Slashdot Mirror
Broadband Providers' Hidden Bandwidth Limits
An anonymous reader sends us to the Boston Globe for a story that will come as a surprise to few here: broadband suppliers will cut you off if you download too many bits. It tells the stories of several Comcast users who were warned — without specifics — that they were using "too much" bandwidth, then had their accounts summarily cancelled. Looking into the future: "...even if only a tiny fraction of customers are downloading enough to trigger the policy, that will probably change as more entertainment moves to the Internet."
Lemee see. Downloading the max a line will allow is OK. They understood the contract as "unlimited".
Seems to me that they're way overselling their lines. SBC DSL doesnt care how much you use, nor should they. (We had them for 2 years and kept 60% up and down utilized on average).
These cable bastards need to be raked over the coals for this. Or at leat, lose a bunch of profits.
ISP's have been limiting dl/ul for like....forever.
Since when does this make it onto slashdot???
Now.....TRUE unlimited speeds/bw....that would be a story.
I'd sign up.....five days ago.
For any reason...
That's how this works. That's the only way this works. They can advertise whatever they want, but as long as their contracts have that little clause in them, it really doesn't matter WHAT they advertise.
This and the net neutrality fight tell us something - the ISPs are not prepared for a large surge in bandwidth. Despite having about 10 years notice and charging up the ying-yang in many places, they're still not ready to provide the necessary speed to even those areas of the country they currently cover. When ISPs tell customers "5 Mb/s", they really mean "5 Mb/s, once in a blue moon, otherwise 512 kb/s normally and maybe a 2-3 Mb/s burst at times". 250 GB a month is only about 756 kbps. When customers realize this, there's gonna be a problem.
250 GB/month is not going to sound excessive when we start rolling out movie downloads in HD (that's 12 movies), or Steam-like solutions take off, or people start using things like Skype. Nowadays, your game console, your HD-DVD player, and your DVR/cable box want Internet access to get patches or content, and these massive numbers are getting more and more reasonable. This shouldn't be a sign to Comcast that users should download less, it should be a sign that they need to upgrade their networks drastically and fast.
I'm with an Australian ISP, on an 'unlimited' plan. The problem is, 'unlimited' doesn't apply when the ISP's network utilization is over 80% - which since they oversell their bandwidth is always...so my 'unlimited' 1.5 mbit line is capped 24/7 to around 768kbits.
I find it unsurprising that countries that are decidedly anti-consumer, pro-corporate like Australia & the US are seriously lagging in broadband adoption...you've essentially got to be desperate for internet access to go for any of the ISP offerings.
Karnal
It seems like they are simply trying to eliminate customers who are unprofitable, or not very profitable. They have to invest much less money if they get rid of the people who actually USE their service, rather than just downloading the occasional e-mail or web page. You can offer unlimited bandwidth if no one uses it. This is very much like the cell carriers dropping support for users of older phone technologies because those users don't purchase extra services.
Yes, because I'm sure they'll take the money they get from content providers and pour it into upgrading their network. You know, so that they can handle enough bandwidth that they don't have to charge the content providers anymore.
Oh, wait. That would cut off a source of income. Without net neutrality, they'd have a distinct profit motive to never upgrade.
Some attitudes replaced or by cgi optimizes
ONLY 1,150 customers are at risk of being cut off?
Apparently a large percentage of them are here on Slashdot.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Another reason why Triple Play sales pitches are HORRIBLE.
Cable line has been "exceeded". They then hijack your other 2 services for leverage.
It's free, until you use it.
but I do have a problem with how they handle it. I mean, they don't specify a limit, it's basically a nebulous figure, and that they aren't clear at all about this in their marketing. I mean, if they don't mean to say that always-connected is for always maxed, then they shouldn't use weasel words in the fine print. The claimed interpretation of "unlimited" is that the connection is basically always on, as opposed to dial-up of old where you were allowed a certain number of hours. Of course, they know that unlimited also gives an impression of not having a bit limit either, but they never do anything to prevent that impression except in said fine print.
The problem is that the internet providers NEVER charge what it's actually worth. Their business model works on overselling. I have a town with 100 customers. They all get at least 1.5 mbps connection. We supply this town with a 10 mbps connection and it works fine. If we had to provide 150mbps for this town, they'd never have service. Also, if you put 10 guys here that download 24/7.. we're going to have real problems.
Within reason is relative.. 40 gigs a month may be reasonable to you and the provider.. some people think 200 gigs a month is resonable. It's not from the providers perspective.. and bandwidth is expensive.
Rogers cable in Southern Ontario used to routinely punt the top 5% or so of their users because of overuse. My only issue with that is that they would never actually admit it or tell anyone what the soft cap was. This website was basically started because of this issue: http://www.rbua.org/ and to try and keep Rogers fairly honest.. good luck with that...
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
These cable bastards need to be raked over the coals for this
Cable, unlike DSL, is a shared medium. In other words, if some selfish jerk wants to trade torrents 24/7 and max the bandwidth then that can very well impact every other user on that line.
If their advertisement of "unlimited bandwidth" is several hundred of gigs each month then that is effectively "unlimited."
In my opinion, it is completely reasonable to threaten to terminate service to people who are, in effect, diminishing the service of others.
Given the relatively limited bandwidth going in and out of Australia, and that 99% of the world's websites are at the wrong end of that, there is arguably some justification for this. Still inconvenient though.
</devilsadvocate>
All the laws concerning it deal with copying and distribution. Nothing about obtaining it. The argument that you are making a cpoy when you download it is bunk. The person distributing it is saying you have the right to the copy the he is offering you.
If someone steals a truckload of cigeretes and sells them at the store on the corner of your street, When you buy a pack from the store, you didn't break any laws. Downloading is the same.
i assume it has something to do with the number of connections and requests. for 1 large file, i'm thinking it's one request: gimme. for torrents it's "hey you, you, you, you, and you, and everyone else here, i don't have this .2%, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme.
for a minute there, i lost myself...
Shit, your defence has a 400 billion budget? Thats insane! Actually, it's more like $500 billion for 2007. In comparison to previous empires, though, this is remarkably low. Consider that it is only roughly 4% of the GDP, and the two biggest spending areas are benefits/compensation for soldiers and R&D. Imagine if 4% of your economy could guarantee the ability to absolutely destroy any nation that opposed you. I would call it a remarkably good deal. Of course it's only this low because the US spent so much on R&D and infrastructure during WWII and continued it through the Cold War.
Of course I'm not saying it is a small amount of money, but it is relatively small when compared to the economy and military capabilities. Of course we all know that, in a perfect world, a military should not be necessary and $500B/year could be used to make significant advances in technology, science, and infrastructure, but that's more of a political and ideological discussion.
Personally I don't think it's wise to cease developing a military when other nations are making dramatic leaps and bounds in theirs unless the effects of the military spending is severely impacting an economy.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
It makes *perfect* sense to have one or more plans which are not, infact, unlimited. But when you do, you should have the guts to openly say so, and state up-front what exactly the limits are.
It's fine to sell "2Mbps broadband, will be throttled to 64Kbps if you use more than 100GB/month", and then enforce that.
It's NOT fine to sell "2Mbps broadband, unlimited flat-rate", and then subsequently warn and disconnect users for using "too much" bandwith.
It's ok to have limits. Just be honest about it. Saying one thing in the comersials and another thing to customers who use a lot of bandwith is fraud, plain and simple. If you claim to be selling an unlimited plan -- you better actually *do* that.
Isn't that statement a little dishonest? GDP is a measurement of good&services produced by a country. Saying 4% of that was spent on defense isn't accurate; the federal government doesn't have the entire GDP available to spend, they only have the federal budget available to spend. And I don't believe the federal budget is included in GDP calculations.
A better comparison would be percentage of federal budget spent on defense compare to previous empires' percentage of budget spent on defense.
Or you could say for $500 billion spent on defense which created $X of good&services and that comes out to be Z% of the GDP. I would be interested in knowing values for X & Z.
I think I know what you are trying to doing "X% of the economy is put towards defense" but your math doesn't jive... there isn't $13 trillion in circulation, dollars get "re-used"(I forgot the proper term for it).
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
Well, I am not one for arguing for big business, but it's their network. They don't want to impose hard limits but reserve the right to maintain quality of service. We have all been pissed off sitting there trying to check a quick email only to get the "thinking" status from the browser followed by a timeout error. So, as TFA says:
You look at it and see there's some two to three people in the neighborhood or a college dorm . . . and what they're doing is impairing the customer experience for the rest of the people off that node," Davis said. "Then it's a business decision: Do you alienate a small percentage of customers to make your other customers happy?"
If you have 25 customers pissed off because their $50/month broadband service is constantly slow, and 1 or 2 other people are constantly downloaded 300GB worth of data per month, what would you do? The problem, I am sure is that the situation was not handled with tact and reason. It was probably handled by some schmo customer rep who was like, "naaa, you just download too much, we just can't have that." If a nice polite person got on the phone and explained it just as the guy in the article, then people might be a little more understanding, and if not, tell them to go buy their own T3 line.