If you read a bit farther down, his "personal backup" is 200TB and he's pushing up 300GB+ every single day. That seems...abusive and excessive for a residential line.
940/35 and advertising that at 1gbps is part of the bs that needs to change worldwide. Either make a law it has to be a full duplex 1gbps connection, or a cap that the upload has to be at least 1/3, 1/2 (anything but 1/10th like it is here in the UK on average) of the advertised speeds. Having your upload gimped to ~30x less than your download, but it still be advertised at a gig just really rubs me the wrong way, residential or not.
That may be the case but they seem to have made it as apparent as possible that they would be using the high bandwidth. Hell not only did they pay for the installation of a second gigabit line to their house, they seem to have repeatedly requested clarification that there were no data caps and no throttling.
I don't think spectrum has any ground to stand on here as it seems that the user in question went out of their way to clarify that what they were planning on doing was acceptable prior to paying for not only an additional line but the cost of running said line as well. This not only didn't set off any red flags for Spectrum but they reassured the user that this wouldn't be a problem.
I don't know how you make it any more clear that you plan on using the internet plan to its full capacity other than that.
They can "clarify" as much as they want until they're blue in the face.
It's what's in the contract that matters, and every residential ISP contract I've ever seen has acceptable use limits, tells you not to run a server, etc.
The ultimate catch-all is language to the effect of "activity that negatively impacts other network users" or some such.
300GB is arguably acceptable use. If they don't like people going over a threshold then they should write down a clear number (even) in fine print, *acceptable limit should be under 300GB or under 200GB or whatever limit works for them. Just because the marketing wants to sound one way they should not confuse a customer who wants to use the service they purchased
It's pretty clear from the first paragraph of their acceptable use policy...
1. Use. The Service is designed for personal and family use (residential use only) within a single household. Subscriber agrees that only Subscriber and Subscriber''s authorized guests in the same household will use the Service. Subscriber is responsible for any misuse of the Service that occurs through Subscriber''s account, whether by a member of Subscriber''s household or an authorized or unauthorized third-party. Subscriber will not use, or enable others to use, the Service to operate any type of business or commercial enterprise, including, but not limited to, IP address translation or similar facilities intended to provide additional access. Subscriber will not resell or redistribute, or enable others to resell or redistribute, access to the Service in any manner, including, but not limited to, through the use of wireless technology. Spectrum reserves the right at its sole discretion to immediately suspend, terminate, or restrict use of the Service without notice if such use violates the AUP or the Terms of Service, is objectionable or unlawful, or interferes with Spectrum''s systems, or Internet Network, the Internet, or others'' use of the Service.
It's a 35mbit up connection. His usage reprents over 95% utilization 24/7.
Yes, this is not clear because that would ruin their marketing mojo. Either let this guy use the service or fire the merketing head or accept the cost of poor marketing and let people use the service uncapped. Bad press is worse than a fineprint with the actual cap. Reasonable service is not describing anything. Reasonable is 1GB for some, 500GB for some, 5TB for some. Bad press will make it clear this was deceptive advertising and there is no real unlimited option.
Clearly the customer picked a service for their need in order to use backup: unlimited bandwidth checked that box.
That's not that much upload per line though, someone streaming or video conferencing in 4K or a bit higher all day could come close and be a legit consumer use.
Yes, it is. Consider a large house with an 8-person family (two grandparents, two parents, four children of varying ages 12-18) and it would be pretty easy to have at least one 4K stream active 16-24 hours per day every day.
And that's strictly looking at active engagement, not even 'somebody leaves Blue Planet II running in the background because they find it soothing'.
Okay, so make that a handful of college students sharing a rented house (on a single lease, not separate units): they're all hugely into video games and want to be professional streamers one day, and they all have very different schedules, so for most of most days at least one of them at a time is streaming in 4K to a Twitch channel.
"Untypical" is not the same thing as "unreasonable". For many people who aren't you, an extended family living in one house is a normal course of affairs.
There is no firm cap. But they're not required to allow usage not consistent with a single residential customer, or effecting other users of the network.
> usage not consistent with a single residential customer
What do these words mean when the premise of this thread is that we're talking about a single residential customer? Is there a hidden meaning that I'm missing?
> or effecting other users of the network.
Isn't this a function of the quality of the network and completely out of the control of the customer?
That's an excuse that gives corps way too much power. They say "unlimited", it is deceptive for them to pretend that word has any meaning other than its plain one.
If they want to have upload limits, they they can clearly advertise those.
It's exactly what he was sold: no-cap bandwidth on a reasonably continuous basis. That's not even close to the same thing as a dedicated business line or other specific service requirements an actual business would need.
How many shutterbug parents shoot in RAW? Who else has parents that have an extensive CD collection - mine certainly do, and I'd be happy to help them set up a backup of their ripped media, as well as my (and my siblings) photos.
Well, the ISP clearly wanted to sell the same bandwidth twice. I mean, when I see a sign "80 acre lot for sale" and buy it, I expect to get 80 acres, not the "reasonable" 0.80 acres. It's just the internet is still mostly wild west and brazen ISPs abuse this for their benefit.
Using the service you paid for within the limits set by the provider cannot be excessive. "Excessive" would, by definition, require exceeding the set limits.
He's definitely an outlier on the usage, but someone has to be the highest usage customer. Why not this guy?
If he paid for this service then why is it abusive? Charter could take some of cash he is paying every month and install equipment to alleviate the neighbor's concerns.
It's only unusual because upload has been knee-capped for decades.
Let's say you have several 1080p videocamears, and you want to constantly upload their output to an off-site video vault for notary+witness and monitoring services. That could easily approach this workload for a decent home security setup. That's without any other services, like video-conferences or any other form of discourse or work from a residence. (Not as a "business" in the sense of operating one out of a home.)
I too would like to have an equally balanced upload/download ratio.
But I accept that on residential consumer plans, it is more economic for business to offer the up/down rates they do, for whatever technical/marketing reasons.
Is it good? Well, it isn't what I want but I am not the whole market.
except ISPs say/advertise "unlimited", but then turns around and try to limit it. they shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
besides, there are several other problems. in many (US) areas, there's no competition. there's no symmetric internet available (otherwise, you could schedule it overnight where network usage is lower). vice versa, you don't save money if you use less data volume. either they bill by bandwidth, or volume. maybe both if they're upfront.
too often, it seems like consumers are getting shafted, unless you overpay and under-utilise. it isn't even a ridiculous data volume if you record a lot of video (4k gopro) or pictures.
nah it works fine. if I was the sysadmin/network admin that saw this dude trying to upload his daily 300+ GB personal backups on his residential cable internet connection I would cut his ass off immediately.
And he would have some sweet grounds to sue your company on, since your stupid marketing team advertised it as an "Unlimited" connection, the contract doesn't actually specify that he can't, and he called and got confirmation from your company that he could use his connection to it's full ability. Great way to get his internet paid for for years.
-False advertising
-Breach of contract
-Theft
-Racketeering?
and if I were a manager I would fire the ass of my sysadmin if they unilaterally acted in contravention to the contracts we have with our customers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sonic.com specifically says "Sonic’s internet is unlimited and uncapped. No matter how we deliver internet to your address, we'll run the connection at its maximum possible speed."
I have 1Gb/s in both directions, over fiber. They had no objection when I uploaded a terabyte to begin a remote backup.
It seems Spectrum tried to compete them with an inferior service and the usual deceptive marketing. Now they don't like it when a customer is testing those claims. I think they should let it go this time or change the marketing. I wonder if they can be sued for that though probably nobody would bother..
It's already drastically asymmetric, 940/35. The problem is that the local backhaul node is so oversubscribed that simply maxing out 2 of these upload slots somehow causes a problem for all the other subscribers.
The (IPv4) ACK packet is 40 bytes, smaller than the minimum frame data for Ethernet (46 bytes, gets padded).
Since TCP has exponential window sizing, it can ACK gigabytes in just one go, right? But we would need to know the latency (round trip time) to calculate the max bandwidth delay product (max data in flight).
Interesting: one of the redditors posted a limkmtomspectrum’s TOS; clause j explicitly forbids you to ssh to another host or using a VPN and also forbids you from from running a program like Speedtest.
> j. Either of the following activities by a Subscriber using dedicated machines (also known as "machines" or "dedicated servers") or virtual dedicated servers (also known as "VDS", "VPS", "virtual machines", and/or "virtual servers"): (i) running a tunnel or proxy to a server at another host or (ii) hosting, storing, proxy, or use of a network testing utility or denial of service (DoS/DDoS) tool in any capacity.
Heh....I have a “dedicated machine” (XBox) that connects using an encrypted “tunnel” (SSL) to “a server at another host” (Fortnite) and also employs a “network testing utility” (ping to check latency to find the best game to connect to).
I’d love to see a lawyer rips this contract section to shreds.
The way I read that isn’t that your forbidden from doing any of those things. Your forbidden from doing those things with a dedicated machine (i.e server). Like you are forbidden to make your personal server a node for a speed test for others.
For anyone here who has problems with a megacorp ISP about stuff like this in the US:
If you believe yourself to be in the right, file a complaint with your state's telecom/internet regulator. You don't have a bullwhip. The regulator does.
72 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 161 ms ] thread>> About 650gb a day
Though he did buy 2 separate gigabit lines, each with a $200 setup fee.
Apparently the service is 940mbps down / 35mbps up, per line. So it sounds like he would be running the upload at full capacity 24/7, on both lines.
Edit: Updated since I read the service was 940/35.
I don't think spectrum has any ground to stand on here as it seems that the user in question went out of their way to clarify that what they were planning on doing was acceptable prior to paying for not only an additional line but the cost of running said line as well. This not only didn't set off any red flags for Spectrum but they reassured the user that this wouldn't be a problem.
I don't know how you make it any more clear that you plan on using the internet plan to its full capacity other than that.
It's what's in the contract that matters, and every residential ISP contract I've ever seen has acceptable use limits, tells you not to run a server, etc.
The ultimate catch-all is language to the effect of "activity that negatively impacts other network users" or some such.
1. Use. The Service is designed for personal and family use (residential use only) within a single household. Subscriber agrees that only Subscriber and Subscriber''s authorized guests in the same household will use the Service. Subscriber is responsible for any misuse of the Service that occurs through Subscriber''s account, whether by a member of Subscriber''s household or an authorized or unauthorized third-party. Subscriber will not use, or enable others to use, the Service to operate any type of business or commercial enterprise, including, but not limited to, IP address translation or similar facilities intended to provide additional access. Subscriber will not resell or redistribute, or enable others to resell or redistribute, access to the Service in any manner, including, but not limited to, through the use of wireless technology. Spectrum reserves the right at its sole discretion to immediately suspend, terminate, or restrict use of the Service without notice if such use violates the AUP or the Terms of Service, is objectionable or unlawful, or interferes with Spectrum''s systems, or Internet Network, the Internet, or others'' use of the Service.
It's a 35mbit up connection. His usage reprents over 95% utilization 24/7.
Clearly the customer picked a service for their need in order to use backup: unlimited bandwidth checked that box.
And that's strictly looking at active engagement, not even 'somebody leaves Blue Planet II running in the background because they find it soothing'.
If it's excessive, why did they advertise and sell the service to him with the claim that it was capable of handling it?
This is just the usual bigcorp gaslighting with an "UNLIMITED" service that actually has limitations not included in the advertising.
HE didn't buy a dedicated line, or a business class line.
There is no firm cap. But they're not required to allow usage not consistent with a single residential customer, or effecting other users of the network.
That's not unlimited service. That's "limited service, except we won't tell you what the limit is until after you've already reached it".
What do these words mean when the premise of this thread is that we're talking about a single residential customer? Is there a hidden meaning that I'm missing?
> or effecting other users of the network.
Isn't this a function of the quality of the network and completely out of the control of the customer?
If they want to have upload limits, they they can clearly advertise those.
He's definitely an outlier on the usage, but someone has to be the highest usage customer. Why not this guy?
On the other hand, people vary in their use cases. Personal use for me is not the same as for you.
So it comes down to: what does the contract say, with a possible side dish of sales/marketing malpractice.
Let's say you have several 1080p videocamears, and you want to constantly upload their output to an off-site video vault for notary+witness and monitoring services. That could easily approach this workload for a decent home security setup. That's without any other services, like video-conferences or any other form of discourse or work from a residence. (Not as a "business" in the sense of operating one out of a home.)
But I accept that on residential consumer plans, it is more economic for business to offer the up/down rates they do, for whatever technical/marketing reasons.
Is it good? Well, it isn't what I want but I am not the whole market.
besides, there are several other problems. in many (US) areas, there's no competition. there's no symmetric internet available (otherwise, you could schedule it overnight where network usage is lower). vice versa, you don't save money if you use less data volume. either they bill by bandwidth, or volume. maybe both if they're upfront.
too often, it seems like consumers are getting shafted, unless you overpay and under-utilise. it isn't even a ridiculous data volume if you record a lot of video (4k gopro) or pictures.
1. I don't know exactly what the terms were between this person and their ISP.
2. Hence I made only a vague suggestion at impropriety: with a possible side dish of sales/marketing malpractice
great you can have all the cheese dogs you want. just have to get in line.
-False advertising -Breach of contract -Theft -Racketeering?
I have 1Gb/s in both directions, over fiber. They had no objection when I uploaded a terabyte to begin a remote backup.
Besides technical limitation, spectrum is just a crappy isp with shady practices. Someone ought to take them to FCC for these kind of emails.
The subscriber is already paying 270 USD per month. Holy fuck. That's daylight robbery. https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/moqskr/spectru...
Since TCP has exponential window sizing, it can ACK gigabytes in just one go, right? But we would need to know the latency (round trip time) to calculate the max bandwidth delay product (max data in flight).
Check for yourself: https://www.spectrum.com/policies/internet-use-policy
The clause in question is the following:
> j. Either of the following activities by a Subscriber using dedicated machines (also known as "machines" or "dedicated servers") or virtual dedicated servers (also known as "VDS", "VPS", "virtual machines", and/or "virtual servers"): (i) running a tunnel or proxy to a server at another host or (ii) hosting, storing, proxy, or use of a network testing utility or denial of service (DoS/DDoS) tool in any capacity.
I’d love to see a lawyer rips this contract section to shreds.
If you believe yourself to be in the right, file a complaint with your state's telecom/internet regulator. You don't have a bullwhip. The regulator does.