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.

None of that says you can’t do a 300 gb backup every day. He’s not sharing with his neighbours or running a warez server.

Clear how? Point out the specific clause you say he's violating.

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.

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?

> abusive and excessive

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.

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.

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.

He is not running a business, who is to say that making backups for personal use is somehow 'abusive' or 'non-residential'?

Who has 200TB of backups that isn't either illegal or of some commercial value?

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.

Anyone who shots 4k60 video, most smartphones can do that.

No, the marketing is deceptive! They should add a fine print with the actual cap

It's really quite clear.

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.

> 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".

> 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?

wave your hands around some more and and clutch your pearls better I'm sure I'll understand your point eventually.

Nope, he bought an advertised product. Then he used it.

> How much are you uploading?

>> 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.

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.

I do this much traffic every day and Google Fiber doesn’t care at all.

Further down in the thread he mentions it's 940mbps down, 35 mbps up. That would mean he's got both lines pegged for upload 24/7.

If the limit is 35mbps up, and there isn't any throttling based on usage, what's wrong with using that 24/7? That's the service he's paying for.

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.

Streaming all day 4K isn't 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'.

Ahh yes, the typical 8 person household!

"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.

My household is 5 right up until any family come to visit, and then we'll be 7+ for potentially 2+ weeks

I mean he’s paying for two lines. So make it two four person households.

This is upload, not download.

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.

Then why does Spectrum sell a consumer service that allows users to do that?

4k tv and 4k cameras are consumer grade devices. With 8k or 16k, maybe, but even those are consumer grade devices.

"I dislike when you use the product I sold you"

says who?

Down or up?

Abusive of what? Excessive by what standard? If someone is sold a plan without limits then what's the problem here?

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.

How so? Why shouldn’t someone back up their data?