Topic: My ISP just sent me a sternly worded letter
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc started this discussion 15 years ago #782
Apparently, I have a bandwidth cap of 200 gb per month, despite the fact that, when I signed up, I specifically asked if they had a fucking bandwidth cap, and was told "it's unlimited". Fuck these guys, telling me to watch less porn.Jack !gOStA1p7Pc (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later[^] [v] #14,955
Wrong picture, meant to include this oneAnonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #14,959
IONIZE OP.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,962
who cares ?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,963
Vikingman?
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,967
Seriously, though, read the fine print, not what the faggot in an unaffiliated call center on the phone says. I used to work in a call center that performed services for five different companies and they'd move employees around all of the time, with the end result was that the employee wouldn't be fully knowledgeable.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,972
lol, I used 1.5 TB of data.
Kody R. Bearâ„¢ !!F0+vKzoih joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,975
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,979
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,980
@14,975 (Kody R. Bearâ„¢ !!F0+vKzoih)
Nah, I also downloaded the complete Ozzy Osbourne discography, the complete RHCP discography, Seinfield the complete series, a few games, and then some porn.
Nah, I also downloaded the complete Ozzy Osbourne discography, the complete RHCP discography, Seinfield the complete series, a few games, and then some porn.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,981
Comcast is a bunch of niggers. lol, they're setting us all up for failure on a global level.advi !FurFagCd.2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,988
i go over my 250GB cap constantly and my ISP doesn't care in the least
brie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #14,991
I don't run any form of anti-virus or anti-malware, and have yet to have my computer infected by shit.
It's a rootkit directly onto your box.
lol
It's a rootkit directly onto your box.
lol
!nBpim1wazU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 30 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,033
> Apparently, I have a bandwidth cap of 200 gb per month, despite the fact that, when I signed up, I specifically asked if they had a fucking bandwidth cap, and was told "it's unlimited". Fuck these guys, telling me to watch less porn.
AT&T and Verizon have a 2gb bandwidth cap. That's just insane. I use around 10gb.
AT&T and Verizon have a 2gb bandwidth cap. That's just insane. I use around 10gb.
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #15,040
At a 200gb bandwidth cap. Apparently we're going down to 100gb, though.
jump !VIfloDyEYo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,675
No idea on my cap. I have yet to exceed it. If i did, I would go with clear. Fuck dat shit.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,678
@previous (jump !VIfloDyEYo)
The worst part is, they want me to call them "so that they can help me reduce my bandwidth usage". Fuck that noise. I'm gonna fuck their network up with hentai.
The worst part is, they want me to call them "so that they can help me reduce my bandwidth usage". Fuck that noise. I'm gonna fuck their network up with hentai.
Kody R. Bearâ„¢ !!F0+vKzoih replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,679
@previous (Jack !gOStA1p7Pc)
LOL call them and say that most of your bandwidth is bestiality and scat, and see what they say
LOL call them and say that most of your bandwidth is bestiality and scat, and see what they say
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,680
Bandwidth caps should be illegal. It's complete bullshit. It doesn't cost them anything extra to send you more data. It's just a way for them to price discriminate and squeeze more money out of you.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,681
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I would be fine with it, but 200 gb is a pretty outdated cap- nowadays it should be 400 gb or higher (I'm on their highest tier of service).
I would be fine with it, but 200 gb is a pretty outdated cap- nowadays it should be 400 gb or higher (I'm on their highest tier of service).
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,682
@15,680 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Bandwidth caps should be illegal. It's complete bullshit.
How old are you, 12? Every backbone on the planet charges by the gigabyte. There is no such thing as "unlimited" transfer for a monthly fee.
> Bandwidth caps should be illegal. It's complete bullshit.
How old are you, 12? Every backbone on the planet charges by the gigabyte. There is no such thing as "unlimited" transfer for a monthly fee.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,684
@previous (P)
Not many American ISP's actually charge by the gigabyte. The caps are soft caps- they don't charge you if you go over, they just bug you and waste your fucking time making you explain yourself. They actually called me a while ago and asked for an explanation. I told them I didn't owe them any sort of goddamn explanation and hung up.
Not many American ISP's actually charge by the gigabyte. The caps are soft caps- they don't charge you if you go over, they just bug you and waste your fucking time making you explain yourself. They actually called me a while ago and asked for an explanation. I told them I didn't owe them any sort of goddamn explanation and hung up.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,685
Anonymous P replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,686
@15,684 (Jack !gOStA1p7Pc)
ISPs charge monthly fees because they can take all those monthly fees and buy bandwidth in bulk. There is always a per-gigabyte charge somewhere.
ISPs charge monthly fees because they can take all those monthly fees and buy bandwidth in bulk. There is always a per-gigabyte charge somewhere.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,688
@15,685 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I have three devices that I connect to MC on- My iPhone, my Macbook, and my Desktop. I made this topic on my macbook, I am now on my desktop.
I have three devices that I connect to MC on- My iPhone, my Macbook, and my Desktop. I made this topic on my macbook, I am now on my desktop.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,698
@15,686 (P)
Not necessarily. Once the infrastructure is in place, it costs the same whether that infrastructure is being used to send data or not. It's expensive to build, maintain, and power. Other than a slight increase in power consumption, it costs the same even if no information is being sent over it. Setting the bandwidth makes sense, because they want to make sure than everyone has bandwidth at any given time, and they don't want other people's internet to slow down because you're downloading high-definition movies, but if I get 7.7mbps, and I'm constantly using all 7.7mbps, it doesn't cost them anymore than if I were to not use it all. They usually set caps simply because if everyone were to constantly use all their bandwidth, it would slow down for everyone. So they set data caps to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. This is why they just sent OP a firmly worded letter instead of just charging more, but some ISPs do charge more as a deterrent. This is controversial though because it allows them to make more money when it's not actually costing them anything. There have been legal battles over this, and it might actually become illegal in the future for this reason, at least in the United States.
Not necessarily. Once the infrastructure is in place, it costs the same whether that infrastructure is being used to send data or not. It's expensive to build, maintain, and power. Other than a slight increase in power consumption, it costs the same even if no information is being sent over it. Setting the bandwidth makes sense, because they want to make sure than everyone has bandwidth at any given time, and they don't want other people's internet to slow down because you're downloading high-definition movies, but if I get 7.7mbps, and I'm constantly using all 7.7mbps, it doesn't cost them anymore than if I were to not use it all. They usually set caps simply because if everyone were to constantly use all their bandwidth, it would slow down for everyone. So they set data caps to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. This is why they just sent OP a firmly worded letter instead of just charging more, but some ISPs do charge more as a deterrent. This is controversial though because it allows them to make more money when it's not actually costing them anything. There have been legal battles over this, and it might actually become illegal in the future for this reason, at least in the United States.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,700
@15,688 (Jack !gOStA1p7Pc)
Fine, but you could still restore your ID to all three devices. You're technically using different "accounts" on each device but just using the same tripcode. It would be easier if you logged in all all of them, then you can clearly see that you're OP, and it help you keep track of settings and history and such.
Fine, but you could still restore your ID to all three devices. You're technically using different "accounts" on each device but just using the same tripcode. It would be easier if you logged in all all of them, then you can clearly see that you're OP, and it help you keep track of settings and history and such.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,701
Anonymous P replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,702
@15,698 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Once the infrastructure is in place, it costs the same whether that infrastructure is being used to send data or not.
No. It costs money to run that router. It costs money to make sure that that line remains up all the time, and it costs money to repair a cable if it's cut. It costs money to turn on the lights, to run the air conditioner, and it costs money to hire people to run all of that.
> Once the infrastructure is in place, it costs the same whether that infrastructure is being used to send data or not.
No. It costs money to run that router. It costs money to make sure that that line remains up all the time, and it costs money to repair a cable if it's cut. It costs money to turn on the lights, to run the air conditioner, and it costs money to hire people to run all of that.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,703
Is it normal to consistently get less than 25 percent of the maximum bandwidth they promise?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,704
@15,702 (P)
I said it costs money to power and maintain. Those costs don't fluctuate based on how much it's used.
I said it costs money to power and maintain. Those costs don't fluctuate based on how much it's used.
Anonymous P replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,705
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,714
@15,703 (Jack !gOStA1p7Pc)
> Is it normal to consistently get less than 25 percent of the maximum bandwidth they promise?
It is if assholes are abusing hte bandwidth.
> Is it normal to consistently get less than 25 percent of the maximum bandwidth they promise?
It is if assholes are abusing hte bandwidth.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,717
Do the CWC thing and ignore them until they cut off your connection.
Then issue a "sincere" apology video, and if they feel sorry for you and it gets reconnected write a comic where they all get executed.
Then issue a "sincere" apology video, and if they feel sorry for you and it gets reconnected write a comic where they all get executed.
Jack !gOStA1p7Pc replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,718
@15,714 (Q)
lol, good point. I seriously don't know how I got to 1.5 TB. I knew I downloaded a lot of shit, but that's insane.
lol, good point. I seriously don't know how I got to 1.5 TB. I knew I downloaded a lot of shit, but that's insane.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,720
@15,705 (P)
They have to keep it powered on even if it's not at max capacity. There is no linear correlation between the amount of bandwidth used and costs to power and maintain.
They have to keep it powered on even if it's not at max capacity. There is no linear correlation between the amount of bandwidth used and costs to power and maintain.
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,725
Anonymous P replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,726
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,734
@15,725 (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
@previous (P)
Yes, I know that. That's why I said it makes sense to limit bandwidth at any given time, but it doesn't make sense to set caps/monthly quotas. Just like I explained here @15,698 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
@previous (P)
Yes, I know that. That's why I said it makes sense to limit bandwidth at any given time, but it doesn't make sense to set caps/monthly quotas. Just like I explained here @15,698 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,736
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It's unfair to people who spread their online usage throughout the day and night, but that's just how they measure things.
It's unfair to people who spread their online usage throughout the day and night, but that's just how they measure things.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #15,740
@previous (Mindwurms !!4IKKtS9GG)
Well, like I said, they do it because they assume that someone downloading shittons of data throughout the month must be hogging up a lot of bandwidth at some point, but a) it's a bad assumption, because as you put it, some people spread it out, and b) some ISPs try to actually charge people for it as a deterrent, when it's not actually costing them more money. They just figure it will stop them from doing it and make them more money in the process. That's why caps are bullshit.
Well, like I said, they do it because they assume that someone downloading shittons of data throughout the month must be hogging up a lot of bandwidth at some point, but a) it's a bad assumption, because as you put it, some people spread it out, and b) some ISPs try to actually charge people for it as a deterrent, when it's not actually costing them more money. They just figure it will stop them from doing it and make them more money in the process. That's why caps are bullshit.