another article that we are moving towards Internet bandwidth caps

[Double Trouble]

I'm perfectly fine with caps and tiers, but only as long as there is competition. That way, I can vote with my wallet and pick the ISP that offers the best prices and options. Competition will drive prices to the correct point. In situations where there is no effective competition, prices should be regulated much the same way utility prices are regulated, and there should be no tiers or caps etc.

 

[child of wonder]

If you do anything more than check email once a month or send a single ICMP packet out weekly then you are an abuser. Want better internet? Pay more money.

</spidey07>

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I'm perfectly fine with caps and tiers, but only as long as there is competition. That way, I can vote with my wallet and pick the ISP that offers the best prices and options. Competition will drive prices to the correct point. In situations where there is no effective competition, prices should be regulated much the same way utility prices are regulated, and there should be no tiers or caps etc.

that's doubtful, in my area we have both cable and dsl. Cable cost more than even the platinum DSL package from AT&T, and it's almost 3x the price of the basic dsl plan. Mind you this is the entry level cable plan, the upgraded one is about 4x the price. The cable company here has huge competition in AT&T, but they don't seem to care about being competitive. Maybe because they know a lot of people just order everything (TV, internet, phone) from them and call it a day. If you call AT&T directly you can get a $12 a month DSL plan, Cable is $40 for the bottom package.

 

[IGBT]

you can see what's comming. no video/music files.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

I have to live with a 25gb internet cap it sucks. consider yourselves lucky america

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: onlyCOpunk
I have to live with a 25gb internet cap it sucks. consider yourselves lucky america

What's your connection speed?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
I'm perfectly fine with caps and tiers, but only as long as there is competition. That way, I can vote with my wallet and pick the ISP that offers the best prices and options. Competition will drive prices to the correct point. In situations where there is no effective competition, prices should be regulated much the same way utility prices are regulated, and there should be no tiers or caps etc.

there is limited competition, cost of entry is really too high, things like cable networks are basically government sanctioned monopolies as well. relying on competition alone just gets us f*cked really.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: onlyCOpunk
I have to live with a 25gb internet cap it sucks. consider yourselves lucky america

What's your connection speed?

It's Cable and about 9.5 mbs.

 

[OverVolt]

Take it to the man, man!

 

[dman]

Depending on how bad the pricing is, some folks may stop downloading as much, reducing demand. Maybe some botnets will go away, but I don't think that'll change the pricing.

I'm sure alternatives would be adopted, such as neighborhood wireless mesh networks, and/or there could be more use of sneakernet again. Proxy's were pretty popular in the dialup days. Basically, one person will download and share with friends family via other means.


There are alternatives to high speed internet, they're just not the most convenient or cost effective right now.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

The whole capping aspect is to prevent piracy.

Most likely what they'll do, as they do where I live is offer sites that are unmetered to promote legal downloading. Such as the Apple store or Amazon.

Capping Interenet usage then places a price on downloaded content which will take away the "free" aspect as users are now paying per GB.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
http://www.tomshardware.com/ne...-time-warner,7696.html

The American Cable Association said that, like it or not, metered bandwidth Internet pricing is coming, and will be a necessity.

Zoom
As displeased as internet users are (as in those who actually use the internet) about bandwidth caps, it seems that cable companies on the whole want consumption-based billing policies.

Cable executives who met for the American Cable Association's (ACA) annual summit expressed feelings that metered internet billing would be a part of the business future.

According to Broadcasting & Cable, ACA President Matt Polka said that metered pricing will be a necessity going forward for cable companies as they become broadband companies.

Polka gave that example of his heating bill in Pittsburgh, where he would love to pay the same flat rate all year-round for heating, but instead must pay more during the winter months. With all the network expansion and new internet services such as Netflix streaming, Polka said that cable companies won?t be able to provide service for just $40 per month.

Patrick Knorr, general manager of Sunflower Broadband, which has had bandwidth-based billing for four years now, said that a grandmother who just wants to read e-mail should not have to subsidize the college kid who downloads HD movies to watch later.

Knorr added that metered billing is the only way to manage infrastructure and that charging a flat rate "is not a sustainable business model." Sunflower Broadband currently offers an entry-level 3 GB service tier for $27.95 per month (without video bundle discount). Those who crave the top-level service can get 50 GB for $59.95 (without video bundle discount) per month. Those who go over their quota will be billed at $2.00 per GB, though customers can buy more bandwidth in advance in 15 GB blocks for $10 each.

Sunflower Broadband tries to put its bandwidth caps into perspective using data from more than two years ago. As quoted from its service site: In April 2007, 98.9% of users had less than 40 GBs of bandwidth usage, 86.98% of used less than 10 GBs, 49.46% of used less than 1 GBs of bandwidth usage per month.

Knorr went on to say that, unlike satellite, broadcast, and cable, the internet is not a particularly efficient way to deliver high-res video.

We?re personally of the opinion that the internet is a very efficient way of delivering all sorts of data, video or not. What do you think? Do ISPs have to charge for bandwidth to sustain a business model, or are cable companies just trying to throttle back customers to keep them paying for traditional TV services?

I still don't understand the comparison to energy. My energy bill is near 0 if I don't use any energy in a month. And it is a flat rate forever for how much energy you use.

I would actually not mind that type of pricing. But don't pretend that you are metering bandwidth but have a minimum $30 for that "grandmother" who just checks email once a day. Either have unlimited bandwidth or charge a rate per GB flat for everyone starting from $0 if you don't use it, that is how energy/water work.

#1- Caps are not a bad thing...as long as they are REASONABLE..50GB @ 60/mo is not.

#2 Mr. Polka must not understand that the utility companies offer a budget plan...they average out your yearly usage from year to year and you pay a flat rate all year round. once a year it is evaluated and the budget payment could go up or down depending on your usage the previous year....so that analogy is bullshit.

If he want to compare himself to a utility company such as electric then perhaps he should be willing to offer a budget type plan based solely on usage from year to year.

 

[novasatori]

i think the biggest problem is the per gb prices these companies give

now granted its a data center, but in the data center we use we pay $3.75-5 per terabyte, so it doesn't really compare at all

i know you say sure, you can't compare it because one is a data center, and bulk prices, but the other is at a home, but you're talking about such an insane price increase between 1tb for $4 to 1gb for $2 that its just crazy imo

 

[Triumph]

I don't see FIOS mentioned in this thread, or what their plans are for usage caps. I'm not against tiered pricing plans per se, I trust competition to figure out the correct pricing levels, but the requirement here is competition. And not everyone has a choice of FIOS versus cable, or other alternatives.

 

[Bignate603]

$2 a GB? That's ridiculous. It doesn't cost them $2 to move a GB of data. I wouldn't mind a per GB cost if it was reasonable. For example, if they charged a service charge of just having your house hooked up to the system and then $0.10-0.20 per GB that would be understandable.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Why can't we be like the other European countries where they have like 100/100, no cap, and only like $20/month...

Be careful what you wish for. If the government started heavily subsidizing internet service in the United States, they might make the argument that they have a right to regulate the content it provides domestically.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
I'm actually ok with tiered internet pricing, I just wish the caps were more reasonable...

I think this is true for a lot of people. If TWC had sid their caps were gonna be 250GB like Comcast i would not have bitched about it.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I don't see FIOS mentioned in this thread, or what their plans are for usage caps. I'm not against tiered pricing plans per se, I trust competition to figure out the correct pricing levels, but the requirement here is competition. And not everyone has a choice of FIOS versus cable, or other alternatives.

Nobody knows. FiOS has a shitload of capacity, so caps seem unlikely to me, but it could happen eventually.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Why can't we be like the other European countries where they have like 100/100, no cap, and only like $20/month...

Be careful what you wish for. If the government started heavily subsidizing internet service in the United States, they might make the argument that they have a right to regulate the content it provides domestically.

no doubt. it would have to be "the obama" approved.

 

[frostedflakes]

It's not like government doesn't already exert a lot of control over private networks. FCC smacking down Comcast on BitTorrent throttling, AT&T cooperation w/the NSA in domestic and foreign surveillance, etc. Doesn't matter whether the network is publicly or privately owned, this stuff is going to happen.

I doubt the government would have much luck trying to regulate internet content. Look at the public reaction in Australia when the government was talking about their censorship system. The public was overwhelmingly against the policy (I think some polls showed like 90%+ of people saying they didn't support the idea). And even if Congress somehow managed to pass laws regulating content, it would probably be overturned in the Supreme Court, just like COPA and other pointless decency laws.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Money grab, period. Put up a TRUE pay per GB model, where you use 0 and you pay 0 and then we'll talk. Otherwise its just a money grab. I'll drop all of my services from them, TV included. Satellite works just fine and I'm pretty sure I can go without internet just to prove a point. They want to be dicks and they'll lose me as a customer entirely, to the tune of $130 a month. And I'm not even a heavy user most months, usually 30GB. To me its just a matter of principles.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Why can't we be like the other European countries where they have like 100/100, no cap, and only like $20/month...

Be careful what you wish for. If the government started heavily subsidizing internet service in the United States, they might make the argument that they have a right to regulate the content it provides domestically.

Didn't the ISP's try this? You know, "our network, our rules".

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Why can't we be like the other European countries where they have like 100/100, no cap, and only like $20/month...

Be careful what you wish for. If the government started heavily subsidizing internet service in the United States, they might make the argument that they have a right to regulate the content it provides domestically.

Didn't the ISP's try this? You know, "our network, our rules".

The ISPs had better be careful, many like me will just say our money, our decision where it goes.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
It's not like government doesn't already exert a lot of control over private networks. FCC smacking down Comcast on BitTorrent throttling, AT&T cooperation w/the NSA in domestic and foreign surveillance, etc. Doesn't matter whether the network is publicly or privately owned, this stuff is going to happen.

I doubt the government would have much luck trying to regulate internet content. Look at the public reaction in Australia when the government was talking about their censorship system. The public was overwhelmingly against the policy (I think some polls showed like 90%+ of people saying they didn't support the idea). And even if Congress somehow managed to pass laws regulating content, it would probably be overturned in the Supreme Court, just like COPA and other pointless decency laws.

CIPA survived, though. The court ruled that the government can attach censorship provisions to their funding programs. If the government started funding programs for broadband beyond schools and libraries, I'd be worried about the same situation arising there.

I don't think it *will* happen, but I think it would be possible. Congress has been rather tenacious in their attempts to do so thus far, despite their repeated failures.

 

[vhx]

Originally posted by: TridenTBoy3555
Why can't we be like the other European countries where they have like 100/100, no cap, and only like $20/month...

LOL. Funny you mention this because the EU is voting in a few days to make it legal for ISP's to limit the number of websites you can visit and determine whether or not you can use certain services. In other words it will end up like TV subscriptions: selling you packages of websites. I expect that to be the same price they pay now and 'unrestricted internet' double/triple the price (if they even go that far). Nothing like stagnating progress, limiting the internet, and controlling information. Gotta love greed!