Slashdot Mirror


ISP Trying Free (But Limited) Home Broadband Plan

adeelarshad82 writes "Earlier today FreedomPop, a telecom company headquartered in Los Angeles, announced its plans to launch a very low cost home broadband plan for extremely low-intensity users, with 1GB monthly for free. Clearly this is much lower than an average U.S. home broadband usage, which is between 24 and 28 gigs per month. The 1GB of free Internet is basically a teaser; the company aims to disrupt the cable and DSL business with its 10GB for $10 plan which is extendable by paying $5 for each additional GB beyond 10."

213 comments

  1. 1GB of free porn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is still free porn.

  2. Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember when everybody was screaming about bandwidth caps and the need for government to regulate them out of existence?

    This is why that regulation was a bad idea.

    1GB/free and 10GB/$10 is highly disruptive to the major cable cartel. It is also extraordinarily beneficial for low income or student subscribers. This is innovation. We need more competition, not more regulations treating the symptoms of the lack of competition in most markets.

    1. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by PhxBlue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Highly disruptive. Sure. Whatever.

      Given my bandwidth usage, I'd have to pay about $1,000 a month to get what I have now for about $70. I'm not seeing what's "highly disruptive" about that.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, this surely has them shaking in their boots. Let's see, they say the 'average' use is 24-28GB per month. So the price for an 'average' user using this disruptive service would be $10 + (18 * 5), or $100/month.

    3. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      The problem Ms AC was NOT the very idea of caps at all, it was and is the fact that with zero competition and conflicts of interest they have you by the short hairs which is what pisses everyone off. In my area the cable is pushing their PPV and VoIP and guess what? Those do NOT count against the cap but if I use a competing service they DO count.

      Now as for TFA? In my area most of the poor can't afford Internet AT ALL, the minimum cost to get cable or DSL (if you are lucky enough to lie in the 1/3rd of the town they serve) or the local WISP is bare minimum $120 counting hookup and $50+ a month so a deal like this would certainly make it more accessible, too bad it'll never end up here.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Sez+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not seeing what's "highly disruptive" about that.

      Well, it would be highly disruptive to your wallet.

    5. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by alen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah, but lots of people like my inlaws who don't use too much will jump on this if it costs them $20 or $30 a month

      if i use less than 1GB per month on my iphone i'm sure there are lots of people who use the same on their home internet

    6. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing people, like yourself, that download 208 GBs a month are not the target market. Any other products you'd like to declare dead just because you personally wouldn't use it?

    7. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by localman57 · · Score: 0

      If this works out, your $70 bill is going to go up. High bandwidth users get a bit of an effective subsidy from low bandwidth users, who are more profitable than we are (although not nearly to the degree that the companies would claim). If the lowest use, highest margin customers jump ship, the rest of us who remain will pay more...

    8. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Remember when everybody was screaming about bandwidth caps and the need for government to regulate them out of existence?

      This is why that regulation was a bad idea.

      1GB/free and 10GB/$10 is highly disruptive to the major cable cartel. It is also extraordinarily beneficial for low income or student subscribers. This is innovation. We need more competition, not more regulations treating the symptoms of the lack of competition in most markets.

      We just wanted the government to enforce that the duopoly doesn't get to redefine the term "unlimited" just because it was starting to become inconvenient.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    9. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by shaitand · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. It's a scam. My phone's data usage is higher than that. The data usage is so ridiculous any student, low income, or other user will exceed it within a week even trying to "behave" they'll be getting massive overage bills. The faster the link, the faster they'll exhaust it.

    10. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by dmatos · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA - median internet usage numbers in the US are 5.8GB/mo. This plan is cheaper for those users than _any_ other plan out there right now.

      If they can steal 50% of all internet customers from other service providers, to the benefit of those customers, it will be disruptive.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    11. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering their pricing scheme starts at 10 for $10 it would be logical to assume they are not targeting the "average user" at this moment. They appear to be targeting folks who haven't really jumped into broadband or people who don't use it a lot and want a cheaper option. Nothing points to them trying to target the "average user." If they were targeting the "average user" wouldn't they do something like 10 for $10, 20 for $15, and 30 for $20 instead of just 10 for $10? Looks like they are trying to avoid the user that uses 24-28 GBs by not offering a cheaper tier for them.

    12. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Not all ISPs are looking at caps in this price range, I've heard $50 for 250gb before... i get 250gb + unlimited bandwidth right now for $50, how would that be helpful again? You're underestimating corporate greed by a very large magnitude.

    13. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given my bandwidth usage

      If it doesn't appeal to Slashdot nerds, then it's worthless like that stupid iPod.

    14. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Highly disruptive to my wallet maybe.
      I can't wait for my first $400 bill.

    15. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Holy shit, I didn't realize we had The Guy Who Is Representative Of Everyone's Bandwidth Usage on Slashdot.

      (If you didn't get the sarcasm, what I mean to say is "Maybe this product is targeted at certain demographic/market of which you are not a member")

      My maternal grandmother uses a few dozen MB a month, she does almost nothing beyond email a couple times a week, look up the odd recipe and a little online banking. My paternal grandfather does even less with his Net connection. Both are on fixed income.

    16. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I don't know why my brain processed 1Mb and 10Mb!

      Certainly, 1G may be good enough to check email. But more to the question, would they go with the AT&T approach of charging you per MB by default or would they just cut service and ask you to re-enable/acknowledge the exceeded quota?

    17. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by dintech · · Score: 1

      Given my bandwidth usage, I'd have to pay about $1,000 a month to get what I have now for about $70. I'm not seeing what's "highly disruptive" about that.

      When the debt collectors come to take away your computer. I think that would be highly disruptive. :)

    18. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It depends.
      People don't like paying for metered services. They would prefer to pay more for unlimited, even if the metered service will be less for their normal use.

      Even if you get the first bit free, it doesn't mean people will be comfortable with it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    19. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by camperdave · · Score: 1

      In my area the cable is pushing their PPV and VoIP and guess what? Those do NOT count against the cap but if I use a competing service they DO count.

      Ha ha! Bittorrent over VOIP! Take that, evil cable monopoly!

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    20. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      Here is an idea. Don't sign up with them.
      This service is not for most of the people here. It is for our parents. I seriously doubt my mother has ever used a gig of data in any month.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    21. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      How is this disruptive? The only people who won't like this are the customers. The ISPs will love selling metered bandwidth.

      People should think about this for a minute.

      Once we're used to paying per GB, all that will happen is the rate per GB will go up and within two or three years we'll be paying as much or more than we are now for less bandwidth.

    22. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I used to have effectively unlimited minutes on my cell phone. Now I pay $0.10 a minute and I pay a fraction of what I did for the "unlimited" plan and have actually started using my phone *more*. Metered solutions work great for people that have little usage. You can pay your $100+ a month cell phone bills. I pay

    23. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey! The original iPod had no wi-fi. It had less space than a Nomad. It was lame.

    24. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bandwidth caps great for the low end user forced to pay $50 for unlimited right now. My parents for example use 5 GB per month so actually pay $10/GB.

    25. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the 'subsidy'? The wires he uses are somehow more special than the other wires to these other people?

    26. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. All of them.

    27. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 5/GB after that, however, puts them well above big cable in pricing once you get to 25GB.

    28. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by egamma · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing people, like yourself, that download 208 GBs a month are not the target market. Any other products you'd like to declare dead just because you personally wouldn't use it?

      Yes, I declare the following are dead: tampons, hang gliders, skirts, tofu, turkey burgers, yachts, and nuclear missiles.

    29. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      My maternal grandmother uses a few dozen MB a month, she does almost nothing beyond email a couple times a week, look up the odd recipe and a little online banking. My paternal grandfather does even less with his Net connection. Both are on fixed income.

      There's still dialup.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    30. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Then the question is, do your parents need "unlimited" high-speed Internet? Or could they make do with something like dialup or a tethering solution?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    31. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by noc007 · · Score: 1

      It would. Look at how they bill. You have to provide a card upfront. If you reach your allowance, they go ahead and charge for the next block of data. I don't believe that block gets rolled over to the next month either. It would be pretty easy to have a kid or malware burn through a bunch of data and max out the card.

    32. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by localman57 · · Score: 1

      The wires are shared. A cable modem circuit runs between lots of different houses. It's very similar to "party line" telephones in the old days, where you had one line that you shared with a few neighbors to save cost. But when the neighbors start dropping off and buying individual lines, the cost of the party line actually goes up, not down, because there's fewer houses paying to support the infrastructure for the party line (although individual lines become cheaper).

      From Comcast's perspective, a circuit with 1 heavy user and 10 light user doesn't look that much different than a circuit with 2 heavy users and no light users. But it generates 5 times the revenue. If all those light users go away, and the heavy users need to pay the full cost of the infrastructure alone, the cost will go up.

    33. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      let's be honest... if you had a nuke... would you want to use it... just to ya know... see what happens? Be honest now.

    34. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think he ran out of bandwidth.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    35. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      Except any month in which one of her loving children stop by and connect to her WiFi!

    36. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the only way to be sure.

    37. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      What should be regulated out of existence is the advertising of such plans as "unlimited". It's entirely OK to have a cap if you announce it up front. It is not OK if you hide it in the fine print.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    38. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      Given your bandwidth usage, clearly a wired solution makes more sense than WiMAX, which is what this provider is using.

    39. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by admdrew · · Score: 1

      The data usage is so ridiculous

      At those prices, it's not ridiculous, no. Even for home service, 10gb/month is very manageable.

      Your phone plan may allow for more than 10gb, but you're definitely an outlier if you're using close to that in a month.

    40. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      Dialup ought to still be a viable alternative, but it really isn't. With the average website pushing 1.5 MB (or so I read earlier today), the slow speed of dialup Internet is increasingly less usable, even if the actual total bandwidth you can get on dialup is adequate.

      I have limited bandwidth at my cottage, and occasionally use dialup as a workaround (I get 20 free hours of dialup with my home wired ISP, and my home city is still a local phone call from the cottage). If you need to update your web browser or other software, dialup is horrid. On the other hand, for something like slashdot or IRC, it's actually quite livable. (Slashdot is shockingly dialup Internet friendly.)

      Still... no one would want to use dialup today unless they simply couldn't afford better, or there was nothing better. These offerings here are oodles better.

    41. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Dunge · · Score: 1

      I would prefer a regulation.

    42. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      But the median user uses well under ten gigabytes a month (6-ish if I recall). Very high use customers significantly skew the average up, and the large number of lower-use customers skew the median down.

    43. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      The main problem with internet metered by data volume is that you don't usually know what data volume you are using. When making phone calls, you know how long you speak, and therefore you can estimate how much it will cost you. However few people have any idea about what data volume is associated with a typical web site.

      However if metered data becomes more common, I guess ad blocking will become more popular. I don't think many people will like to pay for being served ads.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    44. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      It's a scam. My phone's data usage is higher than that.

      I don't think it's a scam at all. I barely go over 1GB/month with my phone (since I'm not a "check Facebook every 2 minutes" kind of user), so the 10GB plan would be great. I've got a grandfathered unlimited plan, and the only reason I don't switch to something with a limit is that they are more expensive. If some company offered a 2-4GB/month plan that was substantially lower than my current plan (as this wired plan is compared to other wired plans), I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.

      For my home, though, an economy plan is useless, as I move 2TB/month, and I'm only running about 25% utilization of my full available speed.

    45. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      You get unlimited bandwidth? You can download at infinity megabits per second?

      I don't think bandwidth means what you think it does...

    46. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Dialup used to be viable for people who simply did web browsing and no "multi-media" consumption, but the increasing amount of bandwidth intensive content on web pages has made that effectively unusable.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    47. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should switch to the Stallman browsing experience. Have your web pages emailed to you.

      Sure, it's backwards as hell. You somewhat plan out what you need to look at, email the service. service responds, sort through pile. There's no instant gratification effect like broadband, but it is probably more usable than waiting for 40 open sockets from JavaScript advertising trackers to sort out their priorities.

    48. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The profit margins are higher on people who use the service least.

    49. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1gb for email? Are you running a mailing list?

      I had a dsl line that I payed for up until a year ago that averaged about 1-2 gb per month. Highest was maybe 5. I frequently tried new distros of Linux and was a regular on an online FPS. But I still never used more than a few gigs for all my total web browsing.

      Things have changed. Linux distros are bigger, sone being nearly a gig alone. others 3. i hace a Roku with Netflix. I still think I use less than 10.

      I cannot imagine an entire gig for email, or how you think that would apply to most people.

    50. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt my mother has ever used a gig of data in any month.

      Have you actually measured her usage? I can blow through 100M in a hour, simply visiting websites and checking email with Thunderbird. Add Pidgin or whatever chat (never mind Skype) and it goes way up.

    51. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Bandwidth is the maximum amount of data that can be transmitted over a fixed period of time.

      Now why don't you make yourself useful by contributing to the discussion... or make me a sandwich!

    52. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by jxander · · Score: 1

      I see potential good and bad here.

      You've laid out the bad pretty clearly. If all the small fry accounts leave, the ISPs will try to wring out that lost profit from all that remain. Plus they'll have the ammo to go after the heavy users, as they'll stand out more

      On the potential good side, those low-impact users were allowing the ISPs to remain afloat while neglecting any real infrastructure upgrades. For every big fish that might complain about slow speed or data caps, they have a dozen customers who quietly pay their bill and never complain. If those customers leave, the major ISPs might just crash and burn under the weight of high % power users. Could force their hands on upgrades, and if we're very very lucky, they might actually start treating us like customers; like they actually want our business. Who knows, it might even introduce a little competition.

      --
      This signature is false.
    53. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS. I pay $37/mo for 100mbps uncapped. My ISP is small enough that they cannot afford to take a loss offering service to me. They're able to offer service that cheaply due to their model of only offering service to people in relatively-new apartment complexes in a few markets across the country. Basically, the thing they've figured out how to cut the cost of us running the fiber. There was no new wiring that was necessary when I signed up.

      They almost certainly are not purchasing their upstream bandwidth at a lower cost than the entrenched national ISPs pay. Running the wires is what costs money and that cost is the same for email-only grandmas and your most dedicated torrenter. Bandwidth is not nearly as limited as they say it is and the $70/mo you're paying is already way overpriced, even for a uncapped user.

    54. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that most ad blocking will reduce the data. I remember some years back that I blocked ads coming from one particular service at the firewall--I couldn't even use the website that was using that ad service. I was under the impression that software ad blocking usually just diverted the ads into a bit bucket. But that wouldn't keep the data from passing through the modem, which would count against your cap. I'm just waiting for the day that ads add a considerable amount to limited phone data plans.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
    55. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      No; you've misunderstood the issue people have with bandwidth caps. Bandwidth caps are fine on their own. No one expects all caps to disappear. The problem is companies that are offering unlimited bandwidth and then imposing caps on the service, because you're not actually receiving unlimited bandwidth.

    56. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Tim+the+Gecko · · Score: 0

      There's still dialup.

      (begin sarcasm) Wouldn't it be great if there was something with a similar cost, but which didn't involve waiting for modems, or tying up your phone line, or occasionally dropping out? But nobody will ever invent that. (end sarcasm)

    57. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If it were a phone plan it wouldn't be a scam but it isn't, it's a home internet plan. I doubt they expect anyone to use less than 1GB a month, the idea is to make profits on the $5/GB overages.

    58. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by shaitand · · Score: 0

      10gb is only 500 seconds or 8.3 minutes of actually utilizing a 20mb/s connection. Most people spend what, a minimum of 4-6hrs online a day? There's a reason for opposing bandwidth caps. The bandwidth rating should always accurately reflect the bandwidth you can actually utilize without exceeding the capacity of the connection. Otherwise you can mislead consumers into thinking 100mb link to a 1.5mb uplink shared by 100 people gives them just as much as a 100mb link on a gigabit uplink shared by 10 people.

      The dirty little secret is that a cap of 250gb a month is less data than you could have transferred with your 128kbps dsl link gave you 20 years ago.

      Hotels overbook like ISP's oversubscribe. The difference is that hotels can't hide it if they overbooked too far and went beyond what they needed to utilize their capacity. ISP's can overbook as much as they please and the guests have no idea they are sleeping 6 to a room and for no reason beyond the ISP wanting to make more money with less infrastructure.

      The idea is definitely to rake in the bucks on the $5/gb overages.

    59. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      It isn't highly disruptive at all. It's a continuation of pathetically slow internet connections. If you're going to use less than 1GB a month, you can probably get by with a flash drive and a trip to the public library for anything you can't just do on your cellphone.

    60. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way it would disrupt anything is if the ISP gave their customers the option of blocking all bandwidth eating superfluous crap, i.e. advertising. Once the bandwidth eating drivel is gone and only content remains, then it would be an economical offering, and it would be disruptive.

    61. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Master+Moose · · Score: 0

      I wish. .

      I am sure that ISPs are purposely throttling their Dial Up to force those remaining onto Broadband. This with the added bloat of many sites (banking included) makes much causal web-browsing more of an exercise in futility than a viable alternative.

      I challenge people here to disconnect and dial in, just so that they can reply to this message without ripping their modem out of the wall!

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
    62. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what you REALLY need to do is get a cottage that's further away from home...

    63. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      Bandwidth is the maximum amount of data that can be transmitted over a fixed period of time.

      Now why don't you make yourself useful by contributing to the discussion... or make me a sandwich!

      Exactly why there is no such thing as 'unlimited bandwidth' ;)

      I'll have ham and swiss on rye, thanks!

    64. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Gabest · · Score: 1

      That average usage includes people who subscribe to broadband just to check their email once a week. Why should you pay more because these ignorant people lower the statistics?

    65. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by devman · · Score: 1

      128kbps for 30 days is 38.6GiB.

      That being said if I had to choose between a 128kbps unlimited connection, and a 20mbps connection with a 38.6GiB cap on it, I would much prefer the faster connection

    66. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with that I can see you are forgetting what motivates companies. Hint. It has to do with money. Lots and lots of money.

    67. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Cimexus · · Score: 0

      Uh - like most technology and communications-related things over the last 30 years, the price constantly decreases, rather than increases. Look at countries where you have always paid per GB (or where home internet plans have always had traffic caps). Prices per GB are orders of magnitude less than five or ten years ago.

      I always get shouted down on Slashdot but I actually think metered bandwidth is the way to go. You pay for what you use, like any other utility.

      This means ISPs can offer a range of plans, from dirt-cheap $9.95 plans that offer just a few GB, for your grandmother who just checks her email a few times a week and browses a few web pages, to plans with insane multi-terabyte caps for heavy downloaders. It leads to a greater choice of plans and opportunities to save money for most average users. It also means ISPs can very accurately predict their traffic needs (because they know they've got X subscribers on various plans totalling Y petabytes of traffic per month), and thus provision their network appropriately (i.e. more heavy users = more cost to the ISP for backhaul and transit, but also means more revenue coming in because those heavy users are on more expensive plans, so the ISP can afford to buy the necessary equipment etc.).

      It also removes the need for ISPs to consider throttling certain kinds of traffic (P2P) or prioritising certain source of traffic over others. I.e. metered internet plans make 'net neutrality' a non-issue. If the users are paying per GB, then the ISP doesn't care what they use those GBs on. The ISP knows in advance what their traffic requirements per month will be and can provision their network appropriately. No port blocking/filtering/throttling/packet inspection/other QoS shenanigans are needed to ensure network performance is reasonable for all users.

    68. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Dialup is just too slow. Most light (or even average) internet users might not use much data, but when they DO use it, they want it fast.

      This includes people like me. I don't use much data per month compared to most Slashdotters (typically under 20 GB), but I do want to download something, I want it fast. I don't care that the amount I can get each month is limited, but it would piss me off having to wait an hour to download a music track, or 40 seconds to load a basic webpage (like on dialup).

      I live in Australia where most ISPs sell a variety of plans with different download limits (from tiny, just a few GB, to massive multi-TB caps). ADSL/VDSL plans are 'tiered' by their download limits, not by their speed as they are in the US (here, you simply get the maximum speed your phone line can manage - this will be faster the shorter your phone line is, up to the 24 Mbps maximum for the ADSL2+ standard, or up to the 60 Mbps maximum my local VDSL2 provider gives).

      So I buy myself a 30 GB/month plan and that fits my needs. In the US, for the same cost, I could get an unlimited plan ... BUT it's artificially speed-capped (since in the US the plans are differentiated by speed and thus are artificially limited to a certain speed depending on your plan, e.g. 3 Mbps/6 Mbps/12 Mbps etc.) For me, I much prefer my 'limited downloads @ uncapped speed' than the 'unlimited downloads @ much slower speed' I'd get for the same money in the US. I always have the option of upgrading to a higher cap if I need it ... but in the meantime at least I can grab the files that I do need very quickly.

      I actually tried a dialup connection a few months ago as a bit of a laugh. First time I'd used a dialup connection in over a decade. It was way more painful than I remember - web pages are so much more bloated than they used to be. Dialup is essentially unusable now for ANY purpose other than text-only email so I don't think it's a valid option even for light internet users.

    69. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satellite is the only broadband option where I live in Iowa. 12mb can eat through the 11gb data cap pretty fast. The ONLY good thing about our service is there are no data caps for usage between midnight and 5am. I have all the computers set to update at that time and that's when I download big files like a linux ISO over bittorrent. Netflix is useless unless you only watch it in the middle of the night. Gaming is useless because of the lag caused by going to geosynchronous orbit and back.

    70. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by mrprogrammerman · · Score: 1

      It's disruptive since they're taking away the users who subsidize unlimited internet for cable and dsl. The unlimited internet pricing for the same amount is possible because most internet subscribers probably only use a few gigabytes a month.

    71. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by smi.james.th · · Score: 1

      My grandparents would fall into this category. While uncapped services are available here in South Africa, ones with e.g. 2GB caps are cheaper, and they seldom use more than about 200-300 MB on emails and the occasional crossword answer search... So 1GB free would be ideal for them.

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    72. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would. Look at how they bill. You have to provide a card upfront. If you reach your allowance, they go ahead and charge for the next block of data. I don't believe that block gets rolled over to the next month either. It would be pretty easy to have a kid or malware burn through a bunch of data and max out the card.

      As if every fucking cell phone data plan wasn't exactly like this 5 years ago...and some of them are still today.

      I used to pay 29 cents per minute for "on-peak" cell rates. Stop with the fucking dramatics already like this tactic is new.

    73. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Yes, I declare the following are dead: ... turkey burgers ...

      I'd hope so. Last thing I want is my burger walking off before I can eat it.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    74. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no. This is wireless "broadband". The only place it can compete is on the low end. Your Netflix watching, game playing customers still need wired broadband, where there is almost no competition.

    75. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But once the cost of the partyline is paid off, then heavy users pay more per unit of data, which means the heavy users subsidize the light users in the long run.

    76. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Your mom has never heard of skype?

      When you have kids it is likely she will discover that if you live a suitable distance away.

    77. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by jxander · · Score: 1

      Do they love money enough to actually work for it?

      Therein, as the Bard would tell us, lies the rub. They've been coasting on free money from these tiny users paying full bills... a low-cost, low-usage ISP might just be enough to shake up the status quo

      --
      This signature is false.
    78. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      See definition #1

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlimited

      I'll have a hero.

    79. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      No, no and no.

      The unlimited internet pricing for the same amount is possible because the lines are already laid, and the infrastructure is already in place. Data does not cost money to produce the way electricity or water does -- and to try and argue otherwise creates an artificial scarcity that only benefits the cable cartels.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    80. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I actually mostly agree with you, but cell phones (and even landline phones?) have moved towards unlimited, at least in the "mainstream" plans. In other words, long ago you always paid for what you used, but then they had unlimited nights & weekends, then unlimited data, and so on.

      I still think prepaid cell phones are better for many many users (including me, if I didn't have a work supplied phone), but it just seemed like cell phones generally moved *towards* unlimited rather than away from it.

    81. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      I am never having kids! My whole family lives within 100 miles.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    82. Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted by T-ice · · Score: 1

      Speaking of night and weekends. If we could get a billing arrangement where our night time use wasn't counted, or counted as half it would make billing schemes like this much more tolerable. I still have a habit of saving my larger downloads for when I go to bed anyway, It goes through faster, I'm sleeping while I wait, and it doesn't disrupt my other activities. It will also only disrupt that one other guy up late downloading porn .....also. I have no idea how many users they intend to put on the same node with 1 gb caps. I feel it's safe to say that users who use that little aren't up in the middle of the night on the web. And in that case, without people like us, the network would be completely unused during those times.

  3. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My grandma could use it to check mails.

    1. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then Cousin Jimmy sends her an email with 3GB of cat videos, and she's got a bill. Thanks Jimmy. This actually happened to my sister about 7 years ago. 3GB of stupid cat videos in one email, which pushed her over her 2GB bandwidth cap with the local Telco's service, and into a $200 over-usage charge. (Only a few $extra for every 10MB! Don't worry! Email will NEVER go past your bandwidth cap! It is text, and text is small!)

    2. Re:Why not? by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

      Your grandma could do all kinds of stuff with 1GB! All that the cap would really prevent is video and gaming. Tell her to stay away from youtube, maybe get an ad-blocker on her machine, and she'll be sending you pictures of cats in no time.

    3. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf email service? no email server i know of lets you send files that large. GMail has a 15mb cap on attachments (until very recently where you could "attach" google docs, but then i still think you have to click the link before it even downloads). most mail servers allow for even less than 15mb.

    4. Re:Why not? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My work email server has a 10 MB cap (yes, I hate it). How do you get 3 GB of cat videos in a single email? From what service to what service? Did she not notice the delay while the massive email came down? I have 1GB in my gmail account, and that's 20,000+ emails spread over years (including attachments and such), so I don't believe your "sister" received a single 3 GB email (another reason webmail is good, see the size and delete without opening).

    5. Re:Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to call your sister a liar or anything, but I'm not buying this story.

      NOBODY in their right mind configures a mail server to allow 3GB of attachments on a message. And for that story to be true would require TWO companies to have misconfigured their servers in a very noobish fashion.

      Unless you mean *links* to 3GB worth of cat videos, in which case is was your sister's stupid ass decision to click on them.

    6. Re:Why not? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      My guess would be what actually happened is that the "cat videos" were links that the person followed without realising the size.

      On a normal setup sites like youtube will start downloading immediately and will continue doing so until you close the window or navigate away.

      IMO any setup where the price for overage is significantly higher than the price for committed traffic should come with both WARNINGS upfront and tools to help manage that usage. Not doing so is highly explioitative.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:Why not? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, it's the fault of the Internet service provider if I send my mom (5 GB cap, 3 years no overages) a link, www.google.com, and she browses for hours and uses her cap, it's the ISP's fault for not putting in proper blocks on "big" emails or warnings on usage? My ISP will text me at 80%, 100% and 120% of cap, but that's at 15 minute intervals, sent daily. I've been 20% over before the first text came out. But then, I also use one with no financial penalties, so I don't worry that much.

    8. Re:Why not? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      So, it's the fault of the Internet service provider if I send my mom (5 GB cap, 3 years no overages) a link, www.google.com, and she browses for hours and uses her cap

      No it's not the ISPs fault that someone goes over the cap because they received a link to services that use far more bandwidth than the ones they have been using before.

      It IS the ISPs fault if they provide no warning that someone is about to go over the cap and then use it as an excuse to apply financial penalties that are disproportionate to both the cost of providing the extra service and the ammount that would be charged for a similar volume of data included with a plan. It's even more their fault if the sales material assured the customer that they should not worry about the draconian overage fees because they would "never hit their cap".

      But then, I also use one with no financial penalties, so I don't worry that much.

      Sounds like you managed to find a provider with a non-exploitive contract, good for you! but that doesn't mean that we should accept companies burying exploititive clauses in the fine print. Especially when those companies sometimes have very little competition.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  4. Model cycling by nycsubway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully the home ISP market won't follow the cyclic model of the cell phone industry. With cell phone data, first you paid by the kB, then they introduced unlimited data plans, then they capped the limits and you paid by the GB, now they're going back to unlimited data plans. I'd prefer the home ISPs to not do that. They've always been unlimited (within reason) so I'd wouldn't like to see some small company changing the model for the industry.

    1. Re:Model cycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They've never been really unlimited anyway. They just have a limit that it's impossible to go over (because it's a multiple of your maximum speed)

      A crappy 1.5Mbit/sec DSL can xfer, let's say 187KB/sec. Multiply that by 86400 seconds per day, and you get about ~16GB per day (or something approaching 500GB/mo)... that's of course 24/7 downloading, which, let's face it, very few people actually do.

      Just for fun, that's about $2500/mo using their pricing scheme :) About the cost of a T-1 back in the 90's. We've come full circle!

    2. Re:Model cycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's unlimited. If it's impossible to go over the cap, that's unlimited. That's a bit like saying that the highways within Montana that don't have speed limits aren't unlimited speed because the car is only capable of going so fast.

    3. Re:Model cycling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly the correct comment and the only correct comment.

  5. WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I can pay cellphone prices for landline service. yay.

    1. Re:WOW by HappyHead · · Score: 1

      My cellphone provider gives me unlimited internet bandwidth for $10, if I ever bother to activate it. (Using wifi has been fine so far.) These guys are way more expensive than that.

    2. Re:WOW by Dunge · · Score: 1

      You guys don't live in Canada. I would kill for that.

  6. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know I would want to switch from my $29.99/mo DSL to $80/mo for whatever-this-is (that's at the low end of "average use"!)

  7. Sounds like a plan by loufoque · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a plan.

  8. Could Work for Some by cluedweasel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Interesting to see the average usage at 24Gb to 28Gb. When our local cable company was trying to bring in a 30Gb monthly cap, their argument was that 95% of their users went through 2Gb a month or less, effectively subsidizing heavier users. Total bollocks argument of course, but that's another story. The age demographic tends to skew high here and a lot of people only use their Internet connection for email. even here at work, people will reach for the Yellow Pages book before using Google. Those people would be a good target for this sort of service.

    1. Re:Could Work for Some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usage has gone up in the decade or so since your cable company wanted a 30Gb cap. Caps today are more likely in the 250GB range, 10x the 'average' use.

    2. Re:Could Work for Some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blow your cap in a day with a single file - just download planet-latest.osm.bz2 from this site (not a direct link). It's only 26 gigabytes compressed. Other huge files involve bioinformatics data.

    3. Re:Could Work for Some by skine · · Score: 1

      They could still be telling the truth.

      If 95% use 2Gb or less, and the mean usage is 26Gb per month, then the average heavy user only uses about 700Gb per month.

    4. Re:Could Work for Some by Rogue+Haggis+Landing · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interesting to see the average usage at 24Gb to 28Gb. When our local cable company was trying to bring in a 30Gb monthly cap, their argument was that 95% of their users went through 2Gb a month or less, effectively subsidizing heavier users. Total bollocks argument of course, but that's another story.

      The summary is a little misleading. The 24-28 gb is the average use, but the mean is a lot lower. Here's the full quote:

      "While average [U.S. home broadband usage] is 24-28 gigs per month, the average is skewed heavily by the whales. The median is actually 5.8 gigs, which is basically your non-streaming user," Stokols said.

      So half of all users are using 5.8 gb or less. Still makes the 2 gb limit ridiculously low, but the 24-28 gb average is skewed by some heavy users.

    5. Re:Could Work for Some by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      How long ago was that? Netflix and the likes probably accounts for a big portion of that 24-28GB, so I wouldn't be surprised if that number is four or five times higher than it was just a few years ago. I'm a pretty heavy Internet user, but five years ago the only way I would exceed 2GB/mo would be if I were downloading ISOs or movies... which isn't too common among the general Internet population.

    6. Re:Could Work for Some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are heavy users of internet infrastructure (Slashdot geeks) unwilling to pay their fair share?

    7. Re:Could Work for Some by invient · · Score: 1

      If you can get the tax structure back to 1960 levels, eliminate carried interest, define capital gains as income, and enforce these things with no less than 6 strikes then you get demoted to poor, then I will gladly pay per GB

    8. Re:Could Work for Some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the average use, but the mean is a lot lower.

      Average and mean are synonyms. Reading the rest of your post, you probably meant to say median.

    9. Re:Could Work for Some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting to see the average usage at 24Gb to 28Gb. When our local cable company was trying to bring in a 30Gb monthly cap, their argument was that 95% of their users went through 2Gb a month or less, effectively subsidizing heavier users. Total bollocks argument of course, but that's another story.

      The summary is a little misleading. The 24-28 gb is the average use, but the mean is a lot lower. Here's the full quote:

      "While average [U.S. home broadband usage] is 24-28 gigs per month, the average is skewed heavily by the whales. The median is actually 5.8 gigs, which is basically your non-streaming user," Stokols said.

      5.8 gigs being generated without streaming video or audio?

      Just goes to show you how much shit is being pumped over your internet connection...in order to push users into paying higher rates for "usage"? Gotta wonder if the ones throwing all the shit around don't have a hand in this ISP profit model.

  9. Re:Not Cheaper by mjr167 · · Score: 1

    Unless you only use 5 gig... Not everyone spends all day downloading movies or playing games.

  10. Re:Not Cheaper by cluedweasel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And one of my remote workers gets through 4Gb to 5Gb per month and she has the privilege of paying $56.99 per month for that. Just because this pricing doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it's a bad deal for everyone.

  11. A few years ago by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Back in the day 600 megs a month was what you got with the standard ADSL account (which cost NZ$200 per month) and you paid extra for any overage.
    There was a cheaper plan that gave you only 126Kb/s but was unlimited.

    1. Re:A few years ago by Caedite+Eos · · Score: 1

      True, but "back in the day" website were SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than they are now.

  12. Re:Not Cheaper by localman57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You'd want to be careful about auto-updates of software, though. Adding a new (to you) computer with a pre -SP3 fresh reinstall of winodws XP (something resonable to happen for people in this market) would eat up stubstantial bandwidth as it downloaded updates.

  13. So we're back to the AOL model? by realisticradical · · Score: 1

    How is $10 for 10GB plus $5/GB after that a good deal? A 24GB average user is going to end up paying $80/month.
    This sounds extensively like the cable company plans where they want to cap right below the level where someone trying to replace their $150/month cable subscription with $10/month netflix streaming would be.

    1. Re:So we're back to the AOL model? by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      And a median user would pay $25-30. That would be half of all US users that fit into that category.

    2. Re:So we're back to the AOL model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a median user would pay $25-30. That would be half of all US users that fit into that category.

      Umm, no. The median is 5.8GB, which is less than 10GB, so substantially more than half of all US users would pay just the basic $10/month.

  14. I hope it works out for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure I'd ever use their service as I'm pretty sure that it would end up costing me more than my current plan because I'd use enough data but I do recognize that there are likely people who this would work very well for. One area that Cable and DSL are pretty poor at is inexpensive plans for low usage. Just because you want something better than dial-up, doesn't mean you are doing much more than email and basic surfing. I wouldn't be surprised if my in-laws uses less than 10gbs a month. Even if they are using 20gb or 30gb a month it would still only be $15-$20 a month which would still end up saving them money pretty quickly. The only problem is I'm not sure if I can even check to see how much they are using monthly as they are using the router provided by the phone company with their dsl and I doubt it actually tracks usage.

  15. Opt-In Cap Limits by MatrixCubed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they're implementing cap-excess fees, they should also enable the user to hard-limit his internet access when the cap is reached, with a manual bypass when the user wishes to "accept the charges".

    My ISP (Rogers, up here in Canada) offers soft-cap notifications in your browser when the cap reaches 75% and 100%, but these notifications would never be seen if I, for example, were to Netflix my Gbs into oblivion.

    1. Re:Opt-In Cap Limits by isorox · · Score: 1

      If they're implementing cap-excess fees, they should also enable the user to hard-limit his internet access when the cap is reached, with a manual bypass when the user wishes to "accept the charges".

      My ISP (Rogers, up here in Canada) offers soft-cap notifications in your browser when the cap reaches 75% and 100%, but these notifications would never be seen if I, for example, were to Netflix my Gbs into oblivion.

      They inject code into webpages you're viewing? Aside from the technical problems that would cause, and being a breach of copyright and trademark law, it just sounds like a terrible thing to do. Why don't you change ISP?

    2. Re:Opt-In Cap Limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada is as bad or worse than the us when it comes to ISP competition.

      I can pick between 20MBPS down 2 up or 20/20 capped at 250GB. two providers. When i threatedn to switxh, the offical stance is "why bother? Theyre just as bad"

      Theres faster, but any faster (up to200 GBPS) is capped at 250GBPS. This is in a major city.

    3. Re:Opt-In Cap Limits by sdnoob · · Score: 2

      the only cap system that is fair and prevents outrageous overage charges is throttled-but-free usage over the cap. e.g. pay $30 for 100 gigs at 15 mbit, over 100 gigs in a month then speed falls to 1/10th that... want more full-speed gigs this month? call or login and order extra gigs for $7.50 per 25 gigs. extra gigs rollover, monthly quota does not. simple and fair.. provided it is marketed in plain english and limits are as obvious in marketing materials as the price or 'full' speed.

    4. Re:Opt-In Cap Limits by Maow · · Score: 1

      Canada is as bad or worse than the us when it comes to ISP competition.

      I can pick between 20MBPS down 2 up or 20/20 capped at 250GB. two providers. When i threatedn to switxh, the offical stance is "why bother? Theyre just as bad"

      Theres faster, but any faster (up to200 GBPS) is capped at 250GBPS. This is in a major city.

      Check with Teksavvy, they use Rogers/Bell/Shaw/Telus for the last mile and are very competitive.

    5. Re:Opt-In Cap Limits by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      Lucky you. In montreal we have around 50GB cap from both telco and cableco

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    6. Re:Opt-In Cap Limits by MatrixCubed · · Score: 1

      I went through hell and back trying out a smaller ISP (Acanac); the disjoint between them and Ma Bell caused a 3-week delay between when I paid for service and when a telephone technician came to my house and properly wired the phone lines for DSL service. (There were 2 other visits, both of which resulted in no-service.) And forget about calling someone on the phone; sitting on hold for two hours only to be disconnected at the end isn't my idea of good service.

      Going with a smaller ISP always bears the risk of dealing with the ineptitude of technicians who don't give a rat's ass about getting your service up and running (i.e. "that's not my department"). When I gave up on Acanac and made the call to Rogers, I had service up and running in two days.

      I don't like Rogers' caps and expensive prices, but when there's a negligible delay between when I make a phone call and my service is up and running, the attraction of "trying out" smaller ISPs in the hopes of finding one which doesn't cause hair loss and premature graying wanes quickly in favor of being able to actually use a service.

    7. Re:Opt-In Cap Limits by Maow · · Score: 1

      I went through hell and back trying out a smaller ISP (Acanac); the disjoint between them and Ma Bell caused a 3-week delay between when I paid for service and when a telephone technician came to my house and properly wired the phone lines for DSL service. (There were 2 other visits, both of which resulted in no-service.) And forget about calling someone on the phone; sitting on hold for two hours only to be disconnected at the end isn't my idea of good service.

      Going with a smaller ISP always bears the risk of dealing with the ineptitude of technicians who don't give a rat's ass about getting your service up and running (i.e. "that's not my department"). When I gave up on Acanac and made the call to Rogers, I had service up and running in two days.

      I don't like Rogers' caps and expensive prices, but when there's a negligible delay between when I make a phone call and my service is up and running, the attraction of "trying out" smaller ISPs in the hopes of finding one which doesn't cause hair loss and premature graying wanes quickly in favor of being able to actually use a service.

      You raise valid issues and I experienced something similar when Shaw caused a routing issue just before xmas which lasted for a week. TekSavvy was unable to do very much about it due to the problem being with Shaw.

      Fortunately I could tether with my phone and have 5 Gb / month that way so it wasn't a complete loss.

      However, I declined to reward Shaw for their ineptitude by switching to them.

      Of course, YMMV...

      Cheers

  16. Re:Not Cheaper by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    Why XP is EOL!

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  17. I should just do it now... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    Get a license to practice law in CA, because the shit's about to hit the fan with bandwidth abusers with a refusal to pay. Ingeniously profitable!

  18. Re:Not Cheaper by localman57 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Paying $5 for 1 GB of usage is a good deal, idiot.

    Paying $50 for 1 GB of usage (which is what some people are doing now) is a bad deal. It's like paying to take your anorexic girlfriend to the world's most expensive all you can eat seafood buffet.

  19. Re:Not Cheaper by localman57 · · Score: 2

    That's why you can get computers like this for next to nothing on craigslist. People who want $10 per month internet typically don't buy their computers from the Apple Store or Alienware.

  20. My grandma could use it by Chirs · · Score: 2

    Currently she pays $12/month for a 128KB/s cable connection. Basically email, a little bit of web browsing, and audio-only skype.

  21. *finger twirl* by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    I've seen background processes that take up more than that a month.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:*finger twirl* by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And my mom has been on a 5GB capped plan for 3 years and has never gone over.

  22. Re:Not Cheaper by SJHillman · · Score: 1

    All of my grandparents combined use 100MB/mo between their respective ISPs. Email, maybe a few recipes, not much else.

    Let's do some basic math.

    Right now, they pay around $45/mo for cable each
    Under this plan, they pays $0/mo.

    Seems like a good plan to me. It's not marketed to every Internet user ever, just certain low-use demographics like the elderly.

  23. FreedomPop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. FreedomPop is one of those businesses that uses shady tactics to make money.Data usage is calculated every 15 minutes and rounded to the nearest MB,which means that a device checking e-mail every 10 minutes will produce 4MB worth of traffic every hour according to their rounding method.If you DON'T USE their device they will charge an INACTIVITY FEE. The deposit becomes NON-REFUNDABLE after one year,and even before one year they will charge a restocking fee,and if the device is not in like new condition you won't get all of your deposit back.Customer service is non-responsive.Overall, it's best walk away when you hear the name FreedomPop.

  24. lol, throughput caps by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    The main regional ISP in my area (Canada) just ran a TV spot about how the throughput is unlimited on all their plans.

  25. Re:Not Cheaper by mjr167 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they will cut you off if you accidentally go over :P

  26. Jeez... by Nexzus · · Score: 1

    On a rainy weekend, with a bunch of Netflix, Gamecenter and music streaming and some other downloads, we can easily hit 50 GB in a day.

    --
    Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
    1. Re:Jeez... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      Hehe - I have been out of town for a couple of weeks. I consoled into my home box yesterday to check something out. Turns out I left my freenet node running before I left town. Whoops - there is 688 GB I'll never see again. Thank goodness my ISP is not yet employing limits on usage (though the day is sure coming)

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    2. Re:Jeez... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      PS - I pay for 50 down and 10 up. Given that I live in DC and we have great pipes, I actually get about 55 down and 14 up. Easy to get to insane numbers when you have insane bandwidth for home use.

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    3. Re:Jeez... by admdrew · · Score: 1

      ...meaning this is probably not the service for you. But for many other people, $20 a month for 10gb of data at 8gbps is a great deal.

  27. Re:Not Cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their target customers are such a small group that they're not going to have any customers, idiot.

  28. Freedompop uses ClearWire's WiMAX by anasciiman · · Score: 1

    Which, as someone who's using that network from Sprint's software/hardware SUCK BALLS! It's almost as slow as dialup much of the time. Freedompop is also charging $89 for the WiMAX modem. No thank you...

    --
    Think of me when you shave your legs...
    1. Re:Freedompop uses ClearWire's WiMAX by admdrew · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for their jump to Sprint's LTE, which (in my area) is pretty fast/reliable.

  29. 24 - 28GB per month? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    Wow... that's really high, I did 30GB in February and I work from home, use a softphone/voip and often do video conferencing with my coworkers.

    Does the average home user download 5-6 720p movies a month?

    1. Re:24 - 28GB per month? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I'm right in that average, maybe a little over (pushing 30gb). I work from home. I am on 1.5mbps down line of sight wireless and 512 or 384 (forget which) up. We watch youtube videos on the 3xx setting (380? 324? 340? I forget). Occasionally stream music. We average somewhere between .8 and 1.2gb per day. We download almost no videos, I don't even play online games anymore...

    2. Re:24 - 28GB per month? by tantrum · · Score: 1

      well, I seem to have downloaded 308gb and uploaded 368gb during february. No wonder I have to keep buying new drives.

      Didn't even download a single movie during february.

    3. Re:24 - 28GB per month? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Well my house streams all of the TV now through netflix, hulu, the individual channel's sites, etc. Given that this is becoming more common it wouldn't surprise me if people are streaming the equivalent of 5-6 720p movies a month, I know my household easily exceed that. Then add in the windows updates, other software updates, general browsing, working from home, and my downloading of large public data sets (GIS data) and I fall in the heavy user category.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:24 - 28GB per month? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, I seem to have downloaded 308gb and uploaded 368gb during february. No wonder I have to keep buying new drives.

      Didn't even download a single movie during february.

      What ARE you downloading/uploading anyway? Games? Don't say linux ISOs; who downloads 308 gigs of that in a month?

    5. Re:24 - 28GB per month? by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      I'm right in that average, maybe a little over (pushing 30gb). I work from home. I am on 1.5mbps down line of sight wireless and 512 or 384 (forget which) up. We watch youtube videos on the 3xx setting (380? 324? 340? I forget). Occasionally stream music. We average somewhere between .8 and 1.2gb per day. We download almost no videos, I don't even play online games anymore...

      My bandwidth and usage is almost exactly like yours, except I average a couple hours of Hulu every day, maybe skipping a day a week. I can get the average as low as .6g a day if I lower the rate to 240. I don't think I've ever gone above 1g per day, unless I've downloaded either large files or system updates.

      One other thing to be aware of that doesn't seem to get mentioned very often is uploads. Depending on what you're doing, you can rack up a few hundred megs in a day just on uploads.

    6. Re:24 - 28GB per month? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Let me guess - Dropbox or a similar service?

  30. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless.

  31. Re:Not Cheaper by alen · · Score: 1

    yeah, but these customers will take their money from the regular ISP's who may be forced to raise prices on their remaining customers, idiot

    the light users subsidize the heavier ones. take away the revenue from the light users and you need to raise prices. ISP's make very little PROFIT after ALL BILLS ARE PAID

  32. Re:Not Cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I wouldn't say elderly, since my mother has a network enabled DVD player that plays netflix and rarely DVDs and is certain to go over 1GB in just a couple days. Not to mention her Nook or her cell phone.

  33. So how do I check? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    So how do I check how much bandwidth I used last month?

    1. Re:So how do I check? by admdrew · · Score: 1

      Ask your ISP, or go back in time and use some client bandwidth monitoring software. Your home router may also display data usage through it.

    2. Re:So how do I check? by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      That depends on your ISP. Mine has an account page where I can check configurations, and monitor usage, but mine is extremely unlikely to be yours since mine is a small regional Saskatchewan cable company.

  34. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2nd time today for yer downmod n ya still don't learn ac troll http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521669&cid=43097067 how bad and how many times has apk gotten your goat that you insist on looking as stupid as you do for the second time today?

  35. I want one by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

    It would be nice as a failover for when my primary ISP goes down.

    --
    Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  36. lol-data caps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all i have to say is AS8708

    1. Re:lol-data caps? by Dunge · · Score: 1

      What's that? (a Google search don't give much info). If it can prevent me from reaching my data caps, I'm VERY interested.

    2. Re:lol-data caps? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      http://ipduh.com/ip/whois/as/?AS8708

      According to RIPE, a Romanian ISP

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  37. Bait and Switch by kawabago · · Score: 1

    This looks more like a plan to hose poor people.

    1. Re:Bait and Switch by admdrew · · Score: 1

      What's it being switched with?

  38. Too Costly by Githaron · · Score: 1

    $1/GB? That is way too pricy for broadband internet. It would be a godsend for mobile pricing but not broadband. I guess people who barely use the internet might save money but a lot of us get our digital entertainment/media almost solely through the internet these days. Hell, if I bought a game off Steam, it would cost me $4 after the cost of the game. If I spent $20 on a game, that would be a 25% increase in price. This all assumes I use less than 10GB a month. I wouldn't be surprised if my household hits over 200GB a month.

    1. Re:Too Costly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pay $1.40/GB (or more if I don't reach the monthly cap) because 3G is my only option. I'd kill for $1/GB of real broadband.

    2. Re:Too Costly by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      In the old days, when people bought games on physical media, they probably paid well over $4 extra to get that physical copy, considering physical disc production, packaging, shipping and distribution, etc. So soon, we are spoiled.

    3. Re:Too Costly by Githaron · · Score: 1

      By that definition of "spoiled", everything humanity has designed and created to make parts of our lives easier or more efficient "spoils" us. By that definition of "spoiled", we should all be living tool-less, outside, sleeping in the dirt or trees, and spending 90% of our waking hours hunting, planting, and gathering so that we can continue to live out our 20 to 30 year lifespans.

      Technological progress changes expectations.

    4. Re:Too Costly by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      My point was, to pay 25% of what something costs to get it isn't all that disproportionate. It can be worked around simply by having more expensive Internet. At a certain point the extra costs for the connectivity outweigh the incremental costs of the bandwidth on the cheaper plan.

      Anything physical is still subject to these rules, but choosing to download virtual products doesn't make the transportation cost free, unless you are already paying for transport in bulk (i.e. good enough Internet connectivity that this adds no incremental cost).

  39. Evil by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Customers who use the internet in more sophisticated ways, for example to cut their TV cable and stream; to use bittorrent; to game, and so forth will not benefit from this pricing plan.

    We're left with less informed and poorer customers as the target demographic. The problem here is that most people and especially those in the target demographic don't realize how many bits that javascript game is transferring. They don't realize Mom's facebook page links to 3 gigs of pictures. This will inevitably result in a large percentage of their customers going far over the cap and getting hit with an unpayable bill.

    I would like to think this company will simply cut off internet service at cap but a much, much more likely scenario is debt collectors harassing poor people for anything they can get.

    This is evil from start to finish.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  40. 4 users 200-300 gb a month by natespizer · · Score: 1

    My household has 4 internet users - Main bandwidth usage in our house: netflix, pandora, youtube, pbskids app every single month for the last 2 years we have used over 200 GB. The large majority of that is streaming.

  41. Re:Not Cheaper by fredprado · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but today, a single game update can be anything from a few hundred MB to a few GB, and lets not even start on YouTube, Netflix and streaming traffic.

  42. Inverse by Dunge · · Score: 1

    Can't wait for a ISP trying slow but unlimited cap internet. I'm pretty sure the customers will throw their money at them.

  43. Re:Not Cheaper by fredprado · · Score: 2

    It does not work like this. The provider will charge as much as it can, and deliver as little as it can get away with. Price has little to do with costs. Cost is a limiting factor not a price definer.

  44. Non-Expiring Prepaid Data Alternative? by noc007 · · Score: 1

    I entertained the idea of getting this as a backup internet connection for the home, but they way they auto-charge for blocks of data and the reports of the inconsistencies in data tracking has me shying away. I'm looking for a prepaid data option that lets one buy the allowance upfront, doesn't expire, won't auto-charge for additional data, and either has an ethernet interface or has driver support in FreeBSD 8.3 (pfSense 2.1) since it'll be used as a failover WAN connection.

    The only option I've found so far is Internet On The Go from TruConnect & WallyWorld. The down side is they're only selling the MiFi 2200 which requires one to compile a modified driver on FreeBSD and I just don't have the time. On top of that it's on Sprint's slow EV-DO network; the speed could be ok as a backup connection.

  45. ISP that charges 5$ for 1G ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shameless bastartds!

  46. Re:Not Cheaper by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

    eBook readers hardly use any bandwidth. Even a very large book is only a few megabytes.

  47. Re:Not Cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paying $20 for unlimited usage at 56kbps can be done with a modem and a telephone line. The price is not entirely based upon usage and never has been. Other factors include latency (lag), predictability of performance, minimum performance, downtime, and various other factors.

  48. Re:Not Cheaper by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    It's like paying to take your anorexic girlfriend to the world's most expensive all you can eat seafood buffet.

    On the other hand, if she's bulimic, there's a good chance she could really eat your money's worth... :p

  49. Re:Not Cheaper by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    You are ridiculously shortsighted.

  50. Where's my Economist!! by Eugriped3z · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see a comparative economic analysis of the value of those things delivered over the net versus their historical equivalent and the value of anything new offered as a result of Internet based tech. It seems to me that the price the consumer is asked to pay for bandwidth is going up, even though the cost to the provider remains the same of shrinks. After all, most consumers don't exercise control over the advertising that piggybacks on the content they request, and it's the flash-crap, embedded ads, surveys and cross-site scripting that account for the ten-fold increase in page size that's occurred as a result of Adobe and Macromedia's success peddling their products to advertizers.

    The dynamics of internet use and business costs seem weighted in favor of content providers, the supply side. The end user is asked to pay more and more, most of it to subsidize bandwidth the average user never uses. (Up until recently no one had ever heard of caps on "Unlimited" bandwidth). We're asked to be responsible for the geometric increase in bandwidth use, primarily for the benefit of advertizers and video consumption. What if I don't want my Internet connection to become what my TV used to be? Why should I subsidize the build out of high speed connections so Comcast, Time Warner and the like can pump my brain full of industrial waste?

    Before the internet became common, all you needed to receive TV and Radio was a device, and if you wanted print media, you purchased a book or a periodical. News junkies subscribed. Direct mail was expensive and ineffective.

    Now you need a computer and you pay for broadcast bandwidth. Everything has a price except periodicals )most of which ran to the cliff's edge like jihadists convinced they'd die if they didn't commit suicide first). Now you pay for video because televsion is worthless given the dilution and interruption of broadcast advertising. Advertising over the net has become ubiquitous and cheap, though no one can convince me it's any more effective than bulk mail, notwithstanding that fact it's more environmentally sound. Also, Internet use has nearly killed off the U.S. Post Office, and it's indirectly responsible for the concentration of ownership in the recording industry.

    Interactivity has definitely changed the landscape. I don't have to leave my house to shop, and you can play with your neighbor without leaving the house, meeting up or worrying about washing your clothes afterward. But it's not without eventual cost. The shopping part may be a benefit, unless except to those in rural areas which are both starved for bandwidth AND your universal postal service cost is escalating because of so-called competition from UPS and FedEx, which aren't required to keep prices the same for those who live in the boonies, like the USPS is.

    I could go on, but I'd be curious where the Internet-chair economists on Slashdot weigh in on this.... (I think).

  51. FreedomPop Spot Photon is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On a related note I bought the Spot Photon (essentially a MyFi running over WiMax instead of LTE) and it has been very good.
    You can get 500 MB data a month for free once you buy the box. Very small.
    Signal strength is pretty good in the places I go. It allows me to run Talkatone -> Google Voice perfectly.
    SMS / light web browsing etc. works properly.

    The end result is my 'cell' bill (T-mobile pay as you go) is now ~ $2 / month (WiFi for all other calls).

    That is the perfect use case for this device.

  52. Re:Not Cheaper by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Someone said that 30% of all Internet customers use 1 GB or less per month. But I'm sure that was made up, because when you ask the people on the tech web site, they all use more than that.

  53. 10GB for $10? I pay ~$12 for 30Mbit with no limits by citizenr · · Score: 0

    Average 200GB (200 up, 200 down) per month this year.
    Average 39Kbit upload, 100Kbit download since december 2011 (basically >3TB), and I turn off my computer for the night.

    Lol at US, third world country.

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  54. Re:Not Cheaper by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    XP hasn't reached the end of it's support lifecycle yet, it's still in extended support for another 13 months.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  55. Re:Not Cheaper by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    "ISP's make very little PROFIT after ALL BILLS ARE PAID"

    I call BS. They still make lots of money even after paying multi-million dollar salaries to their executives and dividends to shareholders.

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  56. $5 for each additional GB?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't you Americans use cables to link homes to the internet. Having home broadband supplied by cell towers or satellites seems pointlessly inefficient.

  57. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't pretend not to be apk. It's transparent and unseemly.

  58. Pricing by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

    So.. $10 for 10GB.. (or $1/GB).

    Then its $5/GB after that?

    So the second 10GB would cost $50??? 5 times as much? That seems.. insane..

    Whats to stop me from getting two devices/accounts, and then paying 2X $10 for the same 20GB?
    (could either load balance, or use one up until 10GB then switch to the other....)

  59. Disruptive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only use my phone now for all my need I tether my phone to laptop and TV.
    I buy no other services.

    And I am moving off the grid too 30 dollar water bill is now a 100 50 dollar electric bill is now 300.
    I will fix all those cost before I retire.

  60. Re:Not Cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like paying to take your anorexic girlfriend to the world's most expensive all you can eat seafood buffet.

    On the other hand, if she's bulimic, there's a good chance she could really eat your money's worth... :p

    Ironically, the cable company bundled channel debacle makes me wonder who they're "feeding" more. Sure seems like an all you can eat buffet when I "ask" for those 874 channels they give me. Too bad the menu reeks of shit.

  61. Re:Not Cheaper by TomC2 · · Score: 1

    Not just old OSes. It is quite normal for OSX updates to be in excess of 1Gb a piece.

  62. Just what Grandma needs by jbrohan · · Score: 1

    The elderly often live isolated and confusing lives and would profit from Skype Google Calendar and other specialized apps. It's not the cost of the Tablet or computer, but the repeating monthly charges that is the stopper. We make an app which can operate without any button pushes on the part of Grandma. It shows family pictures, medication reminders and has a way of keeping in touch by telephone, all without any input from Grandma. Several other features require that Grandma is able and willing to press a button, playing videos of the new baby for example, but we are working on that button press. Skype needs a click to receive a call, and another to end it. Well done FreedomPop (and Mom too)

  63. adblockers can decrease your data usage by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

    Adblocking usually works by not even requesting the ads to be blocked. The advertisements have to be referenced by an URL in the HTML of the main page which you've requested. Your adblocker software has a blacklist of sites which are not to be used since they are primarily used to serve ads or tracking gifs or such; so your adblocking add-on stops your browser from even requesting those subportions of the page which consist of those ads. That particular type of ad-blocking would actually decrease your bandwidth usage.
    .
    There is a different type of ad-suppression which requests and receives the advert components but just does not display them to you; that type of mechanism would waste bandwidth.

    1. Re:adblockers can decrease your data usage by mk1004 · · Score: 1

      What do ya know--you can actually sometimes learn something worthwhile on ./

      Thx.

      --
      I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
  64. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't pretend to be a sane. You don't do a good of a job of it.

  65. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off, Paul.

  66. Re:Not Cheaper by mjr167 · · Score: 1

    Which is why I mentioned people who don't play games or watch videos on the internet :P

  67. Free fiber by TripWire · · Score: 0

    Some of the newer fancier fiber networks around here have a free 512kbs down/512kbps up tier. No caps and no starting fee. All the apts already have the fiber box and if you just connect your ethernet cable to it you get the free tier by default. Not sure what they do with support.. The "loss" of income I guess is compensated by getting the build-out deal in the first place, taken back on the higher tiers, and of course when they already have to put the box there in the first place its not like the bandwidth consumed costs them anything other than pocket change these days.

  68. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take your own advice.

  69. been done in the UK by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Sky used to offer 2mbps broadband for free in the UK. It may have been only to their TV customers though.

    I didn't bother, I was already on a 20mbps cable link anyway. I did consider it for Sky's movie download service though - it used p2p tech for distribution and I didn't want them flooding my main connection's upload.

    No idea whether they still offer that or not.

  70. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get lost, troll.

  71. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak for yourself after this from you http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43096733

  72. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get lost, troll!

  73. Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speak for yourself after this from you http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43096733