Any of you ever got this msg from your internet provider?

[Ragnar]

Hmm, for the argument part of this thread I have to aggree with Del_Boy. Every ISP has a limit in writing somewhere, which is mandatory to protect themselves from possible abuse. Although most don't enforce any bandwidth limits. My ISP (Telus) has a 1GB/month up and 5GB/month down limit for my unlimited connection. I usually upload well over 1GB every day and haven't had any problems

Soujiro-san. Rogers is kinda bad about bandwidth limits :\ I know a few people who have gotten letters from them. Send Rogers a email and tell them you just discovered you had a virus and you've resolved the bandwidth problem. Then knock down your downloading/uploading 20/30%, just so you're not one of their worst offenders, and start looking for a new ISP. When you get a new ISP lined up go nuts on them. Download and upload as much as humanly possible Oh, and I don't know how good Sympatico in Ontario is, but Telus's ISP over here in BC used to be called Sympatico so I imaging their policies are simalar.

[Cyruz]

I'd look for a T1 company...I've never seen one that will warn you about bandwidth (being as they are often used to run professional web servers )

[Cyberxion]

Originally posted by ragnar14
My ISP (Telus) has a 1GB/month up and 5GB/month down limit for my unlimited connection. I usually upload well over 1GB every day and haven't had any problems
.

Which is my whole point. On my end, the limitation isn't even implied, and even if it exists, it's never enforced, so in essence I have no bandwidth limit. It doesn't matter how or why I have unlimited bandwidth, but that I do, which is all I'm saying....

[Del_Boy]

Until then, I think we should all just lay this discussion to rest, especially given just how stubborn you're being.

So you're the only one around here allowed to be stubborn in a discussion then? That's not disrespect that's an observation.

If I am correct about something I will argue in a decent manner. I will not roll over like a little puppy dog and allow you to stroke my tummy, lol

I simply stated fact - I even quoted the AUP for your ISP. But still you won't acknowledge that unlimited bandwidth provision isn't feasible for an ISP.

Simple test - everyone starts using the same amount as you. Would you still have unlimited bandwidth?

The answer is no ;)

At the moment to be precise you have a very high bandwidth allowance (above the AUP). You do not have unlimited.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=8129529&sid=94818

Del_Boy, I understand your point. But remember, cable is always on; so in this case 'unlimited' has to refer to something other than connection time. All cable connections are unlimited time (unless a car clips a pole)

Regardless, as I have stated the 'unlimited' is with regards to connection time and not bandwidth. Just because that is the natural state of the connection doesn't mean they can't use it as advertising spiel.

So no, it doesn't have to refer to anything else ;) Though they lead you to believe it does.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...9/2257259&tid=

[Cyberxion]

Del_Boy, don't be silly. I'm not being stubborn about this guy, I'm simply arguing that in all my time using Cox as an ISP, there's yet to be a bandwidth limit imposed on me, even when my ugage spikes. What about that is me being stubborn?

I kinda find it funny that you want to argue it. Nothing you say is going to change the fact that I've never had a limit imposed on me, which is the crux of my argument here.

I'm absolutely positive Cox has some legal schpiel on thier site implying a limit, but simply put, it's never been enforced, which is what I'm on about here. And whatever the limit may be, I'm positive that I've surpassed it time and again, and yet have never had said limit imposed on me, thus allowing me to enjoy the usage of as much bandwidth as I see fit from month to month.

If you want me to tell you that there's a limit, then fine, have your way, but that's not exactly what I'm on about here, and I hope you understand that by now.

Anyway, I'm done with this..."discussion" either way. Unless of course you'd like to draw this out further. But that's in your hands now.

[Del_Boy]

We're talking at crossed purposes. I will not concede upon a discussion/arguement that I know I am correct in 100%

My original posting was that there was no such thing as an unlimited bandwidth internet provider - you took exception to that (citing yourself as an example).

I then had to backup my original arguement many times.

There is no sense in continuing an arguement where we are both correct in our respective viewpoints vis a vis:

Me > No such thing as an unlimited bandwidth ISP or Website provider

You > I can use as much as I want, I haven't been warned

The crux of my arguement was at any point your ISP can warn you (as you are breaking the AUP), and you would not have a legal leg to stand on.

If anyone genuinely believes there is an unlimited bandwidth ISP or webhost then please tell us As you would genuinely be living in a fantasy land.

[MasJ]

Well, I'll just simply end this part of the discussion with Del_Boy's victory atleast in Cox's case.
Yes, Mr Bob, you are wrong . While Cox is a great ISP undoubtedly, I'll tell you of some of their exploits. Kaiten, a guy who used to work on our website a long time ago (he made the PSX Emulators plugin page ), used to host files for us as well on his 10 MBps(yes, you read right..) Cox cable internet connection. This was about a year and a half back. He also used to host files for other random people etc. etc.
After about two weeks of serving for emuparadise, not only did he lose his cable connection but they filed a complaint, they had been packet sniffing and seeing that he was downloading warez and uploading what they called warez too.. So then cox, or should I say cocks , put up a complaint against him with the police and stuff too.
That was some tough shit. The first complaint from Cox was about excess bandwidth usage, (whilst he had .. *cough cough* unlimited, and also, one of their best packages). There was no second complaint, he had shut down the FTP, but subsequently, the service was withdrawn.
Not a good way to behave for the cocks, but really, they're a great ISP, a little screwy at times .

Also, most of the times all cable ISP's do mind if you're using the service in a way which slows down or lowers the quality of service to other consumers. For example, if you ping too many sites, you'll most likely lose your internet connection, mainly because the ISP is at risk of coming up on a DoS list.... Lots of reasons as to why a cable ISP may not like your excessive usage of bandwidth, however a fair deal would be that, if you have a.. say 512kbps connection then you should be allowed that full throttle of 512kbps 24x7. Unfortunately, in effective reality (outside the matrix..) that never happens

[MasJ]

Oh and one more, Del_Boy he would MOST definitely have a legal leg to stand upon. Unfortunately, those dumbass corporate bullies would break it with their slick lawyers... and their funny absurd politically correct yet morally and logically incorrect arguments... BLEH. *pukes on teh motherfucking capitalists!*

[Del_Boy]

Nah MasJ read the contracts from ISPs - they really do include get out clauses for everything. As they don't promise unlimited bandwidth in the first place, it's a moot point

Now whether the contracts are fair and enforcable is an entirely different matter - thus far no one has ever suceeded in challenging one AFAIK anyway.

Please explain what legal stance you would use if for example Cox terminated your service for using excessive bandwidth.

[Harmony]

*grins* Well you learn something new everyday, I simply presumed 'unlimited' meant as such Stupid clauses I think I'd better check mine actually...

[Cyberxion]

MasJ, I don't know if you noticed, but Del_Boy and I were on totally different tangents apparently, and and as such neither were wrong.

I appriciate the heads up though, and I'll keep my eye on things, but I wasn't wrong, given that I have indeed been enjoying my ISP without any bandwidth limits, which is what I was on about. And while that may indeed change, it hasn't thus far.

I've read Cox's little disclaimers, which seem to exist solely to cover thier ass, and are a bit less cut and dry as you guys would have us all believe, and yeah they do imply a limit for excessive bandwidth abuse. But I'm either not using as much bandwidth as I thought and thus not classified as a bandwidth abuser, or they simply don't care to enforce thier limits. Either way, it's all the same to me, as again, I've never had any such limits imposed on me.

[Del_Boy]

Been an interesting discussion thus far put it that way I like the word discussion better than arguement as arguement kinda implies hostility. Of which non was present, perhaps a tad of stubborness though.

[Cyberxion]

Originally posted by Del_Boy
Been an interesting discussion thus far put it that way I like the word discussion better than arguement as arguement kinda implies hostility. Of which non was present, perhaps a tad of stubborness though.

Well, I guess it depends on your perspective.

[Del_Boy]

A proper sense of perspective is hard to achieve on the net - no facial expresions, just limited smileys and whatever words you can muster to demonstrate your POV.

[Cyberxion]

Originally posted by Del_Boy
A proper sense of perspective is hard to achieve on the net - no facial expresions, just limited smileys and whatever words you can muster to demonstrate your POV.

Indeed. But even still, one has to take into consideration past accounts when attempting to obtain that sence of perspective. That's not to say you necassarilly need to linger in the past, but I've come to find that sometimes you have to have a keen eye on it if you wanna make sence of the present and put things into context a bit easier. Did that make sence?