[TriLUG] OT: URGENT: H.129 to be heard in Thursday's Finance Committee!

William Chandler wcchandler at gmail.com
Mon Mar 14 20:41:27 EDT 2011


Just to add a point of reference, here's my usage for the past couple of
months:

December 2010 (Incoming: 42269 MB / Outgoing: 9168 MB)
January 2011 (Incoming: 87783 MB / Outgoing: 7410 MB)
February 2011 (Incoming: 72038 MB / Outgoing: 8992 MB)
*March 2011 (Incoming: 41822 MB / Outgoing: 10638 MB)*

December was low thanks to the holidays -- probably 10 days of no activity.

This for me and the wife who are 24 and 23 years old.  We stream about 5
hours of netflix a week in HD quality.  We have Time Warner's cheapest
package.  All Bittorrent traffic is capped at 10Kb/s up and 500Kb/s down.
 Console gamer pretty much every night on first person shooters.  Internet
is mostly Hacker News, Reddit and Youtube.  No ad-blocking.  About 10 hours
of streaming Pandora.


On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Mark Turner <jmarkturner at gmail.com> wrote:

> We in the Triangle are blessed with multiple options for Internet service,
> but not all communities are as fortunate as we are.
>
> But what if no one wants to "spend on the infrastructure" to provide it?
> What if you're like many of our Pittsboro members who can't get high-speed
> Internet where they live, simply because the commercial providers can't make
> the business case? How are those people's kids going to do their homework
> and complete their papers if they don't have high-speed Internet available?
> There are hundreds of thousands of other kids in that same boat: living in
> areas too rural to turn the heads of the cable companies.
>
> Cable companies have worked to legally define "high-speed Internet" as 768k
> down. Thus, their bar for allowing a community to provide their own Internet
> service means that community must not be able to get at least 768k Internet.
>
> Most of y'all would laugh hysterically at calling 768k "high speed." Come
> on, you know you would.
>
> Bits are getting cheaper every day. TWC reported it's bandwidth costs have
> actually DECREASED at the time it also said its traffic has increased. I'd
> venture to guess that good amount of their customer traffic never even
> leaves their network, costing them nothing.
>
> I appreciate your opposition to the bill, Chris, but please don't believe
> the shell game that commercial providers are trying to play. One thing about
> municipal providers is that they are forced to be honest and open: something
> that's proved lacking with certain cable companies.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
>
> On 03/14/2011 08:08 PM, Chris Merrill wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2011 6:01 PM, Cristóbal Palmer wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Chris Merrill<chris at webperformance.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I dunno, looking at the pricing, it looks very fair to me. It is not a
>>>> cap,
>>>> it is tiered pricing. If you use more, you pay more...just like
>>>> electricity,
>>>> water, food, gas.  What am I missing?
>>>>
>>> --
> This message was sent to: wcchandler at gmail.com <wcchandler at gmail.com>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that
> address.
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  :
> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/wcchandler%40gmail.com
> TriLUG FAQ          :
> http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>



More information about the TriLUG mailing list