Viashen
Well-Known Member
Your viewpoint has merit, Viashen.
My point is that "HD Video" is not a very well defined thing in terms of bitrate - well over 10Mbps could be required, depending on source. That makes it inadvisable to use it as a measure of line performance, both from an ISP and customer perspective.
To put it differently : some "HD" sources might stream OK an a 5Mbps downlink. Others with higher-quality video/audio won't.
And any form of usage - streaming or otherwise - must obviously count towards line utilisation and may thus trigger throttling in terms of the FUP.
Hi jcheek
I totally get what you saying
My argument is more on the fact that they should have advertised something that they could not provide. It's a lot of money that we pay for the service and i do commend them on making provisions for the guys. Not heard of often
I really am not trying to be a difficult customer, i just feel that they should adhere to what they advertised to provide
We all have SLA's with Bitco, if a service you subscribed to is not provided then that falls within a breech of the SLA i'm sure
Likewise if i give them half the money, that would not fly with Bitco and i would be liable for the full amount
The forms we filled in are an agreement and so is what you actually paying for (Services)
If i'm throttled because i'm downloading excessively for long periods of time then i am to blame for that, however if i'm simply streaming HD content Uninterrupted which implies for as long as the user wants then thats where the problem comes in
Hope i'm making sense