Slashdot Mirror
Broadband In Australia Just Got Slower
liquidx writes: "Seems like broadband Down Under is getting more and more restrictive. First we had our _unlimited_ plans changed to capped usage plans, then incoming port 80 traffic was blocked (due to Code Red/Nmida worms) and now file-sharing protocol ports are filtered due to 'load balancing issues'! Whirlpool reports that Optus@Home throttled traffic to ports 6700-6702 (ex-Napster ports) without telling its users. Read the letter and article here. Are there any other broadband services, other than the ones in Australia, continually degrading their service to customers? When will this stop?"
Did it ever occur to you people that these residential broadband connections for $40 might actually have some controls on them? Especially now that it's crunch time in the board rooms of the telcos and cable companies?
Get over dot com days of thinking the world is wired with 10/100 for $50 a month. It's kaput.
What's happening down under will happen in the US soon enough. Sorry you can't download 200 gigs of warez, pr0n and mp3's per month...party's over. Deal with it.
all cable companies suck, what i'd like to know is if they DO have a oc3, or a oc12 what ever they have why they dont let download and upstream, speeds be the same, isnt a oc3 155mbit/155mbit, if they can afford to give you 1.5mbs down why only 15k up?
I mean, people tend to seriously abuse their services, and then kvetch their hearts out when someone at their ISP notices and puts and end to it? Oh you poor dears. You can't do things that you really aren't supposed to be doing in the first place.
Even with the caps and limits in place, the services are usually ~still~ providing exactly what they promised in the first place, eventually people realize this and shut up.
So, they are limiting the old Napster ports, so what? Change the ports the program uses to something else then.
Why is everyone so up-in-arms? The broadband providers are going out of business, folks! They aren't growing money on network trees, they're going bust building infrastructure! Maybe someday we'll all have 100-megabit constant connections to the Internet for a dollar a month, but even then, a dozen Napster clients will be more expensive to serve than a thousand casual browsers. As a matter of fact, I'd wager that full-pipe users represent a net loss to most broadband providers.
That's why they don't want Napster clones to be popular, because they can't afford them. Maybe when Napster users are willing to pay $150 a month for high-cap service, they'll be profitable, but come on. If Napsterites would be willing to do that, wouldn't they be buying the music in the first place?
Sorry, folks, but you're all out of college now, and broadband is expensive in the real world, especially if you want the whole, big, fat pipe all to yourself.
Did it ever occur to anyone that there should be a contract specifying terms of service, and if such restritions at the will of the provider are not in writing accepted by the client than it's a breach of contract? I'd look that sucker over before I accepted something for the good of the ISP, after all, they already got their golden parachutes.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Most of the threads I've been reading have an overtone of how one *deserves* good bandwidth or that the telcos are just greedy. The truth of the matter is that alot of folks tried to supply fantastic bandwidth on razor-thin margins and they went out of business.
There is good service out there but you have to pay...end of story.
With any luck, however, people will soon get wise to this. You might find that you can take advantage of uneducated consumers in the short term, but in the longer term expect people to start caring whether their ISP is crippling their Internet access.
Remember that much of the motivation for people to spend the extra money on broadband is created by P2P file-sharing applications. It will only be a matter of time before ISPs which haven't opted to cripple their user's Internet access will start to educate consumers about these issues.
However, with volume-based pricing, the provider should remove any additional restrictions ("business use", "servers", etc.). While before, arguably, people weren't paying their fair share, with volume-based pricing, you pay what you use, and there is no excuse for providers to divide their users into classes.
I agree with everything you said, but I have to point out the the telcos/ISPs have only themselves to blaim for creating this situation. They market DSL/cable in a way which gives people the impression that they can do anything with their bandwidth. Thier comercials emphasize that they offer a always on (and in DSL's case they often claim dedicated) high speed connect when in reality they can't afford the service they lead consumers to beleive they are offering. As a result they have had to implement all these restrictions because they tried to sell people on a service they couldn't afford to provide. When you look at their advertizing the "bandwidth hog" argument kinda falls appart. One of their major selling points is the ability to stream high quality media and download large files quickly ("no limits but your imagination!" seems to be a big one).
Now that the ISPs have convinced people they can get 1.5+ Mbps of "unlimited" bandwidth for $40/mon it's understanble that their's going to be some frustration when reality sets in and people realize that getting real unlimited broadband is prohibativly expensive.
I shouldn't worry... all good soviet governments started off like that.
Oh boy, this is not going to be popular.
I frankly could NOT give a rats-ass if ISPs throttle P2P software. Do you really want me to believe you guys are using it legitimately? Do you REALLY want me to believe that mostly everything on there does NOT violate a copyright of some sort?!
I totally believe in freedom (of speech), and as such I totally hate the DMCA, RIAA AND MPAA.
But fuck it, MY internet connection gets slow because of people exchanging software (music, computer, whatever) illegaly. And my prices don't drop or my ISP goes out of business.
I don't think ISPs have the right to block just anything the want, but you sure make their case a lot more palettable when you don't use the internet responsibly. You can cry bloody murder about people taking away your ability to get your MP3s, but in the meantime your behaviour hurts everyone.
That's why I say I don't give a damn.
If people turned them off when they weren't around, there would be a lot less filesharing too. A lot of people leave their computers on all the time sharing files on irc, WinMX, Morpheus/Kazaa, it is the basis of the system. If everyone turned the stuff off as soon as they downloaded whatever they wanted, pretty soon no one would be able to get anything...
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
This is a business decision from the broadband provider. You do NOT have the right for broadband access to your hous and you do NOT have the right to demand your provided gives you an unfiltered service. The facts are that they are providing a service which you pay for - your sole rights are in the contract you signed with them, most of which pretty much dictate that they can do whatever they damn well please.
If you really want an unfiltered service with high bandwidth then get your own T1, or are you really just bitching because you can't get everything you want for only $60/month?
Want some cheese with your whine?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
So these devout Christian morals don't have a problem with spying on people then?
Just for the record.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
I've seen a lot of people post about how this is perfectly legitimate network management, and I can accept that, although it must be asked where heavy use ends and abuse begins (do compulsive downloading of the latest ISO of your favourite dozen distros and constant apt-gets count).
I've also seen a lot of posts saying, in effect, "Why care? It's their network, they can do what they like." But remember, people, cable access in Australia is a monopoly (or rather, an oligopoly) where the only players are the two big telcos, Telstra and Optus. It's not as if you can go somewhere else if you feel you're being screwed; they can do what they damn well like and we just have to put up with it. So it is quite important keeping an eye on them and screaming bloody murder if it even looks as if they're trying to shaft someone.
You're forgetting the /. 99.99/0.01 rule - that is that /. represents 0.1 % of the people who might see those ads and we're the only ones know what a mega/kilo-bit means and get excited about what we could do with all that bandwidth. The other 99.99% want to know if it works with their fav. apps and is it fast. 500Kbps is plenty fast for someone who's been used to dialup.
The only people being "mislead" are tech-heads, and they should be smarter than to take advertisements at their word.
Nearly half the comments on this thread seem to be saying essentially the same thing: "What do you expect? You can't get a T1's worth of unlimited bandwidth for $50 a month." That's true, but neither is the market price of a T1 line really $500+ or whatever they currently charge. They only get away with that because it's a legally enforced monopoly. With competition from cable and satellite Internet services, the price of T1s is dropping; I expect to eventually see it settle in the $200-$300 a month price range. Besides, that TANSTAAFL isn't the point. The point is that the broadband companies say there is a free lunch. Look at some ads for cable or DSL service sometime. You will hear quite a few mentions of terms like "dedicated", "unlimited", or "always-on", but no mentions of "filtered". Broadband companies claim that people can get this kind of Internet access for ONLY $49.99!!! a month, and conveniently "forget" to mention all the restrictions they place on it. If someone complains, and has a need to run a server, use P2P file sharing, or some other application that they forbid, then the companies steer them towards more expensive "business class" plans or leased lines. This is a classic example of bait and switch - promise someone a good product or service at a low price to get them into the store, then deny them that sale and switch them to a more expensive product instead. This is a form of fraud, and it's illegal. But apparently no one seems to care.
I think what has Whirlpool readers pissed is that Telstra suckered them into unlimited internet and then changed the contract on them to a VERY limited service. It's unheard of in telecommunications -- I mean, you wouldn't expect to sign up to a mobile/cell phone contract for 24 months only to find that three months later the telco ups the prices and says "like it or leave". In my experience, in this case, cell phone companies honor the original contract at least until the expiration of the contract -- and then ask you to move to a different plan if at all.
It'll stop when you Aussies take a notion to really stop it. Organize, vote, otherwise take political responsibility for your lives... when you pull it off, please post back, because I can't seem to get these apathetic bastards up here in the States to get off their collective arse and do anything.