Will you accept how more and more high speed internet isps are limiting how much you download + upload in a day/month?

[WyteWatt]

Will you all will change isps when your high speed internet isp starting limiting how much you can download + upload a day/month? Then will all the other high speed internet isps do it too will you go back to dialup so you can fight by making them lose money maybe? Seems like more high speed internet isps are starting to do this everyday. I think people with routers with like a good number of users could use the download limits pretty fast. I am glad i will be single forever lol. But isps have not had a effect on my choose on that do thats not the reason.

 

[Need4Speed]

i think you will find that some time down the road bandwidth will be on pay per use basis rather than a monthly flat rate.

 

[spidey07]

True,

The broadband ISPs are bleeding money and having a hard time turning a profit. Bandwidth still costs money so there are two choices - limit capacity or charge for capacity being used. I don't want to accept it, but the economics of the broadband ISP model make it so.

I'm willing to pay a premium price for a premium service however.

 

[Need4Speed]

agreed...i'd rather pay per use and have the bandwidth caps lifted. I don't mind paying for what I use...that's only fair after all. But i do hate having my modem chocked ... wasn't SPEED the whole point of cable/dsl?

 

[Workin']

Then will all the other high speed internet isps do it too will you go back to dialup so you can fight by making them lose money maybe?

Dialup is a HUGE moneymaker compared to broadband. So by switching to dialup you'd actually be helping the ISP, not hurting them.

I think paying for what you use is a fair model. Of course, I'd rather pay a little and get a lot, it would be un-American to be any other way

 

[starwarsdad]

I guess I am the only one of the respondants that is against a use policy. I am truly sorry the ISPs are not making money on braodband, but I did not set the pricing structure for them. I pay a flat rate for my local phone service.

Why shouldn't I pay a flat rate for my Internet access? If my ISP changes their policy, I will change ISPs. I use my line to communicate with my office in the evenings. I need the ability to pull or push hundreds of MB of data at will. I wish I could afford a T but I can't and the company won't fork it out for me (yet).

 

[Wolfsraider]

Originally posted by: starwarsdad
I guess I am the only one of the respondants that is against a use policy. I am truly sorry the ISPs are not making money on braodband, but I did not set the pricing structure for them. I pay a flat rate for my local phone service.

Why shouldn't I pay a flat rate for my Internet access? If my ISP changes their policy, I will change ISPs. I use my line to communicate with my office in the evenings. I need the ability to pull or push hundreds of MB of data at will. I wish I could afford a T but I can't and the company won't fork it out for me (yet).

a few questions come to mind starwarsdad:

how long was it before you could pay a flat rate for phones(broadband reaches around the globe shouldn't you be comparing long distance?)

really i don't mind paying more for more bandwidth,untill there is enough competition to feed the demand the prices and caps will stay right?

i have 640k down 256k up for 39.95 a month i find it works for me.sure i would rather have 1 mb up and down but untill there is more than a few companies offering the service it will remain "fixed"

mike

 

[spidey07]

have 640k down 256k up for 39.95 a month i find it works for me

Compare that to the 1200 bucks a month for Frame-relay plus local loop charges...

Pretty darn good. We'll just have to see how long the broadband guys can keep losing money.

 

[JackMDS]

I think that if you look carefully at the model of pay according to use for services (and I am talking across the board not just computer related).

You will find out that when the dust settles regular consumers end up always paying much more for the same.

I think that approach of many DSL providers. I.e. creating variety of bandwidth level and paying accordingly is probably the best way to go. It gives both the providers, and the consumers, some basci level of control.

Unfortunately Cable providers, due to the nature of their technology, have hard time to implement such a plan.

The Internet Cable services will be in a big turmoil in the future, right now they are playing the ?Ostrich Game.?

 

[beafer]

Am I the only one seeing the light here? What makes you people think that ISP are losing money from High Speed connections? The reason they are starting to limit is because some customers take it to far with downloading and uploading. The porn master type and mp3 lords is the real targets of these limitations. Those are the ones hammering the network constantly. The way the pricing scheme is setup for these ISP's, i highly doubt they are losing money.

 

[gaidin123]

One of the arguments against per use charges for broadband in my mind is that with all of the companies and entire industries springing up on the internet, it is becoming a more and more vital service for many companies and people. Even cable companies, the music industry, and the movie industry are pushing for more bandwidth intensive services to come online...

I'd be sad to see things like internet radio shows (underground ones and official ones like the BBC hosts), places like mp3.com, and even some online only companies possibly suffer because of consumer fear of using too much bandwidth.

Either the pricing structure would have to allow for a large amount of "legitimate" traffic or the cable companies would have to strike a deal with these industries.

Shouldn't bandwidth be getting cheaper as the hardware and technology used gets both faster and cheaper?

Gaidin

 

[JamesM3M5]

Regarding your inital question, will we accept higher charges and BW caps/tiered pricing, then yes, I guess I will be required to "accept" it. I rely too much on high-speed internet access for home and business use to go back to a dial-up line. A second phone line costs half as much as high-speed internet, plus another $20 for MSN, Earthlink, etc? No thanks. I think Cox cable would have to charge me close to $100 before I would cut back to limited BW service. I won't be happy about it, but I will have to "accept" it, unless the economy goes into a real 1930s depression AND I get laid off AND my own business dies.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: beafer
Am I the only one seeing the light here? What makes you people think that ISP are losing money from High Speed connections? The reason they are starting to limit is because some customers take it to far with downloading and uploading. The porn master type and mp3 lords is the real targets of these limitations. Those are the ones hammering the network constantly. The way the pricing scheme is setup for these ISP's, i highly doubt they are losing money.

Right now, a single Cable user can tap the same bandwith as what 27'ish Dial up users could use up. I don't remember the formula, but lets say that you could have 1 T1 for every 75 dial up users. That's 75 * $15.00 = $1125. Your bandwith costs may only run you $500 + all other expenses associated with running an ISP.

Now, I really have no idea what the big lines cost cable providers, but suffice it to say, I HIGHLY doubt they are making double on their subscription costs over what their bandwith cost is. I just have trouble beleiving that.

Right now you have the mega-dowloaders being subsidized by Grandma and Grandpa that only check their email once a day, but are alloted a 1.5mb pipe for $50 a month. It's just a question as to which ones are more common, and finding a happy median and charging accordingly. I really thing usage based pay scales are the way to go.

Also - if internet providors are making so much money, how come so many of them are either bankrupt or have filed for bankrupcy protection? How many times what used to be @home or whatever changed hands due to "corporate restructuring"?

 

[JamesM3M5]

A "56k" dialup modem reaches speeds of about 52kbps (52,000 bits per second), which is a little shy of a 64k channel on a T1. There are 24 channels on a T1, and 28 T1s in a T3. Larger ISPs (ie not the ones run from a home garage) buy T3 and higher (OC3 up to OC12) for access to the global providers. These DS3 lines are expensive, about $4k-5k per month not including the internet access. OC3 lines hold about 3 T3s, and cost around $11k / month.

Now you can look at the numbers and think there is no way that 28 cable modem customers paying $40/month for approx T1 speeds on cable internet are covering the cost of a $5000 DS3 access line to the global provider. They're not. The ISPs are relying on the fact that internet data is very bursty. They can shove a few hundred customers on the same DS3 because each individual user is not using all 1.0-2.0Mbps 100% of the time. They're actually using it less than 5% of the time. If the network is slowing down around 4PM-8PM, primetime internet use for home, most people simply blow it off.

I think the cable companies should still be able to afford to give "unlimited" service for $40-50 per month for residential use. Once it becomes a business class service with guaranteed throughput, you will naturally expect the cost to be much higher.

The cost of BW is dropping rapidly as many companies are now offering cut-throat prices. An OC3 line 3 years ago would have cost 4-6x as much as today. Switches, routers, MUXes, even the fiber itself are all getting much, much cheaper.

 

[Mucman]

I would gladly play for a premium service. I do about 10Gigs a month, and I am only paying $40cdn/month! My upload rate is 60KB/s and I've gotten up to 500KB/s downloads. My line has gone down 3 times that I know of in the last year and a half. Another bonus is that my IP has never changed! I feel guilty for the incredible deal I am getting!

I see ISPs losing money though, if they aren't charging for the bandwidth. I believe our Internet bill last year was $130,000cdn which is for an OC-3 + 100MBit line. We have about 120GB going out of our router everyday, so that's ~3TB a month. Of course it's hard to correlate to an ISP since we do hosting, a little colo, and give access to 20 companies in our building. We need some good accountants in here, to figure out how many cable customers could utilize that much traffic, calculate how much income they bring in and compare it to hte $130,000 yearly bill.

If we had 120 customers doing 500MB per day, and charged them $40/ month we would make ~$110,000 per year from that. Also there is a lot of other costs than just the bandwidth/Net connection.

Does anyone know how many DSL or cable customers would go on an OC-3?

 

[Workin']

I pay a flat rate for my local phone service.

Lucky you. In my area, for local service the phone company charges a basic fee, I don't recall exactly but it's around $13/month, PLUS 5 cents per call. So it is usage based. Long distance is another story, that's also usage based.

 

[Toxic]

Well, it depends on HOW and WHEN they start doing it. I had to sign on for a year for my service. At the time it was unlimited use, so if they change now and try to enforce it.....breach of contract on their part. Not to sound crass, but if they cannot price their services to make money, then that's their problem - Not mine. Either price broadband to where you can make money, or get out of the market. Just don't be di*king around with the customers.

Now at the end of this contract, they can let me know what's what and I can decide accordingly. If it's pay per use, fine. If it's different speeds with no D/L limits, fine. If it's what I have now (1.5MBS) with D/L limits then I can decide what my level of use is, or switch to a different provider that offers something more to my taste. In other words, I don't really care as long as my options are not restricted and I'm not bound to something I didn't agree with.