The uncapped abuse debate

[CorneN]

This topic has been touched briefly in some of the ISP threads, but I think it deserves a thread of it's own.

A quick quotefrom Afrihost's site:

Generally Uncapped ADSL runs off a higher 'contention ratio' than Capped ADSL.

This means that generally more users are allowed for a certain chunk of bandwidth in Uncapped than in Capped.

This means that the number of users downloading at any one time affects Uncapped more than Capped. At any given moment if a ton of users are busy simultaneously then Uncapped will be slightly slower than Capped.

And another from Openweb:

When nothing less is good enough, get access to our low contention ratio, Premium Uncapped ADSL network. Your business deserves it!

Which means their normal uncapped solutions run a high contention ratio as well. I did not check every single ISP's website, but I am sure that if you dig deep enough, you'll find that all low cost uncapped accounts run a high contention ratio.

Since the uncapped 'revolution' started, the forum has been flooded with broadbanders boasting with massive download statistics and complaints about ISPs that are trying to limit mass downloading of such a nature.

It brings an interesting question to mind; Who are the people that should be complaining? Me, the normal user, or the broadbander that red lines 24/7?

Rules for the discussion:
1. No ISP vs comments. There is enough of them in the ISP section.
2. We don't care what content you download and how that affects size.

 

[icyrus]

You should get what you pay for so any reason to complain should be if you are not getting what is advertised, regardless of usage patterns.

 

[Necuno]

ow god here we go again with use of uncapped == abuse == warez == illegal content. should i fetch some examples of proper use... again ?

edit:
minimum i would except 50gig without interference, however with all the client testing, streaming, conferencing, direct 2 drive and so on i might do around 100 and peak at most on 150.

 

[Auntpol]

What I see as a "Normal" user , should not be on Uncapped accounts. If you buy an uncapped account you are free to do with it as you please , you paid for it afterall. Unless it goes against ISP policies.

 

[CorneN]

You should get what you pay for so any reason to complain should be if you are not getting what is advertised, regardless of usage patterns.

The services is always uncapped, throttled, but still uncapped. So, you are getting what you paid for?

ow god here we go again with use of uncapped == abuse == warez == illegal content. should i fetch some examples of proper use... again ?

No, not what I was implying. Saw my specific note on content? With "Normal" I meant within those paramters set by the ISP.

What I see as a "Normal" user , should not be on Uncapped accounts. If you buy an uncapped account you are free to do with it as you please , you paid for it afterall. Unless it goes against ISP policies.

Unfair view. Not everybody can ever forsee the specific amount of data that they will use during a given month. My usage patterns differ from month to month. When I was on uncapped, I would be under some months, over in other. Uncapped offerings provides a good solution in that I do not need worry about topups towards the end of the month.

 

[KikzAzz]

What I see as a "Normal" user , should not be on Uncapped accounts. If you buy an uncapped account you are free to do with it as you please , you paid for it afterall. Unless it goes against ISP policies.

I think it is stupid to make an assumption that uncapped means limitless. Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that ultimately there is only so much available that have to be shared.

If I have to choose between "uncapped" with a fair usage policy which starts throttling me at certain points versus a capped account where I have to keep on topping up, I will choose the "uncapped" account any day. Again, if you have the need to have a true uncapped account and need to download hundreds of Gig's, go for the business account, because it the does make sense.

 

[Kosmik]

ISP's are free to use a different term than uncapped when selling accounts. No-one is holding a gun to their head saying you must market your threshold/limited accounts as uncapped.

Uncapped to me has always meant that you can use and abuse as much as you want, that is what you are paying for. I think the trend towards shaping is good though as theoreticly this should mean that anyone who is not a large downloader should still be able to function perfectly fine for plain web traffic.

 

[Auntpol]

I think it is stupid to make an assumption that uncapped means limitless. Anyone with half a brain should be able to figure out that ultimately there is only so much available that have to be shared.

If I have to choose between "uncapped" with a fair usage policy which starts throttling me at certain points versus a capped account where I have to keep on topping up, I will choose the "uncapped" account any day. Again, if you have the need to have a true uncapped account and need to download hundreds of Gig's, go for the business account, because it the does make sense.

Before you jump on your horse , take a deep breath and realise the point that I was trying to make.

If you buy a product Labled "Uncapped" / "Unlimited" Internet usage , then you are free to use it as you like , regardless of what other users think. If the provider of that product runs out of bandwitdth and has to decrease the service level for everyone , then that is the ISPs fault and no blame can be shifted onto the person that "red lined" his product , as he was using it as intended. Instead , blame the ISP for falsely advertising that they had "Uncapped" / "Unlimited" Products to sell.

If you buy a product labled "Uncapped" / "Unlimited" Internet usage but monitored for exesive use. And you still red line your product , then only you can be blaimed for the decrease in service levels.

If one Consumer suffers because of another consumer , then It is the ISPs fault for :
1. Not being able to properly regulate their consumers.
2. Selling something which they could not sustain.
3. Over selling their original margins.


I get the whole "point" you guys are trying to make , but this is business , And that is exactly why companies implement a Fair Use Policy. Their customers are getting what they pay for. The Companies that don't implement it probably have sufficient bandwidth for the time being and a business model to support it.


Something to read :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap