Welcome to the world. I live in Australia and we've had download caps for as long as I can remember (post BBS days). I pay $90 AUD ($65 USD) a month for for 40GB @ 20 mbps adsl.
-
You heard it here first: Black Friday 2024 has arrived!
- Status
There is no limited pool of bandwidth. It is not a commodity like oil or water. Fiber optics has effectively infinite capacity. Each year the same fiber can carry more and more bandwidth by upgrades to the electronics/optics. There is no shortage now and there will not be a shortage in any forseable future unless monopolists like Comcast, TimeWarner, AT&T and Verizon are allowed to continue to steal the Internet from the citizens and ratepayers.
There are no technological problems to build networks that can scale way bigger than todays networks in the US. In Japan and S. Korea its common to have 100Mbps and even Gigabit home connections.
In my neighborhood in Saratoga, CA part of Silicon Valley there is NO DSL or Cable Modem service at all!
The CableCos and Telcos are building networks that have builtin chokepoints to allow them to create artificial scarcity.
Its time to Divest these companies of the last mile physical plant (copper, fiber, utility poles, rights of way, conduit, etc) and return it to the citizens and ratepayers. The physical plant can be operated for the common good just like roads and water systems. Then we can have a vibrant marketplace of services (including lighting the fiber) on top of the physical plant that has open access and is paid for over a very long term.
There are no technological problems to build networks that can scale way bigger than todays networks in the US. In Japan and S. Korea its common to have 100Mbps and even Gigabit home connections.
In my neighborhood in Saratoga, CA part of Silicon Valley there is NO DSL or Cable Modem service at all!
The CableCos and Telcos are building networks that have builtin chokepoints to allow them to create artificial scarcity.
Its time to Divest these companies of the last mile physical plant (copper, fiber, utility poles, rights of way, conduit, etc) and return it to the citizens and ratepayers. The physical plant can be operated for the common good just like roads and water systems. Then we can have a vibrant marketplace of services (including lighting the fiber) on top of the physical plant that has open access and is paid for over a very long term.
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 1,692
- 0
- 19,790
As far as i know which i hope i would since i have fios verizon doesnt and said they see no reason to ever impose a bandwidth cap on thier lines. I use TB's of bandwidth every month (ok not every month) but i use alot. your ips does not pay for incoming traffic thats why your download is so high but your up stream is so limited. I have a measly 20/5 connection but through verizon i can get up to 50/30 or higher i havent checked recently and i can use it all the time and much as i want with out any more charges. Cable companys IMO have always had sub par services and since FIOS and these caps i see no reason to change my mind at all. Though Fiber is the backbone most cable companys (im sure all) dont even run fiber to the house they run it to a box somewhere near where you live and rely on copper after that so they have thier limitations not limited to how they share the bandwidth in your local area being a nice bottle neck.
But none of these things are why. They simply do not want to upgrade thier network and like most have said they dont want to give up people paying for thier tv. They are trying to dupe the idiots that actualy believe they are trying to fight pirating. The morons that think there is any reason to it at all other then greed. Those are the people that will give them the fake power they need to keep caps on you. Fight stupid and youll win vs these caps' (fight stupid..... hah gl)
But none of these things are why. They simply do not want to upgrade thier network and like most have said they dont want to give up people paying for thier tv. They are trying to dupe the idiots that actualy believe they are trying to fight pirating. The morons that think there is any reason to it at all other then greed. Those are the people that will give them the fake power they need to keep caps on you. Fight stupid and youll win vs these caps' (fight stupid..... hah gl)
This article makes me laugh, here in Australia, we've NEVER had uncapped internet. You Americans have had it too good & now you're copping it sweet like us poor Aussies
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 1,692
- 0
- 19,790
We make you laugh? why becuase our country hasnt been as technolagicly backwords as yours? I know probly about 20 aussies if you guys actualy did something about the monopoly of a single internet company im sure your issue would change. Here we are lucky to have a government for which the most part doesnt support monopolys though the companys do some things that are anti competetive we still for the most part have a choice. This wont last long unless ALL companys do it and people accept it. If we get beat down and broken as aussies when it comes to this kind of thing we will be stuck with internet that wasnt even good in the 90's like you. America is lagging behind in internet, you might as well be in the third world.
You always have the freedom to switch providers or, gasp, give up internet access at home. In most cases, personal internet access isn't necessary to earn a decent living. It is the rare case where internet access at home is essential for the preservation of life. Tautologically speaking, if you can't afford it, you can't afford it.
If you are a knowledge worker, no problem -- use the internet at your employer's facility in your free time.
If you are a student, no problem -- use the internet at school in your free time.
If you are neither of the above (and not retired), get to the library. You're probably already sucking enough resources from the rest of the population, why stop now?
Keep the government out of it completely. The private companies have a right to charge whatever they want.
If you are a knowledge worker, no problem -- use the internet at your employer's facility in your free time.
If you are a student, no problem -- use the internet at school in your free time.
If you are neither of the above (and not retired), get to the library. You're probably already sucking enough resources from the rest of the population, why stop now?
Keep the government out of it completely. The private companies have a right to charge whatever they want.
I can understand the reaction. Nothing is free, and if a few hogs on the neighborhood node drags the speed down for everyone, then the mojority casual user is subsidizing the free video habbits of a few. Look, I'm in favor of these caps, because there are vampires on my block that suck the bandwith at night to a level where connection speeds for the whole block drop by sometimes 75%. By morning the vampires are resting in their caves engorged in star trek video reruns and the rest of us can enjoy the speeds we paid for. Its basically a user fee, if you dont hog bandwith, you dont pay. So lets go after the Vampires and cap their connections, or start capping knees.
If all these ISPs want these tier systems that should be ok. The real problem is that all these ISPs have monopolies in their own regions. The government should force these companies to compete in each other's regions and make them lay down more cable / fiber /whatever. Then you would see better services and prices than we have available now.
According to the ads on this very same page, you can get an unlimited T1 for $349 a month. The overage charge on a 5 gig account is spurious because if you're using more, you can buy a tier with a higher cap. So if you're a casual user, you can get a cheap service that meets your needs, and if you're a heavy user, you pay more.
So far, casual users have subsidized the bandwidth hogging of heavy users. It makes no economic sense. But heavy users are crying because their bills will go up while the bills of casual users will go down.
Whine, whine, beyotch. Pay for what you use.
So far, casual users have subsidized the bandwidth hogging of heavy users. It makes no economic sense. But heavy users are crying because their bills will go up while the bills of casual users will go down.
Whine, whine, beyotch. Pay for what you use.
antilycus
Distinguished
- Jun 1, 2006
- 933
- 0
- 18,990
I canceled my basic Cable/Satellite TV service last summer and it was the greatest thing I did. I don't miss it ONE BIT. I don't get to watch the NFL anymore, but I just go to USTREAM and find someone kind enough to share the game. Any series I watch is on PC which is connected to my TV (and surround sound). The whole TV thing is a dying technology. Online I get 4 30 second add's for 50 mins worth of Show. at home I get 20 mins of commercials and 40 minutes of show. STUPID and overdone.
But these television companies need the money from the advertisers. Its time for the consumer to stand up and say no to being over charged for things. I pay 50 a month for my internet (and thats about to change providers if they cap it, i'll switch to something else)
My ANNUAL TV costs = 0. I get I definition TV over the air. I get all my shows online legally with minimal time of my life wasted. I am today's current consumer... these TV companies better think fast, because I have no problem cutting out their aired shows completely. Especially once LOST is gone, which is REALLY starting to piss me off with 1 or 2 important things per episode and comericials every 5 minutes (that I just mute the TV for anyways).
All these companies paying these networks for Ad's are getting completely ripped off if you ask me. I dont want them, I dont listen to them and I dont think ANY of my friends (about 40 people) do either...
But these television companies need the money from the advertisers. Its time for the consumer to stand up and say no to being over charged for things. I pay 50 a month for my internet (and thats about to change providers if they cap it, i'll switch to something else)
My ANNUAL TV costs = 0. I get I definition TV over the air. I get all my shows online legally with minimal time of my life wasted. I am today's current consumer... these TV companies better think fast, because I have no problem cutting out their aired shows completely. Especially once LOST is gone, which is REALLY starting to piss me off with 1 or 2 important things per episode and comericials every 5 minutes (that I just mute the TV for anyways).
All these companies paying these networks for Ad's are getting completely ripped off if you ask me. I dont want them, I dont listen to them and I dont think ANY of my friends (about 40 people) do either...
I haven’t bothered reading all 6 pages of comments so maybe this has already been said but it seems to me that there is a big conflict of interest. I don't believe that the government is the answer but I believe that this is probably already breaking some sort of business law of some sort.
I also believe the best way to fight this is to make it evident to the companies like Netflix, Microsoft (xbox360), or any other company that relies on heavy bandwidth and let them spend the money on the lawyers to fight it out. For example, if enough people cancel their xbox360 gold membership and let Microsoft know it's because of your new limit from your ISP I can guarantee Microsoft will do something to protect their revenue.
In the end I’m not to sure what will happen, I can guess at a few things but I would rather not say on an open form but what I hope for is an ISP company who's interests is the consumer. The rest will fall into place.
Btw, congrats on getting this far in the comments
-PARSONS!!
I also believe the best way to fight this is to make it evident to the companies like Netflix, Microsoft (xbox360), or any other company that relies on heavy bandwidth and let them spend the money on the lawyers to fight it out. For example, if enough people cancel their xbox360 gold membership and let Microsoft know it's because of your new limit from your ISP I can guarantee Microsoft will do something to protect their revenue.
In the end I’m not to sure what will happen, I can guess at a few things but I would rather not say on an open form but what I hope for is an ISP company who's interests is the consumer. The rest will fall into place.
Btw, congrats on getting this far in the comments
-PARSONS!!
If this obscene and horrific plan goes into effect, how will public schools and libraries be able to afford to provide internet to the students and those who cannot even afford computers or internet access in the first place?
[citation][nom]blarneypete[/nom]I really think we need to get the government OUT of the affairs of people and businesses. More regulation is not going to make them over better service. If you don't like what they're doing, then speak to TWC with YOUR WALLET. Don't use their services, tell them why, and tell your friends and family. If enough people do it, then the caps will go the way of the dinosaur. I'm able to purchase music from iTunes now because Apple got enough feedback, and their sales weren't looking so great - so they decided to offer DRM-free sales.\The government cannot fix this. Leave government to the affairs of state, and leave the affairs of business to the businessmen, and their customers. If creating tiered service turns out to be bad for business, then THEY WILL LOSE BUSINESS. Common sense, people, it's common sense.If companies decide they want to start a monopoly, or collaborate on price-fixing, then get the government to step in. The government is there to protect the citizens, not to run my ISP's company.[/citation]
Uhm... this is retarded... The issue isn't competition. If real competition was going, TWC wouldn't even be doing this. They have a (near) monopoly in these markets... So they have decided to do whatever the crap they want, because the customers have no alternatives (aside from having dial-up or no service at all).
What you are basically saying is that people should just give up the internet all-together! That might be good for you, but some of us run businesses that depend on internet access.
I shouldn't have to pay $150 a month to have crappier service than Japan gets for $20!
Uhm... this is retarded... The issue isn't competition. If real competition was going, TWC wouldn't even be doing this. They have a (near) monopoly in these markets... So they have decided to do whatever the crap they want, because the customers have no alternatives (aside from having dial-up or no service at all).
What you are basically saying is that people should just give up the internet all-together! That might be good for you, but some of us run businesses that depend on internet access.
I shouldn't have to pay $150 a month to have crappier service than Japan gets for $20!
g-thor
Distinguished
- Nov 7, 2008
- 227
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]SirCrono[/nom]Letting feelings aside for a minute, I think it's fairly obvious to charge a consumer based on how much of something he actually uses (been to a gas station lately), but from a consumer standpoint it just sucks to get a new restriction imposed all of the sudden, maybe it wouldn't hurt as much if it was something reasonable, like Comcast's 250 GB cap, but 5 GB or 30 GB is just ridiculous, specially at those price points.tl;dr: It makes sense to charge you based on your usage patterns, but time-warner is charging way too much for what it's offering.[/citation]
If you're going to use an analogy, be sure it fits. Gasoline is a resource based commodity - a finite quantity, as we understand it. The internet isn't a resource based commodity.
So, compare it to cable TV or radio. Would you be willing to pay for TV based on how many hours you watch? Or radio based on how many hours you listen to it? Now you have a working analogy.
I think most people would scream if the cable TV providers offered a service where you can watch any channels you want, but only for 20 hours per month at a rate of $25. You can have 40 hours for $48.50 or the TV Lover's package of 60 hours at $72.50. Since some customers don't like that, we've come up with the Super TV package - 100 hours of viewing for $120, with overage rates going at $5 per hour over the cap, all usage rounded up, of course.
The facts above show that their user base and profit margins went up, their costs went down. They lied to the consumers to justify an increase in rates and decrease in service, because if they'd honestly said, "We want to make more money for our shareholders," they would have been buried by the media and the consumers. Tell a sob story during an economic downturn and maybe the sheeple will buy into it.
If you're going to use an analogy, be sure it fits. Gasoline is a resource based commodity - a finite quantity, as we understand it. The internet isn't a resource based commodity.
So, compare it to cable TV or radio. Would you be willing to pay for TV based on how many hours you watch? Or radio based on how many hours you listen to it? Now you have a working analogy.
I think most people would scream if the cable TV providers offered a service where you can watch any channels you want, but only for 20 hours per month at a rate of $25. You can have 40 hours for $48.50 or the TV Lover's package of 60 hours at $72.50. Since some customers don't like that, we've come up with the Super TV package - 100 hours of viewing for $120, with overage rates going at $5 per hour over the cap, all usage rounded up, of course.
The facts above show that their user base and profit margins went up, their costs went down. They lied to the consumers to justify an increase in rates and decrease in service, because if they'd honestly said, "We want to make more money for our shareholders," they would have been buried by the media and the consumers. Tell a sob story during an economic downturn and maybe the sheeple will buy into it.
any pay per user charge will only allow future charges to increase so letting them in the side door with small charges will only let them take over the whole house .. the only real avenue is to call your members in Washington and tell them how you want them to vote .. get smart and stand up for your rights .. vote them out if they won't support others who will .. ask them tell them write to them phone them ...get smart and stand up for your rights
"Being a network engineer, I have serious doubts that TW will even be able to itemize my charges. If they are going to hold me accountable, PROVE my usage as mine and not "noise"."
Being a network engineer I understand the definition of noise and you have the wrong idea. Noise is interference, not things like a Syn/Ack handshake or jabber. And yes we would not have control over some of the data we are charged for, but you assume that companies like comcast care. They do not... corporate greed is awesome....(sarcasm)
Being a network engineer I understand the definition of noise and you have the wrong idea. Noise is interference, not things like a Syn/Ack handshake or jabber. And yes we would not have control over some of the data we are charged for, but you assume that companies like comcast care. They do not... corporate greed is awesome....(sarcasm)
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News AI PCs aren't driving sales — The need to upgrade from Windows 10 drove 2025 laptop sales- Started by Admin
- Replies: 22
-
-
Review AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: Devastating Gaming Performance
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 202
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram