I haven't been running this lately, but I used it for a while last year when I was trying to determine a monthly upload estimate for a client. Good bandwidth monitor: http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/network/nsl.htm
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Steve Watkins <st...@dvmachine.com> wrote: > Lets look at some detail about one of the proposed plans: > > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=216500302&subSection=News > > In particular: > > Options for 10 GB, 20 GB, 40 GB, and 60 GB a month also will be available > with overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month. For $75 a month, a customer > can get 100 GB a month at download speeds of 10 MB per second and upload > speeds of 1 MB. > > The last offering would include overage charges of $1 per gigabyte a month, > which will be capped at $75. "That means that for $150 per month customers > could have virtually unlimited usage," Hobbs said. > > > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses a > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere near > 100GB a month? > > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt extreme > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's any > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest in a > rather hysterical way. > > Yes they want to protect their revenue stream in general, but I dont think > they mind how people are getting their video, as long as they can still > extract about the same $/month per customer. > > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are capacity > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened to > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using peer2peer > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that viewers > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net here, > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price structure > or quality of service as a result. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Jay dedman <jay.ded...@...> wrote: > > > > > > What really happening is TWC is unfairly trying to protect its cable > > TV profits from people switching over to online video. By making it > > prohibitively expensive for their 8.4 million customers to do much > > more than email and basic Web surfing, they hope to kill Internet > > video before it's any more popular. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
