test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Cryptic's Take on Internet Usage Caps

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited March 2011 in Ten Forward
Not sure if this is the right forum for this but it does effect STO.

The wonder twins of intelligence over at AT&T recently announced they are going to start capping usage via their systems - 150 GB for DSL and 250 GB for U-Verse. I understand both sides of ther argument and not here to debate that.

Rather, I would like to know how much bandwidth does a game like Star Trek use?

I'll be honest - up until they had the caps I have no idea what I use in a month for page usage or the like. All of it is greek to me. Rather, I guess the better question is whether I need to worry about such caps limiting my STO experience or is it more impacted on other factors on the net.

Thanks,
Blak
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Games are not that big of a bandwidth draw. Realistically even with updates MMOs would be hard pressed to come close to 5 Gig a month limits that Verizon has on thier cell internet.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Thank you for clearing that up.

    The technical aspects of the game I really don't understand so wasn't sure to what extent the impact is. Bout all I understand is There is a server (Cryptic) and a client (my pc). They talk to each other, not sure if it was like 1k strings, 100 tiems a second or the like.

    But if it is under 5 GB, then I am not gonna sweat it.

    Blak
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    When I raided seriously in WoW, my usage would top out at about 75 gigs a month, and I'm willing to bet more of that came from downloading strategy videos than actually playing the game. Their patch system also ate up crazy amounts of bandwidth, since not only do they use bit torrent, it's a crippleware version of bit torrent that forces early downloaders to seed longer by holding back the last 1% of the patch from them.

    STO seems to use more bandwidth than WoW, but at the same time their patch system doesn't eat up nearly as much, there's no hard mode raid scene forcing people to do lots of out-of-game homework, and honestly there's just less to DO in STO, you don't need to spent 5 hours a week in dungeons and 10 more farming gold and materials to support a 30 hour a week raid schedule.

    You really have to be doing some large-file torrenting to eat up a bandwidth cap, and most of the time hitting the cap just drops you down to a lower speed tier for the rest of the month. Which will destroy your torrent throughput but won't really stop you from playing games.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    They are trying this in Canada too, however there is a lot of opposition
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    It shouldn't affect STO.

    On my machine, the game draws something like 5kb/s. You have to understand that most of your gameplay is just passing simple information (like text).

    However, I don't like the policy. It's not as bad as Comcast simply throttling bandwidth (which I just experienced as places like vimeo are crawling while comcast's preferred sites get special treatment but it's still punitive for those who support independent content production (i.e. video, programming, etc.) I've noticed the company throttles netflix too - so that it downgrades video quality from HD to SD, while promoting their own On Demand service. When taken to that extreme, it's anticompetitive.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Blakinik wrote:
    Not sure if this is the right forum for this but it does effect STO.

    The wonder twins of intelligence over at AT&T recently announced they are going to start capping usage via their systems - 150 GB for DSL and 250 GB for U-Verse. I understand both sides of ther argument and not here to debate that.

    Rather, I would like to know how much bandwidth does a game like Star Trek use?

    I'll be honest - up until they had the caps I have no idea what I use in a month for page usage or the like. All of it is greek to me. Rather, I guess the better question is whether I need to worry about such caps limiting my STO experience or is it more impacted on other factors on the net.

    Thanks,
    Blak

    I would ask the FCC about this. Since they regular this sort of thing. Even more so since AT&T just said they going to buy T-mobile. Your talking about wire internet access but since it the same company. It would not hurt to complain about this to FCC.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Summit wrote: »
    They are trying this in Canada too, however there is a lot of opposition

    Attempted to try this in Canada but got stone walled :P.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Has no effect on causal usage, or players of games. they would not shut off a segment of their consumer base. These measures are purely for the Pirates/Hosts, and the (above post) wanna be artists that should be using a better system.

    Really, look at the numbers, like they would throttle traffic of that size that you legitimately paid for and use in good faith. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    a cap is not a bad thing to many people abuse there connection a cap would allow more speed to be reclaimed for everyone as you are less likely to go around downloading or hosting huge files everyday

    most of the people who have a problem with a cap are the same people who contribute to the need for one in the first place
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    mykey1982 wrote: »
    Attempted to try this in Canada but got stone walled :P.

    actually they did do this in Canada, as far as I know nothing has been reversed despite all the political rhetoric.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Startruck wrote:
    actually they did do this in Canada, as far as I know nothing has been reversed despite all the political rhetoric.

    I'm a little confused about this at the moment. But I think your right. Theres a great facebook page dedicated to fighting the CTRC ruling. Its called OpenMedia, and is a big group currently backed by the liberals and NDP (not publically though =/). PM me if you want the link if you interested in fighting the ruling
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    RCO wrote:
    I would ask the FCC about this. Since they regular this sort of thing. Even more so since AT&T just said they going to buy T-mobile. Your talking about wire internet access but since it the same company. It would not hurt to complain about this to FCC.

    Unfortuantely this is not an option - least not without having a negative backlash to those around me.

    Well there is an option, but it would likely result in me having PLENTY o' time to play STO... which is not favorable...

    Blak
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    About 6 hours aday ingame, more on rainy days off.
    Utube, iTunes half my tv shows and ondemand streaming other half
    Plus downloading software for iPods , 3 computers and two iPods connected
    Online at same time I'm yet to go over Rogers 60gb cap, so you shouldn't need
    To worry
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    mykey1982 wrote: »
    Attempted to try this in Canada but got stone walled :P.

    We actuAly have 60 gb caps in Canada use to be 5 gb, bell and Rogers
    WAnt go back to unlimited but federal government is stonewalling cause
    They collect tax on the over usage fee's.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Your only real issue may be in actual patches, which so far in STO's history have ranged from small to 2+ GB in size. On a month to month basis that probably is not an issue but when you add in other generic web "use", i.e. streaming videos, download stuff from online retailers or worse, pirating, you can easily hit a cap if not careful.

    STO wise you will be fine, I doubt you'll ever even come close to those numbers simply by STO alone.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    we've always had usage limits here in ireland bar the top, top net deals, and my current one is 30gb. i've never had any issues with STO going over the limit for me...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Lufia wrote:
    a cap is not a bad thing to many people abuse there connection a cap would allow more speed to be reclaimed for everyone as you are less likely to go around downloading or hosting huge files everyday

    most of the people who have a problem with a cap are the same people who contribute to the need for one in the first place

    This is a common misconception. You are entitled to unlimited traffic volume because you pay actually for SPEED.

    A true "flat rate" doesn't exist because the companies dimension their networks in function of "average" traffic, so any user that goes above average is seen as "abusing", when he simply is actually getting close to use maximum speed for a longer period. So ISPs don't like people that play online games, or watch videos and they can lower traffic speed, or force to pay huge penalties (no kidding here, I know a company that charges 20 euro for every Gig you go above your "allotted" traffic) to anyone that exceeds their expected limits.

    Also, you seem to forget that there are many other countries besides the US and Canada. In some of them, you pay a premium to have a 5 Gb monthly cap and the "normal" cap is set to 1 or 2 Gigs. STO eats a sizable amount of that, specially on Featured Episodes season and gamers from those countries WILL get penalized for playing STO.

    So, don't get fooled: "flat rate" means you pay for speed, without traffic volume limitations. Anything else is just deceptive advertising. You cannot "abuse" a "flat rate" connection.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Summit wrote: »
    They are trying this in Canada too, however there is a lot of opposition

    Big Brothers always going find a way to take his "share" of everybodies pie.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Lufia wrote:
    a cap is not a bad thing to many people abuse there connection a cap would allow more speed to be reclaimed for everyone as you are less likely to go around downloading or hosting huge files everyday

    most of the people who have a problem with a cap are the same people who contribute to the need for one in the first place

    So... if my wife is home ill while recovering from her chemo/radiation treatments and happens to stream movies from Netflix all day then I am an abuser?

    Bottom line is that I bought a 20Mb/s line because I want fast internet. It is already bad enough that my speeds hardly ever go above 13Mb/s. Then they are telling me that if I can get the speed I am paying for I am only allowed to use it at that speed for a small portion of the month before I exceed a second cap... seems like a bad idea to me.

    What they are trying to do with the throw away lines like "only 10% of our customers would exceed the new cap of 150GB/Month so it will only affect the abusers," is trying to get a number in everyone's head today and then lock that number into the contract. Tomorrow it will be "only 10% of our customers would exceed the new cap of 100GB/Month so it will only affect the abusers" ... then 60... the 25...

    At the same time people will be using Netflix more, more digital program delivery, more multi-media website, etc... So they may be dead on that today the "average" user is using less than 20GB (or whatever number they come up with) a month, but next year even if nothing else changes that will be 40GB. Anyone really think they will raise that cap at the same rate the "average" user increases their usage?

    My MOM now uses the internet. She has never touched a computer in her life, and she is 76 years old. Last year we got her a tablet because she finally showed an interest. She can now email, surf, and use the TV to get Netflix. At my own home with just my wife, me, and in about 2 weeks a baby boy, we have 2 smartphones, 1 tablet, 1 PS3, 1 Wii, 3 desktops, 1 laptop, 2 Blu-ray players, and some other small items that all attach to the network to get updates or do work. In a normal month I tend to use about 115GB. That is not going to do anything but continue to rise.

    Caps are a bad idea... They already have rules against using your home connection for running a business or server. If you want to operate something like that then pay for the business plans.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I've noticed the company throttles netflix too - so that it downgrades video quality from HD to SD, while promoting their own On Demand service. When taken to that extreme, it's anticompetitive.

    Which is exactly why this is going to fail.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I suggest that if one does not like the "cap" then write your Congressmen and Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms why.
    In theory its a government of the People for the People. Exercise that control and tell your Government - NO.
    I made mine aware in very simple terms that I do not agree with a Cap and that it would directly reflect my voting priorities at such time as I can express iether my pleasure or displeasure.
    Paying for the service provided should not come with " late-changes" just becuase the service provider wants to eek more monies from their clients.

    lol- Maybe one can claim "Pursuit of Happiness" infringment?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Which is exactly why this is going to fail.

    I don't know, the internet industry is becoming very noncompetitive in general
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Roach wrote: »
    In our wildest dreams its a government of the People for the People.

    Fixed it for you.


    About the caps: There is no way whatsoever that even a family of four people playing online games for 20 hours a day will even get close to the cap.

    The problem is rather that the introduced those caps saying the only will hit "extreme" users (read: music/movie pirates) and not (legal) users.

    Then came services like Netflix and Steam and showed them how to easily exceed 125GB quotas with nothing but completely legit internet usage. I can't see how this will stand in the long run. What we will probably see is Deep Packet Inspection and them throttling all traffic coming from services that don't pay the ISPs high enough bribes. Which is even worse than the caps.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    dorko1 wrote: »
    I don't know, the internet industry is becoming very noncompetitive in general

    Perhaps, but (supposedly) in the United States, free market economies and competition are valued. I say supposedly because the Government likes to say one thing and then do another. ;)

    Comcast should not be doing what they are in terms of throttling those services.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Perhaps, but (supposedly) in the United States, free market economies and competition are valued.

    I could write a very long essay on why this is the case, but the short version is that you can have EITHER unregulated/"free" markets OR markets with a working competition, but not both at the same time (reason for this is that competition only occurs when no market participant has any sort of influence on the market, but so-called "free markets" favour large businesses over small ones). And yes, every economist on this planet will say that competition is a good thing. Problem: The reality is that most markets are completely dominated by a handful of powerful companies that don't compete that very much anymore (simply because it's better for them not to). And that's very much true for the ISP market.

    If you aren't exactly living in a huge urban center, chances are that there are like one or two ISPs you can "chose" from. Both of which are likely to have ~99% identical conditions. Which is *cough* because those companies either explicitly or silently agree on those terms. Competition is good for the economy as a whole, but an individual business likes having a monopoly a lot better. ;)

    So yeah, unless the regulatory bodies will rule against these practices, there is not much you as a customer can do. I am living in a large city but even there there is no ISP NOT capping your internet usage one way or the other.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Comcast should not be doing what they are in terms of throttling those services.

    Comcast does a lot of shady things.... :rolleyes: I have *no* doubt that without regulation they would've started making people pay to stream video to eliminate competition. Heck, their signal was dropping out every 15 minutes until some competition moved to town, then suddenly the problem they "couldn't fix" got fixed overnight.

    Another thing I discovered recently: they're required to transmit local stations in HD by regulations. They don't want their customers knowing they can get HD channels for free, though. Less than a year after they started transmitting those HD signals, they came out with a cable box to "improve the service", which, conveniently, locked out those channels.

    So I have a splitter in my line. If I want to view my free local HD channels, I have to flip a switch so I'm not going through the cable box. I'm tempted to just get a huge antenna and be done paid tv service. :(
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Very interesting conversation going now - I like the feedback.

    My situation is I work for a supplier to multiple internet companies and telecom companies. So I can't go off and trully yell "Hell no" since, well, I like having an income :)

    Ultimately what I hope for is some company decides to buck the trend and have no caps as a marketing ploy. However, the whole industry seems to play 'follow the leader'. Even with the software companies - just look at how DDO was successful now every company is playing the "Freemium" route...

    The other options I am looking at is if the mobile phone connectivity could improve speed wise, thought about going to like Metro PCS and get a $40/month flat rate if this idea trully bares itself. Then I could convert my 'cell phone' basically into a mini-tower and use that for my internet connection (Seriously thinking of getting a plastic bag, cut a hole in the corner for the power cord, then nail the bag into the wall and have all my wireless route thru the phone).

    I know a few phones you can use as a mini-tower with the right software - unfortunately they are tied up via the big boys (Verizon & AT&T/TMO).

    Blak
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    mykey1982 wrote: »
    Attempted to try this in Canada but got stone walled :P.

    I'm thankful for that too because I average about 300GB's a month on my 25Mbit down/7Mbit up. [=
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I have to laugh at the comments here. Not in any kind of nasty, belittling way but in the way of 'you don't know how lucky you are'.

    My ISP recently sent me an email saying, "Great news, we've DOUBLED your usage allowance to 40Gb per month." That's on an 8MB line BTW, the fastest we can get in our area.

    Welcome to rural Wales.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I have to laugh at the comments here. Not in any kind of nasty, belittling way but in the way of 'you don't know how lucky you are'.

    My ISP recently sent me an email saying, "Great news, we've DOUBLED your usage allowance to 40Gb per month." That's on an 8MB line BTW, the fastest we can get in our area.

    Welcome to rural Wales.

    I am running on a 512MB/s I think here - Fastest I got. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.