|
Quarantini posted:Anyone else think that having usage caps INCREASES bandwidth usage? I know when I used to be on the pseudo-unlimited comcast service (before the 250 gig cap in the U.S.) I would never worry about bandwidth, using about 40-75 gig a month. Now when the 25th or 26th of the month rolls around I am sure to queue up at least 100 gig of stuff to download since it's basically "free". This! I too feel the challenge to max out my quota monthly. They would be far better to just have no quotas (or VERY high) and just charge everyone based on statistical averages. I suspect the quotas are there so that they can have the super cheap/lite option that is near useless for everyone but gets their foot in the door then upsell you later. This is a business model similar to cable and cell phones where its all about having a confusing array of options and being able to upsell.
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
Well that went allright. It'll be on CBC National tonight, not Marketplace, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
less than three posted:Well that went allright. even better! Ill watch it with my wife and tell her, yea I know that guy from the internet 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
Can someone try to capture it and post it to Youtube or something? I don't have cable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
It'll probably be on cbc.ca/thenational too, though I don't know what their turnaround is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
They spent a bunch of time filming filler shots, oh god I don't know what ones they'll use. I didn't really have much prepared for when they were like "type. now watch a video. now... etc"
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
"show us all your torrents of games, movies, and music. good, good."
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
less than three posted:They spent a bunch of time filming filler shots, oh god I don't know what ones they'll use. Hahaha please tell me you had this thread open at the time Martytoof posted:It'll probably be on cbc.ca/thenational too, though I don't know what their turnaround is. Yesterday's is already up. You can probably stream the live feed tonight actually (they do it for HNIC, I don't see why they wouldn't for The National)
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Wafulz posted:Hahaha please tell me you had this thread open at the time I had a thread open in the background as I gave the interview. Can't remember if it's this one, it might have been. They had me clicking around a few tabs of threads to film me 'moving the mouse'
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
less than three posted:I had a thread open in the background as I gave the interview. Can't remember if it's this one, it might have been. They did this kind of stuff with my boss too. I'll try to capture it and upload it to YouTube tonight. VV PM me with details of how you want to be credited for the contents of the segment so I can include it in the YouTube comments. univbee fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
At the end of the interview they asked me to go further on how it made me feel emotionally, as expected. I think I did alright for not just spitting out "gently caress YOU ALLLLLL  "
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:It'll probably be on cbc.ca/thenational too, though I don't know what their turnaround is. Usually pretty fast, although their video quality is TERRIBLE (probably because of bandwidth limitations ). Mine will be in super-HD, killing all Canadians' monthly quota. The irony of the whole situation shall be glorious!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
They misspelled Gigabyte, but that's okay. It was pretty informative, but I actually laughed when the other guy said "my usage this month will be about 40 gigabytes.  " I just got the notice this morning that I'm past my 125GB limit. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
Ruklo Burosee posted:They misspelled Gigabyte, but that's okay. It was pretty informative, but I actually laughed when the other guy said "my usage this month will be about 40 gigabytes. Yeah, I kind of wish they'd picked a better candidate (e.g. college roommates in an apartment who are in the 200+ gig range). Oh well. I'm uploading the video now, since my upload sucks rear end and the video's 1080p it'll take a while. EDIT: gently caress, just looked at my bandwidth usage:  VV I said that because I had heard that there was a compression/decompression thing with Steam downloads, but it looks like I was misinformed anyway. univbee fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:It's not, because most Steam games come uncompressed. Snarky comment withdrawn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
Steam probably should compress stuff, and doubly-so for pre-loads since it increases entropy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
I'm just startled to find out they don't work everything over with some brutal industrial strength compression already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
8ender posted:I'm just startled to find out they don't work everything over with some brutal industrial strength compression already. I think half the problem is game data by nature already comes "compressed" to a certain degree, and compressing that kind of stuff losslessly can be near-impossible. Compressing data is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the sense that we're working with files that already have built-in compression, like jpg, mp3, docx and other file formats. Trying to compress a JPG or MP3 losslessly can in some cases even lead to a bigger "compressed" file, and generally will old save you like 1% if circumstances are good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 06:27
|
|
|
univbee posted:Yeah, I kind of wish they'd picked a better candidate (e.g. college roommates in an apartment who are in the 200+ gig range). Oh well. That's what I was though.  I was all like 'bwaah college student sharing, we each use like 150 gigs" but I'm not sure how much made it in there. Haven't seen it yet. edit: The segment was only 2 and a half minutes long? less than three fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
less than three posted:That's what I was though. Yeah, it looks like they treated it more like an extended PSA than an actual story. I think you ended up getting about two or three lines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 07:05
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:Yeah, it looks like they treated it more like an extended PSA than an actual story. I think you ended up getting about two or three lines. But hey, I got to mash keyboard while on YouTube.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 07:11
|
|
|
It's about 30 minutes from being done uploading, and yes, it's very short (things on The National are always very short).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 08:38
|
|
|
I saw an SA thread open in the background.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 08:38
|
|
|
univbee posted:It's about 30 minutes from being done uploading, and yes, it's very short (things on The National are always very short). They've had it up for like 3 hours here: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV%20Shows/The%20National/ID=1727320821
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 08:44
|
|
|
less than three posted:They've had it up for like 3 hours here: Ha ha wow, they've gotten much better at this side of the equation since the story I was a part of ran. Here's my 720p version anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBiYWBCzKPQ univbee fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
btw that's my modem and wireless router. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 09:23
|
|
|
Managing a small Canadian wireless ISP (~500 customers) in a town of under 5000 people we have always enforced strict caps and high overage penalties. Just recently it was at 10GB per month with $5 per gb over. We've recently bumped it up to 25GB with the same $5 per gb over. I get emails daily from people bitching and moaning about their usage and how it's completely unfair that we are limiting their access to the internet and they want discounts on their bills, they want free months, they want 100's of GB's per month but I don't think people understand how much it actually costs to deliver internet to your front door. These types of videos and news articles don't really help our cause. Especially for a small ISP like ours it is increasingly frustrating trying to prove to our customers that we are just trying to deliver a good product to people who have no other options. We are not trying to screw anyone out of internet but unless people are willing to spend $150 per month there is no way we can reasonably upgrade our equipment to handle everyone streaming HD videos at 6pm @ 7Mb/s. Hell, our upstream costs alone are in the $14,000 range for a meager 40Mb which used to be capped at 10TB per month. Unfortunately the only other alternative is Telus since they own the fiber in the ground but surprise surprise they're not lighting up any dark fiber even though it was paid for by the Canadian government. I recently asked them for a quote on 40Mb and they laughed at me and said I could get a T1 for $1800 per month. Meanwhile they just brought in TelusTV (iptv) and 15Mb/s speeds with 60GB caps that I don't think are enforced. You can be sure they're delivering that kind of bandwidth via fiber that they're not sharing with anyone else. I would much rather the CBC focus on the actual issues by doing some research instead of talking to joe schmoe from the internet (no offense) and finding that 90% of the fiber in the ground today is owned by Telus and Bell paid for by the government and other than a few stipulations they are in complete control of all internet here. The CRTC needs to allow more access to that fiber but Telus and Bell will complain up and down that it's not possible and they would have to spend over a billion dollars to upgrade. I'm not trying to justify the caps by shaw and bell and other companies but the majority of their network was not built for the kind of usage that we are seeing today. The landscape of the Internet has changed quite a large amount even in the last couple of years and they're not prepared. The reason they could tout high caps is because nobody was using them, all of a sudden itunes, netflix, steam, pirating, blu ray, whatever comes in and even granny is using up 80gb per month and it's putting strain on the nodes. Sorry folks, unless the CRTC magically opens up the Canadian landscape for new providers to come in and lay fiber, internet in Canada is going to suck for quite a long time. If you want change, you need to deal with the government, not threatening to cancel Shaw or any other ISP and move to any other alternatives because they're all the same company in the end. PS just because I think it's interesting here's my usage over the last year. See if you can spot where I quit using torrents. This is only in an apartment with me and my gf but I do pretty much everything online, from games on steam to movies to tv series's. I don't even have cable anymore.  The only reason I am willing to do this is because I lucked out with an apartment serviced by ETTS (Ethernet to the suite) from Telus which is basically fiber to the building. I know that at any given moment I will have 30Mb sitting there waiting for me to use and I know it's not oversold or being shared. In fact in the 2 years I've been living here I've never seen it work at less than full capacity. This is what I would love all Canadians to have. I think it would open up a huge world of possibilities in a wide range of fields, but I can't see it happening for at least 5 - 10 years. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
quote:Sorry folks, unless the CRTC magically opens up the Canadian landscape for new providers to come in and lay fiber, internet in Canada is going to suck for quite a long time. If you want change, you need to deal with the government, not threatening to cancel Shaw or any other ISP and move to any other alternatives because they're all the same company in the end.
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 10:10
|
|
|
less than three posted:They've had it up for like 3 hours here: If you watch it on youtube you can skip the Bell commercial at the start
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:I think the bigger issue here is that you can be practically inside an ISP's building in Toronto and STILL have to pay out the rear end. The other big issue here is that this reeks of "any excuse to make more money and lower our costs." They're basically trying to close Pandora's box, and the fact that they're doing it in-step with Netflix's announcement to come to Canada really enforces this point. No matter how well-intentioned you are, if you're taking things away from customers, you're the bad guy. I can understand your situation being a small ISP in a smaller neighborhood, though. Personally, I actually don't care if I have to pay $100 or $150 a month, but if I'm going to pay that much I expect fantastic download AND upload speed, and not have a reasonable transfer limit. I'm an excess internet user, I get it, and I'm willing to pay for it, within reason. Over $200 is too much. In fact, these limits wouldn't bother me so much if you took the Australian and New Zealand ISP's approach and had certain popular but bandwidth-heavy services set up separate and in a way that doesn't count towards the limits. Some Australian ISPs hosted Linux ISOs, Steam games and iTunes stuff so that downloads through them were exempt, which goes a hell of a long way towards innovation. I wouldn't even mind if there were limits but they were crazy-high, something so that if I'm saturating a 15 megabit connection 24/7 I do get a notice and risk having my service shut off. But like my previous screenshot showed, I DOUBLED my 100 gig download limit in five loving days; if my bill goes up tenfold month-to-month without my habits changing, that's really the ISP's fault. univbee fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jan 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 18:34
|
|
|
univbee posted:I think the bigger issue here is that you can be practically inside an ISP's building in Toronto and STILL have to pay out the rear end. The other big issue here is that this reeks of "any excuse to make more money and lower our costs." They're basically trying to close Pandora's box, and the fact that they're doing it in-step with Netflix's announcement to come to Canada really enforces this point. No matter how well-intentioned you are, if you're taking things away from customers, you're the bad guy. I can understand your situation being a small ISP in a smaller neighborhood, though. 3rd largest Aussie ISP chiming in here - we do have what we call a freezone which includes things like a Steam cache, our FTP server where we keep a But this always struck me as a little... against net neutrality, ya know? Certain services literally have better service due to agreements we've made, the best example being Xbox Live vs Playstation Network. PSN is not quota free on our network. To the small Canadian ISP, I hear ya mate.  My company used to run it's backhaul over DSL modems in certain exchanges, just so we could give Telstra's exorbitant rates the finger.We recently offered Australia's first terrabyte quota plans and let me tell you, those routers were running hot. But traffic has dropped off since the initial burst. Basically, either of our nations have only one option: create a government run fibre network that's treated as national infrastructure. Don't give me any bullshit about government programs being expensive and poo poo, it's not true. Nothing less will prevent us from being ripped off in the worst way. I'm excited about our NBN but incredibly disappointed as well that the government intends to privatise the system once it's complete. Yay for making another Telstra. You guys basically have no choice except to run for office and get some fresh blood into the relevant departments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
univbee posted:In fact, these limits wouldn't bother me so much if you took the Australian and New Zealand ISP's approach and had certain popular but bandwidth-heavy services set up separate and in a way that doesn't count towards the limits. Some Australian ISPs hosted Linux ISOs, Steam games and iTunes stuff so that downloads through them were exempt, which goes a hell of a long way towards innovation. This doesn't help innovation, it's a roadblock for innovators. Now instead of just having a good idea and getting it online you have to negotiate with ISPs. As an example Good Old Games, a Steam competitor, will have a hidden tax on their service imposed by the preferential treatment Steam receives. univbee posted:I wouldn't even mind if there were limits but they were crazy-high, something so that if I'm saturating a 15 megabit connection 24/7 I do get a notice and risk having my service shut off. But like my previous screenshot showed, I DOUBLED my 100 gig download limit in five loving days; if my bill goes up tenfold month-to-month without my habits changing, that's really the ISP's fault. I'd be happy if they just let ISPs make the policy. Instead Bell/Rogers are trying to get around their obligation to sell wholesale access by claiming maintenance issues. If they aren't allowed to dictate policy to the ISPs for maintenance issues (And I don't really think there are maintenance issues, it's just the particular loophole they're using to mess with the competition) the independant ISPs will happily offer increased bandwidth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 20:02
|
|
|
marketingman posted:3rd largest Aussie ISP chiming in here - we do have what we call a freezone which includes things like a Steam cache, our FTP server where we keep a I'll admit that this part does make it difficult. Do you actually work for the ISP or just use them? If it's the former, how would one setup their service as a free zone? If there was a simple and established way to do this (e.g. "make a server with all the files and poo poo stored on it and send it to us so we can plug it into our freezone switch, we'll charge you [reasonable colocation fee]") I don't think this would be terribly against net neutrality. It's not like every website would need something like this either. Outside of porn, the biggest legal services that are data hogs can be counted on one hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
univbee posted:I'll admit that this part does make it difficult. Do you actually work for the ISP or just use them? If it's the former, how would one setup their service as a free zone? If there was a simple and established way to do this (e.g. "make a server with all the files and poo poo stored on it and send it to us so we can plug it into our freezone switch, we'll charge you [reasonable colocation fee]") I don't think this would be terribly against net neutrality. It's not like every website would need something like this either. Outside of porn, the biggest legal services that are data hogs can be counted on one hand. Employed by. Whether you're freezoned easily or not depends on who you are, what you serve and what you're willing to bring to the table. While it may not cost us international traffic (that's where all costs come from in Aus, those drat underwater cables) it still costs us significantly in the backhaul. Some stuff, like Xbox Live and iTunes we simply add their IPs into our freezone range, others like Hypernia have their servers racked in our DCs. Basically, freezone is not a trivial matter and the scenario you're describing above is unlikely, it's usually going to be something that goes through commercials to decide whether this is going to help us earn money - backhaul within Aus, even when you 'own' your own fibre, is not cheap. An example of that is that we used to have something called WAIX, a peering arrangement between a set of ISPs and WAIX traffic used to be free. Now free WAIX traffic is long gone, pretty much because of backhaul costs despite all the major players actually having a POP or core routers in the same building...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
While it might be redundant to say. I think everyone in this thread should write their local MP and ask them their view and generally just give out what probably 90% of the country thinks of this. Bullshit. http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 07:39
|
|
|
Trying to grab everything I own from Steam/PSN/GOG before anything happens. Christ, 24 GB just for Dragon Age.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2011 07:52
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:While it might be redundant to say. I think everyone in this thread should write their local MP and ask them their view and generally just give out what probably 90% of the country thinks of this. Bullshit. Letter sent! Ugh! My MP looks like she's got a bad case of the  . (Carol Hughes)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
marketingman posted:Basically, freezone is not a trivial matter and the scenario you're describing above is unlikely, it's usually going to be something that goes through commercials to decide whether this is going to help us earn money - backhaul within Aus, even when you 'own' your own fibre, is not cheap. I have no doubt that it's not a trivial matter on the backend and is a project that would require considerable time to implement, but in saying that I can't think of very many legal sites that would cause a major overage (100 gigs +). Porn aside, there are extremely few legitimate services that push that kind of data. Like, no one's hitting their 100 gig limit just using Facebook. Netflix, Steam and YouTube are the major ones I can think of that would likely cause overages. Are there any other major websites that offer a significant overage risk (where there's a plausible chance you'd download 40+ gigs in a month)? Persona non grata posted:This doesn't help innovation, it's a roadblock for innovators. Now instead of just having a good idea and getting it online you have to negotiate with ISPs. As an example Good Old Games, a Steam competitor, will have a hidden tax on their service imposed by the preferential treatment Steam receives. The main thing with GoG is that their games are a hell of a lot smaller than Steam's; the biggest game on that site is like a 3.5 gig download and very few of their titles are over a gig. This is a huge difference from Steam where they have more than a few single games in the 25+ gig range.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
Familys and roommate situations can easily push the bandwidth usage up. Okay, all five of us each need our own connection now!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2011 09:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
univbee posted:I have no doubt that it's not a trivial matter on the backend and is a project that would require considerable time to implement, but in saying that I can't think of very many legal sites that would cause a major overage (100 gigs +). Porn aside, there are extremely few legitimate services that push that kind of data. Like, no one's hitting their 100 gig limit just using Facebook. Netflix, Steam and YouTube are the major ones I can think of that would likely cause overages. Are there any other major websites that offer a significant overage risk (where there's a plausible chance you'd download 40+ gigs in a month)? Online backup, TV streaming, IPTV, iTunes... I can't think of much more. But whether a customer goes into overage or not is not the issue. Any data - within their quota or over it is something that costs us. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here though, you seem to have strayed from the topic...
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2011 09:50
|
|