>It also sounds like a cool caching technique : since people already have the resource cached on their local system, why not allow them to distribute it?
Sounds like a cool way to deter people from using it if you ask me.
Sounds like a cool way to deter people from using it if you ask me.
I'm not sure if the cap is in effect for places with fiber internet (like Verizon FIOS). It wouldn't surprise me, since they've admitted caps are unnecessary.[1]
[0] Charter + Time Warner Cable (after merge) is larger, I think.
[1] https://consumerist.com/2015/11/06/leaked-comcast-doc-admits...
About the time Chairman Wheeler was aiming for net neutrality, he was also looking at data caps and if they were bad. Within a month, Comcast increased theirs to 1 TB. Coincidence?
There's going to be a lot about how 'competitive' ISPs are in the next few years in America now that everything's Republican. But most people have two options: expensive cable ISP that's fast when it wants to be, and slow DSL that's also expensive and not getting better.
Using: 1 terabyte = 8,388,608 megabits
Ultra HD: 25 mbps ~= 93.2 hours HD: 5 mbps ~= 19.5 days SD: Would be good but hey I bought an HD TV for a reason so that would not be fair to skimp out on quality just because they don't want to introduce cheaper bandwidth caps.
side note It is $10 per 50 GB once you go over the cap with Comcast which is pretty huge for overhead if a user wasn't even aware of the cap. Thankfully they cap it at $200 over your bill.
side note2 this number will only increase - so really that 1 TB cap already needs to see a lift to 2 TB just to start to fulfill the requirements of the newer age web.
Wow, that's disgusting.
Back when I was on cheap and cheerful, capped internet - if you went over the (paltry 100GB, although this was the best part of a decade ago now...) cap, I'd pay an extra £6 on my bill and that was it, regardless of how much I went over by.
Ironically, the price to remove the data cap as part of your package was more expensive than the over-cap charge.