Consumer Complaints About Broadband Caps Are Soaring (dslreports.com)

Karl Bode, reporting for DSL Reports: Consumer complaints to the Federal Communications Commission about broadband data caps rose to 7,904 in the second half of 2015 from 863 in the first half, notes a new report by the Wall Street Journal. The Journal filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the agency to obtain the data on complaints, which have spiked as a growing number of fixed-line broadband providers apply caps and overage fees to already pricey connections. According to the Journal, the FCC has received 10,000 consumer complaints about data caps since 2015.

Comments

We don't want data caps.

[ciscoguy01]

We don't want any data caps, just because we don't. Heh.

Re:We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah man, if they want to monetize their buildout, charge rent by the foot, not for the electrons that we pay to push through it....

Re:We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be fine with paying for the amount of data I use at a reasonable rate. In the U.S. it always seems to be an excuse for price-gouging, though. Used to be just for mobile ($10 per GB? bullshit), but now the cable companies are getting in on the act.

Re:We don't want data caps.

[ciscoguy01]

That was a tongue in cheek comment, since at some level *all* data is metered.
But the economics are quite different now than they were a few years ago.
Hosting that used to cost $10,000 a month because of transfers can now be had for less than $100 or $200.

We're talking about residential broadband here, and the incumbent Cable TV firms that are providing that badly want to protect their
expensive traditional Cable TV service which many people don't see as necessary anymore.
We want to stream what we want when we want.
We don't care that something is aired at 8PM on Tuesday, and we want to FF the commercials.
The data caps are to hamstring that. They will not be successful, in a little while.

Re:We don't want data caps.

[religionofpeas]

In the U.S. it always seems to be an excuse for price-gouging, though

I live in communist Europe, and I get 100/33 with no data caps.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[slasher999]

If everyone transferred the same amount of data every month that would make sense. In a case where I watch a couple HD movies a day I should pay more than my grandmother who checks her email once a day. I agree data caps are rediculous and are an effect of price competition between providers. Stop advertising pricing based on time (n per month) and start advertising pricing based on throughput. Consumers will adjust to the new model. There can be no "unlimited" plans period. They don't work. All you can eat may work for Golden Corral, not so much for an ISP.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The bulidout is built out. It's already been paid for by the cable company's lenders or the cable company itself. There's no additional cost to the build out other than maintenance.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Opportunist]

Then how about offering different tiers? You want the basic stuff with limited bandwidth, pay less, you want the premium package with unlimited everything, pay more.

But that's not what ISPs want to sell. They want to sell you insane speeds with anemic data amounts, because it's cheaper to put high speed connections to your home than it is to ensure that their backbones can actually handle it if everyone actually used what they pay for.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Wycliffe]

There are better ways of doing it than caps. There are a ton of QOS type tools that work much better than caps. Probably one of the best is where there are different buckets. For instance you get full bandwidth for the first 10G/day, after that it is throttle at halfspeed for the next 10G. You can also give free data after hours just like they used to for cellphones where it's cheaper at night. If instead of trying to gouge customers at the top with overage charges and trying to gouge customers at the bottom by selling them a high speed connection to check their email, companies actually looked at their customer base and came up with plans that were optimized for their customers instead of optimized for profit then you could make virtually everyone happy. Most of the torrent people know that they are heavy users and are smart enough to schedule downloads for overnight hours if the rules are clear. Yes, having posted limits is more complicated than just saying "unlimited" but there is really no such thing as "unlimited". Unlimited phone calls and texting only works because a person has to physically sit there and do it so it sets an artificial limit. It would be easy to have unlimited internet if the person had to be sitting in front of their computer to do it but when computers are on 24/7 then you need some sort of policy to make it fair for both heavy and light users.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

I should pay more than my grandmother who checks her email once a day

Hardly. Her internet connection costs about the same as yours. It's her "fault" for not making good use of it. She uses the same network hardware, the same wires and fibers. She probably even has higher support costs. The only "thing" you use more of is backbone bandwidth, both on the internal backbones of your ISP and on the global backbones. HD movies however are a bad example, because big ISPs source that traffic for free. Even without CDN peering sluts however, backbone traffic is cheap, $50/month for dedicated 100Mbps cheap. All in all, your grandma should probably be thankful that she can have a broadband connection for the same price, because without your "bandwidth hog" usage, she wouldn't have that option. She is not subsidizing your use: She eats from the buffet created for broadband users.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[religionofpeas]

But that's not what ISPs want to sell. They want to sell you insane speeds with anemic data amounts, because it's cheaper to put high speed connections to your home than it is to ensure that their backbones can actually handle it if everyone actually used what they pay for.

If the premium package is expensive enough, they can use the money to upgrade the backbones, and still have more profit at the end of the day.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[jez9999]

Yes there is such a thing as "unlimited".

Unlimited transfer per day = [line-speed-mbps] * 60 * 60 * 24

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Shinobi]

"There can be no "unlimited" plans period. They don't work. All you can eat may work for Golden Corral, not so much for an ISP."

You mean, they can't work over there in the Corporatist States of America, right? Because it clearly works here in Sweden, with plenty of ISP's competing. Right now, it's saturday prime time, and I still get my full capacity, despite living in a neighbourhood where my ISP alone has over 400 households as customers, and 80 in my house alone.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

There are a ton of QOS type tools that work much better than caps. Probably one of the best is where there are different buckets.

I think some ISPs use this method to calculate buckets.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[sconeu]

If the premium package is expensive enough, they can use the money to upgrade the backbones,

Ah ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! Aren't they so cute when they're naive?

If they spend the money on the backbone, then how will they afford a new yacht, hookers, and blow?

Re: We don't want data caps.

[CastrTroy]

But that doesn't give a reasonable limit. Even a 10 Mbit connection going fill throttle could transfer over 3 terabytes in a month. 10 Mbit is probably about as slow as you want if you want to be able to stream an HD movie. Most people want faster connections like 30 Mbit or 100 Mbit, and those would yield 9 and 30 terabytes if you used them to their full potential. This is why you need some other limit. If you only limit on line speed, then most people would only be able to afford 1 Mbit or less and they would be unable to stream video.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Zontar The Mindless]

From 2007:

Me: "So what's your usage cap?"
Bredbandsbolaget tech guy on phone: "'Usage cap?' Is that some kind of hat?"

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they spend the money on the backbone, then how will they afford a new yacht, hookers, and blow?

They get that from their extra customers. At least, that's how it works in Europe, where there's actual competition between ISPs.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

because it's cheaper to put high speed connections to your home than it is to ensure that their backbones can actually handle it

Their backbones are a rounding error on the cost of the last mile. Level 3 has 10x more backbone bandwidth than AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast combined, but they have 30x the revenue and 30x the market cap of Level 3.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, just hookers and blow.
The Yacht's waiting on the new subsidies to build new backbones.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too many people eat the ISPs' arguments hook, line and sinker. If you maxed out a 10Mbps connection, and the ISP had to buy transit for all of it, that would still cost a big ISP less than $10 per month. Of course a lot of that traffic isn't transit, because people who cause that much traffic use protocols which favor sources which are closer in the network, and even off-network traffic is often peered settlement-free. So those $10 are not just a hard upper limit, they are a limit that is never touched. Not even close. Caps are not a network management tool. They are one thing and one thing only: a money grab. If you wanted to get away with a higher contention ratio, you would have to reduce peak usage. But even with caps, almost everybody will use their broadband connection at the same time, the traffic peak, and "save" bandwidth when everybody else is also less interested in using their broadband connection. Unfortunately bandwidth cannot be saved. You can use it or not, but what you do has no effect on the bandwidth which is available tomorrow. Caps for saving bandwidth are like closing the window blinds to save sunlight.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

There can be no "unlimited" plans period. They don't work.

Curiously, my wired ISP ONLY offers unlimited plans. We have their 100/100 Mbps service partly 'cos we run web server, mail server, and cloud server at home for 43euro/month. The ISP also has 350/20 Mbps and 100/50 Mbps and probably others. Our mobile ISP also offers unlimited plans, and we have three of the "up to" 20 Mbps ones for 10euro/month; they also have "up to" 50 Mbps. No caps on either plan and no ports blocked.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[NormalVisual]

Most people want faster connections like 30 Mbit or 100 Mbit, and those would yield 9 and 30 terabytes if you used them to their full potential.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that most people aren't going to transfer anywhere near that much data, let's look at how data centers do things. Right now I'm leasing a dedicated server on a 100Mbit connection. It's a shared connection, so I can't always get the full bandwidth, but 99%+ of the time I can. I have an SLA, no caps and no filtering on the service, and what I pay includes the server (8 gigs RAM/500 GB RAID1 storage) bandwidth, 5 static IPs, and the infrastructure (power, A/C, UPS) to support it. I pay $29.00/month for this. For those that need a *lot* more bandwidth, a comparable server on a 1Gbps connection with a 100TB cap still costs less than $250/month. For both situations, if the aggregate total of customers begins using more bandwidth than the DC can handle, they bring in more connections to deal with it. Most times there aren't additional charges for this. Additionally, if there are any problems, I call or send a message to the provider, and usually have it completely rectified inside of 10 minutes.

Of course things are a bit different for residential customers - DCs don't usually have to deal with brain-dead customers like a lot of consumer ISPs do, and there are other additional maintenance and staffing costs that the ISPs have that DCs don't. That still doesn't explain why Comcast charges more than twice the amount I pay for my server for a connection at 1/4th the speed, with no static IPs, no SLA, and a limit on the amount of transferred data that's less than what I could transfer in two days. It also doesn't explain why AT&T (my current provider) can't seem to get IPv6 right, nor can they keep the connection up for more than a week without a service interruption of some sort.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[klubar]

It would be better if they sold data by the GB, rather than a fixed amount by the month. I agree that people who use more data should pay more, but once you buy a GB of data there should not be a time limit on when you can use it.

With the "by the month" model, the provider gets the breakage at the end of the month -- if you buy 10GB and only use 8GB, then you've paid for 2GB that you have used. However, if you go over the 10GB, then you pay for everything you use.

A fairer model is the electric or gas company where you pay a fixed fee for the physical wires or pipes and then a per KWHr or BTU variable cost.

For the car analogy: it's like if you buy 20 gallons of gas on Monday you have to use it up by the end of week. Any gas left over you have to return to the company. If you use more than 20 gallons you have to buy it at 5x the normal price.

The caps trick consumers into thinking the per GB cost is low... but only if you use up the entire amount. In the example above, if it's $50 for 10GB, and you only use 8, then your cost per GB isn't the advertised $5, but is $6.25/GB.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sell bandwidth by the gigabyte, because gigabyte is not a unit of bandwidth. ISPs don't produce gigabytes. They build networks which provide bandwidth: Mbps. Bandwidth can not be saved or stored. If you buy transit bandwidth in bulk, you can buy enough bandwidth to transfer terabytes of data for less than $10 a month. Don't let ISPs fool you: Volume pricing is a complete rip-off, and would still be a rip off at one hundredth of the prices they demand.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Wycliffe]

If you wanted to get away with a higher contention ratio, you would have to reduce peak usage. But even with caps, almost everybody will use their broadband connection at the same time, the traffic peak, and "save" bandwidth when everybody else is also less interested in using their broadband connection. Unfortunately bandwidth cannot be saved. You can use it or not, but what you do has no effect on the bandwidth which is available tomorrow. Caps for saving bandwidth are like closing the window blinds to save sunlight.

I agree that monthly caps are stupid but "peak data" caps/throttles would have an effect on capacity. ISPs should be encouraging customers to download large files during offpeak times. This is where "zero rating" should be used. ISPs should be giving away custom torrent clients that don't count towards your data usage because they only download when there is excess capacity.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[whoever57]

I agree that people who use more data should pay more, but once you buy a GB of data there should not be a time limit on when you can use it.

The issue here is: how much more? In practice, that extra bandwidth doesn't cost the ISP very much. Most of their costs are fixed infrastructure-related cost, that don't very very much if more bandwidth is consumed.

If bandwidth costs are variable, then time of use should also be taken into account. Using bandwidth in the middle of the night, when most people are not using any bandwidth, causes and additional cost to the ISP of approximately nothing.

Ultimately, bandwidth caps and charges are not connected to the ISPs' costs. Instead, they are aimed at protecting the cable business.

Re:We don't want data caps.

[tricorn]

We don't want data caps because they don't make any sense. There's no shortage of bytes, they don't cost anything. The scarce resource is not bytes but bandwidth. Limits on data, whether with caps or "overage fees", are a very crude and ineffective method of allocating available bandwidth.

Sell bandwidth directly, then allocate it based on current network availability. Use a modifier based on recent usage of an individual subscriber as a multiplier on current bandwidth allowed for short bursts for low usage subscribers (the opposite of throttling). Add on a multiplier based on current traffic demands. If no one is using it otherwise, who cares if someone is transmitting 30TB per month? The bandwidth is a sunk cost, not using it doesn't save any money.

It particularly doesn't make sense to cap/charge for data over an arbitrary billing period. Any bandwidth allocations (multipliers on your base rate) should always be based on recent usage (where recent can take into account the past few minutes to past few hours or past day or so), with the sole intent to provide for more effective sharing of a resource.

So, if I rarely use my connection for large transfers (e.g. a movie), I might buy a much lower amount of bandwidth (my base rate), and I'll get a much higher speed at most times. If I use it a lot, I might not get as much of a speed increase at low usage times (since I'm usually running at a lower priority because I'm not as "low usage" most of the time), so maybe I'd want to pay for a somewhat higher base rate. If I need high speeds at peak usage periods, I'd pay for an even higher base rate.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

HAHAHA! IPv6 and AT&T! I've ran into that problem too...they won't assign a native IPv6 address to anything outside their own equipment, so my mail server is stuck with a multicast IPv6. AT&T tells me that I can used their "Managed Internet Services" to get an assigned address, but still no way of getting one in the same manner of my static IP4s. Their DNS support actually had the nerve to send me their digg SOA response and claim "oh, we don't have the authority". This all stems from google's email throwing a 550 7.5.1 error. I solved it by adding IPv6 on my mail server, but it's still super-annoying after two decades IPv6 still isn't implemented correctly by one of the companies that helped write the original RFC.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[NormalVisual]

My particular beef with AT&T is that the crappy 2wire RG won't pass IPv6 properly to/from my router. It delegates the space like it's supposed to and my router gets a valid IPv6 address, but AT&T's modem just won't pass any traffic. Apparently you're not supposed to use a downstream router and are expected to just plug your gear directly into the RG. On top of that, a recent firmware upgrade blocks protocol 41 traffic "for security reasons" on my particular RG model, so 6in4 tunnels don't work either. Interestingly, this protocol 41 issue doesn't appear to affect their legacy DSL network, just uVerse.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but this country is full of people who vote against their own economic interests, who think that workers should have no rights, and who just seem to enjoy being economically abused at just about every turn. People like that will always buy the corporate line even when it makes zero sense, which perfectly describes landline data caps. There is no technical reason for them at all because the technology to solve the 'problem' exists. Of course that technology doesn't reach into your wallet and extract more money like bandwidth caps do.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Sweden)
The apartment complex i live in (46 households) includes internet-access, we pay something like $1500 per month (in total) for 100Mbit internet per apartment.
It's probably oversubscribed 4.6:1 (i guess 1Gbit in currently but i know they're upgrading their network to 10Gbit everywhere besides customer accesses) so if everyone tries to max out at once we'd have something like 21Mbit each, but I have never noticed any slowdowns or anything and i quite regularly max out the 100Mbit to my apartment in both directions when working from home.

The deal is similar if you're signing up for their services privately, 10/10Mbit for $24 per month, 100/100 for $33 per month, 250/100 for $35 per month, 1000/1000 for $80 per month.

No caps or anything even remotely resembling that. The equipment for the ISP is about 1.2-1.5x more expensive here in Sweden than in USA due to taxes and stuff, and the total tax pressure is a bit higher than the businesses there has as well, they have dedicated Netflix cache nodes in their network and peer with a bunch of other providers who push most of the content. I don't see why this wouldn't apply in other countries. Believing something else is just being stupid and/or naive.

Only downside is no IPv6 to customers yet.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Hmm...did you write this article? LOL! They describe the exact same situation. My Motorola 3801HGV seems to be passing IPv6; well, at least ping6 works and Google's mail server has stopped complaining after I implemented IPv6 on my mail server that's attached to the 3801HGV. But that article gives some ideas on how to get AT&T to send you a better router for free (eventually lol); just expect to spend some time on the phone. Also, if you do go that route, you can contact the "Office of the President" at rs2982@att.com; they've got several full-time staffers that handle any contacts and usually will actually call you within 24 hours and will actually try to fix whatever. I used to work as an AT&T CSR, we considered that the "nuclear option" for upset customers lol.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[NormalVisual]

No, I didn't write the article, but thanks for the link - that's very helpful! I have one of the 2Wire/Pace i3812V modems, which is quite possibly the crappiest piece of networking gear to hit the market. I'll get on the horn with AT&T and see if they can replace it with a Motorola. I suspect it's the 3812 that's causing my service interruptions, since they're pretty well known for having poorly-written firmware, and my outages usually resolve themselves within a couple of minutes. It's frustrating to lose the connection and look up to see that infamous flashing red light, and AT&T claims there's nothing wrong with the line.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[eyedentities]

They don't want to sell anything, just receive maximum revenue per subscriber

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

"my ISP alone has over 400 households as customers, and 80 in my house alone."

Census-Taker: Yeah. Well, I just need to fill out this Census form with you. Uh.. how many people live in this residence?

Mr. Leonard:Oh, boy.. good question. I'm bad with numbers.. Maybe 80.

Census-Taker: 80 people live in this apartment?

Mr. Leonard: Seems high, doesn't it? Not 80. How about 4? I don't know.. I'm so bad at guestimating..

Census-Taker: Well, just take your time, and count.

Mr. Leonard: Okay.. there's me.. my wife.. our plants.. we have some candy bars..

Census-Taker: Well, you know, we don't count candy bars or plants..

Mr. Leonard: Well, then, there's just the two of us. Boy, I really overshot with the 80!

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Shinobi]

I see that you, in your attempt to set up a strawman, conveniently edited out the part where I specified that I was talking about my neighbourhood and the house my apartment is in.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's me beef too. Why do we have to guess in advance what our usage will be and then get penalized either way for how badly we guessed. Electricity and water were never sold this way. Meter it if you have to, but enough with the games.

Re: We don't want data caps.

[VisceralLogic]

I think it's just a language difference. We don't typically refer to a building that contains apartments as a "house" over here. That typically implies a single-family residence.

How about speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some connections are horribly below what is advertised.

Re:How about speed?

[Opportunist]

For exactly the same reason as these data caps exist: ISPs vastly oversell their resources. And it ain't the first time, remember when dialup was the norm and you could barely ever reach your ISP because he though 100 lines is enough for a million customers, since, well, why would anyone ever want to be online 24/7?

Re:How about speed?

[pixelpusher220]

Data caps exist to make profit for the ISP nothing else.

Data caps do nothing to stop congestion as everybody is free to download at full speed up until their cap during which time congestion reigns.

This could also be completely mitigated by restricting speeds to a manageable level. That's your overselling of resources.

data caps don't do anything to resolve that; they just make money for the ISP.

Re:How about speed?

[religionofpeas]

Data caps do nothing to stop congestion as everybody is free to download at full speed up until their cap during which time congestion reigns.

That's not true. I have 1GB mobile cap, and I'm careful to ration it throughout the month. I'm not going to blow the whole cap on the first day, and then get nothing for the rest of it. And they're not getting any more money. I chose the cheapest deal I could find, that's why the cap is so low.

This could also be completely mitigated by restricting speeds to a manageable level. That's your overselling of resources.

At rather have a cap + high speeds than effectively the same cap at a lower speed.

Re:How about speed?

[pixelpusher220]

This is about landline ISPs introducing caps. A 1 GB cap on your home internet would be ridiculous. There is at least a fair argument about available bandwidth in the wireless space as it's a fixed medium that can't be extended. Wired infrastructure just needs more wires added if there's congestion at promised speeds.

"But investment costs money!" yes it does. Now ask yourself why these ISPs are blocking any other providers from moving into their areas? Because they don't want the competition and are buying (and actually writing!) the laws to do this. linky

Re:How about speed?

[Bengie]

How much you use does not matter, it's when you use it. Unless you're using your phone at 2am, you're not reducing congestion by spreading it out.

Re:How about speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

On cellular I have a 50GB mobile cap, 4G almost everywhere i go, cap on calls at 3000minutes per month and 3000 sms'es per month. I rarely use office WiFi anymore and just switch to 3G when i'm not on cable. Also a separate simcard with another 50GB for my laptop. Cost? $80 per month.

This is on the limited radio spectrum..

Sometimes i notice it slows down to a crawl (1-5Mbit/s) in some areas during evenings though. that's probably due to the limitations of the spectrum.

Caps on landlines doesn't really make sense. it's so easy and so cheap to build out the capacity to support your customers, even across an entire continent. As long as you have laid down fiber..

Not a Big Truck

[Anonymous Coward]

the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material

Re:Not a Big Truck

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's why QoS exists, if ISPs can't do that with individual connections then they shouldn't be ISPs.

Only wireless towers have actual limitations due to the air being shared.

Re:Not a Big Truck

[sumdumass]

Doesn't QoS violate net neutrality? I mean it would be favoring one traffic of a service over another.

Re:Not a Big Truck

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking more about giving users connected to the same DSLAM or similar redistribution box a fair share of bandwidth

Re:Not a Big Truck

[NormalVisual]

I don't think QoS in and of itself violates the idea of net neutrality, so long as it's done in a manner that ignores who the traffic is going between. Certain types of traffic are more time-dependent than others (VoIP for instance), so I don't really have a problem with prioritizing the *type* of traffic. I do have a problem with the ISP prioritizing VoIP/video traffic involving their own services over that involving outside providers.

Re:Not a Big Truck

[Anonymous Coward]

Prioritizing traffic is not an issue if you don't have buffer bloat. If you can maintain at most 5ms of bloat, then a packet will never get delayed more than 5ms.

Re:Not a Big Truck

[Bengie]

Use an AQM to dynamically apply QoS based on flow usage. All flows get the same priority, but flows that use more get less priority. Done at a microsecond level. Look up Cake, they can do this with a small fixed amount of state, but scales to an infinite number of flows with no increase of state storage. Torrent all you want, VoIP won't even notice. You don't even need to classify traffic. Automagtically works, only need to know your bandwidth.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Without paying for it? I'd like to see your free ISP.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama said there'd be Change, man. Promises were made.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you daft?

The person is saying they don't want overage charges and arbitrary limits aimed at a balance point aimed at what most people wouldn't use and prolific users would cross often enough to be concerned about.

Nothing said that they wanted internet without paying. People like consistency. Works wonders for business.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH CAPS?

[zenlessyank]

They're Great!!

Re:WHAT'S WRONG WITH CAPS?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's great when there are caps for everybody except me!

Re:WHAT'S WRONG WITH CAPS?

[bool2]

Nothing wrong with them. But because they are bigger than lower case letters they must use more of something to transmit so definitely you should be charged more to transmit them!

Re:WHAT'S WRONG WITH CAPS?

[Opportunist]

There is exactly two things that are wrong with them.

First, the psychological one. Getting a 100mbit link and a data cap of 10GB is like selling you a Ferrari but you only get 2 gallons of gas per month. What good is the Ferrari then? It's useless. Yes, it looks pretty and your friends will surely admire it and how fast it goes for the half mile you actually can drive, but that wears off quickly. You don't get more out of it than you got from your old Lada. Which is, incidentally, why people kept dialup for VERY long here even after broadband took over because broadband was metered, unlike the old dialup contracts. That alone should give an indicator of what people REALLY want. They'd rather have 1/100 of the speed than a data limit.

And second, and that's the bigger problem, it is used as an artificial life support for outdated products like cable TV. With a data cap, you can essentially keep people from replacing TV with streaming. That alone should be enough of an indicator why caps are a problem. They are just another attempt of a company to avoid having to deal with changing technology and a thinly veiled attempt at stopping the progress of technology from rolling over them and crushing them.

Dinosaurs don't want to die. And they sure can't adapt to change.

Re: WHAT'S WRONG WITH CAPS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they could make cable something more than hundreds of channels with crap nobody wants to watch, but that's actual hard work.

capped for three years

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived with Comcast data caps for about three years. My neighborhood was a great place to establish the practice as normal business. There's no competition other than AT&T 768 kbit DSL. I live in a densly populated low income area sprinkled with businesses about a mile from my 300k + city's center. Local politicians actively block attempts by commercial competitors and a neighboring municipality's public ISP that want to expand their into the area while refusing to enforce commitments made by AT&T that were a requirement for them to start offering video service in the suburbs. Meanwhile the public utility company has spent gobs of money upgrading poles for infrastructure that never gets built out.

It's like the local government version of the military-industrial complex but I can't figure out why or how to fix it. When city and county government officials can be bought out with a couple free meals at the Cheesecake Factory what are you supposed to do?

Re: capped for three years

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy them cheesecake?

Re:capped for three years

[Anonymous Coward]

In order for corruption to stop it needs to be exposed, and alternatives that benefit everyone need to be put on the table.

Re: capped for three years

[Opportunist]

As far as I know it's still considered cruel&unusual punishment to suffocate politicians with cheesecake.

That's because companies are stupid about it

[Sycraft-fu]

Most consumers can deal with a data cap fine... if it is reasonable. It turns out most people are reasonable Internet users: They use it to get what they want, and leave it idle otherwise so that others can share. It is only some people who really abuse it (like torrent heads who download any and everything just to have it) that would complain about any cap, no matter what it is.

However rather than use it as a tool to help network quality, ISPs get greedy and try to use it to milk extra money from consumers. That means they want to set the cop too low on purpose, so people overrun it and have to pay more.

Like I have no issue with my data cap on Cox. For one, it is quite reasonable, 2TB. That's a lot of usage, even with a high speed line. So the chances of me hitting it are very low, even if I have a month where I'm using a ton of data for whatever reason (like restoring from an online backup or something). Also it is a soft cap. If I hit it they don't shut me off, just call me and pester me (or maybe not even that if it isn't much over, I don't know I've never hit it). Only if there are repeated problems would they act.

Now compare that to my boss who's on Comcast and ends up hitting his cap every month. Part of that is because he has a family whereas I'm single but more is because it is a 300GB cap. Our line speeds are the same (or near enough) but Comcast gives 15%ish of the bandwidth and it is a hard cap, you go over you pay a ludicrous amount for more. He's really annoyed, and I would be too in that situation.

It seems when they start charging money for it, they just can't help but get greedy and stupid.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Solandri]

Agreed about Cox. I'm on Cox with a 700 GB/mo cap. I don't come anywhere close to using that much. The one month I broke 600 GB/mo was right after i finished setting up my Plex server and downloaded a metric ton of anime. And the only reason I know I used that much is because I was worried about the data cap so looked it up. And that's when I learned that Cox doesn't cut you off if you exceed your cap (they don't even have a policy for sending you a warning - they just say they may do something about it in the future).

It seems when they start charging money for it, they just can't help but get greedy and stupid.

You and I are fortunate that Cox is playing good cable company. Caps and prices are screwed up at the other cable companies because the local governments have eliminated competition by awarding cable monopolies. If there were competition, a cable company implementing unreasonable caps or prices would put themselves out of business by causing their customers to flee to a competitor..

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[dhawton]

Lucky for you two.. in 2012, when I was living in northwest Florida, Cox's cap was 350GB for the top-tier residential package.. my roommate and his fiance watched a ton of NetFlix.. I only found out about the cap when the shut me off for hitting the cap. I called the main customer service number, the one given by the "Your account has been suspended" screen when I tried to access the internet.. they had no idea what was going on and the only note on the account was to call the local office. Once I finally got ahold of someone, they told me my account had been shut off for using the cap, so they waited for me to call to give me a warning about it. They told me the next month, any overages could result in overage fees. Yes, this was Cox.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem is that the companies are charging without consent. It's difficult to keep track of usage especially when you are required to go by the companies metric. At the ridiculously priced overage cost, being over even just a little is extremely costly. This is clearly a scam as it could be priced more reasonably like electricity is. Almost nobody would want to pay a few hundred in overages especially when internet usage is hard to control for non-technical users. If asked to continued providing internet at those ridiculous rates, almost nobody would accept.

They could easily just throttle it down to bare minimum (ideally) or just cut it off. But unfortunately, there is so much greed without little recourse when we have government-approve natural monopolies/oligopolies.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[pixelpusher220]

Is Cox the only ISP you can choose from?

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[evilviper]

they want to set the cop too low on purpose, so people overrun it and have to pay more.

My pet peeve is services that have the same cap across all their different service levels... 5Mbps or 500Mbps having the same cap is absurd, and eliminates any real benefit to the higher-priced plan.

The big problem is landline internet service providers want it both ways... They want to sell you SPEED, and then sell you QUANTITY. Can you imagine your water utility charging you more money for 40PSI service instead of their less-expensive 5PSI service, and then you pay for volume of water consumed as well?

At least cellular services stick to just quantity... 1GB, 5GB... Pay more if you use more. it'll all be at maximum speed, either way. I'd be happy to buy my landline internet service that way, so long as the lowest data-usage tier is no more than maybe $5/mo. Of course they don't want that, because most people have an internet connection they barely use. And the truth is, bandwidth is a trivial cost to your service provider, as many have admitted.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Sycraft-fu]

Well yes and no with bandwidth cost. The marginal cost, like per bit routed is minimal to none. However the infrastructure isn't free and the more people want to use, the more of it you need. That's where sharing and playing nice have to come in. You can't just say "Well get more capacity," because not only does that cost money, but there are limits you start to reach in terms of how much traffic a router can pass and so on. It is a lot for the really big ones, but still limited (900tbit/sec total capacity is about the most you can get in a router at this point and that's all ports aggregated).

Goes double when you are talking something like cable since you share the network with neighbours, and you share the spectrum of the wire with video. They can devote more spectrum to data, but only so much. There are limits, economic and technical, to the amount of bandwidth they can reasonably provide to a given neighbourhood and so sharing is a must if costs are going to be reasonable. Doesn't mean they have to be dicks about it, which they are, but it is not infinite.

Also the water analogy isn't a good one because that is, in fact, how it works. With utilities you pay more for a bigger hookup AND you pay for usage. The price you pay for having your little 50 psi hose-sized house hookup is much less than you'd pay for a bigass commercial hookup. No matter what the size, you pay for usage. Of course with utilities paying for usage makes sense since it is a resource you are using. Just not a good analogy for Internet.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Man I'd love to even have your worse deals. The best I can get here (suburban Canada) is 15 mbps up, 2 down, 150 GB max, for 80$/month. And that's only since last year. Before that we were still on phone line internet.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

15mbps UP and 2mbps DOWN? Are you sure it's not the other way around? In any case, if you can have 15mbps down at 80$/month isn't there slower, cheaper options? 15mbps down is excessive for anything but multiple HD video streaming.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Zontar The Mindless]

...if you can have 15mbps down at 80$/month isn't there slower, cheaper options? 15mbps down is excessive for anything but multiple HD video streaming.

100/100 Mbps is the slowest option offered by my ISP, and costs us about US$45/month. I could upgrade to 350/350 or 500/500, but with just my wife and me that seems a bit excessive.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian Here - Plans in British Columbia, while still expensive, actually seem to be some of the most reasonable in North America in terms of what you get. $130/mth for 100/20mbit and unlimited (not fake "unlimited", as far as I can tell) bandwidth.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm been averaging 17Mb/s 24/7. About 180GiB/day. 700GiB doesn't last long. Everything legal I must add.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay for it if I use it or not and the chose to sell it to me so what does it matter if I chose to send it straight to \dev\null to max my connection out asnd use up my limit each month?

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Bengie]

Only 900Tb/s? That's only 900,000 1Gb links and several times more bandwidth than peak world wide usage. If a single router has enough bandwidth to handle the entire world without congestion, then 10 of these should be able to be 10x faster.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Sycraft-fu]

Citation needed on that peak worldwide number. Also that single router is the Cisco CRS-X, when outfitted with maximum number (72) of 16-slot shelves fully populated with line cards and represents the maximum aggregate switching capacity of the system. Each shelf being an 84-inch rack and costing 6-7 figures.

Seriously, big bandwidth costs big money and requires high end ASICs. If it actually interests you, spend a bit of time looking in to it (it is really cool, I love high end networking gear). If not no biggie, but don't then cry that things should be able to be much cheaper without an understanding of some of the costs involved.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[evilviper]

the infrastructure isn't free and the more people want to use, the more of it you need.

The end-user connection equipment has some costs, but that's up-front, and doesn't change with maximum or minimum usage.

Goes double when you are talking something like cable since you share the network with neighbours, and you share the spectrum of the wire with video.

Absolutely not. A coax cable has over 1GHz of bandwidth, and that's only shared within a neighborhood these days, as nearly all have fiber-optic distribution. It's an absolutely absurd amount of available throughput.

You can max-out most of the connections almost all the time, without problems. The only limitation is peak usage periods, and that just means some minimal throttling during a few hours of the day.

In any case, you're still splitting hairs. There are innumerable cases where major service providers have admitted (usually to their shareholders) that additional usage adds no additional operating cost to their company, and cap/overage fees are just free money for them.

the water analogy isn't a good one because that is, in fact, how it works. With utilities you pay more for a bigger hookup AND you pay for usage.

"Bigger hookup" has only very little to do with PSI, or the networking equivalent of speeds. It's just a secondary limitation to your usage/throughput.

Of course with utilities paying for usage makes sense since it is a resource you are using. Just not a good analogy for Internet.

It is a good analogy, because ISPs are TRYING to charge people exactly how I stated, on two independent metrics, neither of which actually adds much additional cost to providing the service.

Re:That's because companies are stupid about it

[Bengie]

Citation needed on that peak worldwide number.

I guess you missed many of those /. posts about peak bandwidth over the years. Even if not "world wide", Netflix(~35%) and Youtube(~20%) make up 50% of peak USA internet usage and Netflix has claimed during FreeBSD conferences that they are near the 10Tb/s mark. It doesn't take much to figure out the USA's peak bandwidth is below 100Tb/s, or was several years back when this data was valid.

I do agree that those network devices are expensive, but when you're making $3bil+/month in revenue from the services those router provides, they are suddenly very cheap.

Data caps aren't bad in of itself....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just the extremely low data caps that "broadband" provider seems to think is enough that are bad.
Anything below 200GB is NOT enough in this digital age yet there are still many such "broadband connections" that only have a 40~60GB cap. Sure, grandma doesn't use that much, but anyone below the age of 30 probably does and more, especially if they no longer use cable tv.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

There is change - it's all you've got left from your paycheck.

Thanks Obama!

Caps are too low, unreasonable and unnecessary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, the simple fact is us consumers are being abused. The caps are intentionally too low, because they have no purpose other than to squeeze out more revenue. It's rent seeking. The sick part is we built their tenements for them. We gave the ISPs billions in tax subsidies to build out better infrastructure, and they didn't. Rather, they kept the subsidies AND retained ownership of the infrastructure. I don't actually give a shit how we solve it, but less regulation is not the solution in this case. Unlike what seems like everyone sometimes, I don't have an ideological position for more or less regulation. Some regulation helps and some hurts. It's not all bad, and it's not all good. But, it's clear that the broadband industry needs more regulation. Here's my position: as long as low regulation and deregulation is working for all of us, great. But, when an industry is clearly abusing its consumers and obviously has no intention or incentive to change, it's time to bring out the big regulatory hammer. I guess we no longer have a big hammer. The only regulation that seems to pass anymore is regulatory capture benefiting the entrenched players.

We need out legislature to work for us. Look at the democratic race. It basically centers around the fact that even if the Bernie has more popular support, the party will just give the super delegates to Hillary. They're fucking us. They are fucking us harder than the ISPs. And, we still don't vote third party. No, that would be throwing your vote away. It's like high school. If you don't vote for the most popular candidate for student council, it's because you're a loser. If you don't vote for a major party, it's throwing your vote away, because you picked a loser. Jesus, this country is fucking retarded.

Re:Caps are too low, unreasonable and unnecessary.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mostly agree with you but the simple problem with regulation is that regulators and politicians can be bought by lobbyists. I know for a fact that if Google fiber came through my area, my cable internet prices would drop by $20/month and they would lift the data caps, because Google fiber is $80(?) a month for gigabit with no data cap. What we really need is mandated competition in all cities, and then force those ISPs to offer same price service to the surrounding suburbs. Unfortunately, if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere miles from anyone, you are still stuck with hybrid satellite or something. Competition with close scrutiny to prevent collusion with mid sized companies is the only durable, long term way to ensure that the customer doesn't get screwed over time and again. The bottom line is AT&T, Comcast, TWC and Cox all need to be broken up into smaller non-profit companies. They have become too large and are actively corrupting the government instead of working to provide what is at this point a basic need of society.

Re:Caps are too low, unreasonable and unnecessary.

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Thanks for your comment. I'm glad that someone gets it.

this is why

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I pay extra for a "business connection". No caps, static IPs, PTR records, no DCMA torrent monitoring, etc. The only issue I've ran into is a layer-7 SMTP block, which got removed with a phone call. But having to pay $95 a month for it does suck quite a bit. Several years ago I knew this was coming; once we got "conditioned" via cellular data caps, hardline caps were next. Without specific laws to stop them, corps will do everything and anything for extra profit. Good luck with those complaints, your also probably locked into a forced non-court arbitration agreement in your multi-volume "terms of service contract" too.

If I had to pay for my bandwidth, I figure our bill would be at $600-$800 a month. Maybe less now that UVerse was bumped up. I forgot to install bandwidthD, and AT&T's page just says "your unlimited so we don't know" on my current usage lol.

Re:this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay extra for a "business connection". No caps, static IPs, PTR records, no DCMA torrent monitoring, etc.ab.

Sounds nice and I have thought about getting a business connection. I've also thought about upgrading my connection for faster speeds. I have the money for either. But, the main thing that keeps me from upgrading is that Comcast would get more money from me. Fuck that and fuck Comcast.

Re:this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

My ISP only sells business connections. 100/100 dedicated for $45/m, almost $50 after all the taxes and fees. Additional $10 if you want a static block. Past month. Avg ping 1.5ms, std-dev 0.3ms. Max average 5ms, max std-dev 5ms. Max loss 0.00%. Ping to Chicago AT&T, Verizon, and AT&T, 6-8ms, jitter less than 1ms. 95th percentile 95.5Mb/s. ISP is over 100 years old, they're not going anywhere.

Re:this is why

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Funny is my account is only an 18MB per the bill, but still gets 24MB down all the time. AT&T cut all the cable inside the enclosures years ago so they are the only game at my complex...

Re:this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

Several years ago I knew this was coming; once we got "conditioned" via cellular data caps, hardline caps were next.

Uh, this is nothing new. Home internet caps have been in place since cable was being rolled out around 1997. Only problem was, back then they were set so high that only the most prolific of downloaders would hit them. We used to cut people off for using 50gb, although our current cap is now 250gb. Now everyone and their dog are hitting the limits.

Re:this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

[...]no DCMA torrent monitoring[...]

So you think paying for a business-class connection exempts you from federal copyright law? Also it's DMCA.

We have caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, I get 100 mbps down, 10 mbps up, no caps for $30/mo

Re:We have caps?

[msk]

And where is that?

Re:We have caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real nice. Here I have 15 down, 2 up, 150gb max, lots of connection issues for $80 a month.

Re:We have caps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seattle WA

twilight zone

[Anonymous Coward]

Over here in Europe, the caps on broadband/DSL/fiber/cable/whathaveyou have been gone for ages. There.Are.No.Caps. And the world didn't end on account of that as we have indeed fair prices for fair service. Let me say it again: unlimited internet usage.

Meanwhile in the US it seems like the stoneage of 1990s metered connections. Honestly, I don't understand how you can put up with being abused by the telecoms so badly.

Re:twilight zone

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have any guns. Oh wait.

Re:twilight zone

[Anonymous Coward]

Die, you lazy eurotrash. You lemmings are blissfully heading to your socialist cliff.

Re:twilight zone

[jordan_robot]

We have no recourse. It's either a) pay whatever the fuck they want us to or, b) decline internet.

Re:twilight zone

[Zontar The Mindless]

Ooh, gotta love that butthurt.

(Come to the Dark Side... We have bandwidth.)

Re:twilight zone

[Anonymous Coward]

Touché, every place has its good and bad sides.

Re:twilight zone

[tepples]

Or c) see if an employer in Great Britain or Ireland will sponsor your work visa.

Re:no surprise

[Opportunist]

People? Really? Did you do a survey, or what led you to that conclusion?

The complaints logged with the FCC would rather tell me that "people" prefer to get what they pay for.

Re:no surprise

[Opportunist]

No. Fuck no. People, you need to read what's there and not what you want to read into it. Same goes for contracts.

He said "Yes we CAN". CAN. Being able to.

Nobody ever said anything about actually DOING something.

Hey

[Anonymous Coward]

All of those extra zeros and ones have to be made in a factory somewhere, then sent by truck to your ISP.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

They (we) don't want unlimited bandwidth. They want to use the bandwidth for as long as they want (and paid for), not some ridiculously short time and then get charged again for the bandwidth that they already paid for. For example, 50Mbps is good for 16TB/month, not 200GB/month. A broadband connection that's capped at 200GB is a burstable 0.6Mbps connection, not a 50Mbps connection.

This helps vs. caps, malware & FAR more... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use + complexity vs. local DNS, routers & antivirus w/ less security issues. Compliments firewalls (no layered drivers firewalls use blocking less used IP addys, hosts block more used hostnames) & DNS (lightens dns load). Gets data via 10 security sites.

Works vs. HTTP PUSH ads in Chrome w/ firewalls.

* Ads rob speed you pay for, security (openbid ad networks malware makers abuse), privacy in tracking + anonymity.

(Hosts gain speed (hardcodes + adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. downed dns), & anonymity (dns requestlogs/trackers) w/ what you natively have. Hosts != blockable by ClarityRay like Adblock/UBlock/Ghostery)

APK

P.S. - Proven safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

(Verified by Mr. S. Burn of Malwarebytes: "I've seen the code & yes it is safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

Re:no surprise

[Calydor]

And at what point does getting what you pay for somehow NOT equal consistency?

A bit of math.

[Chas]

Okay, my mom pays for a 75 MBit connection a month.
But there's, ostensibly, a 300 Gig cap a month.

If a cablemodem were run at maximum throughput for that month, it'd pull down approximately 23 terabytes.
The cap is, essentially, 1.2% of that.

Now, nobody is saying that a consumer connection should deliver that full 23 terabytes month in and month out. While bandwidth is (relatively) cheap, it sure as hell isn't THAT cheap, and it's understandable that various broadband companies simply couldn't handle that sort of demand in a cost efficient manner.

But 1.2%?

That's like buying a car that would normally get 400 miles on a full tank of gas, and having the dealer swap in tank that only gives you 5 miles to a fill up.

If they have to cap, those paying for higher speed tiers should be seeing larger caps. They're certainly ALREADY paying a price premium.

Look at Comcast's Economy Starter package. 10Mbit connection. Using the 300GB as a benchmark, that equates out to about 10% bandwidth utilization in a month.

So, as much as I'd like to say "free bandwidth, no caps", I'm betting the broadband companies out there would rather burn their entire network to the ground than try to supply that.

So, if we're going to get stuck with caps, make the caps realistic to the type of connection being sold.

Re:A bit of math.

[Anonymous Coward]

While bandwidth is (relatively) cheap, it sure as hell isn't THAT cheap

I'm curious. What do you think it would cost a big ISP to buy 75Mbps of dedicated bandwidth (i.e. unshared and unlimited), and how much does your mother pay for her 75Mbps connection?

Re:no surprise

[Austerity Empowers]

Nonsense, we're paying for a particular bandwidth, only that they don't actually want us to use it very much.

Re:no surprise

[HiThere]

When you say "Freeloaders" do you mean the ISPs? They took government money to provide fast service, and then didn't build out, so that seems a charitable term to use for them.

I read somewhere

[rsilvergun]

that Cox (or was it Comcast) reported in their SEC filing that the actual cost of providing broadband is about $7/mo (total cost). Being an SEC filing it wasn't likely to be a lie (you don't lie to investors. Everyone else, ok, but not investors ).

I don't know about the rest of /. but I pay $75/mo. There's really only 1 broadband provider. In theory I could go with DSL but it's slow, very unreliable and when it breaks they don't fix it. They just wait for you to cancel service and go back to cable.

When we have a service that has so much demonstrated value and that virtually everybody wants and that costs only $7/mo to provide you'd think we'd make it a public utility. Of course, everytime we suggest that it gets shouted down with "Do whatever you want just not with _my_ money!"... :(. I miss doing things for the public good. And I miss the days (how brief) when we didn't just hand billions of dollars worth of public infrastructure to companies so they could take on a 90% surcharge.

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

It didnt' help when Republicans made it a plank to see Obama could do nothing.

Yes and no

[Sycraft-fu]

Technically, I can get Century Link but they aren't really competition. Cox offers speeds ranging from 15/2mbps to 300/30mbps. Century Link only goes to 6mb/768k which is really not at all enough for the Interwebs these days. They could stop being retards and roll out fibre, of course, but they won't because they are a phone company and thus have a terminal case of the stupids. Also in theory there are CLECs at Century Link but I'm not sure the status these days and they can't give any higher speeds. Wireless Internet might be available too, there are a couple companies that offer it in my city not sure if they could get it to my specific location. Again though, much slower, maybe 15mbps max. Cox is the only realistic choice I have at this point. Comcast is also in the city, but it is divided by region. So there's no place where you choose Cox or Comcast, whichever one you get in a given area is the one you get. My area is thankfully Cox.

Don't worry, Republicunts will make it worse

[Anonymous Coward]

People want better broadband, less restrictions, less cost?
Do not worry, the Republican Congress is here to prevent that.
Why have an FCC?

A bigger issue with more "cloud" computing?

[MtViewGuy]

I think Comcast doesn't realize the data cap issue could be MUCH more serious than they thought.

It may be more than just a streaming video problem from Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, and so on. The likes of Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft are pushing for more and more operations "though the cloud," and that could really use up a lot of data over the Internet in the near future.

I believe that the downfall of data caps won't be a lawsuit from Netflix, Amazon or Hulu, but from Apple, Google and Microsoft as these tech companies embrace more and more "cloud computing" initiatives. And Comcast doesn't have the deep pockets of Apple, Google and Microsoft when it comes to legal wrangling.

File under duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

America the land of nothing but rip offs.
I will be cord cutting but no how they expected. Prices are now where they want internet access worse than I do.
I am going fishing I will use internet payment on boat payment instead no tv nothing.
What is in the air.
I can go to Mickey D's and get coffee see the news.

Re: no surprise

[Type44Q]

At the point where pretending otherwise gives you an imaginary excuse to assert yourself over strangers on a web forum. ;)

Don't worry, Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

I guarantee that not a single one of those 10k people would ever be willing to vote against Republicrats. If you legislate to keep caps legal, your job is safe.

Advertising bps, if there's a cap, is fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Monthly caps mean that the most sensible unit of measure for Internet access is Terabytes Per Month. (I'm currently on a 0.3TBpM plan and Centurylink keeps sending me offers to "upgrade" to a different 0.3TBpM plan .. for more money?!? WTF?)

If there is a monthly cap, then advertising speeds in weird units like "bits per second" looks like evidence of intent to commit criminal fraud, and then if the number advertised in those units happens to be objectively false (such as CenturyLink's claim that I have 7 Mbps, when 300000000*8/(30*24*3600) = 926 bits per second on a 30-day month) then you have proof of fraud. (7 Mbps would have a monthly "cap" of about 2.2 TB.)

I have to wonder if it would really be all that hard to help a jury see it that way; I kind of think that even the average person would "get it." Maybe a few prison terms could go a long way toward addressing the fraud problem.

$2 per month infrastructure cost

[Anonymous Coward]

Figures place the infrastructure cost to supply broadband cable to one subscriber at around $2 per month, and this is largely fixed, no matter how much utilization there is (including 24/7 max downstream and upstream).

Anyone who can defend 200-300gb caps on a $100+ per month line is clueless.

No, it doesn't, and spammers suck ass.

[Anonymous Coward]

N/T.

Competition

[denbesten]

I think the bigger issue is a lack of significant competition. For example, look at cities where Google Fiber is even just a rumor. All the sudden, the incumbents start offering faster connections with greater bandwidth and for less money than they do in other locales. What we really need to do is to make it easier for Google and others to expand into more cities.

One of the most significant barriers to entry is that the telco and cable providers have exclusive use of the "low voltage" part of the pole. Requiring utility poles to be publicly owned and for space on them to be leased on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to all providers would go a long way towards encouraging this.

How would an average person use over 300GB/month

[Anonymous Coward]

I am curious, how will an average person use over 300 GB/month, or 10 GB/day, or 2/3 GB per waking hour, without piracy, and watching videos online? If the 2 MB size of a web site is true, that would be a different website every 11 seconds.

The problem with your line of reasoning

[rsilvergun]

is that a lot of folks will counter by saying that the last thing we need is _more_ government regulation. Gov't is the problem, not the solution, and the worst words you'll ever here are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

I don't know what to say to that. I've never found a way to counter folks that say that. Part of the problem is these folks listen to right wing talk radio that gives them talking points to reinforce their viewpoint. They can out maneuver most folks in a debate because they've got a multi-billion dollar industry feeding them lines to say.

As for why this tiny minority of people matter, well that's because we're a 2 party winner take all system of government that frequently engages in voter suppression. None of that is an accident. Our entire system of gov't was designed from the ground up to limit the capacity of democracy to challenge the ruling class.

Re:The problem with your line of reasoning

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what to say to that. I've never found a way to counter folks that say that. Part of the problem is these folks listen to right wing talk radio that gives them talking points to reinforce their viewpoint. They can out maneuver most folks in a debate because they've got a multi-billion dollar industry feeding them lines to say.

GP here. You'll never defeat dogma with logic, unfortunately. People who say that are idiots. Lots of people dogmatically hold fast to trickle down economics too. The evidence is pretty clear: Reaganomics doesn't work for the society as a whole. Dogma or not, if we don't get rid of Reaganomics, we risk ruining the consumer economy which is at the heart of US greatness. Our economy does not work without a middle class which spends money. We can complain that the poor have too much money because they have TVs and iPhones, but that is not right. We should be complaining that the poor SHOULD be middle class, and they SHOULD be buying even more, not less. And, they can't do it on debt or we're just distorting the future.

Re:no surprise

[mysidia]

Exactly.... Imagine of cars were sold this way. Advertised as: Can go from 1 to 60mph in 6 seconds; In the fine print: the engine is limited how long it can operate a speed above 25 Mph.... the limit is 5 minutes per day.

"Ne'er-do-well" trolls like you = worse... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject:.. & blocking ads (that infect us too) does so alone (hosts do a LOT more than that, for less vs. any 1 "so-called 'competitor'" out there, bar-none...)

* MINUS stupidly & illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" like an imbecile would, that slows you down too!

("When the solution is simple, God is answering" - Einstein, albeit in this case? It's MYSELF "The LORD of hosts", so-to-speak, instead!)

APK

P.S.=> I cannot be taken down by idiots like yourself, which is WHY I am outright challenging Google to bring in their 'finest' PhD to take me on (nobody here can validly or technically)-> https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Trade off?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm fine with broadband caps under the following conditions:

1.) Caps have to cover all levels of usage (low user pay less, heavy users pay more, not just heavy users pay more).

2.) Caps have to be stated CLEARLY in all marketing

3.) End to all broadband monopolies

Deal?

Complaints are soaring?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even 9,000 complaints in a year ... out of how many million broadband subcribers?

Not all residential zones can get business class

[tepples]

You're fortunate. Some people live in areas where business class connections are available only to subscribers physically located in a business-zoned part of the city.

Re:no surprise

[Opportunist]

Say, how fast is your line allegedly according to your provider? And how much thereof do you really get?

Re:Not all residential zones can get business clas

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I guess those places haven't heard of a "home business". As a last resort, someone could get an EIN online within a few minutes and use this if the ISP requires one.

Re:Not all residential zones can get business clas

[tepples]

The business is being run out of a business that the city or county considers to be in a residential zone.

Why do people buy crippled plans?

[ukoda]

Please don't votes down as flame bait. For those of us not in the USA we do genuinely wonder why someone would chose a capped plan? A few years back here in NZ we were envious of US customers who had unlimited plans while all ISPs here had capped plans. Once the first ISP here offered unlimited data the churn from the other ISPs was huge with the majority of new connections choosing them. Others followed suit and the die hard money grabbing hold out ISPs realised they had to follow suit too or go out of business. Within a couple of years pretty much every ISP offers an unlimited plan now.

While I realise some customers in the USA may have only one choice of ISP the question remains why would someone their chose a capped plan when they had a choice of an unlimited plan? My experience with making products for US customers is they expect everything to 100% perfect, anything less and your product is returned. So it would seem to an outsider that if a customer was told by their existing ISP that their unlimited plan was was being discontinued in favour of a capped plan that they would immediately jump ship to the ISP with the next best unlimited plan. Is this not what happens? Surely the ISPs introducing caps are losing customers in big numbers and those that have unlimited plans are seeing growth from that churn?

Re:Why do people buy crippled plans?

[sbrown7792]

While I realise some customers in the USA may have only one choice of ISP

That assumption is why you don't understand. It's not some, it's most. Here's an excerpt from a report from the US Department of Commerce:

[...] only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater;only 9 percent had three or more choices.

Source.

Another article says basically the same thing, coming from the FCC.
And even when customers DO have a choice, I wonder how often one of them would offer 'Unlimited' when its competitor doesn't.

Re:no surprise

[Calydor]

Officially I pay for a 2mbit ADSL connection and I get a 448/96 kbit connection. Consistently, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm happy.

Government

[Anonymous Coward]

'We're going to make law to fix this for all you wonderful voters out there.' - then turn around and include 200-300 other pieces of legislation while no one is looking.

Its for the people.

Customer dissatisfaction but little/no competition

[Stolpskott]

The C-level executives in any large company are disconnected from the customers who buy/use their products, being concerned with the "high level" views. But for most of those companies, they know that they have some competitors in the marketplace and will lose market share to those competitors if they fail to deliver.
In the case of domestic US ISPs, decades of almost completely unregulated consolidation have put pretty much the whole country in a situation where each geographical area has a single large incumbent ISP (read, monopoly) and many have managed to get legislators in those areas to enact laws that effectively ban or put unfeasibly large hurdles in the way of competition starting up (for reference, see the "fun" that Google has gone through when trying to build out their fiber service in various cities).
In a typical capitalist model of an economy, when the large incumbent enterprise is unable or unwilling to provide customers with the service they want, a smaller competitor can come in and provide that service - whether it is lower cost, higher speed, no/higher data cap, or monthly bills hand-delivered by Playboy Bunnies. However, that model assumes that the economic barriers to starting to offer that service are low and that there are no legal blocks protecting the incumbent - in the case of domestic ISPs, there are both - because most of the cables, backbone to door, are owned by those incumbents, a competitor either has to buy from those incumbents thus limiting their ability to compete (because the incumbent can say "no" or set the pricing to be prohibitive, or set data caps on the competitor), or the competitor has to build out their own network of cables (resulting in a high capital cost - a significant barrier to market entry - and running up against many of those legislative blocks that state or city legislators have put in place).

So the ISPs can be pretty comfortable - they know that complaints are on the rise, and that they are more unpopular now than they have been for years, but they also know that their customers have little or no choice than to keep on giving them money.

Re:Not all residential zones can get business clas

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

These are the kinds of laws that I, as a Progressive Republican, find abhorrent. As long as your not running a retail / manufacturing business from your house, local government shouldn't place restrictions like this. And especially the local government shouldn't force ISPs to follow their arbitrary zoning laws and restrict what types of connections citizens can have just based on the location they want the service to be at. What if your job requires a static IP at your house? I guess in those cities, you just have to go "live" in an office building? What states / cities are this nanny-statish?

Re:no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

but a 100mbps connection can usually actually deliver 100mbps continuously without issue for years.

Turnabout is Fair Play?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be great if we could charge cell carriers as they do customers. Everyone in my office could retire millionaires in a decade.

ISPs / cell carriers buy from us in bandwidth increments (as dsl/ cable modem customers have been accustomed to). Something tells me they would not go along with caps and overages too well.

Cable modem disconnects

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Cox, Comcast, Metrocast cable companies have problems whereby they randomly disconnect from the internet. You could be downloading an iso from MSoft or your google account (backup), or just trying to go to a website (including google) and the network will come back with a network error, or a failure to connect retry message in the browser. This seems to be a common problem with cable companies. It doesn't matter which cable modem vendor you have either. The ISP is the only one able to update the firmware.

Websites state to fix these dropouts, to turn off the modem firewall, or lower the flood-sync threshold in the cable modem. I've tried these and it still does it. I even shutoff the Win10, and Win XP firewalls on my computers and it still does it.

Any fix?