|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Any techies out there have any idea how much bandwidth costs? |
| 1-28 of 28 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 02-02-11 11:16am - 5072 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Any techies out there have any idea how much bandwidth costs? Here in the land of holy-fuck-it’s-cold-and-fuck-me-if-it-isn’t-snowing-again, otherwise known as Canada, ISPs really seem to get their jollies by imposing bandwidth caps. One of the biggest in the country, Rogers Telecommunications, imposes some caps and then charges (I think) $4 per GB of data used above the cap. I’m not a techie, but I can’t imagine that in any warped world that a GB of data bandwidth is worth anywhere near that. My completely uneducated guess would be that a GB of bandwidth might actually cost the ISP a couple of cents. I realize that they may try to argue for high infrastructure costs, but charging for additional bandwidth doesn’t resolve that. And I’m sure it has absolutely nothing with the fact that this company is one of the largest cable providers and they don’t want to lose those customers to online viewing. | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 12:24pm - 5072 days | #2 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I don't have an answer to your question but only the statement that I am totally disgusted with the CRTC for giving the go ahead for imposing a 40 GB Bandwidth limit on the average user with everything used above that being charged extra. In this day and age of YouTube and other streaming sites that amount would be very quickly used up. Porn sites don't help either, an HD video from Reality Kings can be as high as 3 - 4 GB. I just fired off an inquiry to my local ISP (a cable company) who had promised me only last year that they would never impose limits and asked them to give me re-assurance on the subject. If they, too, go the way of Rogers and Bell I will not only cancel my Internet Access but most of their extra cable packages as well. And that is a promise! | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 12:38pm - 5072 days | #3 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I agree about the CRTC issue. I read yesterday though that the CRTC has been asked to rethink the whole issue. I understand that the PM got a 200,000 name petition after the original boneheaded decision. A porn buddy of mine recently switched ISPs and I strongly encouraged him to tell his old ISP that he was leaving because of the caps and make it clear to the new one that he was signing up with the because of their lack of caps. It drives me up a wall.  | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 01:23pm - 5072 days | #4 | |
|
anyonebutme (0)
Active User  Posts: 294 Registered: Aug 23, '09 |
The cost of operation to send the 4gb to you is like 2 cents. The cost of the labor and materials involved in providing the internet connection out to your region, plus maintenance & upkeep, and service support, was millions of dollars of investment and yearly overhead. Personally I think a pay per gb model is good. We don't have a flat-rate for electricity usage, you pay per the kilowatt-hour. If you use half as much electricity as your neighbor, you pay roughly half the price. Why should the person who transfers 10mb per month for small email usage, be forced to pay the same price as someone who downloads 100gb of porn flicks? | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 04:07pm - 5072 days | #5 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I don't blame you, many in this country are furious and feel rather powerless because there's not too much competition you COULD go to. It would be good to have something like you mention (refuse to subscribe to any service that has caps) to hold over the greedy .......s heads. Trouble is, in my area we have Aliant, (who have already decided to take advantage of the CRTC ruling), and Eastlink, my present ISP. If Eastlink should decide to imitate the others there would be no one else to go to ... at the moment.  | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 04:23pm - 5072 days | #6 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I think most people could live with an extra 2 cents a GB but those profiteers are talking $ 4.00 for every GB over. Your suggestion that you should pay for what you use, may have its merits in certain cases but how would you go about enforcing that when it comes to Cable Television, for instance? Put a meter in your DVR that records your daily Bandwidth usage and then charge over and above what you pay for the various channels? The thing is this, as I mentioned above, usage by the average subscriber to the Internet is constantly increasing, never mind the old lady who checks her inbox twice a month. There are all the (non-porn) tube sites, there's Facebook with all the pictures and movie clips your friends and relatives want to treat you to, every news channel in the country also has a website with their latest news and commentary in streaming. Then you have the movie reviews in HD. Plus you have all those so-called "friends" who keep bombarding your mail box with all those cute little posts, most of them containing large attachments .. it's an ever increasing spiral of consumption. Add to that your Porn consumption. If the big guys no longer make enough money out of our expensive subscription (I pay for ultra high speed) then let them increase the subscription fee. I know that I can't see myself sitting at my computer biting my finger nails, wondering if that next site I gravitate to will take me over the top! | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 04:27pm - 5072 days | #7 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I can't agree with your first point. I agree that the cost of the infrastructure is high, but it costs the same to run copper, cable or fiberop to my house whether I use 10MB a month or 1TB per month. My specific question is how much does the data cost? I do, however, agree with you that the pay-for-what-you-use model makes sense, but only if it is priced reasonably. If you and I are neighbors and we both have the same service from the same ISP and you use less bandwidth than I do, then I should pay more, but $4 per GB seems a bit high if, as you suggest (and I suspect that you're close) the real cost is 2 cents. I think people would be pissed if electrical utilities charged a set price per kilowatt hour of electricity up to an average monthly use and then charged 200 times that for electricity above that average use. I could see society using that model for electricity to encourage reduction in use, but that cost model doesn't realistically apply to bandwidth. To make a bandwidth cap model that made sense would also mean having a cap that made some sense. There is one ISP that has a cap of 15GB per month. You couldn't watch 30 mins a day of streaming without incurring additional costs with a cap that low. Also, one beef I have with the capped model is that I'm encouraged to buy a service with faster speeds, yet if I have the faster speed won't I use it more? The faster services are priced higher and I presumed that part of that cost (if not ALL of that additional cost since the hardware is identical) is the additional bandwidth. So my ISP sells a 10Mbit service for $30/month and a 20Mbit service for $50/month. The hardware is the same, and the cap is the same? So what am I paying for? | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 04:33pm - 5072 days | #8 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I have my service through Aliant and wasn't aware that they were planning to impose a cap. They do have a 'soft' cap in that in their agreement they say that the average household should use no more than 250GB per month. I could easily live with that. But if the cap is lower, people aren't going to be able to take advantage of the shift away from traditional TV to a more user-defined experience. But then I suspect that is one of the main reasons that the big telecoms want to push caps. Their traditional model is under pressure and they want to discourage people from leaving. One way is to make it too expensive to leave. | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 04:38pm - 5072 days | #9 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I have no idea what I'm talking about here because I don't have a clue about the telecom business, but could some of this desire to cap and charge high fees on internet bandwidth to protect their traditional TV advertising revenue be similar to how the music industry completely blew the move to legally downloadable music. I think the music industry could have come out stronger if they realized that what peopel wanted was to get music in a format that they wanted, not in the format the industry wanted. The industry saw everyone as a potential pirate when I think it was just the consumers pushing for a better way to get music. And when the music indiustry dipped their toe into online music they fucked it up by pricing it like high art. Say what you want about Apple, but they forced the music industry into a better model and things are now looking up. | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 05:00pm - 5072 days | #10 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
"Personally I think a pay per gb model is good. We don't have a flat-rate for electricity usage, you pay per the kilowatt-hour. If you use half as much electricity as your neighbor, you pay roughly half the price." I live in California, where the rate structure for electricity is far different. We pay per kilowatt-hour, but the rate structure is based on the amount of kilowatt-hours you use in a month. There might also be a fixed-rate cost per month, in addition to the amount of monthly usage, but I'm going to focus on the way we pay for the monthly usage portion: level 1: You pay one rate per kilowatt-hour for x amount of kilo-watt hours. level 2: You pay a higher rate per kilowatt-hour for y amount of kilo-watt hours used above level 1. level 3: You pay a higher rate per kilowatt-hour for z amount of kilo-watt hours used above level 2. level 4: You pay a higher rate per kilowatt-hour for r amount of kilo-watt hours used above level 3. I forget what the math term used to describe that type of structure is, but the total amount you pay increases far more than proportionally as you use more kilowatt-hours. And the levels are set small enough amounts that even a single person, living by himself, can easily get hit by level 4 charges. The theoretical justification for this type of structured rates is that it's supposed to encourage conservation of energy (electricity). So in the name of national security and world health and the greenhouse effect, electricity companies are able to charge their customers higher rates, for increased profits, and justify it as for the common good. My, their shit smells sweet. | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 05:56pm - 5072 days | #11 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
This is one of those cases where technology and practicality just don't quite meet. I agree that it's stupid to be advertising high band widths but then charge people up the wazoo for any overages. Charging per GB once you go over is just another name for rape especially if you have a low threshold to begin with. I can understand charging more if someone is burning a TB a month but charging someone a bunch of money for using say because they used 60GB instead of their 50GB allotment is just a scam. The real thing the big companies are trying to avoid is having to buy more servers (more expensive than just stringing cable since the servers also require service) and dealing with large amounts of web traffic. By keeping people on low DL limits they avoid having to spend more time and money and increase their profit margins. I think it's going to take another decade or so before you can get high speed / high download limits for a reasonable price. This whole thing goes back to the principle that life is like a pencil: first your used and then you find out there's no point. | |
|
||
| 02-02-11 06:31pm - 5072 days | #12 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not asking for something and not willing to pay for it. If an ISP could charge a tiered rate that made high users pay a reasonable and proportional rate more than low users, then I'm fine with that. But setting low limits and then charging un-fucking-believable per GB rates isn't the way to go. Unless, of course, there is limited competition and what competition there is does the same thing. Then we, as consumers, just get bent over and fucked. | |
|
||
| 02-03-11 10:23am - 5071 days | #13 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Just got a reply back from Eastlink that might interest you. They are going to cap at 250 GB a month with an additional $1.00 being charged for every GB over the limit. I can easily live with that if I don't download too many of those bloated Reality Kings files. BTW, did you see the latest news: our Government (conservative for the benefit of those who live outside of Canada) actually wants the CRTC to reverse their decision. Shish, if they keep doing stuff like that I might turn Conservative yet!  | |
|
||
| 02-03-11 06:51pm - 5071 days | #14 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I'm in Quebec and I've lived with limited bandwith for a couple of years. That's why I rarely download anything in HD because I can't afford the overcharge when I go above 100GB. My ISP is raising my maximum to 120GB in March. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 02-04-11 09:11am - 5070 days | #15 | |
|
Kevin
PornUsers Staff  Posts: 0 Registered: Jan 05, '07 |
Hey guys, I just wanted to chime in here to clear things up a bit. All of the recent CRTC and UBB discussions have not really been about the consumer. The decisions being discussed were about whether or not the large companies that own the lines could force the smaller ISPs using their lines to impose UBB on their customers. As you know these companies in Canada such as Bell, Shaw, Telus, and Rogers have had "soft limits" on bandwidth allowances for many years now and it has been up to them whether or not they want to charge overages. What they are trying to do now is forcing smaller ISPs that share the same infrastructure (such as Teksavvy on Bell lines) to charge their customer overages. That is what the government wants CRTC to reverse. The infrastructure is already in place and it costs virtually nothing extra to deliver more GB to a household. The ISPs are trying to charge something for nothing in a country where bandwidth is already one of the most expensive in the world. There is a lot of confusion around this issue because it comes at a time when Shaw has announced that it will finally start enforcing its bandwidth caps (almost immediately after Netflix launched in Canada). Edited on Feb 04, 2011, 09:17am | |
|
||
| 02-04-11 12:37pm - 5070 days | #16 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Yep, you are right, Kevin. That's what the CRTC ruling was all about, Bell (your example) used caps while those they rented bandwidth to (Teksavvy) did not. But the CRTC's decision nevertheless affects every High-Speed user in Canada as one after the other of the ISPs is using the ruling as an excuse to put caps on bandwidth. As you've seen above some of those caps are ridiculously low. Those of my ISP (Eastlink) aren't, but only last year, when they upgraded my speed for an extra ten dollars a month, they assured me fervently that they would never, ever impose caps. Now it's going to be 250 GB thanks to the CRTC. That's a lot, but with higher and higher speeds, bringing with it the temptation to watch all the streaming bandwidth hogs coming on-line, it won't seem like so much a year or so down the road. I pay extra already for my ultra high speed, that should be enough to look after uncapped bandwidth. I hope the Government will overturn the decision, as a matter of fact, it is my most sincere wish that they'll do away with the CRTC altogether. This monstrosity was originally put in place to safeguard Canadian Contents on Radio and TV because most Canadians preferred American shows to Canadian ones and the Canadian film and TV producers were in danger of failing, taking our "cultural identity" with them. Not that the talent isn't here, but American producers have deeper pockets and therefore are able to produce better quality shows .. well, at least until Reality TV came along! Anyway, down with bandwidth caps and I strongly suspect you are right re. Netflix!! | |
|
||
| 02-04-11 02:08pm - 5070 days | #17 | |
|
Kevin
PornUsers Staff Posts: 0 Registered: Jan 05, '07 |
Well put messmer, I agree with you on all aspects. I just wanted to make sure that people understand that the recent CRTC decision and pending reversal isn't regarding our personal bandwidth caps like many believe. The Canadian consumers need to keep fighting back to encourage the CRTC (or more likely the government) to take it a step further and not allow these large ISPs to impose caps on their customers. Like you I pay hundreds of dollars a month for my internet service and I do not believe I should be capped (unless I was seriously straining the network). Canada is already years behind most other countries in terms of internet speed and bandwidth and this is only going to make things worse. In Canada the same companies that provide television service also own the television networks. These are the same companies providing internet, landline, and wireless service. Next I think they will start buying the Canadian banks so they can direct access to our bank accounts too. One example, Rogers Communications owns the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team (and their stadium). They also own the Sportsnet television network. A little while ago they launched a new channel called Sportsnet One, and proceeded to move all Toronto baseball games onto that new channel which other television providers (Shaw, Telus, Bell) did not have access to at the time. Edited on Feb 04, 2011, 02:17pm | |
|
||
| 02-04-11 04:19pm - 5070 days | #18 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Does anyone get the sense that we've been lured into a trap? Whether it was by accident or design, we're now more dependent on Internet service for so many things that bandwidth caps seem to be just another lure down the garden path to persuade us that we must spend more per unit to have them lifted. And I feel I should mention another kind of "cap": when the government imposes limits on increases of the cost of an essential service, such as on utilities providing electricity being held to a limit on their charges per kilowatt hour. Maybe once people "get it" that Internet service has become more vital to us than television and radio were that they can persuade their "democratically elected" officials that bandwidth costs need to be kept under some kind of control. Unless, of course, those officials are already under the control of, well, you know ... I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 02-04-11 05:55pm - 5070 days | #19 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
The groups that should be putting increasing pressure on ISP to give their customer's more and more bandwith are the corporations responsible for music, TV and cinema. The way we are currently going. There won't be any music or DVD store left open in a few years. The advent of sites that allow customers to download music directly on their computer or portable player has already closed many music stores that thrived just a couple of years ago. These days music stores sales are probably higher from DVD sales than actual music. Video stores are also suffering because of the same reason. When there aren't any music or video stores left because almost everyone is downloading from the net then you will see a significant drop in profit from all the providers of entertainment because regular folks won't want to pay the overcharge associated with downloading above their alloted GiG's of bandwith. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 02-04-11 06:29pm - 5070 days | #20 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
This is a real shame and embarrassment for Canada, Kevin. At one time we were one of the leading nations when it came to Internet speed and bandwidth, now we're down somewhere near the bottom (I think even some third-world nations are ahead of us) because all those greedy near-monopolies you mentioned were content (and allowed) to sit on outdated technology and collect money through usurious rates charged their users. God, I look at the download speeds available in Finland, as one example, and shake my head: are we going to sleepwalk our way through the 21st Century and keep boasting about RIM (Blackberries) as our crowning electronic achievement or are we going to get back in the game. It's high time for some outside competition to be allowed to come in, it would light a nice little fire under Rogers and Bell and Company!  | |
|
||
| 02-05-11 06:44am - 5069 days | #21 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I couldn't agree more, pat. At least one corporation has made comments on the negative impact of high costs (for the consumer) of bandwidth. Netflix has said that it is rethinking coming to the Canadian market. They have several issues here, but one of the biggest has to be the caps that most ISPs impose. It certainly is no coincidence that one of the major ISPs lowered their cap the day after Netflix announced it was coming to Canada. Do you think that it might have anything to do with the fact the the major telecoms are in competition with Netflix? And just to reiterate, I'm not opposed to reasonable caps and I'm not opposed to user-pay models either. But when the ISPs charge consumers prices that are several hundred times greater than the cost that is simply gouging. Imagine if high gasoline users were required to pay more per gallon or litre than lower users? I have a small car and pay $3 per gallon but you have an SUV becuase you pull a trailer and have three kids, and you have to pay $4 per gallon. I think people woudld find that unfair. | |
|
||
| 02-05-11 06:48am - 5069 days | #22 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
You've hit the nail on the head. We're too complacent here. I recall a couple of years ago when the Canadian dollar hit parity and then exceeded the U.S. dollar. People were wondering why U.S. magazines and books would have one price in U.S. dollars and a higher price in Canadian dollars. (Penthouse, for example - and I only buy it for the articles - would have a $8 U.S. price and a $10 Canadian price, when the Canadian dollar was actually higer than the U.S. dollar.) I heard some economist interviewed who tried to explain why that was the case but ultimately he concluded by saying that companies do that because Canadian are complacent and will just pay more. Maybe we should burn some ISP members in effigy in downtown Toronto and see if we can get better service. | |
|
||
| 02-05-11 06:50am - 5069 days | #23 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I know, I know, I'm probably dragging this discussion on futher than it needs to go, but I have a related tech question. I have fiber op service that delivers both TV and internet. Aren't both just essntially the same data? If I turned all TVs on to HD channels and let them run for 24 hours wouldn't that use a ton of bandwidth? Isn't that the same data as I get from the internet? Or are they somehow different? | |
|
||
| 02-05-11 09:50am - 5069 days | #24 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I've wondered about the same thing myself, rearadmiral. My TV and Internet come to me through the same cable as well. Hope you (we) will get an answer from someone knowledgeable. | |
|
||
| 02-05-11 10:15am - 5069 days | #25 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
^MY ISP is Videotron and they added home phone service to compete against Bell so you actually have TV, Internet and Telephone service all sharing the same fiberoptic cables. I haven't seen a slowdown in my internet or issues with my cable TV. The only conclusion I can deduce from this is that it's complete BS when these large corporation tell me that they have to charge more to prevent slowdowns. Just look at texting on cellphones. Not so long ago texting was free or really cheap. Companies realised just how much money they could make by charging for text because many people are texting instead of calling and today you pay a pretty high price for something that cost company almost nothing to manage. It's a cash grab and they can get away with it because no one wants to do anything about it or they simply can't do anything about it. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 02-05-11 03:51pm - 5069 days | #27 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I suspect that you're 100% right. The ISPs do it because they can. I hope someone can shed some light on whether the digital signal for TV is somehow different from the signal for internet. BTW pat, I suspect that your phone is still over the old copper line. Going fiberop for that is probably a little over the top. Videotron may have told you you're all fibreop, but I'll bet if you looked you'd find an intact copper line in your home. And one other thing pat: if you live in Canada and have Videotron as an ISP that means you live in Quebec. From any persepctive, and especially a porn perspective, Quebec is an amazing place. I haven't been to the strip clubs on Ste. Catherine in a few years, but there are few places on the planet as fun as Montreal. Vive la Quebec! | |
|
||
| 02-05-11 04:13pm - 5069 days | #28 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Pricing is a marketing decision. Although usually related to cost, it doesn't have to be (although cost is the usual reason given for the retail price of an item). One instance where the cost difference in production did not explain the cost difference in two items: What is the difference between the Intel 486DX and 486SX? The Intel 486DX processor has a math co-processor built onto the chip. The SX version lacks the co-processor, and was considered a ‘value’ processor at the time it was sold. The DX version, because it had the math co-processor, which would allow faster processing of certain types of operations, sold for a significantly higher price. The first SX chips were actually DX chips that had the math co-processor disabled. In other words, Intel (the manufacturer of the chips) built DX chips, and disabled the math co-processor on some of them, making the first SX chips. Later Intel developed a way to produce the SX chips without the math co-processor, so it didn't have to disable the co-processor. But by offering a DX chip, and also a "value" SX chip that lacked the math co-processor, Intel was able to increase profits from the chips. That is a marketing decision, rather than an engineering decision. | |
|
||
| 02-06-11 01:46am - 5068 days | #29 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
Something worth considering is that the there are limits imposed already. I pay for 15 MBit and that is what I get. Previously I paid for 3 and that is what I got all month. They limit what they want you to get per month by limiting the transfer rate. Tier pricing is bogus. Lets be real, it is too cheap to meter in reality. Much the same as what they said for nuclear power and hydro. Like a nuke plant the internet have infrastructure to build which is the main cost. Price per mile of cable is the same regardless of how much it is used when it is done. If it is tapped out all they need to do is place more, which also means they are charging more customers and/or charging for higher transfer rates. If everyone in an area is a download whore such as myself then the company needs to upgrade the lines. Obviously that cost will be past down to the customer. As for what is on the lines, a 1 is a 1, a 0 is a 0. No reason to care what the sequence is.Charging extra for Netflix and so on is just a "because I can" tactic. No real merit to it. Also something to keep in mind, particularly when referring to the flat fee for internet and and electricity, is that actual real time costs change. Looking at the power industry for example, there are time when the price of a unit of power is many times higher than what you pay for it even at retail pricing particularly in high population areas. At the same time, the price for a unit of electricity can actually be negative. In other words, there are people being PAID to TAKE power of the system. I do not know that they same would be true for bandwidth, but certainly its pricing can change depending on the time of the day (nights) if there is congestion. What it comes down to is that they are charging insane amounts for extra bandwidth for three reasons. First, it is easy money plain and simple. Second, it is to discourage people from using a lot so that they company can avoid upgrades that would be necessary if they wanted their customers to keep up with the growing internet. Lastly, they do not want people streaming TV or watching Netflix because many of us have internet providers that also offer cable TV. That programming is worth money to them. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 1-28 of 28 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
