<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:50 PM, DJ-Pfulio <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:DJPfulio@jdpfu.com" target="_blank">DJPfulio@jdpfu.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 09/29/2015 10:04 AM, James Sumners wrote:<br>
> What's your point? Data caps do nothing to curb usage at specific times of<br>
> day.<br>
<br>
</span>Just like people don't try to avoid rush hour by pushing trips to<br>
different times of day. I can't be the only person who does this - both<br>
for roadway use AND for internet bandwidth use.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Which has nothing to do with data caps.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=""><br>
>> 90% of internet users use less than 50GB/month. Fewer than 3% use more<br>
>> than 200GB/month - should all the other customers subsidize huge<br>
>> downloaders?<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I honestly can't figure out your argument here. A customer pays for access<br>
> to the Internet. How much they use it is their prerogative. It's the ISP's<br>
> responsibility to ensure they have the capacity to provide what they sold.<br>
<br>
</span>The customer may believe they have purchased access, but the fine print<br>
says differently. The Comcast residential ToS has a 300 GB limit now<br>
and added fees for using more, in $10 increments. Can't believe I'm<br>
backing Comcast.<br>
<br>
Comcast also advertises only their 12-month teaser prices, not the 13th<br>
month prices. Deceptive, yes. Should be illegal, IMHO. They should<br>
have to advertise $XXX/month with a $Y rebate for 12 months.</blockquote><div> </div><div>And I'm saying because of that, Comcast isn't really an ISP. But that's what they are advertising themselves as.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
>> On highways, trucks have to pay more for their higher uses. Seems fair.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Irrelevant.<br>
<br>
</span>It is a metaphor. I was trying to imply that heavy users of access to<br>
the internet SHOULD pay more. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Basically,<br>
with the bandwidth available to many people in the metro area today,<br>
going over the prior next-to-impossible download limits has become much<br>
easier.<br>
<br>
Let's try another metaphor - if you use more natural gas, you expect to<br>
pay more, right?<br>
<br>
Or if you use more water, you expect to pay more, but water is bought in<br>
1K gallon buckets, so with Comcast the first bucket, included, happens<br>
to be 300MB/month. Same thing?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Those are limited resources. Data transfer is infinite in quantity. They are not comparable; metaphorically or otherwise.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=""><br>
> I didn't make any claims about such things. I merely gave an example of a<br>
> literal legitimate use case that is being crippled for absolutely no<br>
> technical reason what-so-ever.<br>
<br>
</span>Agreed that it is legal. I do not agree that a network provider is<br>
required to provide unlimited upload/downloads for 100% utilization over<br>
the billing cycle.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>If they are an ISP then yes, they are. </div></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>James Sumners<br><a href="http://james.sumners.info/" target="_blank">http://james.sumners.info/</a> (technical profile)</div><div><a href="http://jrfom.com/" target="_blank">http://jrfom.com/</a> (personal site)</div><div><a href="http://haplo.bandcamp.com/" target="_blank">http://haplo.bandcamp.com/</a> (band page)</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>