inkstainedwretch 10/16/2016 | 2:47:41 PM
Re: Data "caps" Yes, it does make a difference to the argument. It makes a difference to the lawyers, and whether you like it or not, there is law that pertains.

-- Brian Santo
comtech3 10/16/2016 | 6:56:37 AM
Re: Data "caps" I just can't believe you wrote a thesis based on semantics.Your substitute word, " allocation", makes no difference to the argument that the storage of bandwidth usage is caped, limited, restricted, or allocated to 1TB/month.
inkstainedwretch 10/14/2016 | 6:15:03 PM
Data "caps" These are not caps; they are allocations which, when exceeded, obligate the user to pay for usage beyond. I know the word "cap" is common usage even among the MSOs, but continuing to use it muddies the issue with consumers, which in turn makes the politics of broadband -- already contentious -- even messier than they need to be.

Never trust a giant corporation. That said, when I talk to the MSOs' technologists about it, they all discuss these data allocations in the context of the exceedingly small number of people who monopolize bandwidth resources with massive downloads that cannot be explained by any human activity other than content piracy.

I'm inclined to believe them, inasmuch as the MSOs now commonly reset their allocation limits every once in a while, and almost always reset the newlimits at some point in excess of what the average bandwidth hog (not the average user, the average hog) typically uses.

Having an allocation limit gives the MSOs a framework within which they can rationally deal with the very few bandwidth hogs who download terabytes of data literally 24/7. That seems reasonable to me. 

-- Brian Santo

Sign In