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?"

10 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe that's why they aren't marketing it as T1? by Tsar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Leaping Messiahs! by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

    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
  3. Notes from the Underground... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I was sick an tired with bandwidth caps and such so I eventually opted for business-grade DSL. Mind you, I pay three times the amount I use to ($150 per mo. vs $50 per mo.) but I have 32 static IPs, 864 up/down, and if my service so much as hiccups I have a customer support person on the line helping me debug it. You can get good service but you can't (and shouldn't) expect it for $35 a month.

    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.

  4. God bless competition by Sanity · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Congratulations on screwing some more money out of your customers by quietly degrading the service they are paying you for.

    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.

  5. Re:Maybe that's why they aren't marketing it as T1 by Magila · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Frankly, I don't give a damn by Breace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Jesus Jumping Christ by CheeseMunkie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Precisely. "When will it end?" the original post moans. It will end when the ISPs' profit/loss spreadsheets start telling them that any more limiting/filtering they do will start losing them money. For now they save more money on reclaimed bandwidth than they lose on leaving customers, so capping and filtering is a good policy. When they lose more money due to leaving customers than they save in bandwidth, they'll stop capping and filterng.

    none of us here are stupid enough to believe ATT wants to give you good service, are we? We all know that ATT (or whatever your ISP is) exists solely to make money. Providing service is only a means to that end, and they will tailor that means to get the most profit out of it. If you want to change it, either become a stockholder and vote, or vote by going to an uncapped ISP.

  8. How on earth is this "Your rights online"? by throx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  9. Re:There's a good reason for it by WasterDave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  10. Remember, cable in Oz is a *monopoly* by cthugha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.