[ale] Xfinity Modem -- lease or buy recoomendations

[james.sumners at gmail.com (James Sumners)]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:50 PM, DJ-Pfulio <DJPfulio at jdpfu.com> wrote:

> On 09/29/2015 10:04 AM, James Sumners wrote:
> > What's your point? Data caps do nothing to curb usage at specific times
> of
> > day.
>
> Just like people don't try to avoid rush hour by pushing trips to
> different times of day. I can't be the only person who does this - both
> for roadway use AND for internet bandwidth use.
>

Which has nothing to do with data caps.


>
> >> 90% of internet users use less than 50GB/month.  Fewer than 3% use more
> >> than 200GB/month - should all the other customers subsidize huge
> >> downloaders?
> >>
> >
> > I honestly can't figure out your argument here. A customer pays for
> access
> > to the Internet. How much they use it is their prerogative. It's the
> ISP's
> > responsibility to ensure they have the capacity to provide what they
> sold.
>
> The customer may believe they have purchased access, but the fine print
> says differently.  The Comcast residential ToS has a 300 GB limit now
> and added fees for using more, in $10 increments. Can't believe I'm
> backing Comcast.
>
> Comcast also advertises only their 12-month teaser prices, not the 13th
> month prices.  Deceptive, yes. Should be illegal, IMHO.  They should
> have to advertise $XXX/month with a $Y rebate for 12 months.


And I'm saying because of that, Comcast isn't really an ISP. But that's
what they are advertising themselves as.


> >> On highways, trucks have to pay more for their higher uses. Seems fair.
> >>
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> It is a metaphor.  I was trying to imply that heavy users of access to
> the internet SHOULD pay more. Sorry if that wasn't clear.  Basically,
> with the bandwidth available to many people in the metro area today,
> going over the prior next-to-impossible download limits has become much
> easier.
>
> Let's try another metaphor - if you use more natural gas, you expect to
> pay more, right?
>
> Or if you use more water, you expect to pay more, but water is bought in
> 1K gallon buckets, so with Comcast the first bucket, included, happens
> to be 300MB/month.  Same thing?
>

Those are limited resources. Data transfer is infinite in quantity. They
are not comparable; metaphorically or otherwise.


>
> > I didn't make any claims about such things. I merely gave an example of a
> > literal legitimate use case that is being crippled for absolutely no
> > technical reason what-so-ever.
>
> Agreed that it is legal. I do not agree that a network provider is
> required to provide unlimited upload/downloads for 100% utilization over
> the billing cycle.


If they are an ISP then yes, they are.


-- 
James Sumners
http://james.sumners.info/ (technical profile)
http://jrfom.com/ (personal site)
http://haplo.bandcamp.com/ (band page)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20150929/2fa4b438/attachment.html>