|
Xandu posted:Seriously though, I have a 250gb cap and watch Netflix all the time, play online multiplayer games, and torrent most of the shows I watch and I've never once gone over it. The fact that you browse with images off is astounding to me. It's only about 3.5 hours per day of HD streaming- a lot of streaming every day but probably not super unusual either. And that's assuming netflix is the only thing it's used for. Caps are a lot bigger issue than the speed- which again, it seems the US is hardly unreasonably priced when you figure out how much infrastructure is required vs. other countries with faster average speeds. [ Sephiroth_IRA posted:Well if anyone knows a way to compress web traffic let me know because right now I have images disabled on most sites. It's the HD streaming that's killing you, browsing w/o images probably saves you a couple minutes of streaming time all considered. Beyond that you can appearently change Netflix's video quality: http://www.gci.com/kb/netflix-movie-and-data-usage e: it's under 'your profile' in your account settings now. But it's silly to do because the quality goes to utter poo poo. enbot fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jun 5, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I live in one of the (many) parts of Alabama/Mississippi where the only options for internet faster than dial-up are Satellites. $90 a month for 10 gigs. I had to start browsing somethingawful with images and avatars off because opening a single thread in Games would sometimes eat significant portions of my monthly limit. I'm trapped by Verizon's Homefusion scam because it was either that, satellite, or dialup where I live, $60 for 10 gb on a 4g tether with no free download periods. I honestly wish I'd settled for satellite because 2000 ping would be an okay trade for no multiplayer games, which I can't play anyway because patches exist without any consideration for the idea of home internet with such a ludicrously low cap in 2014.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:2014, everybody 2014: Don't push for more, just lower your standards!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I live in one of the (many) parts of Alabama/Mississippi where the only options for internet faster than dial-up are Satellites. $90 a month for 10 gigs. I had to start browsing somethingawful with images and avatars off because opening a single thread in Games would sometimes eat significant portions of my monthly limit. There is almost certainly ISDN available to you if you have a functioning phone line. The problem is that doing so will cost you easily $90-$120 a month and likely $1000 or so in start-up costs and suitable hardware; but with the possibility of up to 512 kilobit symmetrical service without bandwidth limits and significantly less latency than satellite.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
enbot posted:
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that I've already done this and only watch a few shows in HD now. Still, I don't think I should have to. It doesn't make sense to me that Time Warner can offer unlimited but another supposedly competing (in some areas, not mine) cable company can't. Are there actually real justifications for dl/ul caps or is it just a way to get people to buy other cable services? quote:It's only about 3.5 hours per day of HD streaming- a lot of streaming every day but probably not super unusual either. 3.5 hours sounds like a lot but not when it's split between 2 or more people. Anyway, it seems like my wife doesn't mind the quality being lower on most of the stuff we (she mainly) watches. So I think we'll be OK. Sephiroth_IRA fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Yeah, I mentioned earlier that I've already done this and only watch a few shows in HD now. Still, I don't think I should have to. It doesn't make sense to me that Time Warner can offer unlimited but another supposedly competing (in some areas, not mine) cable company can't. Are there actually real justifications for dl/ul caps or is it just a way to get people to buy other cable services? In Montreal, the cable provider has had caps as long as the technology has been a thing (like since 2000 or perhaps earlier) while their DSL-based competitor was unmetered until relatively recently, like a few years ago. I never quite understood it, especially since back in those days the cable provider's limit was about 40 gigs with no maximum for overage charges (which were like $5 a gig and still are). I think the industry has re-shaped itself in such a way that there is a need for per-gigabyte charges to a degree, since at least some ISP's, especially the smaller ones or those based on satellite/cell networks, have to pay for their pipes based on number of gigabytes consumed. The limits of technology itself aren't a quantity issue but more of a bandwidth issue. It's kind of like trying to solve a persistent rush hour traffic problem by declaring that everyone is only allowed to drive a maximum of 50 miles a month with their cars; it doesn't address the fact that the people driving in rush hour traffic are doing so out of necessity to get to and from work and won't stop doing that, and impacts people who work outside of the 9-to-5 window and drive down the same roads when they're probably the only ones there.  On a similar note, SMS texts are a persistent part of your cell phone's signal; every packet you get from your cell tower has a 160-character block reserved, it's just usually empty. It has always cost cell phone companies jack poo poo to provide texts but that never stopped them from charging per-text.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
univbee posted:
They do do that in Beijing though, sort of - only cars ending with certain numbers can drive on certain days. I think it's more to control pollution but it definitely impacts traffic. quote:On a similar note, SMS texts are a persistent part of your cell phone's signal; every packet you get from your cell tower has a 160-character block reserved, it's just usually empty. It has always cost cell phone companies jack poo poo to provide texts but that never stopped them from charging per-text. Some companies do offer those free (T-Mobile and the like) but yeah it's definitely a thing that in a more competitive environment would be free by default.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They do do that in Beijing though, sort of - only cars ending with certain numbers can drive on certain days. I think it's more to control pollution but it definitely impacts traffic. A good place to look for internet-related billing which made sense (sort of) was Australia and New Zealand 5-10 years ago. They has pretty low caps, but generally only clocked data that came from outside of the country (because, at least for New Zealand there was a single undersea cable for internet and its owner charged ISP's far out the rear end for gigabytes on it) and set up servers for various sites and services that were co-located with them so the data could be streamed locally (e.g. Steam, iTunes, Xbox Live, health and government websites), and I think even set things up so there was a tiny icon that showed up in the corner whenever you were on a site that wasn't counting towards your cap. Also, overnight (like midnight to 8 A.M.) was either fully unmetered or on its own, higher limit (like 100+ gigs when your normal limit was 20). Still annoying and confusing, but you could tell the ISP was at least trying to throw its customers a bone, none of this "you have to pay $90 for a 20 gigabyte limit on a 3 megabit connection because gently caress you."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
For another laugh let's compare mobile phone sevice/costs because they're probably even more jarringly unfair than internet speeds. EE, previously Orange, UK: Galaxy S5, 4GB data, Unl Talk/Txt. Phone price: £30, Monthly service: £43 Verizon, US: Galaxy S5, 4GB data, Unl Talk/Txt. Phone price: $149, Monthly service: $110
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
i am harry posted:For another laugh let's compare mobile phone sevice/costs because they're probably even more jarringly unfair than internet speeds. There are cheaper mobile providers in the US and they are all generally good when you are near civilization. Verizon charges more because they are often the only provider that has decent data speeds (or even voice coverage) when you get into "Nowhereville USA, population 18".
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
The_Franz posted:There are cheaper mobile providers in the US and they are all generally good when you are near civilization. Verizon charges more because they are often the only provider that has decent data speeds (or even voice coverage) when you get into "Nowhereville USA, population 18". Oh, OK. (Tmobile, US: Galaxy S5, 4GB data at avg speed, unl data at useless speed, Unl Talk/Txt. Phone price: 27.50/mo. x 24 mos., Monthly service: $60)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Oh, OK. So less for service, more for the phone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:So less for service, more for the phone. (ATT is somewhere between these) T-Mobile: 90 per month (Sprint is basically the same) So the point is any of the main US service providers charge ~100 per month minimum for basic smartphone service. The same service in England is 40-50 per month, and I'm pretty sure the same can be expected for all of mainland Europe (probably better). In advance, there's no point figuring in the difference of dollars to pounds, as it makes little difference when comparing what a US salary of 25k provides with that of a UK salary of same amount. Customer base numbers should disprove that the main US providers should charge their customers more, considering they have much larger subscription bases and have been gutting everyone with 2-year contracts for ages. i am harry fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Earlier in this thread I attacked Comcast and everyone insisted that there's nothing wrong with their service. Can anyone explain why they were rated 234th out of 236 in this customer satisfaction survey? Time Warner was rated dead last, clearly people are really dissatisfied with their cable internet service. If it's not the speed, reliability, or price that is subpar, why do people hate their cable internet providers so much? http://www.pressherald.com/2014/06/05/time-warner-comcast-internet-services-vie-for-bottom-of-list/ quote:Based on phone and online surveys, it rated Time Warner Cable’s Internet service as 236th out of 236 companies in customer satisfaction – a list that included Coke, Campbell Soup, Nissan, Allstate and Verizon Communications. Time Warner Cable’s TV service rated 25th. It's also notable that the hate is clearly reserved for the internet service and not the TV, clearly they're doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Verizon: 149 + 100 per month Uh, the part where your 40-50 pounds is worth 70-85 dollars is probably worth figuring, yes. A UK salary of 25k pounds is not going to go to the same person as a US salary of 25k dollars - employers understand currency conversions. And did you miss that EE has a 2 year contract requirement?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
i am harry posted:For another laugh let's compare mobile phone sevice/costs because they're probably even more jarringly unfair than internet speeds. You can get an S5 on Verizon for like $110/month, no 2 year contract, 4 GB data, and unlimited text and talk. Edit: I double checked. It would be $140/month. Again, no 2 year contract or down payment on the phone. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
With a 2 year contract I'm getting ~$90/month on Verizon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
Pretty much all the new plans from the big carriers include unlimited SMS. It was a money grab while it lasted but it's been written down in newer plans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Verizon: 149 + 100 per month Not sure about single line, I pay for a family plan, 4 smartphones with unlimited domestic calling and texting (I think intl is incldued now too? not sure) and 10gb data for $160 plus gubbmint fees. It's less than it used to be, T-Mo forced prices down. I don't think it's an unfair price, really, for what i'm getting. I don't do the 'next' think, I dont mind paying $200 every 2 years for the latest device rather than $25 per month. The most data I've used in a month is about 8.5 and that was during a move when I was without cable modem for a week. I have 2 teenaged kids who are on their phones all the time, so $40 a month each isn't bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Yeah, I guess with two people both using it that makes it easier, I know I definitely use at least 125g. Remember that the average cord-cutting household (defined as the heaviest 15% of streaming video users) uses ~230 gb per month. It's absolutely possible to consume that much bandwidth with normal uses today, let alone when we start streaming 4K video (Netflix launched it in May), streaming games from your home PC to a mobile device (Nvidia Shield) or Twitch.tv, using "cloud devices" (WD Live HDD) to access files/music/movies, etc. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
You can't declare an average for those households when your proxy is bandwidth used.MaxxBot posted:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_designEarlier in this thread I attacked Comcast and everyone insisted that there's nothing wrong with their service. Can anyone explain why they were rated 234th out of 236 in this customer satisfaction survey? Time Warner was rated dead last, clearly people are really dissatisfied with their cable internet service. If it's not the speed, reliability, or price that is subpar, why do people hate their cable internet providers so much? More directly affected by Internet speeds than anything else (tv outages quite rare). Also comcast has epically bad customer service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Xandu posted:You can't declare an average for those households when your proxy is bandwidth used. The proxy isn't bandwidth used, it's "top users of video streaming services" (probably minutes streamed). Slightly different, since "bandwidth used" includes other stuff besides video streaming, and "minutes streamed" doesn't say anything about the quality, etc. Do you have a better suggestion for how to find the average bandwidth used by people who replace cable TV services with streaming? How else should you localize heavy users of streaming services, if not their usage of said services? We are indeed talking about usage of a service that more or less directly translates into bandwidth usage but that doesn't mean you can just handwave it away, the entire point is that it is indeed possible to consume large quantities of bandwidth with normal usage of these services. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Remember that the average cord-cutting household (defined as the heaviest 15% of streaming video users) uses ~230 gb per month. True that. I'd like to remind everyone also that if your service sucks, go to your State's Public Service Commission. People think this is a waste of time, but every complaint is addressed, even if it's in the aggregate with the company you're complaining about. I know that TWC wanted to charge some huge sum of money to run cable up a street that one of my friends lives on, and after he went to the PSC, along with a couple neighbors, all of a sudden the build cost went to zero. I'd consider getting some friends or neighbors and go to your PSC and complain about the caps. At worst you waste a little time, at best, it adds to the pressure for Comcast or whomever, to raise their caps. For comcast specifically, they're trying to get the FCC to approve their takeover of TWC, this is the kind of thing that is looked at regarding monopolistic behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The proxy isn't bandwidth used, it's "top users of video streaming services" (probably minutes streamed). Slightly different, since "bandwidth used" includes other stuff besides video streaming, and "minutes streamed" doesn't say anything about the quality, etc. Conduct an online survey (probably make people install something to accurately record bandwidth used), talk to companies like Verizon or Comcast (since tv and Internet are almost always bundled from one company, they'd know who are cord cutters and exactly how much they're using. Not an insurmountable problem. I'm just objecting to the terminology used, just call them heavy users of streaming video.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Conduct an online survey (probably make people install something to accurately record bandwidth used), talk to companies like Verizon or Comcast (since tv and Internet are almost always bundled from one company, they'd know who are cord cutters and exactly how much they're using. Not an insurmountable problem. An online survey as an accurate method of polling anything?  Good luck getting tech savvy users to see your ad, and good luck asking users to accurately estimate their usage. Nielsen proved this doesn't work even when people have a good, known measurement like "hours" [of tv watched], let alone when the quantity measured (bandwidth) is relatively hidden from the viewer.Making someone install something only captures bandwidth usage of one device, which doesn't give an accurate measure of total bandwidth usage of these households. The only place you could really meter that would be at the router/modem/ISP-side, which is how that "230 gb" number was calculated. Of course this also fails to capture cellular/4G usage. I've actually tried to track my usage to stay under the caps, and there's really no good way to do it short of installing DD-WRT custom firmware on a router. Some routers can do it out of the box, but most can't. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Earlier in this thread I attacked Comcast and everyone insisted that there's nothing wrong with their service. Can anyone explain why they were rated 234th out of 236 in this customer satisfaction survey? Documented statistics prove they fulfill their advertised service nearly the most and experience outages nearly least frequently of all US cable ISPs. However they're also huge and since they're not operated monolithically some areas of service are going to have worse customer service and poo poo. Xandu posted:Conduct an online survey (probably make people install something to accurately record bandwidth used), talk to companies like Verizon or Comcast (since tv and Internet are almost always bundled from one company, they'd know who are cord cutters and exactly how much they're using. Not an insurmountable problem. The terminology is particularly bad because there's plenty of households where some people there watch TV and others watch a lot of online video.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The proxy isn't bandwidth used, it's "top users of video streaming services" (probably minutes streamed). Considering the report says they use over half of the total monthly network traffic I'm going to assume that it's more than just minutes streamed. https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena/
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Considering the report says they use over half of the total monthly network traffic I'm going to assume that it's more than just minutes streamed. The exact phrasing: quote:1) Cord Cutters – These users are in the top 15th-percentile of streaming audio and video usage. While we are unable to resolve if these subscribers have “cut the cord”, their usage profile indicates that they are likely using streaming as a primary form of entertainment. So it's video/audio streaming usage, measured in megabytes, yeah. Probably they're looking at how much traffic is coming off of Youtube/Netflix/other big providers. There's more data at the link, including breakdowns. A/V streaming averages 153gb/month in cord-cutters, or roughly 100 hours/month, roughly 72% of their total bandwidth usage. Those users appear to be more "wired" generally and consume 3x the average non-streaming data as well. The percentage of overall network traffic they use is irrelevant to the top-line definition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I'm actually looking at the report and there's an odd phenomenon. Apparently the US has either the same or a significantly higher data use rate than Europe:   
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm actually looking at the report and there's an odd phenomenon. Apparently the US has either the same or a significantly higher data use rate than Europe: That is interesting, and it holds across both wired and wireless service. I wonder if it's a copyright/regioning thing. Netflix isn't widely available in Europe and it's a country-by-country process to roll it out, plus you've got countries like Germany that stomp on Youtube-type services really hard when enforcing copyright. In comparison the US has one set of laws covering 310 million people, which is a better market. Euros kind of seem to be split on wireless service - the median is very low (20% of US), but the average is almost as high as the US (75% of US), which implies a small contingent of extremely heavy users, and that these heavy users in Europe consume even more disproportionate amounts (relative to light-user countrymen) than their US counterparts. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
One must bear in mind that even if there isn't legal video streaming available, there's still going to be piracy available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Documented statistics prove they fulfill their advertised service nearly the most and experience outages nearly least frequently of all US cable ISPs. However they're also huge and since they're not operated monolithically some areas of service are going to have worse customer service and poo poo. There's plenty of other companies among the 236 that could be described as "huge and not operated monolithically" yet for some reason the two largest cable internet providers are dead last and close to dead last out of a massive list of companies on customer satisfaction. If they are fulfilling their advertised service and are still hated this much the only logical conclusion is that people simply aren't satisfied with the service that they provide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:There's plenty of other companies among the 236 that could be described as "huge and not operated monolithically" yet for some reason the two largest cable internet providers are dead last and close to dead last out of a massive list of companies on customer satisfaction. If they are fulfilling their advertised service and are still hated this much the only logical conclusion is that people simply aren't satisfied with the service that they provide. I hate Comcast because when I have to deal with them, they're a tremendous pain in the rear end. I'm perfectly happy with my internet and tv though. I just hate them because when we moved, they made moving our service more annoying than it had to be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:There's plenty of other companies among the 236 that could be described as "huge and not operated monolithically" yet for some reason the two largest cable internet providers are dead last and close to dead last out of a massive list of companies on customer satisfaction. If they are fulfilling their advertised service and are still hated this much the only logical conclusion is that people simply aren't satisfied with the service that they provide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Their customer service isn't the same as their actual service, it's amazing you can't understand this. It wasn't a poll of their customer service, it was a poll on their satisfaction with their internet service as a whole, customer service being part of that. quote:Satisfaction involves a consumer’s perception of a product’s value, quality and customer service. I'm sure Comcast's notoriously bad customer service is part of the reason for their low score but Time Warner's score was even worse and their customer service isn't as notoriously bad (no idea if it's any good though). I don't understand why you refuse to even entertain the possibility that there might be widespread dissatisfaction with the cable internet service from Comcast and Time Warner, even in the face of this survey suggesting that there is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:Not sure about single line, I pay for a family plan, 4 smartphones with unlimited domestic calling and texting (I think intl is incldued now too? not sure) and 10gb data for $160 plus gubbmint fees. It's less than it used to be, T-Mo forced prices down. I don't think it's an unfair price, really, for what i'm getting. I don't do the 'next' think, I dont mind paying $200 every 2 years for the latest device rather than $25 per month. The most data I've used in a month is about 8.5 and that was during a move when I was without cable modem for a week. I have 2 teenaged kids who are on their phones all the time, so $40 a month each isn't bad. Another thing that really struck me is how little respect the returning, renewing customer is given. Used to be, if you had an 18 month contract in the UK (2 year contracts didn't exist) and you renewed, they'd throw the most expensive phone you could think up at you for nothing. Here, upon reaching the end of your two year contract, you are given the same deals as a new customer gets with a new plan. I think T-Mobile has slightly changed the way the largest providers behave by bringing some of the positive differences over from the European markets but American consumers are getting boned in the mouth, and it's been that way for over a decade. i am harry fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
i am harry posted:10GB shared across all devices right? That's the latest way they've decided to gently caress you. You don't think it's an unfair price because there is nothing to compare it to. No, it's because some people just don't use that much data on their phones. I use about 2 gigs a month at most and that's with me being fairly prolific too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, it's because some people just don't use that much data on their phones. I use about 2 gigs a month at most and that's with me being fairly prolific too. Yes but up until a year and a half ago you had that amount of data per phone. And just a couple years before that we all had unlimited data as an option. http://www.androidcentral.com/us-mobile-data-prices-among-most-expensive-world i am harry fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Yes but up until a year and a half ago you had that amount of data per phone. You can still get that amount of data per phone. As mentioned earlier the only reason unlimited plans were dropped is that they couldn't legally call them that if they were going to cap you at any time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It wasn't a poll of their customer service, it was a poll on their satisfaction with their internet service as a whole, customer service being part of that. Because Comcast offers close to the best actual service in the country?? This is very easy. When you're in the top 5 for speed and reliability and price:performance (as a function of having pretty much identical prices to most isps while having better service) dissatisfaction can't be with the actual service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:47
|
|