Death of Decent Australian Broadband

iamplasma writes: "As reported by several Australian newspapers, Optus cable internet services will be switching their standard plan to a 3gb "soft-limit" broadband service (once the limit is passed, the service slows to 28kbps). This is effectively the end of decent broadband in Australia, with Optus being the only major provider to offer a service without a highly restrictive usage cap. This is also the ISP who proudly promoted themselves over their main competitor specifically over the issue of the competitor's 3gb limits."

Comments

Unofficial soft limits

[AlaskanUnderachiever]

While I know the vast majority of broadband packages I've used either don't have a cap, or simply have a "per gb" fee after a cap is reached, I have the sinking suspicion that my current provider (1.2mb DSL) puts "heavy" users on a cycle that gradually decreases bandwidth with total amount used. In talking to others in my area with a similar file sharing setup, as we approach 2-3gb of data per week, our speeds slow to a trickle (only to mysteriously appear at 12am monday). Could this be the implementation of an unoffical soft limit? Could similar tactics be in place already with many other providers across the US with most users not aware of it? The "gradual" drop in bandwidth is the scary part though. Until I talked to friends and realized the relationship between amount downloaded and speed, I didn't see anything other that occasional "traffic jams" down the line. Now my paranoia has kicked in. . . .

Perhaps broadband should charge 'per megabyte'?

[wackybrit]

What are they thinking? 28kbps is slower than what you'll get out of the average DIAL-UP, let alone broadband.

In fairness though, they have a point. $54.95AUS per month does compare favorably with getting a second phone line and hooking a modem up to it all day.

And it's also true that regular users don't need anymore than 3Gb per month. Unless you're a techie and downloading a lot of Linux ISOs or watching independant movies, 3Gb per month will get you a long way. It applies to Web hosting, so why not here?

Perhaps it's time for ISPs to charge per megabyte? There's no such thing as 'unlimited' or 'free'.. you end up paying in the end. So why not charge per megabyte, which will force users to consider what they're actually downloading. US$0.01 per megabyte sounds fair.

(In the UK, BT is also trying a similar scheme with dial-up. That is, their 'Anytime' service is not actually 'any time' anymore.. you can only use it for a maximum of 12 hours a day!)

Re:Perhaps broadband should charge 'per megabyte'?

[E-prospero]

...regular users don't need anymore than 3Gb per month. Unless you're a techie and downloading a lot of Linux ISOs or watching independant movies, 3Gb per month will get you a long way

However, you will notice that the people complaining about the 3GB limit are ususally those who were sucking 10GB of warez a month. The "normal" consumer in Australia hasn't even considered ADSL yet.

Admittedly, some people do have a legit claim - Telstra sold their service as "unlimited bandwidth", and then imposed a limit. However, now that limits are here, I for one expect them to stay.

Perhaps it's time for ISPs to charge per megabyte? There's no such thing as 'unlimited' or 'free'.. you end up paying in the end. So why not charge per megabyte, which will force users to consider what they're actually downloading.

There are already some ISP's in Australia doing just this. TPG for instance charges A$26.95 per month, plus 15c a meg. Note - this is not intended as an advert - I know nothing about their quality of service, or their terms and conditions, just their pricing scheme.

US$0.01 per megabyte sounds fair.

Sounds fair to whom? I don't know about the rest of the world, but here in Oz, whenever paying for bandwidth gets mentioned, the same figure of $0.15-0.18 per meg gets mentioned (eg, this figure was always mentioned at uni whenever volume billing was suggested to a department).

That said, I notice that TPG sells high levels of bandwidth at 5c/meg - I have no idea where their figures come from.

It may be fair for the consumer to pay 1c/meg, but not if the supplier is paying 1+Xc/meg, X>0...

Russ %-)

I'm going to disagree with some of what you said

[suzerain]

In truth, your post is coherent and logical, but let me play devil's advocate:

And it's also true that regular users don't need anymore than 3Gb per month.

I've heard I don't know how many times that "xxxx is enough for the average user" in computer-speak, and every time it's short-sighted. It may be enough given usage patterns right now, but as soon as video is distributed on the network, all software is distributed that way, and as soon as The Next Big Thing (tm) comes along, your point becomes moot. Believe me, 3GB a month will seem like a pittance sooner than you think.

Computers in general aren't even 1 1,000,000th as powerful as they need to be. Look at the latest greatest game, look at how beautiful the 3D is, and then look out your window and realize how truly shitty it looks and you get the idea. We will need more computing horsepower for graphics and AI and everything else, and we will definitely need more bandwidth than 3 lousy GB per month.

Perhaps it's time for ISPs to charge per megabyte?

Well, it makes business sense, pure and simple. If I want to download the 500 MB Lineage installer, and that alone takes one sixth of my monthly allotment, then it ought to be my problem, right? Wrong. The problem is, the Internet is as much an entertainment medium as anything else, and it's competing with technologies that are not pay-as-you-go, like television and so forth. I think the public will demand unlimited access, if given a choice. The first time they get a bill for $1000 in a month, they'll be looking elsewhere.

Of course, the industry coould just collude and force per-download pricing, but it's ridiculous.

As a consumer, I'm already pissed off that my cable company won't allow me to broadcast. It's their way of keeping distribution in the hands of the few; a way to maintain the status quo. Yes, I understand the reasons why they don't want to host my pr0n and wArEz, but I'm being selfish here; this is about what I want.

I for one will always seek out unlimited pricing if possible.