fastest i have d/l is 4mb throughput... 20mb/5mb up... it's very consistent... cable was cool also...just not as fast...
they have 50mb down... 20mb up here but i havent upgraded yet... no reason at this point...

Love is the answer

2009-04-02 17:31:45

#10

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6004|College Park, MD

@Catbox and FEOS how the hell are you guys getting the advertised speeds? I very rarely ever download at 1.5MBps (which is what they advertised as being the max).

2009-04-02 20:17:49

#11

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7045|Reality

you should be getting 85-90% of the advertised speed
they say I get 6 and www.speedtest.net says 4.8 - 5.2. which is in the ballpark.

so in theory you should be getting 1.2 for a 1.5 connection. If not then you need to do some tweaking.

Last edited by Stubbee (2009-04-02 20:18:33)

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2009-04-02 21:29:12

#12

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7018

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
@Catbox and FEOS how the hell are you guys getting the advertised speeds? I very rarely ever download at 1.5MBps (which is what they advertised as being the max).

It pegs on 20mb almost instantly and the 5mb up just as quick... I get the 2-4 mb throughput on filefront and a couple of other d/l sites...
It gets slower on sites that cant feed it as fast... Our local library gets 65mb down and 35mb up...lol... I have gone there before fios to d/l big files...

Love is the answer

2009-04-02 23:54:35

#13

Cheez: Herman is a warmaphrodite; +1,027|6741|King Of The Islands

Turquoise wrote:
Cheez wrote:
DSL > Cable.

Coz I can get it. Also DSL > Cable.
DSL sucks where I am. Then again, AT&T sucks in general.

1.5mb for $20. That's harsh.

My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.

2009-04-03 03:24:53

#14

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
For example, fiber optic to the home (like Verizon's FiOS...FTMFW) is dedicated bandwidth. You'll always get the speeds advertised.
Ahahhaahha, no.

I've never NOT gotten the advertised speed.

Much more predictable than cable, dsl, or other high speed internet media.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-04-03 16:18:02

#15

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6297|Truthistan

Better watch your cable internet

I just heard the Time Warner is going start monthly download limits. Apparently they start in one market in Texas and are now going to roll the program out in all of its markets. FYI. TW sucks, I switched to DSL a while ago.

http://www.electronista.com/articles/09 … data.caps/

2009-04-03 17:05:15

#16

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Wireless blows hard. Giving me the shits that telstra are pushing it so much because they can't be fucked maintaining or putting in new infrastructure.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-04-03 21:03:26

#17

Defiance: Member; +438|6973

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
But I'm pretty sure it's technically nearly impossible.

2MB/s is nothing. That's 16Mb. The most common home ethernet system is 100Mb ethernet. More and more common is 1Gb. Now, WAN technology is far different from LAN, but Google's setting up a fiber submarine cable. Every single fiber strand in that cable is capable of 960Gb/s. A 16Mb domestic line is not unreasonable.

However, our current infrastructure can not support it effectively. It would require work on part of the communications companies, but they're making too much money.

2009-04-03 21:31:50

#18

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7018

I talked to a Verizon guy and he said they have tested FIOS up to 800mb down and 150mb up... a bit of overkill...haha

Love is the answer

BF2S Forums Are Cable companies obligated to allow sustained bandwidth advertised?

Cheez wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cheez wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Board footer