Internet Data Caps

[Anteaus]

I know this topic isn't necessarily applicable toward the PC Gaming topic but I think we can all agree that as games get larger and digital distribution continues to dominate, data caps become highly applicable. I mention this because many of us are worried about the detrimental effect of irrationally small data caps can have to gamers. That said, I'm glad to report that at least some companies are listening.

I'm not a shill for Cox Internet in the least, but I've been using them for awhile. I had what many people would say is a decent data cap at 400GB per month...I say decent because there are other companies that offer a fraction of that for the same money. Well, I was checking my data usage and found out that my data cap rose from 400GB to 2TB per month! Needless to say I was ecstatic. The mid-range Preferred is now 350GB per month and bottom of the barrel is 150GB.

My point is that I'm hoping this begins a competitive movement toward raising the tiny caps that some companies have. With some games reaching 40-75GB per download and some people only having 100-200GB per month. It's like owning a car but having to stretch one tank of gas across an entire month.

 

[BurnItDwn]

yea, I agree, back when many of the ISPs implemented 100 or 250 data caps, that may have been somewhat reasonable given streaming at the time was often only SD, and pretty much every game was under 1 DVD-R in size)

I have always disliked the data caps, but they really ought to be an order of magnitude larger than they were 10 years ago ....

 

[Stuka87]

Most wired ISP's have no data caps unless you use a HUGE amount of bandwidth. Comcast for instance has no active cap. They will send a notice if you use a 500+ or so.

Satellite of course has hard limits, and wireless providers have hard limits (even some "unlimited" accounts).

I have Comcast and have never been limited, even if I used several hundred gigabytes.

 

[wanderer27]

Most wired ISP's have no data caps unless you use a HUGE amount of bandwidth. Comcast for instance has no active cap. They will send a notice if you use a 500+ or so.

Satellite of course has hard limits, and wireless providers have hard limits (even some "unlimited" accounts).

I have Comcast and have never been limited, even if I used several hundred gigabytes.

Sadly, you may need to worry about Data Caps with Comcast :

https://customer.comcast.com/help-a...-what-are-the-different-plans-launching?ref=1

Introduction

Frequently asked questions about our data usage plans.

We'll be launching multiple trial approaches, and here is an overview:

In the Nashville, Tennessee market, we have increased our monthly data usage plan for all XFINITY Internet tiers to 300 GB per month and also offer additional gigabytes in increments/blocks (e.g., $10.00 per 50 GB). This trial began on August 1, 2012.

In the Tucson, Arizona market, we announced in 2012 that the data amount included with Economy Plus through Performance XFINITY Internet tiers would increase from 250 GB to 300 GB. Those customers subscribed to the Blast! Internet tier, have received an increase in their data usage plan to 350 GB; Extreme 50 customers have received an increase to 450 GB; Extreme 105 customers have received an increase to 600 GB. As in our other trial market areas, we offer additional gigabytes in increments/blocks of 50 GB for $10.00 each in the event the customer exceeds their included data amount. This trial began on October 1, 2012.

In Huntsville and Mobile, Alabama; Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah, Georgia; Central Kentucky; Maine; Jackson, Mississippi; Knoxville and Memphis, Tennessee and Charleston, South Carolina, we have begun a trial which will increase our data usage plan for all XFINITY Internet tiers to 300 GB per month and will offer additional gigabytes in increments/blocks (e.g., $10.00 per 50 GB). In this trial, XFINITY Internet Economy Plus customers can choose to enroll in the Flexible-Data Option to receive a $5.00 credit on their monthly bill and reduce their data usage plan from 300 GB to 5 GB. If customers choose this option and use more than 5 GB of data in any given month, they will not receive the $5.00 credit and will be charged an additional $1.00 for each gigabyte of data used over the 5 GB included in the Flexible-Data Option. The trial dates for these regions were as follows: Hunstville – November 1, 2013; Mobile – October 1, 2013; Atlanta – December 1, 2013; Augusta – November 1, 2013; Savannah – September 1, 2013; Central Kentucky – September 1, 2013; Maine – December 1, 2013; Jackson – September 1, 2013; Knoxville – October 1, 2013; Memphis – November 1, 2013; Charleston – November 1, 2013.

In Fresno, California, Economy Plus customers also have the option of enrolling in the Flexible-Data Option. This trial began on August 22, 2013.

Each of these options requires that those who choose to use more of the service pay more than others. The Flexible-Data Option adds an alternative, permitting those who choose to use less to pay less.

.

 

[Stuka87]

Sadly, you may need to worry about Data Caps with Comcast :

https://customer.comcast.com/help-a...-what-are-the-different-plans-launching?ref=1

Thankfully I am not in any of those markets. I am in California, but not in Fresno.

 

[wanderer27]

Thankfully I am not in any of those markets. I am in California, but not in Fresno.

The problem is they're implementing this in new Markets.

Never can tell which ones they'll choose next.

I too have Comcast but no current Cap.
Last month I dropped their Cable TV/Phone service and just have Internet through them (not worth $200/mo for the dozen channels I had any interest in).

I've been watching my usage closely since then, and it's getting pretty close to the 250GB Cap they infer what apply in my area (WA).

Definitely something to be concerned about.



.

 

[Genx87]

Comcrap sees the writing on the wall with streaming live tv. I think the only way to stop this crap is to get involved with your local city or state and have the regulators tell them they cant implement caps.

 

[Rebel_L]

Comcrap sees the writing on the wall with streaming live tv. I think the only way to stop this crap is to get involved with your local city or state and have the regulators tell them they cant implement caps.

The future will likely be all about the data caps. Either they have to regulate traffic tightly so they can charge for the content of said traffic, or they just do what I figure is the inevitable and stop worrying about content and just charge for bandwidth period.

And by "they" I mean isp's in general

 

[smackababy]

Most wired ISP's have no data caps unless you use a HUGE amount of bandwidth. Comcast for instance has no active cap. They will send a notice if you use a 500+ or so.

Satellite of course has hard limits, and wireless providers have hard limits (even some "unlimited" accounts).

I have Comcast and have never been limited, even if I used several hundred gigabytes.

That isn't true. There have been months I've used 900+ GB and have yet to receive any notice from Comcast.

 

[Denithor]

In this trial, XFINITY Internet Economy Plus customers can choose to enroll in the Flexible-Data Option to receive a $5.00 credit on their monthly bill and reduce their data usage plan from 300 GB to 5 GB. If customers choose this option and use more than 5 GB of data in any given month, they will not receive the $5.00 credit and will be charged an additional $1.00 for each gigabyte of data used over the 5 GB included in the Flexible-Data Option.
.

Holy crap. Reduce data cap from 300GB to 5GB and save $5/month. Then, if you happen to go over that miniscule 5GB cap, get charged $1/GB used. If you were a heavy streamer (typical family with Netflix, Hulu, etc) and didn't read the fine print, could get screwed badly!

I find it quite ironic that just when the whole cloud thing takes off, data caps start getting implemented...

 

[wanderer27]

Holy crap. Reduce data cap from 300GB to 5GB and save $5/month. Then, if you happen to go over that miniscule 5GB cap, get charged $1/GB used. If you were a heavy streamer (typical family with Netflix, Hulu, etc) and didn't read the fine print, could get screwed badly!

I find it quite ironic that just when the whole cloud thing takes off, data caps start getting implemented...

Yeah, I remember there a was debate on here some years back in regards to Digital downloads and Online games.
I argued at the time that this could really become an issue for people with Caps, but at the time it didn't seem to concern anyone.

Now bigger games, NetFlix, Hulu, and other streaming services and it's really going to start getting people's attention.

Picked up a Roku when I dropped the Cable TV, and as I said, I'm getting close to what they say my Cap would be (Cap is currently disabled).
I watch more DVD's than I do streaming, and haven't downloaded any games (clearing backlog), so I can easily see the potential to rack up quite a bit of usage in months time.



.

 

[Stuka87]

That isn't true. There have been months I've used 900+ GB and have yet to receive any notice from Comcast.

Even better. It has been quite some time since I read of people being notified, as in several years. I think thats back when they had soft data caps.

Holy crap. Reduce data cap from 300GB to 5GB and save $5/month. Then, if you happen to go over that miniscule 5GB cap, get charged $1/GB used. If you were a heavy streamer (typical family with Netflix, Hulu, etc) and didn't read the fine print, could get screwed badly!

I find it quite ironic that just when the whole cloud thing takes off, data caps start getting implemented...

It should be noted its a trial, to see if there is a want for this. And it most likely gets tied to their 6Mbps service. For people that just check email, it actually would be fine. It is not intended for higher tier services at all.

 

[VirtualLarry]

And FIOS, which I believe at one time advertised "No caps", does in fact have "soft caps". Something ranging from 2TB / mo to 10TB / mo, depending on market and locale.

 

[Anteaus]

I think they should dump the caps and simply offer metered rates at the fastest possibly speeds. I think 5 cents per GB would be reasonable based on current needs. So maybe pay a $20 service charge which comes with a base 50GB and then charge $0.05 for every additional GB. If the same companies can justify charging by the minute for phone network usage then why can't the same be done for internet? From a technical standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between a data packet that originates on a cell phone and a data packet that originates on a PC.

I'd go further to say metered billing gives incentive to upgrade network infrastructure, because a faster network will allow end users to move more data in a 24-hour period and therefore enhance revenue. Since rates are competitive in nature, a company running a slower network will be at a disadvantage as they can only charge for the data they can process. With the current setup, the only incentive to upgrading infrastructure is to prevent people from jumping ship, and in some markets where that isn't possible things become stagnant because there simply isn't a reason to hurry upgrades.

My .02

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I mention this because many of us are worried about the detrimental effect of irrationally small data caps can have to gamers. That said, I'm glad to report that at least some companies are listening.

Data caps aren't irrational, the infrastructure the ISPs build around the backbone has a maximum capacity of data throughput which needs to be shared between all users, data caps are used to make sure that some users don't detrimentally slow down the network for others by constantly uploading and downloading large files.

Think of data throughput not unlike gas or electricity, there's a per unit cost to provision it and most ISPs don't charge per unit but rather sell packages where the amount is flexible between certain amounts, normally because some people don't use much bandwidth and so it's shared between a number of users, essentially low users subsidize the high users.

Getting more data is simply, pay more money, most ISPs have tiered packages to offer high data users a better package with more data transfer, you can even rent leased lines which reserve that entire chunk of bandwidth for you so you can download 24/7, they're just insanely expensive (our work line is about £800pcm for 50mbit fibre uncapped)

Games are getting bigger for sure but data rates and bandwidth limits are going up, I grabbed GTAV on my 152mbit line in about 2 hours and it's 60gb, I don't have specific data caps although I do get throttled temporarily if I download a huge amount of data at peak times which is a very reasonable deal.

I think they should dump the caps and simply offer metered rates at the fastest possibly speeds. I think 5 cents per GB would be reasonable based on current needs. So maybe pay a $20 service charge which comes with a base 50GB and then charge $0.05 for every additional GB. If the same companies can justify charging by the minute for phone network usage then why can't the same be done for internet? From a technical standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between a data packet that originates on a cell phone and a data packet that originates on a PC.

Some UK ISPs did do this and some may still do it. One of the major differences is that phone networks data usage is tiny compared to the data usage of the internet, voice calls require a tiny amount of bandwidth, the amount of data users can put through the ISP when something like GTAV launches and everyone hammers digital distribution is insane.

The main issue is that users go through peak behaviour, broadband was originally designed to be somewhat burst like in nature, peak usage for a small amount of time when needed, the networks can't handle everyone always downloading max speed. You can give 10,000 users all a $0.05 per Gb charge but if they all decide to hammer the internet at the same time say during some netflix release then your network needs to be big enough to supply all that data at peak, this is why caps are used instead it forces people to moderate out their usage across periods of time. Some UK ISPs had/have on and off peak caps where offpeak had a larger cap because they preferred you using data overnight when usage was naturally low.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the network has a maximum throughput at any one time and selling on demand per Gb is risky because patterns in your userbase can hammer the network all at once bringing it to a crawl, it's simply not possible to provision high speed internet so that if all your users are downloading at once the bandwidth doesn't run out, unless every user has a leased line and reserved bandwidth and is paying you $1k a month each.

 

[WiseUp216]

I've been very happy with Cox (that's what she said!) over the last few years.

Speed and data caps have both risen quite a bit while the monthly price has barely budged. The data 'cap' isn't really even a cap at all. You can go over every month and your speed is never compromised.

 

[blastingcap]

Well, I was checking my data usage and found out that my data cap rose from 400GB to 2TB per month!

Nice. My service has unlimited downloads, and that's one of the reasons why I stay with them. I agree that the old paltry limits don't make sense in a world of big game downloads and 1080p60 HD porn. Um, I meant Youtube and Netflix videos.

 

[wanderer27]

I think they should dump the caps and simply offer metered rates at the fastest possibly speeds. I think 5 cents per GB would be reasonable based on current needs. So maybe pay a $20 service charge which comes with a base 50GB and then charge $0.05 for every additional GB. If the same companies can justify charging by the minute for phone network usage then why can't the same be done for internet? From a technical standpoint, there is absolutely no difference between a data packet that originates on a cell phone and a data packet that originates on a PC.

I'd go further to say metered billing gives incentive to upgrade network infrastructure, because a faster network will allow end users to move more data in a 24-hour period and therefore enhance revenue. Since rates are competitive in nature, a company running a slower network will be at a disadvantage as they can only charge for the data they can process. With the current setup, the only incentive to upgrading infrastructure is to prevent people from jumping ship, and in some markets where that isn't possible things become stagnant because there simply isn't a reason to hurry upgrades.

My .02

Not crazy about metered pricing myself, would prefer a fixed monthly cost - I just hate overage charges, they tend to rape you when this happens.

I have the 50Mbps service with Comcast and I get about 30Mbps, which is fine for my needs.
I'm not crazy about the inferred Cap (250GB) if they ever kick it in.

The biggest problem is there's no competition, so they have no incentive to change their pricing or upgrade the Network.

Really looking at it, it's kind of a goofy situation.
The Cable TV is digital Bandwidth whether I'm watching their TV channels or my streamed channels.
Seriously, you get their lowest tier package and leave the TV on a News station 24/7 for example and probably consume a lot more Bandwidth, but you'd never trigger a Cap.

I mentioned I added a Roku.
I currently have it set for 720p to save Bandwidth (still looks better than most of the Cable channels did) even though I have a 1080p TV.

Guess what?
We've got 4K TV's in homes now (and they're already talking about 8K), think that'll up the Bandwidth consumption?


It's an ugly situation.


.

 

[Stuka87]

Really looking at it, it's kind of a goofy situation.
The Cable TV is digital Bandwidth whether I'm watching their TV channels or my streamed channels.
Seriously, you get their lowest tier package and leave the TV on a News station 24/7 for example and probably consume a lot more Bandwidth, but you'd never trigger a Cap.

I mentioned I added a Roku.
I currently have it set for 720p to save Bandwidth (still looks better than most of the Cable channels did) even though I have a 1080p TV.

Sorry but you are 100% wrong in this assumption. Video (As in TV) uses a different spectrum than internet data on cable networks (Source: I worked in the CATV industry on fiber optic distribution equipment).

The way a cable network works, is all cable boxes receive all channels all the time (Note: On demand video is not included in this). This is actually where the term broadband came from. The spectrum reserved for data is a fixed frequency range that is separate from the range used by video. On demand video may use data bandwidth in some deployments, but you are not billed for this bandwidth. Nor should it have any effect on your internet speeds. Although there may be some deployments where it does if they are running at or near their maximum capacity.

Also, you have to tell your cable box to show 1080i video (There are no 1080P channels to my knowledge on any provider). otherwise cable boxes down sample to 720i as they do not know if your TV supports 1080i or not. I had to manually go into the settings on my boxes and make this change, which resulted in far better video quality.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The problem is they're implementing this in new Markets.

Never can tell which ones they'll choose next.

I too have Comcast but no current Cap.
Last month I dropped their Cable TV/Phone service and just have Internet through them (not worth $200/mo for the dozen channels I had any interest in).

I've been watching my usage closely since then, and it's getting pretty close to the 250GB Cap they infer what apply in my area (WA).

Definitely something to be concerned about.



.

They've been talking about this since 2012 and here we are in 2015 and they still haven't moved it nationwide. Imagine that

 

[wanderer27]

Sorry but you are 100% wrong in this assumption. Video (As in TV) uses a different spectrum than internet data on cable networks (Source: I worked in the CATV industry on fiber optic distribution equipment).

The way a cable network works, is all cable boxes receive all channels all the time (Note: On demand video is not included in this). This is actually where the term broadband came from. The spectrum reserved for data is a fixed frequency range that is separate from the range used by video. On demand video may use data bandwidth in some deployments, but you are not billed for this bandwidth. Nor should it have any effect on your internet speeds. Although there may be some deployments where it does if they are running at or near their maximum capacity.

Also, you have to tell your cable box to show 1080i video (There are no 1080P channels to my knowledge on any provider). otherwise cable boxes down sample to 720i as they do not know if your TV supports 1080i or not. I had to manually go into the settings on my boxes and make this change, which resulted in far better video quality.

Ahhhh . . . this is something I hadn't thought about.
I had to do a quick look after you posted this.

So they're partitioning the Bandwidth - reserving x% for TV channels that everyone gets/has access too, and then they divy up the remaining Bandwidth to Subscribers connected to the relevant node.

It's still all Data packets (via frequency), but it's just partitioned.
4K is still going to have an impact, unless they have loads of spare capacity, they'll have to change the partition size or do some Network redesign.

Thanks for that Stuka87, I learned something new


The 720p change I made was on the Roku - it's either 720p or 1080p, 720i/1080i are not options.

The Roku may not be pulling at 720p, it could be pulling 1080p and then changing it, which would defeat what I'm trying to do.
If instead it is just pulling up to 720p or upconverting lower resolutions to 720p then it's doing what I'm hoping.

I need to look into the Roku thing more . . .




.

 

[wanderer27]

They've been talking about this since 2012 and here we are in 2015 and they still haven't moved it nationwide. Imagine that

Well, they did add some new Markets in 2013.

The flag for me is that the Atlanta (and maybe a couple other Markets) trial was supposed to be for 1 year, yet they're still bound by it.

Also, the fact that the Article FAQ is dated Feb 18, 2015 causes me concern as well, as to me it indicates they haven't forgotten about it.


.

 

[Stuka87]

The 720p change I made was on the Roku - it's either 720p or 1080p, 720i/1080i are not options.

The Roku may not be pulling at 720p, it could be pulling 1080p and then changing it, which would defeat what I'm trying to do.
If instead it is just pulling up to 720p or upconverting lower resolutions to 720p then it's doing what I'm hoping.

I need to look into the Roku thing more . . .
.

Right, I just meant to compare it to normal TV channels, you typically have to bump up the resolution on the cable box itself.

 

[ithehappy]

I don't know where most of you live, but I live in Calcutta (India) and here there is data cap for all the major companies. It was introduced by a fraking company called AirTel (Bharti Telecommunication) and then all the other ISPs followed it, back in 08 or 09. And you have no idea how pathetic that thing is. In East part of India the so called broadband is basically like 2G in Western countries (I only visited UK and US, can't say about others though, and I saw what I needed to see, that too back in 2007 and 2009), max you can get around 2 mbps here (250 KB/s) and if 10 or 20 GB crossed then that speed throttles down to 512 kbps (65 KB/s), yeah you read it right. 512 kbps, and that passes as broadband, this is 2015......yeah!

The only options are:

Pack a bunch of C4s and blow up some IPSs office and telecommunication department's.

Move to South India or any part basically but East. Needless to say how hard is that when someone's life is established in a place for decades.

Or move to cable broadbands, which provide more or less high speed, and the good part is there is no capping. But they are very unreliable/ unstable. A little thunderstorm, gone. Restoration time is pretty longer too.

I am lucky that my family had some connection with our ISP, thus no capping, otherwise I don't know what I would have done.

It is mostly known as FUP over here though (Fair Usage Policy).

You can see how angry and disappointed I am by seeing the above message, but at the same time I believe some amount of capping should be there. I mean I have seen my friends in Southern part, I mean they just use it, and try to consume as much data as possible. Some even touch a Terabyte per month. Honestly speaking, I don't like that either. If you ask me the capping should start at 150 or 200 gigs or something like that, and the speed could slow down by around 20-25%, but nothing more. The post capping speed is the most awful thing one could fathom, again, over here. I am sure you guys have much less throttling.


Argh.......

 

[Aikouka]

Thankfully I am not in any of those markets. I am in California, but not in Fresno.

Yeah, but I am. Whenever I download a game, it all of a sudden gains an "Internet tax" on it. If I get 300GB as part of my $59 a month, that means a 60GB game has an additional $11.80 cost. You might say, "But that $59 goes to more than just bandwidth, right? It has to support the call centers, the local places, and more!" You'd think that, but to get an additional 300GB of bandwidth, it would cost $60 ($10 per 50GB).

Unfortunately, my area is somewhat lackluster for ISPs. We have three: Comcast, WOW! (Knology) and Mediacom. The problem is that Comcast only needs to be "better" than the other two. I've never heard a pleasant thing said about Mediacom, and while most people seem to find WOW!'s Internet to be alright, I've heard a lot of negative remarks about their cable TV service.

EDIT:

Sorry but you are 100% wrong in this assumption. Video (As in TV) uses a different spectrum than internet data on cable networks (Source: I worked in the CATV industry on fiber optic distribution equipment).

The thing is... he is right in that it's all data. Each channel gets a specific transmission range (as you said, spectrum) that it operates on. Cable Internet is the same way -- you have upstream and downstream channels that operate on specific frequencies. DOCSIS 3.0 provided us faster speeds by bonding those channels together. For example, here's my Internet's channel setup straight from my modem. So, he's just lumping TV data in with Internet data, and they're really not the same thing in the eyes of the cable company.