Bandwidth Caps

[linuxdudex12]

[FONT=Helvetica,Arial]Lately, ISP bandwidth caps have been in the news. Comcast recently announced a 250GB/month cap. Others, like Time Warner, have also implemented them or are considering them. More and more bandwidth-hogging legal offerings are now available, like movies, from iTunes and Netflix, music, software downloads and updates, games and various streaming outlets. And then there's HD stuff. It takes a lot of bandwidth and the amount of HD material is growing rapidly. What's your opinion of bandwidth caps?
[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica,Arial]
My personal feelings are that bandwidth caps are a step in the wrong direction. Even if you're of the opinion that the average internet user won't get anywhere near the caps, there's still plenty of people who will. Besides, it sets a bad precedent to let these actions go unquestioned, ISPs will decide we don't care about bandwidth and start throttling it back even more.

The other possibility is that their using these caps to set up some kind of tired subscription service, where you pay more to get more bandwidth, just like you pay more for more channels on cable. I don't like that idea any better. I don't have any issue with paying extra for bandwidth when it comes to say, website hosting, but from an ISP? I say if you want to do different level subscriptions, make the tiers based on connection speed, and just kill the bandwidth caps altogether..[/FONT]

 

[catilley1092]

I have Time Warner here, even though I'll never use 250GB a month, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to. Currently, there's no cap, you pay for your speed. Mine is packaged with my phone and cable, so I get a package discount. That was my problem with Verizon Wireless (5GB limit) until recently. It was in with my cell phone bill, but no discount was given. $59.99 a month + taxes is too much for 5GB, so I kissed their wireless goodbye. I'm not messing with anymore cell phone providers for internet service.

 

[clifford_cooley]

Personally, I have downloaded 5GB in the last 24 hours. And if I did this everyday, that would come to an average of 150GB/month. For the average user that does not download mass amounts of data, I see no need in crippling there speed when they can stay below a certain Bandwidth Cap.

This very well could be the start of lower prices for faster speeds, if you don't try to download the entire web at once. Anyone who wants more than 250GB's of data should pay a premium for the bandwidth. Phone companies have been doing this for a long time with extra minutes, the question is how many minutes do you need? With the Internet, the question would be how much data do you need? In simpler terms, If two people want the same speed. Why would they pay the same price when one clearly doesn't need as much data.

I would welcome anything that lowers the price of faster low usage Internet.

 

[catilley1092]

Me too Clifford! I only use 5 to 6GB per month, and would not pay more if I was using as much as you. Prices are falling in this area, as there is competition, that's good for the market.

 

[draceena]

In Canada there is a monopoly between Aliant/Bell, Rogers and Shaw. Where I am at you can only choose Rogers or Aliant/Bell (yes there are minor/independent companies but really they are on the leash of these 2). Rogers caps the download amount and it is tiered (lowest is 1/2meg download speed and 2Gig per month download limit then increases incrementally with even their fastest download speed having a monthly limit).

At the moment Aliant/Bell don't cap the monthly amount but I can just bet they will soon since Rogers is doing it. I was even considering moving to Aliant/Bell because of the cap but Rogers gave me a good deal for a year on a faster download (10meg max)...after that time though, if I can't get another good deal and Aliant/Bell still has no caps, I'll be switching

 

[clifford_cooley]

1/2meg download speed and 2Gig per month

That is quite a restriction having only 2GB.

With a bandwidth cap so low, I don't even see why they would restrict the speed. Once you reached your cap, that would open the doors to you being charged more or shut down completely so what difference would it make by allowing you to reach the cap quicker. It shouldn't matter to them one way or another.

 

[Veedaz]

We seem to fair a bit better with some of our ISPs in the UK I'm on SKY unlimited 20 meg - no caps, no download limit

 

[Core]

This is a very typical American business model. It's called screwing the customers.

If a company found a way to charge us for the air we breathe, we'd all be holding our breaths to keep the usage down.

American cell phone operators charge their customers for both outbound and inbound calls. This means that they're getting paid twice for the same airtime. In Europe, I only paid for the calls I made, and the SMS I sent. Here they charge me for receiving a call, and the caller for making it. And they all do it, because they can get away with it. And they can get away with it until one company decides that, in the face of so much competition, they're going to break the mold and only charge for outbound calls. And that's when we're off to the races.

This capping bandwidth stuff is utter BS. There is a reason subscribers go for a higher tier plan, and it's not just so they can load html pages faster. There's really very little difference in how fast a static web page loads between a 1 Mbps and a 20 Mbps connection. But if you're downloading a 5-disc Linux distro, hooboy. The whole reason I want faster speed is so that I can download more stuff faster.

Capping my bandwidth defeats the purpose of having a fast connection. What is the use in paying for a higher speed if it just means I'll meet the cap that much faster?

The reason cable companies are starting to do this is because they realize they are bleeding customers to online services. Why would I pay the cable company for a Pay-Per-View movie or some other On-Demand show, when I can just stream movies from Netflix for one static, low charge? The reason Netflix can provide such a nice and affordable service is because the way their streaming content is transported to the customer (ie, via Internet connection) is none of their concern.

It's all about the cable providers wanting their piece of a pie they didn't make. They sell their own pie, so to speak, but for a higher price with less flavor. It's not selling. People are paying just for the delivery, but not for a product. So, obviously, the company's getting pissed.

Claiming that the capping is supposed to even the playing field between high-volume users and low-volume ones is just hogwash. Start by not overselling connections to your nodes, for one thing, and second, try upgrading your equipment at a faster rate, so as not to keep using decades old technology. There's a reason, other than just higher speed, why fiber is gaining such momentum.

 

[clifford_cooley]

I'm not going to sit here and say I know all the details.

All I'm gonna say is if I decide to download a movie once or twice a month. Why should I have to wait 24 hours for the download to complete when thats all I really need for the month and to get it faster I would have to pay just as much as someone that does the downloads everyday.

 

[catilley1092]

Screwing the customers has been, is, and will always be the way that corporate America treats their customers. There's no reason to see it changing in the near future, either.

 

[draceena]

Might as well add Canada to the mix with even more draconian measures like Canadian Content Rules and this new drive for "local tv" to get money from the cable providers that are forced to cary their signals in the first place *rant*

 

[Core]

Might as well add Canada to the mix with even more draconian measures like Canadian Content Rules and this new drive for "local tv" to get money from the cable providers that are forced to cary their signals in the first place *rant*

Content rules exist because, obviously, people cannot be trusted to define for themselves what they consider entertaining.