Comcast... here we go.

[Strazos]

How much of a problem is this for people that are not dirty pirates? 

[caladein]

And yeah - 250 gig a month sounds like a lot now to most people, but it really isn't - and it'll be shit in a few years. The size and quality of video files has been growing steadily in 2003-ish a top of the line SVCD mpeg encode of Band of Brothers was around 800meg. As of a couple years ago, a 720p MKV file of the same episode is double that. Following the curve, in 3 or f4 more years a 40 minute TV show that will show in good quality is going to be 4-5 gigs.

HD versions of BSG episodes are coming in at about 2G. Now that's a bit above my needs (downloaded via BT and streamed to the 360 with TVersity), but it's getting there already.

How much of a problem is this for people that are not dirty pirates? 

x264 fansubs of Macross Frontier are 350MB/week and that's only for one half-hour show.

Add on-demand stuff like Hulu, Netflix, and HD video podcasts on three computers and a handful of set-top boxes and you're using a lot of bandwidth for purely legal activities.

That said, I fully expect to get reamed with unlimited data plans ala AT&T/iPhone before long.

[Nerf]

Bob - I've got U-verse in Arlington, and am getting 5.6Mbs down and a hair shy of 1Mbs up.  A bit dissapointing really, they had promised it would be much faster, but so far all of the shit they promised when we signed up over a year ago still hasn't happened.

They were supposed to have their networked DVR shit out in january, and as such will only give you 1 DVR box, because "it's coming real soon now".

They also promised that they would be upping the speed to 30Mbs down in January or February too, heh.

[Evildrider]

Sooo.. it spreads...


Starting in November, AT&T will limit downloads to 20 gigabytes per month for users of their slowest DSL service, at 768 kilobits per second. The limit increases with the speed of the plan, up to 150 gigabytes per month at the 10 megabits-per-second level.

To exceed the limits, subscribers would need to download constantly at maximum speeds for more than 42 hours, depending on the tier. In practice, use of e-mail and the Web wouldn't take a subscriber anywhere near the limit, but streaming video services like the one Netflix Inc. (NFLX) offers could. For example, subscribers who get downloads of 3 megabits per second have a monthly cap of 60 gigabytes, which allows for the download of about 30 DVD-quality movies.

The limits will initially apply to new customers in the Reno area, AT&T said. Current users will be enrolled if they exceed 150 gigabytes in a month, regardless of their connection speed.

"This is a preliminary step to find the right model to address this trend," Coe said. The company may add another market to the test before the end of the year, he said.

Customers will be able to track their usage on an AT&T Web site. The company will also contact people who reach 80 percent of their limit. After a grace period to get subscribers acquainted with the system, those who exceed their allotment will pay $1 per gigabyte, Coe said.

[Samwise]

Well, balls.  And I was about to sign up for AT&T DSL.  Time to investigate alternatives.

[MuffinMan]

This does not bode well for my house. I think we have 1.5mbs so our limit, if it rolls out here, will probably be around 40gb. The four of us here can rack that up in no time. Piss.

[schild]

I downloaded 22GB of things just yesterday....

[Teleku]

Well, balls.  And I was about to sign up for AT&T DSL.  Time to investigate alternatives.

I can tell you from experience that AT&T DSL sucks balls anyways.  Horrible speeds, and always disconnects/has outages.

[SnakeCharmer]

I may have asked this before, and I can't remember if I got an answer.  Hell, I can't remember what I had for breakfast most of the time.  But how does how someone who downloads 250GB of data a month actually cost Comcast (or whomever) any more money than someone who downloads 5GB?  I realize electrical power comes into play somewhat, but I can't think of anything else it would cost more of (hardware?).  I mean, it's not like they have the proverbial hamster or child sweatshop laborers manufacturing 'bandwidth'. 

Or is merely a means to curb piracy (movies, games, etc)?

Please to be hearing laymans terms.  

[fuser]

Its a pretty slippery slope but I'm still kinda glad my ISP has chosen for the traffic shaping route (ellacoya deep packet inspection). It really can clam you down as it can track down any sessions related to the initial setup of the P2P session (the initial check in with say a tracker) and grab the tracker related information and restrict that flow down to like 50KB/s outbound.

They use to have a bandwidth cap of 20Gbyte/month in 1998, then went unrestricted in 2002(issuing warnings to high bandwidth users) then in 2004 started using shaping tools. As of right now the product they use is amazingly accurate and reliable to sniff out traffic. Still I have access to 15Mbit/s downstream that you can get close to it various sources but I expect them to wise up sooner or later. Other standard things here are common server ports are blocked (25 inbound/25 out except to their relay host/smb ports/etc), the real downside is a limit of ~200 concurrent connections which is probably to keep the ellacoya from having a meltdown.

Not bad for $50USD.

How's FIOS in the states? And either Comcast/AT&T filter your ports?

I downloaded 22GB of things just yesterday....

Indeed, you can really hit caps very quick with delivery of digital media now and I really worry for the people that have unpatched computer systems.

[fuser]

But how does how someone who downloads 250GB of data a month actually cost Comcast (or whomever) any more money than someone who downloads 5GB?

I don't think its an actual direct cost *but* it basically it boils down to overselling access and limiting the companies concurrent subscribers. So in effect the person could be costing company XYZ  49 * subscriber fee.

At the end user level in a neighborhood if someone is consuming all the bandwidth from a substation to the companies central office users will complain resulting in staff time and cost to increase the infrastructure in that area. This can be reflected in the companies backbone access where multiple subscribers can be consuming more bandwidth then allotted for.

[Trippy]

Well, balls.  And I was about to sign up for AT&T DSL.  Time to investigate alternatives.

I can tell you from experience that AT&T DSL sucks balls anyways.  Horrible speeds, and always disconnects/has outages.

And my AT&T DSL (originally Pacific Bell DSL, then SBC DSL) connection in the SF Bay Area (where Samwise also lives) has been excellent. The first year or so the DNS was kind of shaky back when it was Pacific Bell and they were new the consumer DSL business but after that it's been great. My Comcast connection has gone down more times in the last month than my DSL connection would go down in a full year.

[Evildrider]

Well, balls.  And I was about to sign up for AT&T DSL.  Time to investigate alternatives.

I can tell you from experience that AT&T DSL sucks balls anyways.  Horrible speeds, and always disconnects/has outages.

And my AT&T DSL (originally Pacific Bell DSL, then SBC DSL) connection in the SF Bay Area (where Samwise also lives) has been excellent. The first year or so the DNS was kind of shaky back when it was Pacific Bell and they were new the consumer DSL business but after that it's been great. My Comcast connection has gone down more times in the last month than my DSL connection would go down in a full year.

It really is situational, depending on where you live.  I rarely have problems with my Comcast connection.

[Trippy]

Exactly.