Regulars
Giz Explains: How Broadband Usage Caps Will Kill Internet Video
Posted by Matt Buchanan at 5:00 AM on August 7, 2008
NBC's scheduled coverage of the 2008 Olympics is absolutely breathtaking in its scope: It's broadcasting over 3,600 hours of the world's greatest athletes performing feats that reveal how shapeless and amoebic the rest of humanity is--that's 1,000 more hours than the last 12 Summer Olympics combined. The internet is a huge component of their nearly omniscient coverage. You can even download and watch full-length events. But NBC has a fat red warning on the page: If you've got metered or capped broadband, you might want to think twice before downloading. It's the first shot by major media in the next great battle for the internet's future. Here's why you—and most media companies—should be worried about the new wave of internet pricing.
AU: Obviously this is all US-centric, but it's worth watching considering how bad our broadband situation is down here...
This might seem like an odd topic for Giz Explains, our weekly "WTF is that?" series, but a bunch of comments last week revealed a need to plainly explain the tussle going on between internet service providers, the Federal Communications Commission, content providers and you, and how it's shaping the way you'll use internet over the next couple of years. First, a quick primer.
Comcast was caught slowing down BitTorrent traffic last year by the Associated Press. It (re)sparked cries for government-mandated net neutrality--treating all internet traffic equally, whether it's email, Skype or a bootleg of The Dark Knight over torrent. While that didn't happen, a complaint against Comcast went through the FCC, which ruled against it last week, saying that slowing down BitTorrent was a naughty thing to do, and that they must disclose all management practices to subscribers.
In the meantime, a different network management trend started to emerge among the major ISPs: metered broadband, aka data caps. It's like dial-up service or wireless data: After reaching your alotted amount of data for the month, you pay extra, maybe through the nose, as our northern neighbours in Canada are familiar with. Conveniently, it's "net neutral," since it doesn't discriminate against particular kinds of traffic, and it's fully disclosed to subscribers so it satisfies guidelines discussed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin. In case you're looking to file a complaint, Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Staff Attorney Fred Von Lohmann told us, "There's certainly nothing to stop them from pricing that way if they want to."
Time Warner was the first major to float the plan, which is currently in testing, with a 40GB cap at the high-end. Comcast is considering a metered approach as well, its spokesman has confirmed. AT&T is the most recent major ISP to jump onboard, and it'll be testing caps in the fall. Not to mention Cox Cable and a whole mess of regional ISPs already implement them.
Here's the rub: The P2P apps ISPs point to as pillaging their networks are increasingly a nonexistant bogeyman. Video is now the actual bandwidth monster, and it's only getting hungrier and hungrier.
The thing about all that video is that it competes with what your ISP is probably delivering to your other screen in the living room. Why watch 30 Rock on your couch at specific time when you can grab it on demand on your laptop with Hulu, or on a Netflix Roku box? That awesome Vudu box you bought? Pulling in Transformers in HD uses your cable provider's pipes, but it doesn't see a dime from the transaction.
Suppose you decide to be pseudo-green and opt for an all-digital approach from Vudu or Apple TV, and you have a moderate habit of two movies a week. A 90-minute movie running at a constant bitrate of 2.5 megabits per second (you're talking HD here) will swallow 1.69 GB. If you've got a 40GB cap, eight movies will eat over a quarter of it. And that's just your rental habit, with today's specs. The 1080p flicks they'll be streaming tomorrow will be even more bandwidth intensive.
More importantly, today's geek frontier is tomorrow's mainstream playground. Like game demos on Xbox Live? Or games-for-purchase on Steam? Those are a gig or two a pop, and as more and more games are distributed digitally, the gigs will add up. Which is also part of the problem as far as the ISPs are concerned: AT&T's tech chief glibly notes that "traffic on our backbone is growing 60 percent per year, but our revenue is not."
While I wanted to tell you that data caps will destroy the internet as we know it, really video is what's actually facing the greatest threat. Time Warner has openly said content providers can't have it both ways. And the EFF's von Lohmann told us that while he hasn't "seen any evidence that [metered broadband] will radically change the internet" he is "worried that companies that have their own video they're delivering over the same pipe they deliver internet service will have an incentive to reduce caps" and it's a "valid concern worth watching." It would effectively have us paying twice for video delivered over the internet. Most people can barely stand paying for it once.

Comments (AU Comments · US Comments)
There are currently no AU comments for this post.
B1663R
Posted 5:44 AM 7/8/08
@totoro: tru dat! got to their site and check out the new rogers bundles. highway robbery!
don't worry Sheila Copps will set em strait!
j/k :)
B1663R
pottyvick
Posted 5:44 AM 7/8/08
Cox sucks..... 40GB limit for my plan?.... i do way too much online, I dont want to have to think before I do something online. I download movies music and shows form itunes and they start to mount up....
pottyvick
lilaliendog
Posted 5:43 AM 7/8/08
Let the world laugh at the US let them prosper while ISP's bicker about how much we use versus how little they want to give, let big companies rip us apart at the soul as the rest of the world revels in the joy of continued growth in technology in their countries. The world will soon look at the US as a shadow of what we were and those that live here will look at the rest of the world knowing what we could have been.
lilaliendog
Quatre707
Posted 5:43 AM 7/8/08
I started recording all my bandwidth usage at home since Time Warner started their testing in Texas. Last week I had roughly 120GB downstream, didn't record upload bandwidth consumption.
Quatre707
satlos
Posted 5:42 AM 7/8/08
I'm one of the (many) unlucky Canadians being screwed over royally right now... While living in Quebec I had to pay basically double my normal bill because I was something like 14 GBs over my cap...
I've since setup wireless data/music/movie sharing in my home via Airport Express, and I was wondering something: does streaming an 8 MB .mp3 track over Airtunes = 8MB of bandwidth usage, or more?
satlos
dapoktan
Posted 5:42 AM 7/8/08
It's like limiting the number of hours we can use the television.. what is that? We pay for cable tv, thus we should get to watch as much cable tv as we want!
Asian countries get gigabite speed internet... we get slower AND capped internets?
BOOO
dapoktan
Thresher
Posted 5:40 AM 7/8/08
I've said it before:
Any time you hear Comcast or AT&T talking about limiting bandwidth because of capacity, read: we're gonna make iTunes and Hulu cost so much, you'll think our VOD is cheap.
This isn't about capacity, it's about restraint of trade.
Thresher
itchytooth
Posted 5:39 AM 7/8/08
@parliamentpoet: Why, yes, I'm both an analyst and a therapist. How can I help you?
itchytooth
.Trenchant.
Posted 5:37 AM 7/8/08
I've been dealing with this for years with Videotron. I used to go over my bandwidth cap of 20GB on a monthly basic resulting in another maximum of $30 in bandwidth charges, which is why I switched over to their unlimited "EXTREME Hi-Speed" package... Which as of last October they decided to once again impose limits of 100GB's on it.
With how heavily our future is relying on internet connectivity, ISPs focus should undeniably be improving infrastructure... Not limiting consumption.
.Trenchant.
Hectorvex
Posted 5:35 AM 7/8/08
@totoro: Clearly Nadir does not watch nearly as much p0rn as he should.
Hectorvex
MacMasterShane
Posted 5:34 AM 7/8/08
This whole anti comcast filtering thing has just amused the hell out of me.
i used to work for a ISP that bandwith capped, small one out of minneapolis, and while they could offer lower prices on dsl because of that, people were constantly running over the imposed 10GB limit. it became a bigger problem as itunes, youtube and google video became popular. some people would rack up huge overage charges, $10 per Gb of transfer, but atleast you had to order it. and if you failed to order more bandwith? you had to chill in the "heavy user pool" which effectively limited your bandwith to that of a 56k modem. an action which is entirely FCC legal, as we were still providing you service.
now that everyone has bitched and moaned enough that the fcc steped in and told comcast to shut off their packet shaping, they're going to be forced to the one legal means, bandwidth capping. good by are the days of video downloads which were largely unrestricted on comcast... now your going to see 1 of two options:
1. Bandwidth capped pricing
obviously, your given a chunk of bandwidth, and if you use it, be prepared to pay overage.
2. Much higher pricing
Comcast has to afford the bandwidth, and if your going to use it all constantly, your going to pay for it all, constantly.
so i hope your all glad you bitched enough to get the fcc to remove the packet shaping. because the days of unrestricted high speeds for everything but bittorrent are over..
MacMasterShane
TheMugs
Posted 5:34 AM 7/8/08
I live in Quebec and the broadband as been cap since like, forever and I must say that capping don't solve a lot of thing. Instead, during the last days of the month, all my friends were using the remaining GB to the max to download things they wouldn't have download if they haven't been cap. It's like a open bar only until 10pm : every go take 5 pints of beer at 9:50.
TheMugs
totoro
Posted 5:32 AM 7/8/08
To put it bluntly for us - here's Rogers Communications CEO Nadir Mohamed:
"If you look at what's happened in the past few years, in both Canada and the U. S., we've gone to metered billing because people are recognizing that network capacity becomes an issue," he said. "We think it actually makes sense to put in tiered [wireless] pricing because that's where the world is going."
"I actually think that 98% of people are not going to be using six gigabytes a month in the foreseeable future," Mohamed continued. "Our challenge is to ... make it easy for customers to understand one gigabyte is more than enough."
(Source; By Marcus Yam, published on July 18, 2008 at 5:10 AM Tom's Guide)
That's right Mohamed. Tell us what we really need. You're the freeken expert.
Hey Government... Regulate these people.
totoro
Brock
Posted 5:29 AM 7/8/08
"Giz Explains: How Broadband Usage Caps Will Kill Internet Video"
This post title is completely, ass-backward, stupid-is-as-stupid-does, WRONG. Metered broadband means you pay for what you use. That's how every other business in the world works, and they bring you (essentially) more clean water, food, cars, tooth paste and electricity that you can ever use in a lifetime.
The ONLY time there is every a supply shortage is when pricing caps prevent users from paying more when they want to get more. The current system will be wildly improved once metered broadband arrives, because then ISPs will finally compete on the lowering the cost of bandwidth. That means the engines of capitalism will finally be unleashed on this poor and under-invested in sector. The Asians will look on with awe as America shows it (again) how capitalism is done. Real competition (on price!) will allow America to overtake its Asian neighbors more quickly than anyone will realize.
It's a shame that most ISPs are children of the AT&T monopoly, which means they really don't understand how competition and innovation work, but they're learning slowly. So is the FCC.
When ISPs block P2P to sell Movies-on-demand (like Comcast did), that's bad. If Verizon blocked Hulu to sell you FiOS-TV, that's bad. If AT&T blocked Skype to sell you phone service, that's bad.
But paying for what you use, and (more importantly!) providing ISPs with an incentive to lower the cost of broadband, IS ALL GOOD.
Brock
Ariel_Wollinger
Posted 5:29 AM 7/8/08
@Angel - sXe: Zeitgeist dudes.
little by little they remove your rights...
Ariel_Wollinger
venomous_duck41
Posted 5:28 AM 7/8/08
@Hectorvex: i think its the latter.
venomous_duck41
Norcross
Posted 5:28 AM 7/8/08
Well, I seriously hope they start adding more pieces to that series of tubes we call the internet, because the way the ISPs, cable companies, and their ilk show it, every bit of information I get is coming through those tubes. With advertising, no less.
Interesting enough, long distance calling used to be per minute, but when people stopped using it (on land lines), it became unlimited.
Norcross
soopafly
Posted 5:28 AM 7/8/08
And people wonder why Japan and all are light years ahead of the US. This type of cap doesn't just apply to just internet video and streaming music, but technology and the way we use it in the US.
soopafly
BadBoyNDSU
Posted 5:28 AM 7/8/08
@Con Seannery: Definition of broadband in the US is 768kbps down.
[www.dslreports.com]
BadBoyNDSU
venomous_duck41
Posted 5:27 AM 7/8/08
so theyre (the ISP) pissed because we can watch movies (shows, etc.) using their bandwidth but they dont get to make extra money off the movies. this seems so retroactive. why not be proactive and offer a better entertainment library and then charge more up front for service. or buddy up with a company that does offer the library, like microsoft and netflix did, and have a subscription fee for those who want to use the extra bandwidth for that specific reason because Joseph has a great point that it will affect some peoples business and ability to help others.
venomous_duck41
parliamentpoet
Posted 5:27 AM 7/8/08
Analrapist
parliamentpoet
ronnsprocket
Posted 5:27 AM 7/8/08
does anyone use qwest in the Seattle area, i really want to get rid of comcast. Im sick of all my downloads going from 2mb/s to 800kb/s in less than a minute.
...i could just be ignorant but that's comcast's fault right?
ronnsprocket
rjupiter
Posted 5:26 AM 7/8/08
I personally feel trapped. I go to school online, I work online, I have web sites and yes I download and I am already paying a nice chunk to get on with crap ATT. I don't think I can imagine or pay more to do the stuff I do now.
rjupiter
bosskev
Posted 5:25 AM 7/8/08
@bandit: Extremely well said, bandit. In the not too distant future, I am likely to become one of those heavy bandwidth users. At that point it would only be right that I pay proportionally more to maintain/improve the infrastructure required for such usage.
Still, one can only hope that as fee structures adapt to accommodate variable levels of bandwidth usage that they remain reasonable for the purpose of infrastructure development and not morph into being grotesque profits for ISPs.
bosskev
Hectorvex
Posted 5:25 AM 7/8/08
As long as I can still download DVDRips and Porn (not streaming) then I'm okay. Frankly, I don't watch enough TV or videos to be truly concerned. However, striking up the cause of my fellow techs, I am OUTRAGED. I am in the process of writing an angry letter to my local Cockmast outpost. Not really. The problem is that these companies are scared and they aren't sure what to do. They are scared they are going to get competition, that one of their major competitors are going to figure out how to manage all this bandwidth before they do. So until that point, they are trying to slow us down with this bullshit so they can think of a way to make it better, either that or they are a bunch of money grubbing cock whores who could give a shit about the consumer cause we have no choice.
Hectorvex
BadBoyNDSU
Posted 5:25 AM 7/8/08
If they sell me a 50 meg connection, I should be able to use that connection 24/7 full out without any cutoffs or extra fees. If the network can't handle that, they should only sell connection speeds that their network can handle 24/7.
BadBoyNDSU
ekimmr
Posted 5:22 AM 7/8/08
My DSL provider, Frontier, recently implemented a 5GB per month cap. Needless to say, they are not my ISP anymore.
ekimmr
Con Seannery
Posted 5:19 AM 7/8/08
Oh, I don't think hardly anyone hear is clear on what broadband is. All that means is more than one type of signal on a line, as opposed to baseband. You could have broadband at 14.4K...
Con Seannery
ianmac47
Posted 5:17 AM 7/8/08
Internet video is not going away. Only cable company stock holders believe that. Users probably are not going to pay very much more than they already do. A temporary jump in consumer prices will make profits from broadband providers enticing enough to encourage the development and deployment of competitors, which ultimately will lead to much cheaper broadband service.
ianmac47
ninjagin
Posted 5:17 AM 7/8/08
@fostina1: WoW is actually quite remarkable in that respect. I've played with people who login over dialup with little problems.
ninjagin
dangj307
Posted 5:16 AM 7/8/08
What? This is nonsense. Blu-Ray is dead even before it won. DLV is where it's at. Even MS said it!
dangj307
Con Seannery
Posted 5:16 AM 7/8/08
@bandit: That's the thing, instead of investing the piles of cash they raked in since the dot-com bubble, they sit on their asses, watched the dark fiber they had disappear, and now they want to limit what you can do rather than doing their job and PROVIDING THEIR SERVICE!
Con Seannery
Bladefist
Posted 5:16 AM 7/8/08
ugh. Places like Korea/Japan, and even Europe are complete broadband, and working to make it even faster. We (cuz of our size) are still so far from 100% broadband, and we're already lookin to screw it up.
They could embrace this, and make way more money.
Bladefist
fostina1
Posted 5:13 AM 7/8/08
it wont just kill the internet video, it will kill the internet. i wonder how much bandwidth 8 hours or so a day of World of Warcraft uses.
fostina1
phnxamg
Posted 5:13 AM 7/8/08
$30 for 5 GB on my phone.
40GB is nothing for my computer with some pages online being around 500k.
phnxamg
dorkboy
Posted 5:12 AM 7/8/08
@sinamos
Your download speed isnt the cap they are talking about. They mean you can only download so much data per month and then get hit with penalties. If you were aware of that and just saying what your speed was I apologize.
dorkboy
Angel - sXe
Posted 5:12 AM 7/8/08
The end of the world is coming...
Angel - sXe
Joseph
Posted 5:11 AM 7/8/08
Oh and another thing. If every ISP could operate everywhere then I wouldn't really be concerned because then you could have an option to leave your ISP for another one. The problem is that certain ISP's have exclusive rights in certain areas which forces you to use one company. For example the City of Alexandria, VA's only broadband service is Comcrap, so it's either that or satellite (Which I'd honestly rather have a carrier pigeon bring me data packets on USB drives).
Joseph
s0crates82
Posted 5:11 AM 7/8/08
@SinAmos: no, no, they're not talking about how wide the pipe is(upload and download speed), they're talking about how much water you can have in a month(total amount of data downloaded or uploaded over time).
s0crates82
SinAmos
Posted 5:07 AM 7/8/08
The silly thing is. I've been capped at 1.5 down and 378 up for years. I also live in very technologically advanced city, and the only good part of the deal is that I get to use all my puny bandwidth without a problem. Where is my FIBER?
SinAmos
bandit
Posted 5:06 AM 7/8/08
Well there has to be some way to pay for the expanded network bandwidth that will be needed in the future. Objectively, doesn't it make sense to ask the heaviest users to pay more and, in order to ensure complicance, cap users at certain limits? And doesn't it make sense that granny who sends two e-mails a day not pay as much as someone who is streaming an HD movie every night? Cell phones and other services work this way too. Nobody likes to pay more for something they thought they already had, but if we don't do something to support increased infrastructure, we will all suffer with pitifully slow speeds.
bandit
Joseph
Posted 5:05 AM 7/8/08
40 GB cap for a house with 4 people using computer is not a lot. I update web servers online and I'm readily uploading 300-500megs a week and thats just one task. Factor in streaming video from blogs and downloading the stupid iPhone SDK every other week and I'd blow that limit up month in and month out.
Joseph
mciarlo
Posted 6:10 AM 7/8/08
@Bluesk1d:
That's so true and applies to wireless as well.
I use maybe 200 minutes a month on a 450 minute plan. I wish I could pay for what I use and not for what I don't, but that would be too convenient. My wallet shrinks each month, but at least my rollover minutes are always through the roof!
mciarlo
daveNYC
Posted 6:10 AM 7/8/08
Given the minimally competitive nature of broadband access in most areas, I don't see why cable providers wouldn't cut their data caps down to where internet delivered movies become much more expensive than the VoD offered by the cable company.
daveNYC
bandit
Posted 6:10 AM 7/8/08
@Ryanraven: Unlike telephone, electricity and water, both TV and the Internet are supported by advertisements. If you are using it more, you are actually generating profit for somebody. The problem is that the profit from ad revenue doesn't flow back to the ISP. Didn't some ISP try to swap out ads at one point and substitute their own? Sneaky, but you can see why. Make the data transfer profitable for the ISP and you will end up with tons of capacity.
bandit
rjupiter
Posted 6:09 AM 7/8/08
@s017jrs , I am with you. I work at home as well and I am not sure how much BW my job requires or the special application that I have to run to do it. So that does have me worried.
rjupiter
jkr2
Posted 6:09 AM 7/8/08
@geowrian: they don't usually get charged. They have contracts inplace w/ over providers, that when data leaves their network and goes to another, they don't get charged, and they won't charge the other network provider when data comes onto their own network. In essence the only cost for the ISP are tax, electricity, maintenance and outgrowth, land, and work force.
jkr2
geowrian
Posted 6:09 AM 7/8/08
@Brock: Did I miss something on my ISP bill or am I correct that I am already paying for what I can use? It's not "metered", but I still pay $xx and get yy GB/month and the service hasn't only been getting marginally better, but has not been growing as fast as the demand for bandwidth.
As for the "Asians" watching in awe at our bandwidth...they [generally] don't have any caps and average speeds that are a magnitude above ours. Only 1 major ISP in Japan starting using any cap, and it was at 30 GB PER DAY. This isn't something that you can just use capitalism and it will fix itself.
geowrian
mfaerber
Posted 6:09 AM 7/8/08
we need to start our own internets
mfaerber
Mr.SithNinja
Posted 6:08 AM 7/8/08
Given the fact that I pulled at least 50gb over the last weekend.....a cap for me would be tragic....
Mr.SithNinja
Zomb
Posted 6:08 AM 7/8/08
FIOS save us plz and don't go with the crowd verizon
Zomb
Bluesk1d
Posted 6:08 AM 7/8/08
@bandit:
Thats where you are wrong. Granny who sends 2 emails a month doesn't get to pay less. Its a one-way street where heavier users are punished while light users are not rewarded.
Bluesk1d
rjupiter
Posted 6:07 AM 7/8/08
so should I be scared and start crying now or wait still I get my first metered/capped/tiered bill?
I can see the point of "paying for what you use" but hell even paying for my utilities should not be a smaller bill them my internet. I take showers more then I download (i hope) and the gross difference in pricing is for me the issue especially when your providing the access for you and several other people and you can't or don't want to sit and monitor what those other people are doing on their computers over the connection.
rjupiter
LTS!
Posted 6:05 AM 7/8/08
@Brock:
You are completely wrong. It's restraint of trade in this case and certainly bordering on monopolistic behavior. The problem for Comcast and TimeWarner, etc. is that they ALSO provide entertainment options. They can effectively force customers to choose CABLE TELEVISION by making CABLE INTERNET cost too much.
The option here is that they could develop their OWN streaming services and make money that way. THAT would be CAPITALISM. Perhaps they should try coming up with something more appealing than age old VoD. The STB is the gateway to that land. If people could essentially rent their "computer" from the cable company to have access to mail, pictures, video, etc. They would, well, some would. Virtualized Desktop Technology is already starting that trend outside of ISPs and certainly cloud-storage is emerging in the market.
Either way, changing their offerings to compete with on-demand sites is the way to go, not restricting the bandwidth so we have to use their service.
LTS!
ConstyXIV
Posted 6:05 AM 7/8/08
Regarding the Olympics thing:
limited to US residents only; Windows Vista Home Premium or Ultimate required
I can sorta kinda understand the US only restriction, but Vista Premium only? Go to hell NBC. Go to hell and take a hot poker up the ass.
ConstyXIV
aec007
Posted 6:05 AM 7/8/08
I do not have a problem with caps or pay per use... as long as is fair...
For grandma that barely uses the internet and just checks e-mails from the kids in a blue moon... have her pay $5/month.
For the guy that reads 5MB+ powerpoint email crap and just surfs the web at a normal rate.... charge him accordingly.
If you are a banwidth hog and do multiple torrent streams in hopes of making a 10,000 movie collection... hey charge him accordingly.
I've already pay $100/month for 3.5Mb/s internet and cable TV with premium channels.
I don't care if I have to pay $ 100/month for internet access that would let me do that same thing I do with cable TV today, AS-LONG-AS it delivers what it promises.
In other words, as long as I can get the same level of service and quality TV, I do not care how it's delivered.
Just don't go charging an arm and a leg and then deliver crap because the infrastructure sucks. That's what I have a problem with. While overseas broadband speeds are 10 ~ 20 times what they are here, we pay significantly more for less.
Trying to milk an aging infrastructure is not going to help anyone. All broadband ISP's post millions if not billions in revenues every quarter, yet spend a tiny amount of that in expanding and speeding up the network. They just milk it and grow at a snail pace.
>>> Imposing data caps at this time only shows that their networks cannot handle the data load because they are old and crappy... and they feel that YOU should pay for their service to you, the consumer, so they can upgrade the network whenever they feel like.
Why?... because many people do not have the option to choose a broadband provider and they get what is only available to them, just like cable TV.
Without any competition you can't pick the more-for-less provider that suits you.
That's why.
aec007
TLC-BobTheBuilder
Posted 6:04 AM 7/8/08
well hope i dont ever move i do tech support for my isp and we do watch bandwidth usage and my whole house uses over 300gb average a month. thank god were not capping bandwidth yet... hope by the time i move all the isp's will ruin the internet and the people will scream and yet. I say its time to start cutting fiber lines down interstates between cities!! opps i didnt mean that. seriously they act like they are losing money from all this... haha thats a joke. i would rather have them up my bill ten dollars then cap me!!
TLC-BobTheBuilder
s017jrs
Posted 6:03 AM 7/8/08
How about those of us that work from home? When we go over our transfer caps who will absorb that bill? I can't see the giant evil mega-corp I work for paying for it.
s017jrs
mciarlo
Posted 6:03 AM 7/8/08
As long as data caps are reasonable, for example to keep people who download feature films 24 hours a day, seven days a week restricted, I have no problem with them. It's when ISPs cap data to make more money off of users that it crosses the line. Capping data at 20GB when the average user uses 40GB a month (random numbers) is unacceptable.
God forbid ISPs should expand their network capabilities (same with wireless providers) instead of placing limits on bandwidth people pay to have.
Stopping users who use a large portion of bandwidth is one thing, but restricting users illegitimately is another.
/rant.
mciarlo
LastGunslinger
Posted 6:01 AM 7/8/08
What if the media providers (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) paid or came to some sort of partnership with ISPs so their sites aren't counted towards your monthly cap? Something like a 20 GB monthly cap not including unlimited Netflix downloads.
LastGunslinger
geowrian
Posted 5:59 AM 7/8/08
The major ISPs get charged (estimated since none of them disclose actual costs), about $0.10/GB. This does not cover infrastructure costs. The infrastructure costs deal *mostly* with growth and maximum speeds up & down the pipe(s), not capacity. That said, the only [major] legitimate reason for the caps is to save them money due to the ~0.10/GB charge. I'm sure most people would be willing to pay an extra $0.10/GB or $0.11/GB (billing overhead) for every GB over their 40GB cap. I know I wouldn't have a problem with that.
geowrian
cynep
Posted 5:58 AM 7/8/08
@Brock:
I'd like a hit from that pipe you've been smoking... ISPs making more money AND improving the infrastructure? I got three words for you: Big Oil, Jackass.
cynep
Ryanraven
Posted 5:56 AM 7/8/08
We as a society are basically stuck. the internet is in a teeter totter between pricing like cable/satellite television and pricing like phone lines. In the internet's commercial infancy (which was only really about 10 years ago, maybe 15) it was a new product looked upon for E-mail and little websites with solid color background. with the advent of video online and VoIP services the provider companies are realizing that they are missing an opportunity to make lots of money here.
Could anyone here imagine having to pay for TV by how many hours one watches?
This is how most utilities work. think about it.In the infancy of electricity, water, and telephone a family would only pay for having the service in their home. Eventually all evolved into a metered system. Television is the one weird non-occurrence. of course there is an argument there also with the recent growth of set top boxes and subscriptions for shows.
Basically we are seeing something that is bound to happen no matter what, it's a sound and successful business practice and we have almost no means to stop it. The best we, as a consumer can do, is bitch and moan about prices till it settles down into a reasonable price at a high speed.
suggestion: how does $1 a gig sound? (1 up and 1 down)
maybe a 30 dollar base price for all who don't use more than 30 gigs. there are loopholes but it'll all be figured out
Ryanraven
jkr2
Posted 5:55 AM 7/8/08
@matt buchanan:"data caps. It's like dial-up service or wireless data: After reaching your alotted amount of data for the month, you pay extra, maybe through the nose, as our northern neighbors in Canada are familiar with. Conveniently, it's "net neutral," since it doesn't discriminate against particular kinds of traffic..."
The one big argument that hasn't been discussed is that this isn't "net neutral". I'll tell you my reasoning. The network providers are piping in 3 kinds of data over the same cable, and thus the same network. These are phone, tv, and internet. Phone and TV are given priority over internet. When/if net neutrality is mandated by law, this may play a major role in what the provider can and can't do, since fundamentally their services are competing directly w/ internet, and are incorporating practices that give themselves an advantage in serving up the same data video as is being sold over the internet. Keep in mind also that the bottle necks are the last mile connections, TV and phone are just making this bottleneck smaller. It may become mandated that internet must come on a separate cable, essentially doubling all the install of the last mile connection.
jkr2
reddingofish
Posted 5:55 AM 7/8/08
Data needs to be sold like a utility. If you use lots of electricity then you get charged for it. Same should go for data.
reddingofish
cynep
Posted 5:54 AM 7/8/08
Considering the addictive nature of the internet, broadband companies certainly are in a position akin to your average pusher: get 'em hooked, charge 'em more.
However, all it takes is for one maverick company to come to the marketplace and create "competition". Look at what happened to Ma Bell when it failed to be ahead of the competition and charging obscene amounts? That's right - companies like Vonage came to the market and took a nice bite out of their big chunk. I've been a VoIP customer for the last 3 years and have no intention of going back to Verizpown.
Along the same lines, Sprint was a major player in EVDO space until it decided to shoot itself in the already wounded leg by implementing 5GB monthly limit for data plans. "Jee wiz, we got all these pesky customers... how do we get rid of them? Ah! Got it - LET'S INTRODUCE DATA CAP! Go Sprint Ingenuity!"
/rant
cynep
Ryan H
Posted 5:49 AM 7/8/08
There is only one problem with this conclusion. Early on you say that when you buy a streaming video your Cable/DSL company does not get a share of the revenue like they do when you watch it on their service. That is wrong.
They get a share of the revenue at the end of every month when you pay your internet bill. Same goes for the company that sells bandwidth to whoever you are downloading from.
It would be far more accurate to say that the companies have built an entire industry out of selling more than they can deliver. They are now distressed by the idea of having to actually deliver what was promised, or having to price realistically in a manor that is more transparent and comparable.
Ryan H
davesousa
Posted 5:49 AM 7/8/08
here in Toronto, my internet bill runs me nearly 60$/month on rogers, and i pay nearly 30-40$/month on over usage charged and they cap me off at 60Gb of data transfer. this has effected my seeding abilities when i torrent drastically im forced to only seed about half as much as i did before.
davesousa
jrghoull
Posted 5:47 AM 7/8/08
this, coupled with the fact that there is talk about limiting which websites you can visit makes this whole very very scary
seriously...fire, the radio, the engine, and the internet. know what those all have in common? they're the very foundation for our advancement. you limit it...and, well, you're limiting our countries ability to advance and KEEP UP with the rest of the world
i guess it is too early to be talking here about some sort of backup plan (underground internet so to speak) so what should we do? write to our congressmen? what can be done to hamper or ideally stop what the companies are trying to do?
we are going down a bad...bad path.
jrghoull
j0sh097
Posted 6:32 AM 7/8/08
@Quatre707: What program do you use for this? I'm looking for one that will record my monthly bandwidth.
j0sh097
JEmlay
Posted 6:30 AM 7/8/08
DLC is a failure before it even got off the ground!!!
JEmlay
Antioch18
Posted 6:30 AM 7/8/08
@Brock: What a bigot - last I checked there were plenty of countries in Asia that are Capitalists.
Go back to your retard club meetings. kthx.
Antioch18
konshuss
Posted 6:29 AM 7/8/08
@Ghinn: this is too complex for the average consumer to wrap their head around. this is why your cable company offers very simple, stream-lined service that meets the needs of nobody in particular.
konshuss
1roll20s
Posted 6:28 AM 7/8/08
I dont really have an issue with metered internet. That's fine. However they need to ensure there is competition. When I only have one choice for broadband, that means I get raped when it goes to metered access. The FCC needs to mandate that carriers open their pipes to 3rd parties if they want to offer metered access. That way comcast can sell me 50Gb for $50 a month, but they have to let local company XYZ sell me a package over the same line. They can buy data at wholesale rates and undercut comcast. Keep them honest.
1roll20s
konshuss
Posted 6:28 AM 7/8/08
@BadBoyNDSU: they should, shouldn't they? but this makes the grand assumption that big cable companies are making any moves for the benefit of the consumer. clearly the latest round of capping done nearly industry-wide by big brother cable should tip you off that isn't the case.
konshuss
Quatre707
Posted 6:27 AM 7/8/08
I can't believe this topic is even being discussed. In my eyes it would be completely unacceptable to be charged per gigabyte. However much data is going through the pipes does is not what's effecting cost to the ISPs(with the sole exception being filtering, which is another immoral no-no anyway), the amount of data you consume as an customer only causes loss of quality to other customers.
There is no reason for an ISP to go to a tiered pricing structure to fix this, the only real way to fix the problem is (a) to increase the available bandwidth infrastructure, and as a temporary fix before upgrades can take place, limiting the available bandwith for heavy users (aka people running 50 torrents on full blast 24/7)
Quatre707
HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak
Posted 6:26 AM 7/8/08
@bandit: You're so beautifully naive, how you think that the money will be reinvested in infrastructure. Hell, even the government grants that we specifically gave them to roll out new infrastructure haven't been invested in infrastructure, you think they're going to compromise their profit margin to do so?
HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak
glasgow
Posted 6:23 AM 7/8/08
See Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com]
Japan's NTT gives customers 100Mbps fiber-optic connection !!! as mentioned above (geowrian)they just initiated a 30gb upload per day cap. Common Japanese connections are around 26Mbps, why the big telecoms here don't turn up the speed is probably because we don't have the infrastructure for a true Broadband internet, and they are looking for a way to fund the equipment upgrade. Anyway I think they just want to F_CK us and take our money.
glasgow
jamesgbennett
Posted 6:14 AM 7/8/08
RED HERRING by ISPs folks!
Unless I am completely mistaken, Costs go up for content providers as eyeballs see it.
The lovely people like Ed Whittaker (SBC/ATT Fame) are simply greedy. They want a piece of NBC (example) pie because NBC stands to profit, even though they are paying to put content up there and MORE importantly, paying for the amount of eyeballs that view it. Broadcast works differently. The more people that see your signal, the less it costs them per eyeball.
Whittacker and Co are getting greedy and stupid rich. Lets be real, people would not be getting internet in their house if there wasn't a lot of cool stuff to do with it at reasonable costs. ISPs have profitted thanks to the likes of Amazon, Google, and now Networks. ATT + all now have to make more money since network neutrality may stifle further profits.
Bandwidth is not the issue it once was, but they want us to pay more anyway.
Greed. Thanks Telecom Act of 97 or 06, (cant remember) for effectively limiting competition and putting us all in this mess..
Also, no politician is going to stand firm against any of these giants. Thats why we need citizen support to fix this. But most people don't understand even a fraction of the issue and don't care to.
-JGB
jamesgbennett
daveNYC
Posted 6:14 AM 7/8/08
What if the media providers (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) paid or came to some sort of partnership with ISPs so their sites aren't counted towards your monthly cap? Something like a 20 GB monthly cap not including unlimited Netflix downloads.
I'm pretty sure that'd be an anti-trust violation.
daveNYC
Khamel
Posted 6:14 AM 7/8/08
i hope this didn't just dawn on anyone. i've always said that the future of iptv or on demand and all that jazz is going to held up by comcast/att/verizon. they have antagonistic interests.
Khamel
Ghinn
Posted 6:12 AM 7/8/08
I think that ISPs should either charge you for speed or data usage, not both. I'm paying for the mid-level roadrunner speed. It's fine for what I do (Xbox 360, torrents, etc.). I could pay up to twice as much for faster, but it's still unlimited (at least for now). If they impose caps, they should create a pricing structure that makes sense, instead of capping what we're already paying for. Im sure some people would be glad to pay for only what they use, with blazing speeds, and people like me, that are fine with midrange speeds, get unlimited, as they're only paying for the speed.
Ghinn
SirRey
Posted 6:11 AM 7/8/08
Everyone keeps talking about Paying for What you use and that's how the whole world works. This isn't necessarily true.
Cell Phones have gone to unlimited plans because of consumer wants, old POTS Lines were never metered unless you were calling long distance. Cable Companies don't currently cap how much TV you watch when you pay for services. There's unlimited SMS texting Plans. Not every service out there is metered digital or otherwise.
A large chunk of the video being streamed out there is by the same companies that own these ISP's. The problem is if you want service from a company that doesn't have a contract with the ISP you happen to be on.
I'm guessing they'll implement this and have some consumer backlash. When they do implement this they will have to soften the blow by either taking off the upload/download speed caps or they will have to offer a premium price group that's unlimited.
In the end it's all about the money and how much the media companies can squeeze out of people. Just like we've gotten use to $4 gas and if you can find it for $3.50 it's a treat the Media companies want a piece of the pie.
SirRey
Akibake-
Posted 6:58 AM 7/8/08
Where're my non-metered utilities? I want to subscribe to the unlimited plan, and then I'm just gonna open up those taps and light those 4 burners, turn on every electronic device in the place and let 'em rip all night long.
Seriously though, it's just one more reason to get the hell out of Dodge. Japan or bust!!
Akibake-
Antioch18
Posted 6:57 AM 7/8/08
@j0sh097:
[www.fileplaza.com]
UD Meter (Upload/Download Meter). It's been around for quite a while (at least since I was in high school - now I'm in grad school) and monitors up/down data size and speed.
Antioch18
Ike_Skelton
Posted 6:53 AM 7/8/08
Those jerks!
Ike_Skelton
DNABio
Posted 6:41 AM 7/8/08
Why is everyone complaining that ISP aren't investing in infrastructure?
In 2005 my Comcast in San Fran was around 3 Mbps today it is around 16 Mbps. I would say that an increase of 500% in 3 years is evidence that Comcast has invested in infrastructure. The largest issue is that there are no servers that send data fast enough to fill the pipe.
DNABio
justinsane
Posted 6:37 AM 7/8/08
Cable television providers don't want to compete with free (or ad-supported) video on the internet. Anti-competitive practices like these need to be stopped ASAP. Where are the FTC and FCC when you need them?
justinsane
s5
Posted 7:16 AM 7/8/08
REALLY good post.
I would also add that bandwidth caps are a threat to political speech as well. Who is going to watch the latest Youtube of a politician getting caught lying or involved in a corruption, when they're too busy watching their bits and saving their pennies?
Really, caps are anything but net neutral.
s5
qella46021
Posted 7:13 AM 7/8/08
The problem is also that no one really knows how much bandwith they are really using. And what about updates for OS's and gaming and the such. Streaming videos are using bandwith yes. But more and more people are using YouTube and the like. There will be outrage about this. But it probably won't happen until the caps are in place and people go over the cap for the first time. And will the ISP's even tell you when they've put them in place.
Another problem with this is that in many parts of the country, there is only one option for cable TV or internet.
qella46021
singfoom
Posted 7:10 AM 7/8/08
[www.newnetworks.com]
Is anyone surprised? You all know that we as taxpayers already gave the cable/phone companies 4 billion in tax breaks in the 90s in order to get fiber optic strung around the country. And what did they bring us? Shitty DSL.
So now on top of taking our money and not delivering what they were supposed to deliver, they're going to cap us? I will drop comcast the moment they cap my internet service. I hate having to use them anyway, but the bundling HDTV & internet makes them the best deal here where I live. This is just pure crap.
singfoom
Antioch18
Posted 7:06 AM 7/8/08
@Akibake-: I've thought the same for a few years now - and not just because of the whole internet debacle, but other issues like public mass transit. However, the problem with leaving the US for another country where ISPs arent @$$holes is that the content you want is still being hosted in the US and will have to fight the system that you escaped from. As such you will now have a great internet connection, but nothing to use it for.
gg :(
Antioch18
falandil
Posted 7:49 AM 7/8/08
This worries me slightly. I wil admit to not being a heavy user. I'd say I use 20-25 gigs per month, though that's just a guess. I've never actually tracked it, though maybe I should start.
Still, I dislike this whole idea. I went to New Zealand back in 1995 and there was basically one Internet feed into the country at the time. Whoever controlled it (I'm thinking it was a Univeristy, for some reason.) charged PER MINUTE for using it. Every ISP in the country got their feed from them, so every ISP charged per minute. It was a freaking horrible system. That was 1995, so I'm assuming the situation has improved since then. I'm worried something like this will happen to us.
falandil
SinAmos
Posted 7:43 AM 7/8/08
@dorkboy: You guys. It was irony. Sheesh. I'm just saying that I can't even get those wonderful speeds others are used to besides the capping of all data.:)
SinAmos
SinAmos
Posted 7:42 AM 7/8/08
@s0crates82: I know that, silly.
SinAmos
Antioch18
Posted 7:37 AM 7/8/08
I want that service!!!
Antioch18
Antioch18
Posted 7:35 AM 7/8/08
Yep. You really don't have any choices on ISPs, so you're generally stuck with a single douche cable-ISP or a single shit speed DSL-ISP. This is basically monopoly.. what law was it that made this legal and why did we vote for it?
Antioch18
wooties
Posted 7:32 AM 7/8/08
caps suck. But I'm one of the lucky few.
I still have a cap but it's 500GB per month for a 50Mb up and down fiber connection. ($60 per month +$20 for every 100GB over 500)
wooties
Glamdering
Posted 7:27 AM 7/8/08
If you use Cox:
[virtualwayfarer.com]
Glamdering
bagumpity
Posted 8:08 AM 7/8/08
The mistake we made was allowing the same fat pipe to be used for cable TV and internet. It was convenient and wicked fast, so everybody jumped on it rather than wait for the last-mile fiber to materialize. And when it did arrive, in many cases it was used to carry television because the bandwidth was there to make it possible to compete.
As much as I hate to admit it, the cable companies have a legitimate gripe. In the end, I think the answer is to let both private consumers and cable operators have the content for free and compete by providing additional services. Cable gets to provide things like guides, scheduled showings, first airings, etc.. Content owners provide centralized locations, inside info, buzz, viewer forums, and the like.
I've been calling this the "Video 2.0" model for a few months now as the new content delivery paradigms spring up all like flowers in a May garden.
bagumpity
Brock
Posted 7:54 AM 7/8/08
@Akibake-: Hah! Nice analogy. Wish I'd thought of it.
Brock
Brock
Posted 7:53 AM 7/8/08
@cynep: When was the last time you saw a gas station that was out of gas? I said that competition would unleash supply, not that it wouldn't be profitable. Also, oil companies invest tens of billions of dollars every year in infrastructure improvement. Check out ExxonMobile's public disclosures to the SEC.
@LTS!: Did you read my post? I completely agree (and said in my post) that the behavior you describe would be bad. That's why we have Antitrust laws.
@geowrian: (1) Is there competition in your area? Many areas do not have any. That needs to change.
@geowrian: (2) Yeah, I know. Hence why I spoke in the future tense, not the present tense. But as you admit, even a Japanese ISP is starting to introduce caps. It's basic economics, though meters would be better.
@Antioch18: "Plenty" of countries? I think it's all of them (except NoKo) at this point. But no Asian country I am aware of (except the city-states of Hong Kong and Singapore) embrace capitalism as fully as America does. That's why we'll quickly overtake their position once we get the economics right.
ps - I speak English and Mandarin, have family in Taiwan and work in the financial sector in New York (and often London, via telepresence). So pardon me if I ignore your comments about being bigot or a member of "the retard club." I know what I'm frakking talking about. The next time you comment please have a thought worth communicating.
@cynep, @LTS!, @geowrian, and @Antioch18: NONE OF WHICH makes my original and main point incorrect: THE TITLE OF GIZ'S POST IS WRONG. Broadband caps will not kill Internet Video (provided there are multiple tiers of service and flexible pricing).
Brock
pevans34
Posted 8:26 AM 7/8/08
What a bunch of lazy asses. Any cap on the internet will kill it, much like taxes put a cap on growth. People aren't going to want to use the internet if they have to pay through the ass just to watch youtube. Also, the people currently making money on said distribution (Youtube) should be arguing vehemently against this as it will wreck their business.
And why no fiber? WHERE THE HELL IS THE FIBER?
pevans34
Akibake-
Posted 9:04 AM 7/8/08
I've never thought about it before, but do browser plug-ins like Adblock detect the blockable images and avoid downloading the images in the first place, or do they download all the elements as is and remove them from the layout afterwards? This would affect your usage rate per month. This would be easy to test by clearing your cache, visiting some site like Myspace, and then checking your cache. I'd do it myself, but I'm a little busy right now... working... (9_9;)
Akibake-
rcme
Posted 8:50 AM 7/8/08
One thing not mentioned here is that probably 50% (or more) of a web page download is advertising crap that most people don't look at or want.
With un-metered Internet access, people generally don't care that they are downloading lots of extra ad crap with the web page, since they aren't paying for it.
However, once everyone starts paying for each bit downloaded, which is what happens with metered access, I suspect people are going to be more aware of all the "extra" crap they are paying for that they don't want.
Metered Internet access doesn't compare to metered utilities, because I pay only for the electricity I choose to use.
rcme
rjupiter
Posted 9:27 AM 7/8/08
so were basically all arguing over the fact that we the consumer gets screwed? , lovely. well seems we have done the work for the ISP's.
rjupiter
Timooo
Posted 9:15 AM 7/8/08
I live in Belgium, where monthly download limits are unfortunalty still used. I have 20 GB a month, if I use more, that's €1 extra per GB.
It SUCKS. One day of normal surfing with some YouTube, movies here and there. Swoosh, 1 GB down the drain. It. Is. Horrible.
Timooo
s5
Posted 10:01 AM 7/8/08
@falandil: I go to New Zealand frequently, and the situation is pretty bad. Sure they don't charge per minute anymore, but bandwidth is still capped, there's no competition, and there's no way to get unlimited service from anyone, no matter how much you're willing to pay. As a result, people are really selective about clicking Youtube links, and they don't download movies (or if they do, they'll queue them up at night when the metering is more favorable and watch them later).
s5
bms
Posted 10:42 AM 7/8/08
@Joseph: Having just moved from Alexandria, VA, I would have definitely gone for the carrier pigeon approach. Internet 3.0, anyone?
bms
Con Seannery
Posted 10:39 AM 7/8/08
@BadBoyNDSU: Touché, sir, I referred to the wrong meaning of broadband, now I need to get some sleep.
Con Seannery
Menaq417
Posted 11:02 AM 7/8/08
Omniscient means all knowing.
Menaq417
kent7854
Posted 10:49 AM 7/8/08
I don't think it will kill the internet, but it's gonna piss a bunch of people off. And cable / internet providers will be the first to do it!!
"You're cutting back on your cable package because you're watching video on the internet?? Not so fast buddy. We're gonna stop that so you have to go back to buying HBO / Showtime / HD cable because we're not going to let you watch stuff for free!!"
Pretty simple. Eventually competition will win out and we'll see whole new structured plans based on GB used, just like with cell phones. And then somebody will do an all you can eat plan and stuff will regulate back out again. But it's gonna take a while. And it's gonna suck for those of us that are really starting to like watching stuff via streaming.
kent7854
vee-media
Posted 10:46 AM 7/8/08
@Joseph:
Correct my if I'm wrong but don't most ISP's consider uploads to be exclusive of data caps?
vee-media
poedgirl
Posted 11:48 AM 7/8/08
Bleh, none of this is anything new. Australia has always had broadband caps. We currently rely on our ISPs unmetering certain things, like my ISP (iiNet) recently announcing they won't be metering the ABC's (that's the Australian ABC) new IPTV service.
poedgirl
ezman
Posted 1:04 PM 7/8/08
@Mr.SithNinja: You, sir, may have a bit of a problem on your hands.
ezman
ladlers
Posted 1:04 PM 7/8/08
There's no reason AT&T should even be considering caps on DSL. They are not on the same PLANET as cable/broadband. They (the baby bells) did not have to install the fiber optic cable the cable companies did, and each DSL customer does not share the same pipe as cable customers do, the reason for limiting it. ATT merely has to upgrade the few internet backbone connections that they have between central offices. ATT executives should be shot.
ladlers
ヨシダさん 25
Posted 2:37 PM 7/8/08
I don't get it - I have Cox and I used 100 - 200 GB a month and have never been capped...it's weird...
ヨシダさん 25
SBM_from_LA
Posted 2:20 PM 7/8/08
Regarding Data Caps the ISPs want to implement. I think what will happen is they will begin making deals with "certain" companies that will allow a subscriber to download content without it being counted in their montly allocation. The ISP will more than likely ask for a percentage of the "take" from the company for each download. Trust me..I can see this happening. You might think this would be a good idea. However, not everyone will have the money to pay the ISPs, only the "big media corps".
SBM_from_LA
Spiffmeister
Posted 4:57 PM 7/8/08
Its inevitable and happens all over the world.
Get used to the idea.
Spiffmeister
Zomb
Posted 5:21 PM 7/8/08
@Brock
The cellphone market is slowly moving towards unlimited talk and unmetered service which is the next step in a competitive market metered service is a step backward. The telecommunications are trying tell you how much valuable the information you are downloading is. The competive thing to do would be to provide better service like unlimited data not lowering there service to metered. unmetered is the next step in the capitalist way of trying to make a service you got it backwards and sounds like you think the market should just start over from the beginning(maybe not a bad thing). While metered service may not kill video streaming and downloads it will hurt it a lot
Zomb
Quatre707
Posted 7:56 PM 7/8/08
@j0sh097: I use an enterprise firewall that I have a student license too =)
Quatre707
BombrMan
Posted 10:36 PM 7/8/08
Save us FIOS pease!
BombrMan
BEERxTaco
Posted 12:00 AM 8/8/08
I want rollover bytes!
BEERxTaco
ladlers
Posted 12:43 AM 8/8/08
There is no excuse for caps on DSL. ATT is a wicked company. Just this year they got rid of pay phone service without thinking twice. Where do you go if you need to when your cell phone battery is dead? They say they had no increase in revenue, yet they upped DSL service $5 a month two months ago. That's a 33% increase for some. What is the increase usage costing ATT DSL? A T3 line to the central office instead of a T1? For 50,000 customers per CO, that amounts to pennies. ATT had record profits this quarter. We're going to pay $20 a month for phone service with unlimited long distance and $45 a month for internet? They're going to eat it--internet is not a necessity. Why doesn't George Bush, with his 2 trillion tax budget, regulate these monopolies?
ladlers
mxrz
Posted 1:32 AM 8/8/08
It's not as bad in Canada as some people make it sound. At least not in Montreal. Untill fairly recently, Videotron's residential 10mbit cable had no cap. Then they introduced a 100GB cap, in the second half of last year, I think... which is reasonable. However, I still used on average a good 20GBs per month over that limit, so I switched to their business line, downgraded to 7mbit to keep the same monthly price, and I'm enjoying unlimited broadband again. What is retarded however, is the 50GB cap on the 50mbit residential line! That's less than 3 hours of downloading at max speed, and you're done for the month. That's mindboggling idiocy, who would sign up for that, for 80$ a month…
mxrz
shawn_dude
Posted 2:43 AM 8/8/08
@Brock: "When ISPs block P2P to sell Movies-on-demand (like Comcast did), that's bad. If Verizon blocked Hulu to sell you FiOS-TV, that's bad. If AT&T blocked Skype to sell you phone service, that's bad."
What happens when Time Warner exempts its customers use of Time Warner assets from counting towards their cap? Downloading 10G of movies and music from iTunes is 25% of your cap. Downloading 10G of Time Warner products is 0% of your cap.
Or worse yet, Time Warner goes into a "partnership" with Apple whereby Apple gives Time Warner cash to let their content flow through the pipes unmolested by a cap.
Oh... wait... that's what the internet providers wanted to do in the first place. It started the whole "net neutrality" fight. Looks like they're just going forward with that idea regardless.
I pay for a certain amount of bandwidth now. Apples pays for the bandwidth it uses too. So ISPs are getting their cash from both sides of every transaction on the web. It is simply false to imply otherwise, as the original article does.
I'm 100% okay with ISPs charging per byte provided they are neutral in their application of charges. Especially those that enjoy local and regional monopolies. If they charge me extra to connect to iTunes and download a movie, they need to charge me extra to connect to their service and download a movie. No "partnerships". No "deals".
Prediction: If they go this route, you'll see people with multiple internet connections and devices that will intelligently switch between them to maintain a connection. If I get 4G/mo for my 3G connection and 20G/mo for my cable broadband connection, I should use all 24G before I start paying extra for either.
Oh gawd... does this mean we'll have "rollover bytes" on our bandwidth?!
shawn_dude
DozeUser
Posted 2:54 AM 8/8/08
@ronnsprocket: man i would love 800kb/s I am on rogers in canada you know what i get, I get 60kb/s, downloading anything is a pain in the ass.
DozeUser
bpapa9013
Posted 4:09 AM 8/8/08
My ISP actually isn't that bad:
20Mbp/s down
6Gbp/s up
40GB/mo cap, but I only pay $0.50/GB if I go over, and there's no limit on that. Don't have to worry about being throttled or disconnected for high usage so long as I pay my bill.
I would honest rather just have to pay a fair price for additional GB over the limit, vs. getting throttled/disconnected randomly when I go over some soft limit/usage rate when I don't actually have a cap...
bpapa9013
bpapa9013
Posted 4:05 AM 8/8/08
@SinAmos: Nice save...
Oh, wait, except it wasn't.
bpapa9013
kylo4
Posted 1:57 PM 8/8/08
This was a fantastic article that I only hoped would be written somewhere. Thank you Matt Buchanan, thank you for restoring my faith in Gizmodo. This is exactly it. By doing this, it is the cable companies way of making you watch/pay for cable and block the future way of companies like Apple and others selling you tv shows and movies over their networks.
Here in Canada, Rogers has: 60GB and 95GB as the highest caps. I have 60GB, and with lots of devices that need updates and demos and this and that it burns through it fairly quickly. If I were to go over it, I'd pay $2.50 per gigabyte until it reaches $25.
What people need to see is that they can potentially resort, in the future, to cutting off your internet usage once you go over the cap. You wouldn't be able to continue downloading movies then.
What I say (and it probably won't happen due to the logistics of it) is if you are paying for capped internet, they should carry over everything you don't use to the next month. That may be impossible, but a thought. They should also allow you to pay for more than 95GB. Up until however much you feel you need.
Now that Comcast is offering up 40GB, I feel a little better for Canada now.
kylo4
kewlball
Posted 10:22 PM 7/8/08
So, with the possible metered service coming soon, if all cable tv, phone and internet service is included, whats gonna happen when everything goes digital?
kewlball
redbanktom
Posted 7:56 AM 7/8/08
There really is a bigger issue here than the cap.
The issue is: Who gets to decide what gets capped and what doesn't?
The way ISPs will play the cap is to allow partners that pay them to allow their content to not count towards the cap.
Simple example: Sony pays comcast to allow PS3 movie downloads to not count towards the cap.
That way all of the other download movie download options, apple/netflix/amazon/xbox counts towards the cap, but Sony's doesn't.
That gives an advantage to Sony.
It is sort of like EA and Madden. The NFL sold EA an advantage and what happened to the rest of football games?
The idea is the same here.
Cap = Teired Access = Net Neutrality : It is all the same issue
redbanktom
Antelix
Posted 6:59 AM 7/8/08
@DNABio: Actually the Service from them to you is the only part of the Infrastructure they have invested in. The problem is their connections to peers are probably a total of 2 Gb/s and they are offering their customer base a total of 30 Gb/s with all customers combined. This wasn't a problem in the past, but with the advent of Youtube, Hulu, and Bittorrent the ratio is as outdated as the Nielsen rating system.
Antelix
hackersg
Posted 6:44 AM 7/8/08
This is something i get upset even reading about. At least other people are in the same boat that i'm in.
I pay 113 dollars a month with Time Warner for cable and the internets (15mbps down 768kbps up), and i personally feel i should be allowed to download as much as i want.
If they want to throttle my bandwidth during peek hours, or when their incredibly shitty infrastructure is near at it's max, i'm fine with that as long as i get some sort of notification that it's happening.
I'd personally pay no more than 85 a month for unlimited internets (I pay 60 + Tax now just for high speed road runner).
I'm downloading/uploading at least over half a terabyte a month, so i realize i'm a huge offender. I think charging money over a certain cap per gigabyte is a quick way to get me to move to a slower, but unlimited carrier.
FiOS please come save me from this hell, and don't be an asshole about downloading caps.
The bottom line though is: Cable companies know their infrastructure is completely doomed as more and more people jump on the digital wagon. They should start doing something about it other than piss off their loyal customers...like....start installing fiber.
hackersg
Antelix
Posted 6:43 AM 7/8/08
As someone who works for a cable company that shall remain nameless and is not doing a cap at this time, I can tell you things are going to become interesting. I see data caps as temporary (ie. maybe 4 years at most). The problem stems from the fact that the pricing structure for what ISP's pay for backbones to the cloud and what it charges residential customers is out of whack and is on the verge of needing a radical overhaul. By imposing a cap on total usage, ISP's are in effect curbing high bandwidth users from using that 20 Mbit/s for long extended periods of time. Pretty much all ISP's use DS3 - OC48 networks and beyond for backbones. Problem is 40 Mbit/s DS3's still run in excess of 4000 - 15000 grand a month to some providers depending on the region they are serving. With the big run up in providing 20 Mbit service to customers for 30 to 40 dollars a month it is implied that most ISP's don't expect you to use the full load of bandwidth consistently for long time periods. Now this has changed, by ISP's increasing how wide your pipe is, they have increased total amounts of download traffic over the course of the month and have opened the door to even more hungry applications such as youtube, hulu, netflix, amazon, bittorrent, and so on. You hardly had people trying to 700 Meg movies off bittorrent when Broadband was 768k - 1.5 Meg. Once ISP's started competing on speeds to end users, you started seeing this huge extended amount of time when people were using their connection. Problem is Backbone prices didn't drop as there isn't enough long haul connections to support all this traffic. Which brings me to the point why I believe this is temporary. In the telecom industry when we were transitioning from dialup to broadband you saw a lot of jobs for long haul fiber backbone and such to the point that they overbuilt the backbones at that time. Now there isn't any darkfiber and the shortage makes it where ISP's are not able to profit. I by no means siding with the ISP's. Truth is Video will be delivered over the internet and there is no stopping it. Problem is, running backbone to the landmass that is the US is much more difficult than to an island the size of Japan which is why we are lagging in comparison. Probably within 4 years this Data Cap stuff will be a thing of the past.
Antelix
smarxstein
Posted 6:39 AM 7/8/08
It's quite foolish to worry about bandwidth capping. Some users are not upgrading to broad-band from dialup because it's more expensive and those users do not think they need that much bandwidth. So clearly, users expect to pay less for a service they do not utilize much.
I speak to my parents over Skype and for my parents' plan I had a choice of a 128kbps unlimited bandwidth plan or a 512kbps capped plan for the same price. I chose the latter because they rarely use the internet, but when I make that weekly VOIP call, I need a higher bandwidth.
Broadband usage has a long-tail distribution too and it is extremely unfair to charge a flat-fee to everyone. It's like saying there should not be pay-as-you go prepaid mobile plans, or everyone should get unlimited minutes and pay the maximum amount on their postpaid plans.
Allowing flexible plans is the first step towards aligning companies interests with the innovation and service we expect. What we should be concerned about is that the cap is set to a reasonable limit or a sensible tiering system is used.
smarxstein
kennyNegs
Posted 6:11 AM 7/8/08
Couldn't another start-up just set up a service without caps and take everyone else's business? That sounds like capitalism right there, folks.
Find the business model everyone wants and let the market decide. You could back up the Brinks truck to your house if you were the only ISP on the block with no caps. Dig?
kennyNegs
johnny_five
Posted 5:52 AM 7/8/08
40 Gigs? Sounds pretty sweet. Out here in bush Alaska, I pay $50 a month for about 40 K down tops, with a 2 GB cap and a penney per MB after. Needless to say, I do all of my dl'ing at work.
johnny_five
ngrede
Posted 5:08 AM 7/8/08
Its all going to come down to whomever has the better lobbyists, the TV networks or the Comm Companies!
ngrede
ElectroSapian
Posted 11:14 AM 7/8/08
Being shortsighted idiots should not entitle an industry in the US, market space monopolies and raises for poor service as compared to similar market spaces in the global network. Japans' network demonstrates that it is obviously possible to provide reasonable bandwidth service, consistent with consumer electronics capabilities and current media quality standards. US automaker plights are one example of consumers here just saying, NO THANKS to hypnotic suggestion marketing in favor of something actually worth the money.
It is time for SBC/ATT (Seriously basic connectivity with Afterthought Timing Technology, as seen on TV!), Time Squirmer (self-explanatory), and Comcrap (named after communist block, public restrooms) to lose their exclusivity rights in favor of technologies like Fiber Optics. That is why data centers connect this way. It has proven, in consumer electronics to be a fundamental waste of energy and resources to support legacy technologies like the plethora connection jack methods for video and audio signals in HD Home theater systems.
I cannot believe technology adopters have endured this same decrepit internet access argumentative tactical maneuverings for nearly 20 years. Alternatively, that these US companies still think, propaganda over real world evidence of a better method will continue to work.
Finally, they are wire and switch companies not media companies and have pushed the same content signal over that exact same little cable feed for quite some time. Then they were able to piggyback internet access and charge for that. AND NOW, want commissions. The local power utility does not get a commission because XBOX Live for example became popular either, but still needs to keep the lights on.
ElectroSapian
Bkzbeatboxxx
Posted 6:01 PM 7/8/08
Goodbye Comcast, Hello FIOS!!!
Bkzbeatboxxx