|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Does anyone have any experience with having download limits imposed by your ISP? |
| 1-49 of 49 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 05-09-10 10:44am - 5341 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Does anyone have any experience with having download limits imposed by your ISP? I have no experience with this since my ISP has never imposed limits on the amount of data I bring down every month. But... I've heard that it could be coming soon. Is capping your allowable monthly downloading a common thing in the industry? It just seems like a big money grab to me. The argument that they're making is that it is in the interests of fairness. If you have a kid who is stealing movies who downloads 200GB a month that causes everyone else to have a slower service. That's their argument. It seems to me that if you have a decent download speed then you could use up your limit pretty quick. My wife has discovered watching TV shows online, and with my downloading "hobby" we could have some trouble - and big bills. Anyone else have any experience with this? I should point out that I'm in Canada so I don't know if this is a trend in the U.S., Asia and Europe too | |
|
||
| 05-09-10 01:16pm - 5341 days | #2 | |
|
yadayada321 (0)
Active User Posts: 19 Registered: Jan 29, '10 Location: Las Vegas, NV |
I know my ISP (TWC) experimented with it with a few select cities, and decided to chuck it for now. But it still may happen in the future. There are also stories of mass downloaders using TWC forced to upgrade to "Business Level" plans. Hasn't happened to me yet, and if it does, it will just switch ISPs and go back to DSL. And check out my transfer stats (this is just usenet btw ha ha ha, which is on top of all the stuff that I buy). I say I'm a mass downloader . 09/20/2009 10/20/2009 30.00 207,634,565,990 207.63 GB 10/20/2009 11/20/2009 31.04 302,583,058,132 302.58 GB 11/20/2009 12/20/2009 30.00 384,126,430,849 384.13 GB 12/20/2009 01/20/2010 30.99 273,387,136,829 273.39 GB 01/20/2010 02/20/2010 31.00 202,752,394,661 202.75 GB | |
|
||
| 05-09-10 03:20pm - 5341 days | #3 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
With cable, I've never been "capped." With dialup, I was constantly and would be denied service and had to call them and beg for the account to be reactivated. I'd get close to the limit and they'd email me warnings and shamings, saying that what I was doing was "to the detriment of other users," whoever they were.  But I wouldn't get a chance to read the warning emails until after I was reinstated because there was so much fucking spam and I'd get tired of waiting for it to finally crash my computer before I could read anything anyway. Be thankful that you don't have to chop wood to keep warm in the winter. And be thankful that you don't have to use dialup anymore. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 05-09-10 04:45pm - 5341 days | #4 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
Comcast Cable hit us with a 250 gig per month limit, like rearadmiral said, "in the interest of fairness". Of course it's a money grab. Charging more for less service is the American way. They say it's generous, but with all the high def video out now, I know I'm constantly running close to the edge. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 05-09-10 06:09pm - 5340 days | #5 | |
|
happyending (0)
Active User Posts: 15 Registered: Aug 04, '09 Location: Mars |
There are so much on information on Usenet or newsgroups that anyone can easily download 1 TB in a few days. Edited on Nov 21, 2010, 05:29pm | |
|
||
| 05-09-10 09:15pm - 5340 days | #6 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
I'm in the same boat as RB exactly. I really don't know how close I am to the edge, since it's been 2 months or so since they said that they were providing a Usage Meter so that I could see what my actual usage is - no usage meter provided. | |
|
||
| 05-09-10 09:56pm - 5340 days | #7 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I never had a download limit set by any ISP. But I've never had a really fast, or even moderately fast, download membership to test any download limits. But I did belong to an adult paysite that had a download limit, and I was blocked several times for going over the daily limit. That was not because I actually went over the limit. The site miscounted my download usage because I was using a download manager, and their system overstated the amount I downloaded by 4 times. I used about 3 GB, and they said I had used 12 GB. Because of the large size of the video files today, it does not take that many files to hit even 12 GB on a daily basis. | |
|
||
| 05-09-10 10:01pm - 5340 days | #8 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
"Fairness" as in all is fair in love and war, and business is war, well, then you have your answer (and something else to get mad about  ). You could always argue that you yourself are not being treated very fairly as a customer, or that the customer is always right, or you are fucking paying them and that they shouldn't charge you more just for being a customer...but oh what a wonderful utopia that would be! I think I despise cable, Internet, and communications companies more than anything else because these assholes have so much control over how and what they charge customers that they always intentionally and radically tip the balance in their (highly profitable) favors. In many communities these companies are essentially monopolies because even though other providers may operate in the area only one company provides service to your home or address and you either pay them or go without. And it's also not as if you are dealing with a relatively fragile and finite resource, such as water or gas or electricity. Downloading too much, well, let's call it 'data,' is not going to threaten this summer's crops or our planet's wildlife! (And if it is then I'm going to need to go back to biology class.) I better stop before I have an 'outage' of my service.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 05-09-10 10:43pm - 5340 days | #9 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I sometimes think that business uses a foreign language that only appears to look like English. I remember my mother got a letter from her HMO (health maintenance organization) one time. They were raising her monthly membership fees, and reducing her coverage (she would have to pay more out of her pocket for the same services she was getting before). They said they were doing this to give her better service. Better service means you pay more and get less coverage? | |
|
||
| 05-10-10 12:26pm - 5340 days | #10 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I'm stuck with Comcast like R.B. and subject to their 200 to 250 gb monthly limit (which I never come close to using, BadAndy I am not). The main reason ISP's impose limits (I'm just guessing here) is to limit the number of BitTorrent users and others who use large volume file sharing services. It fucks up the service of "legitimate" users and messes up the ISP's ability to uniformly predict and react to spikes in usage. The upside for the ISP is that they can charge more, a lot more than what it actually costs, for those who exceed their DL limits which are probably starting to get too low in this day and age. It's sort of a double edged sword. If Congress passes a law requiring "Net Neutrality" (ISP's cannot filter or control the DL limits of users or prioritize them) then we all end up paying a lot more for service because the ISP's then have to upgrade their systems to handle the minority "super sucker" downloaders. If we keep with the current system, most of us get around just fine but the industry simply sits on its profits and doesn't invest for the internet of the future. Google's experiment with recruiting test cities for super high speed service (roughly one gig a second DL rates) might change this equation but in any case the web infrastructure is behind the times already so we'll all pay for it in the end ... just like a bad prison joke. | |
|
||
| 05-10-10 04:43pm - 5340 days | #11 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
An easier and "fairer" way would obviously be to charge more to the bit torrent site sucking users. No infrastructure overhaul or gouging the average user would be needed. I just got a letter from my ISP and they will add $25 to my monthly billing as long as I stay with them. They said that it's lower than the "retail" rates, whatever that's supposed to mean. (They didn't provide a shred of supporting evidence for this claim.) With the experiences I've had with numerous corporations over the years, I'm somehow not inclined to be making excuses FOR THEM, OK? They'll rob you blind if they think they can get away with it. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 05-11-10 08:19am - 5339 days | #12 | |
|
BadMrFrosty (0)
Active User Posts: 124 Registered: Mar 05, '10 Location: Prague (Czech Republic) |
Download limits or "Fair Use Policies" used to be quite common over here with ADSL / Cable internet connections. I remember my 8mbit connection used to be limited to 40GB (!) a month. A couple of years ago the ISP's ditched the limits on wired internet (and some wifi). Now the only limits are on GSM mobile internet which is stupidly expensive and very limited, a 3.6mbit connection is about $20 per month on top of your normal mobile contract with a limit of 2GB per month. The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself? Frank Zappa | |
|
||
| 05-11-10 07:40pm - 5338 days | #13 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I've been on a short leash for a couple of years now since my ISP limits my monthly download to 100G. I can always download more but the cost is so high that only a fool does that. I agree that it's apure cash grab like text messaging now is. It used to be free but some genious saw a trend and companies started charging for text messages. Is there one company that doesn't charge for them and I don't cound those that offer it in a package since you pay for it anyway. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 05-16-10 11:38am - 5334 days | #14 | |
|
picdude (0)
Active User Posts: 107 Registered: Dec 26, '08 Location: Italy |
One of the biggest cable providers in the UK offer Amazingly fast download speeds but if you download more than a few GB then they cut your speed by a huge amount. It's really a pain and something I don't understand that as someone else pointed out, with more and more hi def videos (non-porn), online gaming (with steam you download full games purchased at like 10 GB a game), photosharing, youtube, music downloading from itunes, larger websites etc. Peoples downloading will naturally become more and more. I think these companies are just out too make more and more money | |
|
||
| 08-13-10 03:28pm - 5245 days | #15 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
Net Neutrality Primer: Rather than starting another thread on a technical topic, I'll just toss it in here. Recently, there's been a lot of talk about "net neutrality" and whether or not the government should pass rules or laws that permit companies to restrict the flow of data over their internet connections (aka - pay to play) or be required to treat all information equally and stream everything at the same rate (aka - net neutrality). The US government is currently trying to figure this after getting slapped down in court earlier this year with the judge telling them that the feds can't regulate the internet under existing communications laws. In an attempt to hash out some sort of compromise solution, the feds recently engaged in private talks with some of the big internet boys. Google and Verizon created a big to-do earlier this week by offering up their plan that calls for ISP's operating in the traditional world of broad band be required to follow net neutrality principals while wireless networks and future technologies be exempt. Mmmm, I wonder who might benefit the most from this concept? All sorts of other groups have their own ideas about what the internet of the next decade or so should look like so here's the minibar version of what's going on: Advocates of net neutrality (mostly consumer groups) argue that this principle basically preserves the status quo: meaning that if you're on the internet you can go to most any website and view it or download as fast as your service lets you. No discrimination. The corporate big wigs want to be able to charge different rates for speeds in the future and, conceivably, create a "pay to play" system where websites have to pay the ISP's in order for customers to view at first class speeds as opposed to whatever the ISP decides to bottleneck them into. The net neutrality folks say following the corporate model is discrimination, that it will cut out the little guys and entrepreneurs, and will just line the pockets of the ISP's by not forcing them to upgrade their services, charging more for less, and by continuing arbitrary download limits. The corporate types say that net neutrality will cost everyone more because they would have to accommodate the bandwidth hogs the same as the casual surfer which is going to cost a lot more. People with I-Phones in NY and SF already lose service because the cell towers can't handle the data, now imagine the cost being passed along to everyone when the upgrades have to go nationwide. By paying for "fast lane access" only the consumers who demand lots of speed and access have to foot the bill. The corporate dudes also argue that buy forcing businesses to pay for their site to be "fast accessible" that it will save consumers money. They also argue that competition (if you live in an area that actually has ISP competition) will keep prices low. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in between. First, the idea that there even is something like traditional broadband vs. wireless internet is out of date. How do you even tell one from another, especially if an ISP offers coverage in several different formats. That's really a misnomer, especially in the years to come. The truth is that big business stands to come out ahead the more control that they are able to retain control over the net and net access. This is not a zero sum game whereby the consumer must lose but you can bet that the more any business can control access the bigger the premium you'll end up paying. The net neutrality people are also a bit off. Currently, many ISP's do some limited form of access, either with tiered pricing for download limits or slowing down some of the bit-torrent goons who suck up inordinate amounts of bandwidth. So far the world hasn't ended. Going on a pure net neutrality model would definitely cost the consumer a lot more since the upgrade costs for infrastructure would be huge. Also, we're already used to the idea of tiered systems (see cable/satellite tv) and the idea of people paying more for more or better access. The internet will also become more unequal as more original content sites like newspapers start creating paywalls (it's not just for porn any more). Even if net neutrality were made the law of the land, it is doubtful that Congress could come up with adequate wording that could fully regulate such a complex and chaotic world as the internet (everyone enjoys debating the finer points of legalese and tech jargon together ... especially when many congressmen can't even figure out email). Lastly, a lot of arguments both for and against net neutrality are based on "what if" models (the "pay to play" feature is just a guess, not guaranteed to happen) and theories about how the web might evolve in the future. Good luck with all that. Personally, I think the issue is being made into a bigger battle than what is really at stake. For most of us, the final outcome probably won't matter much and I would guess that we'll end up with rules that probably perpetuate the status quo and probably lean towards net neutrality for wireless as well as older delivery systems. Party on. | |
|
||
| 08-13-10 04:16pm - 5245 days | #16 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
It has to be remembered though, any legislation generated from that is only going to be legal in the one country, & the internet is global. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 02:05am - 5244 days | #17 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Pat362 - I recall (and I may be wrong, age and alcohol will do that) that you live in Nova Scotia. If so, Bell Aliant imposes no download limits. I have a family member who works with their fibre-op department who says none are in the immediate future either. Interestingly, he says that there are no real cost advantages to fucking your customers. You're probably aware that there's been a big stink that three days after Netflix announced a Canadian service, Rogers, one of the biggest ISPs lowered their monthly limit from silly to ridiculous. Their highest speed service is now capped at 50GB per month. Netflix could prove expensive for their customers, but that's the point since it takes advertising revenue from their TV networks. I'm a fan of regulation in some areas (like banking, where partly because of regulation Canada was largely unscathed by the recession), but here the CRTC (the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission) has been licking ass. We pay some of the highest fees for wireless an online services in the world. Regulation in this area is a failure. Americans, and some Europeans, would burn down the buildings of companies who treated their customers like this. I have a can of gasoline and matches should my ISP impose limits. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 02:34am - 5244 days | #18 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
Interesting stuff, Wittyguy, I am surprised this hasn't come up previously. I find it hard to imagine any "non-neutral" internet in the United States. Although for general purpose browsing, so little bandiwdth is used, I don't see how it would be an issue for most users, it seems like opening this gate would allow for local ISPs to intentionally slow browsing to sites that they weren't friendly with (slow buy.com, speed up amazon). How would this be regulated, especially considering a lot if not all internet service providers use lines they are leasing - they didn't lay them. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 07:09am - 5244 days | #19 | |
|
Sevrin (0)
Active User  Posts: 80 Registered: May 30, '10 |
Given the choice between paying more for cellular service or having our largest banks collapse, I'll happily get screwed on cell service. In the meantime, we already have many more choices with respect to wireless carriers today than we had a couple of years ago. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 08:43am - 5244 days | #20 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
My understanding is that all of our largest banks would have gone bankrupt if the US government hadn't given them billions and billions of dollars in "free" taxpayer money. So I don't know why you are saying there is a choice between paying more for cellular service or having the largest banks collapse. A very large part of the billions of dollars of bailout money to the banks and brokerage companies went directly into the pockets of the executives in the form of bonus money. Bonus money to executives who put their companies in the danger of financial bankruptcy? And people (and stockholders) let the executives get away with it. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 10:59am - 5244 days | #21 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I'm in Quebec and my internet is with Videotron my cable provider. Being Canadian has it's advantages but not when it comes to paying less for anything except medication and since it gets subsidized by the Government then we aren't really getting a deal becuase our tax dollars pay for the difference anyway. Compatition could help but I suspect that it will be very much like gas companies. There are plenty of gas station but good luck finding a significant price different from any of them and that goes for the US as well. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 01:03pm - 5244 days | #22 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I didn't make that connection at all. I was just stating that in one case regulation worked (banking) and in the other it doesn't (keeping internet and cellular costs and terms reasonable). I'm making no link at all. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 02:47pm - 5244 days | #23 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I signed up for "unlimited access" with BT only to find they have decided my 100gb per month is beyond what they consider acceptable, so my speed will now be limited to 1 mbps for a month. Here is part of what they say "We emailed you recently to remind you about our Fair Usage Policy. Our records show that your broadband usage in July is now above 100GB. In accordance with our Fair Usage Policy, and to protect the online experience for all our customers, we'll now be restricting your broadband speed at peak times only (typically this is between 5pm and 12am, but these times may change depending on the demands on the network) to 1Mbps for a minimum of 30 days. We'll continue to restrict your speed and notify you by email as long as your monthly usage remains above 100GB. You have received this email because your broadband usage this month means you are a very heavy user (which is typically less than 1 per cent of all customers). If your usage has unexpectedly increased it may be for several reasons. If you have downloaded a peer-to-peer (P2P) client to your PC then your usage levels can be affected by other P2P users uploading files from your PC, you may need to adjust the settings or remove the client." | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 04:40pm - 5244 days | #24 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
True. My post was not a reply to your post, but to Sevrin's post, which stated in part: "Given the choice between paying more for cellular service or having our largest banks collapse, I'll happily get screwed on cell service." I thought his comment was a mis-interpretation of what you did post. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 04:54pm - 5244 days | #25 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
This won't be much comfort, but my DSL account maxes out at 160 KB/s download speed. I'm too cheap to pay for a faster connection.  But if you are into porn or online movies, 100 GB/month is a horrible limitation. File sizes today are huge compared to a few years ago. Maybe you can explain to your ISP that you are watching movies, without mentioning porn, and see if the clerk/whoever you talk/write to, will give a human response. Internet files today are very large, and 100 GB per month is an overly restrictive limit. Edited on Aug 14, 2010, 05:07pm | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 05:27pm - 5244 days | #26 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
I used to get the same kind of stuff from my provider when I was on dialup, but they took a moral tone and said that what was doing was "to the detriment of other users." If it was modem pool, I suppose it was true. But they'd enforce it by denying connections until you'd call them to plead, and you'd get more finger wagging that way. Assholes. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 05:54pm - 5244 days | #27 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
I didn't take offence and thought that I might have mis-interpreted your post. Like most here, you're known for your decorum. I just figured that maybe the topic of download limits caused you to lose it. It does for me. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 05:56pm - 5244 days | #28 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I hope I'm wrong, but I think that as time goes by you'll see an increase in restrictions put on the total amount of data you can download. It makes great business sense for the ISP to do that because I think that at some point they will start to remove those restrictions by offering different download packages that will of course require you to pay significantly more to download what you can do for less today. Text messaging used to be free, but not anymore. At some point the companies that manage the cell networks realised that more and more people were texting instead of talking. They quickly realised what an amazing cash cow they had on their hands. I guess that's going to happen to internet access and download capability. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 05:58pm - 5244 days | #29 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
TheSquirrel: Two things: 1) please fight this. We all need to fight this. It seems download limits are being imposed in correlation with higher speeds. Hello ISPs! If you give us higher speeds, we'll use them! 2) as a TheSquirrel, would you please phone your Canadian cousin who has taken up residence in the roof of my cottage. I'll give him or her a whole bag of peanuts if they just leave. No questions asked. | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 06:06pm - 5243 days | #30 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I have to agree with Drooler here; what a bunch of assholes!  Whatever happened to "The customer is always right"? When did it turn into "Hey, customer, pay up or go fuck yourself." As bad as it sounds if the major banks collapsed (or at least the ones that got the ol' bailout treatment), many personal financial accounts in the U.S. are insured to $100K by the federal government so people wouldn't exactly lose every penny overnight though the economic shitstorm would surely strengthen. But I need my por-I mean my Internet and I would really love to pay less on the monthly bill over not having to witness a collapse of banks, so call me crazy. (Besides those banks are run by the übergreedy whom I despise, so fuck 'em.) But I would love even more to have Canadian-style health care over a lower 'net or phone bill or economic stability. I mean I am willing to bet having Internet porn is good for my psychological health, at least somewhat because I swear has it has kept my head from exploding on more than one occasion, but I don't think it could cure cancer or fix a fracture so a single payer health care system (not a medical industrial complex) would be even better. But then everyone's stress levels would skyrocket because of expensive Internet and imploding financial institutions.  "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 06:55pm - 5243 days | #31 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Thanks for the kind words. Maybe we should email Khan suggesting a new badge for decorum. Or a second badge for those PU members who are still in our hearts, even if they disappeared into the great beyond. Cybertoad and Toadsith would fit into the second category.  | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 06:59pm - 5243 days | #32 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
1) Yeah what is the point of higher speeds? - doesn't take long to use up 100gb. There's already some negative feedback on the BT forum. Lot of unhappy customers saying things along the lines of "wasn't unlimited in the contract?" "so when they say unlimited they mean limited?" and "time to find a new isp etc." 2) We may not even be related, lot of squirrels around, and we are cute - although admittedly a little destructive, and unlike me, some are even reasonably sane. Now if you get bats you're in trouble. They are protected and there's all that guano (which isn't a fruit). | |
|
||
| 08-14-10 07:02pm - 5243 days | #33 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I think around about 1964 in this country. Instead of buy one get one free it's usually buy one and fuck off. Edited on Aug 15, 2010, 05:24am | |
|
||
| 08-15-10 04:31am - 5243 days | #34 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
All I can add is that I have not been banned by the two IPS's I have had thus far. I had DSL and downloaded 900 GB per month. I now have cable and download 3-5 TB per month. This is just me, perhaps I have been lucky thus far. Many people I know of have restrictions, some very strict. "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 | |
|
||
| 08-15-10 09:50am - 5243 days | #35 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I bitch and moan endlessly about living in a suburban area but the one benefit is usually a host of Internet options with fairly decent pricing, even for the heavier, badandy400-type dedicated downloaders among us. I currently use a cable modem (shares a line with the TV but it's a different bill) and am not even on the ISP's fastest, most expensive plan--yet I have never experienced intolerably low speeds. I would like believe that I am not such a slave to technology that I could not live without a decent web connection, but I recently read an article about the trouble of keeping younger newer doctors practicing in small towns because of things like little to no Internet and weak cell phone service. All I could think is that I was pretty glad about where I live. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 08-15-10 09:48pm - 5242 days | #36 | |
|
graymane (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,411 Registered: Feb 20, '10 Location: Virginia |
For what it's worth, I have a cable bundle in which internet, phone, and TV are covered under one roof. I suspect the download provisions are limitless because I've never been called on it. Up until recently the Cable company also provided usenet and newsgroups, but they've now abandoned that, for reasons I wouldn't know because I never used it. For the first two or three years I owned a computer, I had a major Dialup service ....which, subsequently was a "major" headache also. Comparing the two ISPs is simply no contest. Like the old war-time song that goes> "How'ya gonna keep'em down on the farm when they've seen Paree?"  | |
|
||
| 08-16-10 11:03am - 5242 days | #37 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I think fast Internet service is like a hard addictive drug that you can't kick or even cut down on. Once you have a little, you need more, then more, and so on. I have never used a fast connection and ever thought anything slower would be tolerable. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 08-17-10 04:00am - 5241 days | #38 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
Turboshaft is right. Internet is addicting and like drugs yyou do need more and more to get a fix. "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 | |
|
||
| 08-17-10 09:02am - 5241 days | #39 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Sir badandy400, was I asleep when you broke 100 points? There must have been a huge PU party, and I missed it completely. Belated congratulations on passing the 100 point mark.  | |
|
||
| 08-17-10 09:33am - 5241 days | #40 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Spoken from a man of immense experience! "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 10-21-10 03:53pm - 5176 days | #41 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
This is a little off topic, but I just heard that at peak times of the day, Netflix apparently uses 20% of U.S. bandwidth! And we all thought that our own BadAndy400 was taking up a lot of bandwidth... Netflix's business is growing steadily but this puts a strain on service providers, especially those that offer unlimited 'net for a flat rate, where users can eat up a lot of bandwidth compared to customers who don't stream movies online though they both pay the same amount. I remember something similar when Youtube started getting big and it was putting a lot of strain on colleges that provided free Internet to students. Hope this doesn't lead to rearadmiral's problem of download limits for more and more ISPs, but they're going to want something in return for all our usage. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove Edited on Oct 22, 2010, 02:24pm | |
|
||
| 10-21-10 04:21pm - 5176 days | #42 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I know very little about the business side of the Internet, but it sounds hard to believe that Netflix could be using 20% of US bandwidth at any time, peak or not. Are that many people in the US (or elsewhere) downloading or streaming movies from Netflix? Wouldn't there be some financial fee Netflix has to pay for the amount of traffic it provides to customers? The monthly membership fee to Netflix is tiny, compared to the huge amount of data (movies) that is being downloaded/streamed by many of their members. At least some of the PU members complain or comment their ISPs limit the amount they can download each month, before slapping them with extra fees that can be very expensive. It would not take very many movies before a monthly download limit would be reached. I think a regular movie (not high definition or blu ray) is 5 GB or more. | |
|
||
| 10-21-10 06:32pm - 5175 days | #43 | |
|
squirrel (0)
Active User Posts: 17 Registered: Jul 15, '08 Location: US |
Comcast here, 250 gigs per month. It's not difficult at all to go over that, given the, er, "subject matter" we discuss here. At least, they've finally provided a meter on your account page that lets you see what you're doing -- I keep an eye on that, you bet. I've actually joined some smaller sites within the last week of a month, if I haven't burned through enough of my download limit. I'm usually able to wind up with perhaps 5% of my limit left each month. It's the sheer hypocrisy that gets my goat -- "convergence" and such BS, when they don't give you enough bandwidth to accomplish what their advertising promises. All I can do is try to use up every last bit of what I get, every single month. I manage, but it just sucks. | |
|
||
| 10-22-10 03:33pm - 5175 days | #44 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Amen to that, squirrel. I'm actually surprised that in the U.S. a company could get away with limits given the choices available in many areas. I have a friend (a PU member too) who's provider used to impose an 80GB limit until Netflix became available. Then the provider dropped the limit to 60GB. This fellow went over by 15GB one month (no easy way to determine where he stood) and was billed an additional $30. The hypocrisy is that his provider was also one of the largest cable suppliers too, and obviously didn't want competition. He switched recently and I begged him to tell his old supplier that he was leaving because of the limits and tell the new supplier that he joined them specifically because they have no limits. I trust he did that. | |
|
||
| 10-27-10 11:16pm - 5169 days | #45 | |
|
littlejoe (0)
Active User Posts: 49 Registered: Jan 25, '07 Location: earth |
comcast has 250gb. i was pissed at 1st, then after checking my meter im not even close to it. | |
|
||
| 10-28-10 05:28pm - 5169 days | #46 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
The annoying thing to me about Comcast's usage limit is this: 7 months or so after e-mailing me about the Usage Meter, I still have no Usage Meter - I guess they're rolling it out state-by-state. So I have this Usage Limit hanging over my head with no Usage Meter to let me know whether I'm anywhere close to the edge - ridiculous. | |
|
||
| 10-28-10 06:57pm - 5168 days | #47 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Maybe not so ridiculous from a business point of view. If a customer doesn't know he's close to being over the limit then he won't be careful. I guess Comcast has some kind of system that will charge anyone that goes above their allowed amount of download like my ISP does at the moment. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 12-30-10 01:51pm - 5106 days | #48 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
A few weeks ago the good old boys at the FCC finally passed new rules regarding internet neutrality and, low and behold, they actually opted to go with net neutrality as the standard for internet access. The basic decision (the long argument is laid out in post #15 above) came down to whether or not the ISPs could charge people more for accessing certain websites (effectively creating toll roads for consumers) or if the ISPs had to respect all internet sites equally and let people have universal access. The later option, called net neutrality, won the day to relief of the consumer world. However, as usual, the devil is in the details and the details leave something to be desired. First, net neutrality only applies to traditional internet subscribers. In other words, these rules don't apply to smart phones, i-pads and other devices that rely on cell phone networks to get internet access. Since that's the way the world is heading, this could prove to be sore point in years to come. Second, the rules still allowed tiered pricing. The more you download, the more ISP's can charge you. The status quo remains the same here. The same applies to bandwidth and/or download speeds. More = more expensive if that's what the ISP wants. In other words, if you want to use the express way you have to pay the ISP toll to use it. Third, ISP networks can still disrupt services during peak web congestion periods. Typically, these types of peaks are actually more like brief spikes that last momentarily and that consumers like you and me have no ready way of identifying. The rules seem to allow ISP's to charge consumers an extra fee for essentially "being the last one kicked off the island" when it comes to congestion spikes. This is really a function of meter servicing, sort of like when you get charged different rates for using electricity at different times of the day. This hasn't really been explored yet as a billing option by ISP's but the door now seems open to this. So, in a nutshell, while it sounds all good and rosy the reality is that very little will change in the near future when it comes to pricing and internet access. Yes, you can thank your government at work for this truly exciting piece of administrative code. If you want more dirty details, go here. | |
|
||
| 01-01-11 04:31pm - 5104 days | #49 | |
|
Thedebilman666 (0)
Suspended  Posts: 144 Registered: Dec 08, '10 Location: NYC |
Currently here in NY there are no dl limits, at least for Time Warner cable customers. I remember them talking about imposing a limit about a year ago but the public got outraged and made themselves heard so they scrapped that idea. If they ever do put a download limit on my account will be the day I tell them to go fuck themselves and switch to DSL or wireless. I can't believe some of you guys have dl limits from your ISPs, I feel bad for youse, I do, especially if you joined a mega network like DDF and have a 100GB limit a month, that's like 2 days worth of zipping at DDF and it would cost you a small fortune to get their entire collection. 6 pack bitches, deal with it Edited on Jan 01, 2011, 04:43pm | |
|
||
| 1-49 of 49 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
