It looks like US ISPs are investigating metered or capped bandwidth schemes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229181//
I wonder how much of this is motivated by torrents and filesharing?
Printable View
It looks like US ISPs are investigating metered or capped bandwidth schemes:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229181//
I wonder how much of this is motivated by torrents and filesharing?
They are doing more than just investigating. Comcast is metering/capping my residential service.Quote:
It looks like US ISPs are investigating metered or capped bandwidth schemes:
We're not being capped yet (TWC), but as the article notes, TWC has started implementing it in certain areas (and it's not a coincidence that it's happening in areas where they have a virtual monopoly).
You can stop wondering - the answer is probably 99% :D All large ISPs also happen to either be or are involved with cable TV providers (or satellite in the case of AT&T), and torrents are a-hurting their ad revenue...Quote:
I wonder how much of this is motivated by torrents and filesharing?
I back up a 6+GB database from home every day... A cap would hurt :s
Hi CSR,
Over here, we have had capped internet right from the start.
To begin with (in dial-up days), we generally had "free" internet. The ISP didn't charge you because they got money from your Telco (no free local calls here, so you paid your Telco, and they paid the ISP).
With broadband you were generally offered a range of packages with a low cap option to emulate the previous dial up option for people who didn't use the net very much. I guess it was a marketing strategy to support legacy options.
There is usually a high-end option that is supposedly uncapped, but if you believe that, you are certainly more naive than you look. I have the uncapped option and have had no problems, even though I have sometimes downloaded very large amounts of data in a short period.
My friend, who lives about 500 yards away and has the same deal with the same Telco is a guy who downloads a lot of audio/video and uses torrents. He must be on the same loop as me, and is about 300 yards closer to the telephone exchange. :confused:
He gets 2Mbps (throttling?) whilst I get around 5.5, and has had a warning from them that he is using too much bandwidth, and they will start charging him for "excess usage" (a clear breach of contract in my opinion...........or misleading advertising......either way, they are violating our laws?).
They say they don't cap and throttle.............but they DO! and that applies to all the major providers over here.
You might like to check out this thread, as I shall certainly be participating :lildevil:
http://antionline.com/showthread.php?t=278156
The other major providers are just as bad.
What thread?Quote:
You might like to check out this thread, as I shall certainly be participating
Maybe you are over your limit.;)
Sorry Ron,
Forgot to press the button...............:drink:
You know the feeling?
:D
I have edited the link in, but basically we have a "select committee" looking into capping, privacy and such concerns and they are actually asking for public opinion :eek:
All too well my friend.Quote:
You know the feeling?
Getting old sucks... but the alternative is worse. ;)
the only way this will happenis if everybody does it. As long as you have an alternative, companies won't try it. If Time Warner tried it, people around here would switch to FIOS in a heartbeat. I know I would.
I'm not too sure of that. In my town, the choice is comcast or slow as sh!t DSL.Quote:
the only way this will happenis if everybody does it.
That's not really a choice. Currently, I would bet most of the country is in a similar situation. Until FIOS get rolled out nationwide (or other high speed alternatives come to market), the cable companies will get away with this capping thing.
BTW...If FIOS was an option for me, I would switch to the 20/20 service in a heartbeat irrespective of the capping. "I feel the need for speed"
On my side of the pond we have some very outrageous interweb plans. :eek:
and yeah it kind of sucks because most of the ISP's count uploading towards your internet usage.
anyhow here is what the major telco here offers>
if there isn't a choice right now, there will be soon.Verizon is covering the country bit by bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheap Scotch Ron
JPNYC,
Except if you live in one of those areas that Verizon dumped it's customers, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine for example.
Verizon couldn't wait to dump us, sold us to to companies that are already bankrupt or about to file bankruptcy. Your only hope is if you are a cable TV customer.
sorry, wasn't aware of that. But I know that they are covering this area. My cousin has FIOS and I was hooked up to their system last week, they are getting roughly 14 Mb up and down. In other words it's no longer asynchronous.
... and it's not just low population density states. They are picking and choosing here in NJ too.Quote:
Except if you live in one of those areas that Verizon dumped it's customers,
I still have to think that that's just preliminary. They are probably targeting certain areas first, but they will probably go back and pick up every other place. They are looking to take the market away from cable companies, it doesn't make sense to just leave them certain areas, indefinitely. Generosity is not a characteristic I associate with corporations.
lol. <> generous.. for sure... and thats exactly the point.
The cost/benefit doesnt work in low density areas.
You may be right, but as I recall, about one hundred years ago, the Feds had to pay AT&T to run phone lines into rural areas because the cost/benefit didnt work. Knowing the direction the country is headed, it wont be long before Obama taxes us to pay Verizon to run FIOS to every corner of the country.
I cant help but think that wireless broadband is the long term play. In 3rd world countries, they are building out the wireless infrastructure and skipping the copper and fiber altogether (or at least for the last mile).
I don't think the technology is ever going to go completely wireless here. It's too easy to crack, and subject to too much interference. Americans are much fussier and more inclined to complain, LOUDLY, than most third world countries, I'll wager.
I think ISP in the whole world will use this scheme once it seems success...
even now I suspect that my ISP is *capping* the usage bandwidth... esp from download sites like rapidshare, torrent port... well, fair usage policy...
Quote:
For example, some customers use P2P or file sharing software, which constantly sends and receives videos and other types of very large files, throughout the day. These activities (download and upload continuously) use a lot of bandwidth and can significantly reduce the connection speed, which other customers are getting to access the Internet during peak hours. We don’t believe this is fair to the vast majority of our customers.
I believe that the current ISP's internet business models are largely broken. The concept of "unlimited" is no more, unless you are prepared to pay for what you get.
I have always felt that "net neutrality" was a load of BS. What we ought to demand and must be provided with is "internet honesty".
What ISPs must be legally forced to state (in brightly coloured capital letters, and not buried on page 27 of the fine print that nobody reads) is as follows:
What we will provide and what we will not.
What is allowed and what is not.
How much bandwidth you are allowed over time.
How much it will cost.
What excess charging provisions are in force.
I don't care about the ISP's spurious claims to "unlimited".............if that is what you advertise and contract to..........that is what you must do, even if it means giving some greedy little scumbag his own dedicated T1 at YOUR expense.
If the law enforces transparent contractual terms then consumers will have sufficient information upon which to base their choice of provider and scheme.
I have nothing against people who want to consume high bandwidths........... provided that they are prepared to pay for them. After all that is what a supply and demand, market economy is based on.
There might have been a short period when you could get virtually unlimited service due to excess capacity at the time.......... those days have gone, so live with it.
that's all well and good John but for those of us who are not used to having any sort of metering whatsoever, it's going to be a major adjustment. What I find most egregious about this possibility is that we are now more than technologically capable of providing massive bandwidth to everybody, at no more cost, and possibly less cost, than ever. To my mind it's just another machination designed to pry more profit from us.
When I was using Comcast they had this thing where you'd be lucky to download at 10kb when torrenting. If you would watch long goofy stuff on youtube... then your other downloads would actually jump up by a good 70kb.
You have to estimate that Youtube gets traffic measured in terahertz.
So they're not just slowing down connections but giving normal speed to a select few on the internet.
Hi JPnyc,
Sure, I can see that as an issue for people in large cities and with modern infrastructures.
Where I am, we are restricted to ADSL copper via the old British Telecom infrastructure.
I would guess that there are plenty of places where ISPs just cannot support massive use of torrents, online TV, and streaming video.
Given the propensity for filesharing to be of illegal material, I suppose that it becomes an obvious target for throttling.
I have heard that some ISPs only restrict usage at peak times, so if you do your torrenting in the off-peak period they don't worry about it.
I strongly suspect that if there were not an issue of illegal content then the ISPs would quickly provide a high bandwidth option.
well like I said, this is only going to work if every ISP in a given area does it, because if not, and my ISP decides to implement any type of restriction or metering, I will be gone so fast they won't even see my wop butt disappear. Cable companies have a huge, scratch huge, obscene profit margin.