Oregon ISP Now Forcing Cordcutters to Sign up For TV to Avoid Caps (dslreports.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Oregon ISP BendBroadband has revised its usage-based broadband policies to favor customers that subscribe to TV services as well. According to a blog post by the company, Bend is deploying a number of new speed upgrades, including new Ultra 50, Ultra 100 and Ultra 300 Mbps speed tiers. The company is telling users on its Bronze and Silver Internet plans that they should be eligible for a free upgrade later this month. But another post adds a different wrinkle: Bend says it's removing its current usage caps if you bundle TV and phone service. These caps have historically ranged from 150 to 500 GB. "Customers who subscribe to Bronze or above internet (including Silver, Gold and Platinum) and Essentials or above TV (including Preferred, Preferred Plus and The Works) are no longer limited on data usage and will no longer pay overage fees," says the company.The report cites similar practices by other ISPs, suggesting that it's quickly becoming an industry standard.

Comments

Meh.

[Frosty Piss]

Pretty much like thousands of other ISPs, not ideal for the customer, but pretty common none the less.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it illegal though?

Re:Meh.

[NotDrWho]

Don't worry, you can just go to one of the other cablecos in your area for a better deal.

Competition FTW! ;-)

Re:Meh.

[Mr D from 63]

If the net neutrality regulations missed this loophole, then they really screwed up. There is a clear tie between service limitations and preferred content.

Re:Meh.

[Kierthos]

I'm shocked. Shocked that legislation would have loopholes in them that could be done through incompetence. Normally, those loopholes are due to lobbyists.

Shocked.

Re: Meh.

[jd2112]

I expect that soon cable companies will just increase the price of internet service by the amount a basic tv subscription costs and say that basic tv service is "free" with an internet plan.
Don't want tv? Fine, but it won't lower your bill.

Re:Meh.

[Matheus]

No. Net neutrality says that they can't preferentially (or negatively) adjust your packets performance based on who you are BUT says nothing about agreements where the total amount of usage is capped. Quantity vs. Quality.

Company gives you something that costs them very little to encourage you to pay them more money per month... film at 11!

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on earth would it be illegal? Forget the bullshit headline, nobody is being "forced" to do anything. The headline could (and probably should) have read "ISP offers unlimited broadband to TV subscribers". Of course, that doesn't have the same clickbait factor.

Re: Meh.

[mamono]

I expect that soon cable companies will just increase the price of internet service by the amount a basic tv subscription costs and say that basic tv service is "free" with an internet plan.

I lived in a rural community several years ago and they almost did just that. Internet servers was $50 standalone or $40 with cable service. Basic cable (local channels plus some other garbage like QVC and Christian channels) was $6/mo. So I added basic cable and paid less than I would if I had chosen Internet only.

Re:Meh.

[Holi]

"ISP offers unlimited broadband ONLY to TV subscribers" FTFY

Re:Meh.

[Moof123]

If only I had mod points for Funny/Dark Humor

Re:Meh.

[NormalVisual]

Why on earth would it be illegal?

This is why.

Re:Meh.

[Mr D from 63]

Don't worry, you can just go to one of the other cablecos in your area for a better deal.

Competition FTW! ;-)

Exactly. I'd have no problem with bundle pricing if there were competition for each bundle element, but when there is a monopoly on one or more elements, then there can be abuse. In this case, cable co's can create a big disadvantage for IPTV competitors like SLING by making it cost a lot more for you to use your internet for IPTV alone.

I have less of a problem in general with those who use more data paying more, but don't tie that to cable content where there is a monopoly on internet access.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it illegal though?

Yes, if the company is a monopoly in a local market then this would be an illegal use of that monopoly... but only if the FTC get's serious about enforcing the law instead of rubber stamping monopolies doing whatever they want to the detriment of customers. How many rate hikes are justified by the "cost of content"? Clearly if the ISPs focused on delivering Internet access instead of leveraging their captive audience to buy and produce TV shows and TV networks, then the cost of Internet access would go down, not up.

Re: Meh.

[ShanghaiBill]

Don't want tv? Fine, but it won't lower your bill.

That makes sense. TV has commercials, which generate revenue, so why should you expect to pay less if you don't want it?

Re:Meh.

[cmiller173]

And this is why it isn't http://www.theantitrustattorne...

tl:dr bundling is not the same as tying

Re:Meh.

[Registered Coward v2]

If the net neutrality regulations missed this loophole, then they really screwed up. There is a clear tie between service limitations and preferred content.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. The ISP is not favoring any type of content, nor are they limiting your service in any way. Without the TV you will pay more after the data cap is exceeded. For people that want no data cap, they are offering a different tier of service if you buy a bundle rather than al la cart; it is the inevitable response to the threat of cord cutting costing them revenue. The upside, of rme at least, is I now pay less of more services and no cap than I did before with a cap. YMMV HAND

Re: Meh.

[sims 2]

Here in the US broadcast tv is free as it is ad supported.
Unless you get cable then you get to pay for those broadcast tv stations.

Re:Meh.

[ShanghaiBill]

This is why.

From the first paragraph of that page: Tying is often illegal when the products are not naturally related.

Internet and TV are certainly related, since they are delivered over the same cable. The TV shows are already being sent, so it costs them nothing to turn on the reception at your house. So why should you expect a discount?

Re: Meh.

[peragrin]

Comcast is already starting to do that.

Internet only $100 a month
Tv only $ 100 a month
Internet , tv and phone $175( with faster internet speeds too)

Re:Meh.

[OhPlz]

It's only the same cable if you buy phone/tv/internet from the same company. The fact that they can share the same cable for different services doesn't make them "naturally related". My vacuum cleaner and my refrigerator might plug into the same electrical circuit, but they don't have much in common in the way of functionality or purpose.

Re:Meh.

[ripvlan]

Pay the overage fees as protest !! Let them know that you are fed up and won't take this anymore !!!

My cell company keeps trying to get me to upgrade to a bigger better plan (which actually will cost me more for less). But I either stay below my cap - or pay the cheaper overage fee that this plan has.

Currently usage caps haven't come to my local Comcast/XFinity - but I dread the day it arrives.

Re: Meh.

[gfxguy]

I have Comcast and am not paying anything like that. I had internet only, which was around $75/month for 30Mbs. I upgraded my modem, and when I talked to customer service, I ended up with a plan that is costing me about $70/month for 90Mbs after adding basic cable. The cable box is still sitting in the box they shipped it to me in. My only problem is that now it's easy to exceed the 300GB/month cap, and I have to pay $10 for each 50GB after that.

Still, you have to expect with a la carte pricing that combos will give you a larger discount and some benefits - you weigh in how you're going to use the service and get the best plan for you. I don't see the problem.

Re: Meh.

[pixelpusher220]

The issue is the lack of competition. Imagine if your water company decided to Jack rates....what exactly are you going to do? That's why it's a heavily regulated utility. Until the last 15 years or so the Internet wasn't really thought of aa an essential utility. Now I think most people would agree it should be treated that way. But since most only have 1 choice or at most 2/3 you get a single company that can Jack rates with impunity. And currently the GOP is spearheading efforts to prevent even a little competition. The entrance of Google Fiber into markets shows just how screwed people were previously as speed offered go up and prices down at the incumbents now that true non-oligarchy competition is available.

Re:Meh.

[rochrist]

Plus utterly predictable. The people that thought they were going to beat the cable companies at this game were hopelessly naive. The companies were always going to fix things to keep getting exactly as much money out of you as they wanted.

Re:Meh.

[rochrist]

Pay more! That'll larn them!

Re:Meh.

[Jason Levine]

It's not just IPTV that can be affected. If your cable ISP all but forces you to get TV service from them along with your Internet service, what is the likelihood that you'd pay for satellite TV as well? This is abusing one monopoly (Internet access) to gain leverage over competition in another market (TV/Video services).

Re: Meh.

[Chelloveck]

For a while, Comcast's "TV + Internet" bundle was actually cheaper than its "Internet only" service. Naturally we got the bundle. I think I even plugged in the set-top box once just to see if it worked.

Re: Meh.

[duke_cheetah2003]

Here in the US broadcast tv is free as it is ad supported.
Unless you get cable then you get to pay for those broadcast tv stations.

And you still get buried with advertising. Even from the cable-only stations.

Re:Meh.

[Holi]

"The TV shows are already being sent, so it costs them nothing to turn on the reception at your house. So why should you expect a discount?"
Yes because the Cable companies can just freely broadcast what ever they want and it costs them nothing. Is that what you are trying to say? They have to pay each content provider for every one of their customers who is subscribed to their service. You ignore one of their largest costs to make your argument.

Re: Meh.

[pixelpusher220]

For people wanting a faster Ford Mustang they are offering a deal where you can bundle a 75 Chevette.

Is basically saying the same thing. It's clear abuse of their monopoly position. You'll notice that Comcast isn't capping customers in areas where even minimal competition exists. That won't last though as the natural oligarchy behavior of a single competitor will just have that competitor introduce Caps as well. Not like you could switch to something without Caps.

Re: Meh.

[Ichijo]

The combination of inflation and lack of competition practically guarantees that prices won't go down. There's not much we can do about inflation, but we could at least break up the broadband monopolies, and maybe also separate the infrastructure owners from the content providers.

Re:Meh.

[sjames]

If they only offer unmetered service if you get cable television, it *IS* tying. If they offer it but give you a discount if you also get cable, then it might be considered bundling. It's a grey area if the total cost of unmetered TC plus TV is lower than the cost of unnmetered alone.

Re:Meh.

[Mr D from 63]

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. The ISP is not favoring any type of content,>

Its all in the eyes of the beholder, but in a world where tv content can be delivered via cable broadcast or IPTV, it certainly becomes a content centric difference. If I want my TV delivered via internet from SlingTV, I have to pay more for my internet than if I want it delivered by the cable company via STB. It is not restricting bandwidth, but it is favoring one content delivery provider over another by charging more for the same service.

Re:Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet and TV are certainly related, since they are delivered over the same cable.

They're not related in the sense that applies to tying. "Related" in that context would mean something like offering a package that contains a drill with a bonus package of bits for a higher price.

Re:Meh.

[nmr_andrew]

Exactly. My cable TV bill was going up by too much, so I went with satellite TV, except the sat provider didn't offer internet at the time. Sadly, as the only cable co. in town, my ISP decided that having internet without TV will saddle me with a $15/month surcharge. Of course, on the record they spin that as me losing a $15/month discount. Now that my contract on the sat TV (which has also gone up) is just about finished, I'm not quite sure what we're going to do.

Re: Meh.

[Registered Coward v2]

It's clear abuse of their monopoly position. You'll notice that Comcast isn't capping customers in areas where even minimal competition exists. That won't last though as the natural oligarchy behavior of a single competitor will just have that competitor introduce Caps as well. Not like you could switch to something without Caps.

Competition is good but the natural inclination off all competitors in this market is to hang on the the cable side as well an not simply be a dumb pipe; thus as you point out the market will gravitate to this model unless a new computer comes in and focuses only on the ISP part. Ideally the technology would get to the point where you don't need to run fiber to get high speed access and be independent of existing mobile operators.

Re: Meh.

[AthanasiusKircher]

I expect that soon cable companies will just increase the price of internet service by the amount a basic tv subscription costs and say that basic tv service is "free" with an internet plan. Don't want tv? Fine, but it won't lower your bill.

This was true where I was living from roughly 2000 to 2008 or so. In fact, it was actually $5-10/month CHEAPER to have cable internet with bundled "basic cable" than to have internet alone. I could never get anyone to explain to me how this made any sense, but that's what they did... I think they hoped in that area to get people "hooked" on cable TV, so they'd eventually upgrade to a better package, whereas the "cord cutters" (who were around even back then; I was one of them) likely would never buy a cable TV package otherwise.

Anyhow, those sorts of deals disappeared for a while, though now I get barraged with offers to cut my (internet-only) bill if I bundle in TV -- just only for a year or whatever.

Re: Meh.

[wyattstorch516]

I don't know how it is where you live but the water company by me charges everyone according to how much water they consume. I have yet to hear of a water company offering unlimited water for a flat rate.

Re: Meh.

[pixelpusher220]

While a nice simple example it really is apples and oranges.

You're comparing the water flowing through the pipes to the data flowing across a data network.

The water company has to pay money to clean the water so there's physical cost in producing every drop of water and as such it is priced per gallon used.

Your ISP is not creating the content you're watching from Netflix, streaming from Spotify or reading on web pages. So there is no cost 'per' amount of content created that the ISP is incurring. I pay netflix and streaming separately for the content. Hell even Netflix doesn't charge 'per' amount of data...because even they aren't creating that content...just supplying it.

There's no appreciable cost 'per amount' of data transiting the ISPs network. The only numbers that matter are a maximum rate throughput available on the network against the current demand of users on the network at that specific time.

A data cap is a piss poor way to manage that; but it is a fantastic way to raise your bill.

Re: Meh.

[hjf]

This. My cable company + ISP gives me a 50% discount if I bundle both services.
That is, 800 Argentine pesos for cable and 800 for 30/3 internet. If I buy both together it's a 50% discount for a grand total of 800 pesos... (about USD 53).

Re: Meh.

[wyattstorch516]

First of all, I didn't start the comparison with the water company the other poster did. You can't make an analogy and ignore the parts that contradict your argument.

Increases in data flowing across the network incur costs to the service provider. It requires them to upgrade equipment and create smaller service groups which require the acquisition of additional equipment. It also requires additional vigilance in monitoring to maintain the quality of service. This whole idea that data is completely free and should be unlimited is not reality. If you don't know how these systems work then I would suggest not popping off like you do.

Re: Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the tv stations get the add revenue not the cable company.

Re: Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello,

Would you like to work for Comcast? You have the right attitude for it! I tried downgrading my service to have no phone, they told me I'd have to pay more. These guys really are out of control, but there's no competition because they sue it away.

Re: Meh.

[Shirley Marquez]

TV generates revenue for the program providers, not for the cable system. Home shopping channels are the notable exception; they pay the cable system, either a fee for being present or a small cut of sales. The important thing for the cable guys is that having more subscribers strengthens their hand when they negotiate with local broadcast channels that are looking for carriage fees. It also gives the company the ability to try to sell you add-ons like pay-per-view movies.

Re: Meh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and at one time you had to rent your phone from Ma Bell. At some point the Feds decided this was bad, allowing others to get into the action. Now who has heard of ma bell or owns a land line. Things eventually change, including the lock cable companies have on the market.

Just give me a digital connection and enough with service XYZ. I can subscribe to streaming or phone services I want.

Goodbye Ma Bell!

Re: Meh.

[RockDoctor]

TV has commercials,

Does it? Are those the things that trigger pressing the fast-forward button?

Re: Meh.

[tepples]

And then you have to pay $600 (the price of a TiVo All-In subscription) for the privilege of having a fast-forward button to press.

Re: Meh.

[RockDoctor]

Nope - £80 for a STB (which I needed anyway as my TV is pre-digital, and analogue transmissions have ceased) and the cost of installing an aerial on the apartment's roof. Cost already recouped by not having any satellite or cable service. Does America no longer have broadcast (as in VHF/ UHF radio waves) TV services?

No one is being forced to do anything.

[frnic]

A company is offering a service. If you don't want the service, don't buy it. You do not have right to internet access... in this country.

If you want such a right, then vote for it, wait with the poor little me baby whining at Slashdot.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are whining about other people whining.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[NotDrWho]

A company is offering a service.

Here, let me fix that for you:

A government-sanctioned monopoly is offering a service, with no other competitors allowed to offer you a competing service.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[Grishnakh]

Actually, the guy has a bit of a point. We're getting screwed over by government-sanctioned monopolies because we voters are not holding our elected officials accountable and getting them to pass laws properly regulating these monopolies or getting them to use any of the laws already in place to regulate them.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a boomer.

Internet access is a fact of life if you want to participate in any aspect of modern society.

Any other viewpoint is outdated or incredibly privileged.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[drinkypoo]

Actually, the guy has a bit of a point. We're getting screwed over by government-sanctioned monopolies because we voters are not holding our elected officials accountable

What he said was "If you want such a right, then vote for it, wait with the poor little me baby whining at Slashdot." but that's precisely what people did. We voted for that sort of thing. Then the telcos were paid $250M and we were all supposed to get 45 Mbps internet access by... I forget, but before now! Where TF is it?

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[Moof123]

Our choices for elected officials are already defacto rigged. Either getting on the ballot or staying in office you to have licked the boots of the elite to get donations and access to party power structures. Most of those power brokers and large donors stay elite through behaviors similar to this. I see it as a vicious cycle that is not likely to change anytime soon.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[DRJlaw]

A company is offering a service. If you don't want the service, don't buy it. You do not have right to internet access... in this country.

If you want such a right, then vote for it, wait with the poor little me baby whining at Slashdot.

But you do have a right under the antitrust laws to prevent a company from unreasonably tying the sale of one product or service to another.

We already voted for that right. Starting way back in 1890.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[PuddleBoy]

>>>A government-sanctioned monopoly is offering a service, with no other competitors allowed to offer you a competing service.

I work for one of those non-existent competitors. There is far more competition out there than most people seem to think. That's not to say that all the competitors compete on price. (if price were the only competing factor, we'd all be getting cheap, shitty service)

There seems to be a very widespread belief that the only thing worth competing on is price. I guess that's why Walmart is so popular.

Re: No one is being forced to do anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians believe in the absolute right of business owners to rip anybody off all the time.

No, nobody is forcing you to do anything. Unless of course you take into account that no Internet is a severe economic hardship and almost an economic death sentence. But that's ok, if you don't like the terms they offer all you have to do is move somewhere else because, hey, free market at work and all.

Jackasses, all of them.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[inode_buddha]

Hey, I remember voting in my town to allow the cable company. They said our subscription fees meant better reception and no ads. That lasted all of a year.

Now i'll gladly vote to revoke the deal.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[Holi]

Where I live we have 2 choices (disregarding DSL as at 7Mbps it does not rate as broadband anymore). 1 is Cox Communications, they actually service the whole state. The other is a small company called Full Channel, they are a very local cable company servicing my county only. When FIOS did their rollout here they wired the whole state except for my county since it already had "competition". If Cox wanted to they could lower their prices for 6 months and drive Full Channel out of business, but they won't. And Full Channel does not really have any say in their prices as they must try and stay competitive with Cox if they want to keep their customers. Basically Cox uses this little local company to give the appearance of competition.

Re: No one is being forced to do anything.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Problem: Market abuse by government-subsidized, government-sanctioned, and government-regulated monopoly

Solution: Post incoherent rant about "libertarians" on Slashdot

Ever stop think about just exactly where and when your intellectual life went this far off course?

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[oh_my_080980980]

You mean the industry backed monopoly forced on the municipality.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[TheCastro1689]

In some cities there is competition and even for some people in parts of states, but for the large majority of the area in the US there is no competition.

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[layabout]

Let me fix your correction.

An unregulated natural monopoly is offering a service, when it is not economically viable for competitors to offer you a competing service.

If you actually read the contracts the cable company writes when "negotiating" (i.e. take it or leave it) with the town, you'll see that the contract make the town liable for the minimum level of profit for that cable company. Isn't contract law fun?

Re:No one is being forced to do anything.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this apply to Trump? He's self funded and the elites hate him.

Irony

[stealth_finger]

The country with the actual claim to inventing the internet has one of the shittest internets. If any ISP around here even thought of having a cap on anything but the most basic of service they'd be laughed right out of business.

Re:Irony

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I don't even know where you are (anywhere but the USA or Canada) but I bet your basic service would still have a pretty decent monthly cap too.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Most countries do not have a cap, I have never had a cap in my life. Even when surfing the glorious 56.4k baud rates way back, the only cap was my wallet. America is one of the few places due to market monopolies and lack of competition.

Re:Irony

[will_die]

Couldn't be Europe where I had a 100Gig cap and then price charged increased by 3 times and I got charged for any the monthly overage in 1Gig chunks. They were better than some of the companies in the USA because I would get a warning at 90Gig telling me that pirating is bad and if I did not pirate material I would not be downloading that much material.

Re:Irony

[myowntrueself]

The country with the actual claim to inventing the internet has one of the shittest internets. If any ISP around here even thought of having a cap on anything but the most basic of service they'd be laughed right out of business.

USA is amazingly backward in oh so many ways... except the military. Great military, shitty everything else.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

except the military. Great military, shitty everything else.

Well yeah, follow the money.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally lived in 4 countries in EU, didn't see any cap since last 8-9 years if not more.
though infrastructure wise - we have different story here than you have there.

Re:Irony

[Solandri]

Caps are a mathematical requirement. Without caps, Internet prices would be around what a dedicated line costs, which is about $7000/mo for an OC3 (155 Mbps). Or about $50 per 1 Mbps per month. 1 month at 1 Mbps works out to 328 GB of data, which is why you're seeing caps at around 300 GB per $50/mo.

If your ISP doesn't have a cap, it doesn't mean they don't have a cap. It just means they aren't enforcing one, and the low-bandwidth users are effectively subsidizing the high-bandwidth users.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and how does the US treat it's veterans when they have no more use for them?

Re:Irony

[Solandri]

Internet service sucks here because most of the local governments here decided to award monopolies to Internet service companies. No competition or reduced competition (1 cable company vs 1 DSL company) means high prices for crappy service. This is one market which is overregulated, to the detriment of consumers.

(To be more precise, the regulation was needed only for stringing up physical cables. The utility poles look much cleaner with only a single data cable, instead of dozens. But the monopoly companies who put up those cables should never have been allowed to control what was transmitted through those cables. Once the data cable was in place, the dozens of companies which wanted to provide TV and Internet service should've all been allowed to lease transmission rights over those cables.)

Re:Irony

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, and how does the US treat it's veterans when they have no more use for them?

They said we have a great military, not compassion or morality

Re:Irony

[mamono]

Internet service sucks here because most of the local governments here decided to award monopolies to Internet service companies.

That happened to an ex-girlfriend of mine. Happy Valley, OR has an exclusivity contract with Comcast to only allow Comcast to provide Internet service. My ex lived in Clackamas, not in the city of Happy Valley. She wanted to reduce her Internet bill and tried calling the local telco because they had a basic plan that was half the cost of Comcast. The CenturyLink CSR looked up her address and couldn't figure out why they couldn't provide Internet access. Then she realized that Comcast had claimed even areas outside of Happy Valley and that CenturyLink was barred from giving anything other than phone service.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The country with the actual claim to inventing the internet has one of the shittest internets. If any ISP around here even thought of having a cap on anything but the most basic of service they'd be laughed right out of business.

USA is amazingly backward in oh so many ways... except the military. Great military, shitty everything else.

All western countries can wipe out the planet many times over, as can a number of others. The US military is nothing special. Just because they have a million leather-necks dumb enough to put feet on the ground in some shit-hole country on the other side of the planet to enhance a handful of oligarchs' reach, doesn't mean they're any good when it comes to like vs like.

Still, let's not forget the USA has dropped bombs on over a quarter of the world's countries - outside of wars. Can't be having too many dark skinned people now, can we?

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Caps are a mathematical requirement. Without caps, Internet prices would be around what a dedicated line costs

Your logic is flawed. It assumes that dedicated line prices reflect the actual cost of providing bandwidth.

Re:Irony

[omnichad]

That expense is for dedicated bandwidth, which is nothing to do with caps. These caps are an artificial limitation that is far lower than whatever bandwidth you get "up to" if you run 24/7.

If you have a 100Mbps connection, but actually only get 20Mbps most of the time, a cap of 500GB has nothing to do with either number. You can still easily exceed that with spare ISP bandwidth that no one else is using.

Re:Irony

[Kjella]

I think it was the pendulum swinging. Here in Norway I remember we used to pay per minute for dial-up/ISDN and were so envious of the US that generally had a flat rate for local calls. When there was a shake-up with DSL and we got flat rate connections it was like "Overage fees? Caps? Fuck that and fuck you." Didn't matter if the rates were good, the caps were reasonable, how a few were hogging the bandwidth and that the great majority was subsidizing a few hogs.

Any kind of restriction was the touch of death, eventually they just waved the white flag and said you're being irrational but the inmates are running the asylum, so we'll just have to cater to that. Maybe they phrased it a little more diplomatic, but I think they were quite frustrated that the market turned a deaf ear because rates around here are not cheap, but you really do get what you pay for. Right now I've got a 150 Mbps fiber connections and yes downloads peak at 19MB/s.

Re:Irony

[whoever57]

Caps are a mathematical requirement. Without caps, Internet prices would be around what a dedicated line costs, which is about $7000/mo for an OC3 (155 Mbps).

BS. If this were true, then how is it possible for Comcast to just increase their "cap" from 300GB to 1TB without a price increase of several times the existing price?

OC3 is expensive because it requires dedicated lines, uses obsolete technology and may come with a minimum instantaneous bandwidth guarantee. It's not remotely comparable.

Re: Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means no such thing. Your logic makes you an economist, an Ayn Rand follower, or both since both are wrong about pretty much everything.

No cap simply means no artificial limit. It's means that everyone can use what the infrastructure can bear. That's all. Now, the infrastructure IS a physical cap of course, but please explain to me the motivation to ever make it better if you prevent people from using it to capacity. That cricket sound is the sound of you having no argument to make there.

So if caps are there to provide an opportunity for everyone to use the infrastructure (which is a lie but let's go with it) then the cap needs to be based on how your use affects the infrastructure. It doesn't matter if I download huge amounts of data if I do so slowly and steadily. What blows up networks is bursts of traffic and high bandwith usage. You fix that with billing for max speed which most ISPs already do, and with QoS and other such technologies, not with artificial fees.

Measuring impact on bytes downloaded serves only to line the pockets of the cable companies, and sorry, I'm not interested.

Re:Irony

[myowntrueself]

Yeah, and how does the US treat it's veterans when they have no more use for them?

They said we have a great military, not compassion or morality

Interestingly, the US veterans get so very very fucked up in the head. I was watching a documentary about the rise of fascism. Mussolini used WW1 veterans to crush opposition. I doubt that US veterans could be used in this way...

Re:Irony

[BitZtream]

Sure, when you say that you really mean in comparison to an extremely small group of countries that have better internet thanks to geographical differences and competition.

Kenya, for example, has shitty internet. The US has great internet compared to it, but compared to Japan, not so much.

See what I did there? When you stop artificially selecting your comparison to proof your point, your comparison starts to look retarded and to be a flat out lie, doesn't it?

Re:Irony

[TheCastro1689]

Would be funny if you got that because you downloaded a couple of games legally.

Re:Irony

[TheCastro1689]

Your numbers are off, there are 196 countries if you include Iran, if you include Korea as non-war then the number of countries bombed by the US doesn't break 30.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to see this warning, because I suspect you are a liar.

Re:Irony

[dlt074]

the US treats us great!

the VA on the other hand is a typical government institution, only interested in becoming bigger and hiring more government employees. who in turn vote for more government.

i have no complaints. however, i went in and came out expecting nothing from the VA. i provide my own healthcare and it's fantastic.

Re:Irony

[cdrudge]

...About the same way they treat them when they still have a use for them. They don't give a fsck. They're generally expendable.

Re:Irony

[Geeky]

Caps are still pretty common in the UK, and many ISPs offer several tiers of capping, up to unlimited. Most "uncapped" services also have "reasonable use" restrictions - you might find there is a hidden cap if you're using your full bandwidth 24x7

Uncapped works when most people only use the internet for a few hours here and there. What will be interesting is how ISPs handle peak requirements as more and more people switch to streaming TV - there'll be virtually no bandwidth needed most of the day and then it'll be hammered in the evening. I'd guess the vast majority still watch TV over the air or via satellite

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting your traffic to internet from near POPs is pretty cheap, usually around $1k/1gbps/month from non-Level3 tier1s. Getting the traffic to POP (last mile + backhaul) is the expensive part, but that's more or less a static cost.

Re:Irony

[hjf]

All those "expensive" connections are just expensive because of the SLA. Nothing else. No bandwidth is guaranteed outside the provider's network.
In fact, "business" grade connections (that is, business DSL, or business Cable) is just the same as regular DSL or cable, you just pay a premium for support, and if you're lucky, the ability of having a static IP. Nothing else.

Re: support. The people at the call center for "business" have a little better training, I know because I've dealt with them and it's really not the same as "home" support lines... also I happen to work at one of those call centers, and while I'm not a service rep, I know they have different areas for business support. Usually you have less waiting time as well.

Re:Irony

[stealth_finger]

Yeah, you're right. The us has much better internet service than the third world, kudos. Compared to the rest of the developed nations it's shit. You get ripped off at every turn.

Re:Irony

[ultranova]

Caps are a mathematical requirement. Without caps, Internet prices would be around what a dedicated line costs, which is about $7000/mo for an OC3 (155 Mbps).

Caps are a business requirement. Without caps, your local monopoly couldn't charge you for going over it and paying the CEO a bonus for it.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty happy with my 100-250Mbit/s up and 7-10Mbit/s down connection without caps here in Sweden for 449SEK/month

Re:Irony

[tepples]

I imagine this was before the era when downloadable games in Steam or the PS3 store routinely exceeded 25 GB. Was that around 2009 or so?

Re:Irony

[tepples]

Without regulation of utilities, they would have no way to cross real estate owned by non-subscribers to reach subscribers, or even to cross roads because the city owns the roads. So some regulation by the owner of the roads is needed to let utilities operate in the first place.

Re:Irony

[will_die]

Nope 2015. And the major problem were games and my place was being remodeled and I lost satellite so I switched to a VPN and watching TV from USA amazon, netfix and hulu.

Re:Irony

[tepples]

Perhaps the ISP thought the VPN use was pirating because the TV shows' copyright owners' standard terms of trade ban the sort of parallel importing you were doing. Did you exceed 90 GB from Steam alone, or from Steam plus the TV VPN?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[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 vs. DNS/routers/antivirus + less security issues/complexity. Compliments firewalls (w/ layered drivers blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lighten dns load). Gets data via 10 security sites.

Ads rob bandwidth/speed paid for, security (openbid adnetworks abuse), privacy in tracking + anonymity.

Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogtrackers) natively. Hosts != blockable by ClarityRay (like. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slower usermode browser addons)

Works vs. caps & HTTP PUSH ads w/ firewalls.

Avg. webpage = big as Doom for DOS http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... @ 2.3mb++

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "I've seen the code & yes it is safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[Khyber]

False advertising nigger. Your HOSTs file doesn't stop an ISP's speed throttling.

Works vs. caps my ass you lying sack of shit.

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[DarkOx]

I'll tell you this though, for anyone that lives on metered internet you crazy not to use something to block ads and trackers. I use privoxy and it cuts my transfer utilization significantly.

Its certainly a much better approach the APK's never ending host file nonsense but I will accept APK's claim that even his method could help with caps if he has identified the ad servers adequately. That said privoxy is alot smarter and more granular its pretty easy to build regex pasterns against the invocation html for most ad systems and prevent requesting the resources. Which means you can block the ads without blocking the entire host or subnet.

APK's give it rest. Using the host file for content control is a 1990s solution. It might still work some of the time but there are many better methods around now. Please join the 21st century with the rest of us. I resisted too for a long time, but you'll like it here I promise.

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up subhuman, are you saying that stripping a webpage to 1/4 of it's size and discarding video ads doesn't affect caps?

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[drinkypoo]

Ugh. I know this is ironic coming from me, but why descend to that level.

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[Anonymous Coward]

That said privoxy is alot smarter and more granular its pretty easy to build regex pasterns against the invocation html for most ad systems and prevent requesting the resources.

OT: Any good writeupts for using Privoxy as a MITM proxy? My pet peeve these days is that the good parts of the https-everywhere movement have hidden a lot of crappy HTML in a place where my locally-hosted Privoxy can't get to it. (The most annoying ones are where the articles are in plaintext, but the CSS with the position:fixed floating masthead divs are served from wp.com via HTTPS, but if I could just pry things open enough to let Privoxy have a whack at the encrypted stuff here, I could have the best of both worlds.)

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[Anonymous Coward]

You continue to show what a despicable person you are.

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual all they do is dowmod hide your post's points they can't disprove. You crushed DarkOx here https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... and here https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... and he shut up pretty fast afterwards didn't he?

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[DarkOx]

I ended up front ending it with squid configured with SSL Bump. There is lots of documentation on that, they you just configure squid to use privoxy as its upstream.

Squid can do lots of caching to which is nice in my situation. (allows multiple devices to benefit)

Re:APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[bigfinger76]

'They' downmod your posts because your posts are often just spam garbage.
Also, just because many people agree that blocking ads is a good idea doesn't mean that we 'accept that you're right'. It's a commonly held opinion, not a revelation from you.

Over and in

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Oregon ISP BendOverBroadband

FTFY

Re:Over and in

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell wastes mod points downmodding jokes?

Is this SlashStackExchange?

Shifting the cost model

[Registered Coward v2]

ATT UVerse doe this as well. It makes cord cutting less attractive since what you pay for the bundle could be less than Internet, excess use fees and al la carte access to programing.

Re:Shifting the cost model

[jhecht]

Verizon's standard pricing for Internet alone is just a little below that for basic cable plus internet - and they don't have usage caps yet. Just another battle in the war against customers.

Bend Over

[Anonymous Coward]

BendBroadband:

Note to customers;

Time to Bend over.

New slogan

[Anonymous Coward]

Their new slogan can be "Buy our crap to avoid our cap".

Misnaming by marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet! So now when I pay to have my data caps removed, I get free (useless) cable TV service along with what I'm paying for!

Re:Shifting the PROFIT model

[Anonymous Coward]

ftfy.

This seems to be the response

[DarkOx]

This pretty well seems to be the cable business response, to the Internet business making cable well obsolete. They went around and used their rights of way to make sure they were the Internet providers so they could make sure to get you coming or going.

Boy howdie did the telco industry really drop the ball. They should have aggressively laid fiber on their rights of way and brought out speeds coax cable was never going to compete with and priced them competitively. Hindsight is 20/20.

However the public sector really dropped the ball here too. High speed internet access is basically noncompetitive in the US because cities though it was a good idea to trample private property rights and grant rights of way to private companies. eminent domain should NEVER be used to give land to private enterprises. Its not right or fair. When it comes to things like fiber, telephone wires, electrical lines local governments (maybe counties for long haul lines and stuff) should build them and lease them out; or maybe decide not to build them if existing resident land owners want to vote to discourage development in certain areas.

Re:This seems to be the response

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in the constitution is the government granted the right or responsibility to build our high speed data infrastructure? It's one more thing they don't need to be involved in. Every time government gets involved in something, costs go through the roof as does the red tape. You think you're paying a lot for crappy internet now? You're not even remotely close to how expensive and crappy it would be if you had the government building out all the infrastructure. The government is not the answer to all of your problems.

Re:This seems to be the response

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are focusing on the wrong part of the problem. Granting local monopolies is a reasonable approach to the problem of a limited physical resource, meaning that you can only have/manage so many wires on poles or under the street before it gets too difficult to manage. What isn't reasonable is to just treat that public utility as some exclusively private property without the kinds of regulations needed to ensure that consumers are getting the best possible deals and that the licensed monopoly isn't used to extend that monopoly into other areas. And there should be a requirement that the providers remove their property within 30 days from telephone poles when and if they lose their license, else the infrastructure reverts to municipal ownership. Now it is the case that once they are granted a license they essentially are exercising squatters rights on the poles where even if you take away their local license, then they are still on the poles and threaten anyone that messes with "their" wires.

Re:This seems to be the response

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah, blah, gubmit bad.

Maybe if you are talking about the Federal government being in charge of this infrastructure, which the OP DIDN'T say, he said cities and counties - you know, local government.

Who is going to be responsive to the needs of the local population but the local government. And I say that because there is one city near me that has it's own electric division - they run their own wires, poles, transformers, etc. with their own crews. Now they only take care of ONE municipality, and one community's desires. Compared to the rest of the state which is serviced by two mega-utilities, they have the cheapest electricity costs, and have better response times for outages.

Why do you think the bought and paid for congressmen are passing laws to outlaw municipal internet? Because their corporate masters fear the competition. And don't give me the government subsidizing, or picking winners and losers crap. If the local city residents want it, and the service is self sustaining (or like in most cases, profitable for the locality), then the Comcraps of the world have nothing to complain about - they can just compete on merit like everyone else.

Re:This seems to be the response

[Anonymous Coward]

The telco industry never wanted and has never wanted internet.

They were quite happy making piles of money charging out the ass being the exclusive gatekeeper for communications services. Voice over IP? Why would they support that when they've got a huge circuit switched voice network in place. Video? - You know there are old-as-fuck protocols for sending video over ISDN and T1. They're absurdly expensive too.

Much like the cable companies, the Telcos simply saw internet as a way to circumvent their lock on expensive services they could sell you at prices they set.

The internet reduces them to commodity bit flingers that have to compete with anyone else that can shuffle generic data. With the internet there is no difference between your local bell or your local cable provider. Just the shape of the plug in your house.

The forced bundling of services is the last holdout. Personally in the future I'd love to see that legislated out of existence. Content and carrier need to be de-coupled, by force if necessary.

Make internet a utility service. Video content providers can then sell their products on their own merits without franchise agreements with carriers(and by extension local governments) that hurt consumers.

Why should you tolerate being billed 100/mo for a service with dozens of shopping, religious, and shitty reality entertainment channels? All because of a government granted monopoly?

Re:This seems to be the response

[DarkOx]

Where did I say government bad. I thought i was suggesting that government actually retain control oft the property and build the infrastructure.

What I don't thing government should do is, take somoenes land and hand it to a private operator to do what they want with. I think Comcast should show up and the city or county should say okay we will multi mode fiber everywhere and you and anyone else who wants a slight of those frequencies to offer services can bid.

Re:This seems to be the response

[dgatwood]

There was an AC post between the GP's post and yours. You probably just don't see it because your view is filtered to not show posts with score 0.

Re:This seems to be the response

[Holi]

" Every time government gets involved in something, costs go through the roof as does the red tape"
Oh god, that tired and easily refutable refrain.
You should go tell that to the health insurance industry, where the government is by far more efficient and cost effective. I mean it's not even close there.
If the Government can mandate that everyone must have access to phone service, I am pretty sure it is not a much bigger step to mandate that they have access to broadband.

Re:This seems to be the response

[Jason Levine]

Boy howdie did the telco industry really drop the ball. They should have aggressively laid fiber on their rights of way and brought out speeds coax cable was never going to compete with and priced them competitively. Hindsight is 20/20.

Verizon started to do that with FIOS. Then, if I recall correctly, they had a change in management and the new managers decided not to spend money on laying fiber (in the hopes of long-term gains) when they could just sit back and make money short-term with wireless. So all FIOS deployments (except for a couple of instances) stopped. Verizon actually pushes some customers to cable or sells FIOS areas to other companies so they can focus on money-making wireless.

Re:This seems to be the response

[Anonymous Coward]

oy howdie did the telco industry really drop the ball. They should have aggressively laid fiber on their rights of way and brought out speeds coax cable was never going to compete with and priced them competitively.

Does not seem to make a difference. Here (Eastern Canada) I have fiber from Bell Alliant and while they don't have a cap (yet) - they have definitely embraced the whole 'make internet by itself almost as expensive as a tv/phone/internet bundle' crap. Especially when you add on the cost of netflix or some other legal way of getting some tv entertainment. The other guys (Roger) are all cable - but its all pretty much the same thing. It might be nice if the regulators step in to break up the giant companies that control both internet access as well as tv and often also the content. Make them independent from each other. Just like electricity _generation_ is generally separate from electricity _transmission_.

Re:This seems to be the response

[AthanasiusKircher]

This pretty well seems to be the cable business response, to the Internet business making cable well obsolete. They went around and used their rights of way to make sure they were the Internet providers so they could make sure to get you coming or going.

It's also, frankly, NOTHING NEW. I recall signing up for cable internet 15 years ago and it was $10/month cheaper to get a "bundle with basic cable" than to get internet alone. That was true in at least one local cable market for quite a few years. Gradually, as I recall, the "basic cable" with that bundle gradually dropped channels, going from maybe 50 or 60 channels to only about 15 channels, and eventually the extra fee was dropped for some reason so internet alone was no longer more expensive.

But "cord cutters" have been penalized by cable companies for well over a decade. With my current ISP, I've been berated with advertisements and phone calls multiple times per year to bundle in cable TV, while meanwhile they keep raising my monthly internet charge again and again. At this point, there are a slew of TV/internet packages I could sign onto and get cheaper than internet alone, though those prices might only be guaranteed for a year or a couple years. I just refuse to pay for cable TV on principle now, until they offer unbundled packages where I can get what I want (which I doubt they ever will). I watch too little TV to care, and I can't stand broadcast TV with commercials anymore.

So this is nothing new -- just another strategy to penalize cord cutters.

Re:This seems to be the response

[antdude]

Yep, I remember cable companies charging more for Internet service only. :(

Costs for Service

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I like about Time Warner. With or without TV based on my plan (results may vary for others) I have no data caps.
Regardless of others opinions of Time Warner Cable verses other providers; I have had the "Least" amount of issues, and the "Most" amount of reliability from my internet service. About the only other way you can really get any better service from an ISP would quite possibly be to go with a commercial internet solution.

It's like free birth control pills with insurance.

[goombah99]

It's "free" for the insurance companies to give women birth control pills because the baseline cost without them includes the risk of covering your pregnancy.

Like wise for the ISPs they'd rather you were watching TV mulit-cast than streaming netflix on demand.

So they can offer you a bundle for less cost than they could sell you uncapped internet.

modt 3own

[Anonymous Coward]

to have regular to fIght what has Lube or we sell anything can of all legitimate

Just say it as it really is

[Opportunist]

You have to pay extra for the unlimited bandwidth and get a worthless trinket (i.e. TV) as a free gift.

Re:Just say it as it really is

[omnichad]

And then pay taxes on your trinket, while Internet service is still tax-free.

BendBroadband pretty much sucks

[mamono]

My in-laws had their cable and Internet service through BendBroadband. They are light users and were still getting overage charges for using to much bandwidth to the point that they had to regulate their usage. I called up BendBroadband and they basically told me "we are a small company so we can't do anything about it". They have about the worst channel selection guide I have ever seen and their DVR is even worse. (Possibly the worse DVR implementation I have ever seen.) I had my in-laws switch to DirecTV with CenturyLink and they never had problems again. In fact, their monthly TV/Internet lowered by about 20% and they got a DVR that was actually useful.

This is PROGRESS!

[Sloppy]

Wow, they're not even hiding it or lying about it anymore. Remember when the caps used to be about "congestion?" Now the truth is explicitly admitted. Everyone, before you lose your cool over this, think. This really is progress. We've reached the point in "LA Story" where the someone is politely told, "Hi. My name is Bob. I'll be your robber." No subterfuge, denial, etc. It's out in the open.

Re:This is PROGRESS!

[squiggleslash]

The nearest I can come up with for logic on this one is that perhaps ISPs assume that anyone subscribing to TV will use their Roku less frequently, relieving their networks of 4-5Mbps of streaming (1080p) data at peak times.

Roku, Amazon Stick, etc, are all being pushed as ways to cut the cord, so there may be some logic there.

"Bolting on 'MoAr'" = illogic logic inefficient

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: You're adding on more to do the same job or less & the IP stack + hosts already do the job with less - eating more CPU, RAM, & I/O cycles to do so!

* Your "approach" is illogic logic & inefficient - period!

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-line: You accept I'm right on blocking ads (& speeding you up more w/ hardcoded favorites my program reverse DNS ping verifies right as you build your hosts file vs. ads + threats online too) - accept the fact I'm right on my subject & the above point also... there IS no denying it! apk

Re:"Bolting on 'MoAr'" = illogic logic inefficient

[DarkOx]

I'll feed the trolls today.

You're adding on more to do the same job or less & the IP stack + hosts already do the job with less

False I am adding more software to do the job right. IP stack can't because we don't live in a world where hostname -> ip address has anything close to a 1:1 relationship. Second there are lots of cases where I want some content but not all content from a given host. Sometimes sites won't work unless you allow at least some content from a given host, I can put in rules to smartly allow the scripts I need and still block the rest, can you? Smarter filtering like squid+privoxy lets me do this. The host file is just a hammer the task calls for forceps.

You might be satisfied with very marginal results and stuff being broken, that you have to either leave broken or accept all crap from the source. Maybe that is good enough for you. Its not for me.

I have off loaded all of this to a low power always on little arm box, the provides these functions to all the devices in my home. So there is no overhead on the machine I am useing, and that little arm box uses basically no power when idle. My time and having a good web experience is more valuable than the pennies a month it costs to run; it beats dickering with a hosts file constantly.

How is it legal?

[ruir]

Despite having many assassinations, car accidents, or robberies they do not become legal. Time for a class action?

Re:How is it legal?

[Greyfox]

The outcome ought not to be about money. The outcome ought to be a ban on clauses giving one company a monopoly in an area and a blanket allowance for local governments to set up municipal broandband if they want to.

Re:How is it legal?

[RatherBeAnonymous]

What BendBroadband is doing is dirty, but it's hard to say if it is illegal.

If a monopoly holder forces a consumer to buy a second product in order to get what they want, in this case buying cable TV service if they want broadband without a data cap that is Unlawful Tying and is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. But who knows? The devil is in the details, and those details would have to be worked out in court. I'm guessing the question would hinge on whether or not BendBroadband is the only broadband provider in town. In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the lawsuit.

http://www.americanbar.org/gro...

And if those people on whom TV was foised

[pteddy]

still aren't watching it then in order to avoid data overage fees you'll have to agree to watch at least 20 hours of TV a week.

Honestly worse than Comcast

[deusasclepian]

I used to live in Bend, and had Internet through Bend Broadband for years. In fact, my first email address was @bendbroadband.com. I'm pretty sure it's still listed as my backup email on a few websites. Anyway, they like to advertise themselves as the smalltown hero. For a while (maybe it still is), their slogan was "We're the local dog, we better be good!" They even had a black lab as a mascot. Eventually I moved to a new area, where the only ISP in town is Comcast. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Comcast is better in pretty much every way, which is a pretty serious indictment of the quality of service offered by bendbroadband.

Hosts = EZ for "normal folks"/RegEx != EZ

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Between this point of mine vs. your "objections" I easily overcame https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... w/ common sense (illogic logic "Bolting on 'MoAr'" eating MORE on your end to do the SAME job or less)?

* You FAIL man - badly!

(Hosts files entries are like phone book entries (albeit in reverse), Phone # & name pretty much - lol, to 'normal non-programmers', RegExp looks like CHINESE!)

APK

P.S.=> Sometimes it really, *REALLY* makes me wonder if you guys here can THINK FOR YOURSELVES (especially for efficient operations, but then again, I look @ the web now as well as programs out there & I SEVERELY doubt it - see my original post on the size of webpages & bugs galore in today's work from "today's coders" & I "rest my case")... apk

Re:Hosts = EZ for "normal folks"/RegEx != EZ

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody else writes the phonebook, just as somebody else will write the regexp

Nothing new

[jo7hs2]

My cable company (Armstrong) bases your cap on a combination of your service tier and your other services, and has for some time, so this is nothing new.

Comcast Does This

[Jaysu]

Comcast offers cheaper Internet if you throw in TV. I had Internet only and paid $65/month. I now have Internet and basic cable and pay $55/month (w/ HBO streaming). I never turn the TV on.

Re:Comcast Does This

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast also only offers their highest speed domestic service to bundled subscribers.

It's only a matter of time before the FTC...

[Anonymous Coward]

prohibits such practices as being anti-competitive. It makes no sense for an ISP to force consumers to buy two or more unrelated services. In the 50's Eastman Kodak was prohibited from selling photo films *and* processing services together. I hope Comcast & friends is the new Eastman Kodak.

The very definition of an abusive monopoly

[zerofoo]

The incumbent cable company is the only broadband choice for many people in the US. Cable companies that adopt this policy are in violation of US anti-trust law.
Cable companies that use their monopoly status to harm competing video services should be held liable for the damages caused to the competing video services.

Microsoft tried this with a web browser and operating system years ago - and it tied them up in court for years.

Obama, are you listening?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[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 vs. DNS/routers/antivirus + less security issues/complexity. Compliments firewalls (w/ layered drivers blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lighten dns load). Gets data via 10 security sites.

Ads rob bandwidth/speed paid for, security (openbid adnetworks abuse), privacy in tracking + anonymity.

Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogtrackers) natively. Hosts != blockable by ClarityRay (like. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slower usermode browser addons)

Works vs. caps & HTTP PUSH ads w/ firewalls.

Avg. webpage = big as Doom for DOS http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... @ 2.3mb++

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "I've seen the code & yes it is safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

And if marketing 101 has taught us anything...

[mschwanke97402]

1) Offer unlimited internet with no data caps if you will only subscribe to the TV service.
2) Wait a few months.
3) Reduce the data caps on everyone who doesn't take the TV service to some arbitrarily low number.
4) Wait a few months.
5) Raise the price on all services.
6) Wait a few months.
7) Put data caps back on everyone, perhaps a bit higher for TV subscribers.
8) Wait a few months.
...

Bend Broadband has had caps for over a decade

[chriscappuccio]

This is the first unlimited residential internet service they've ever provided. Providing it for people who subscribe to their TV service is a good first step... Their email server has been down for days while they switched email over to their new parent company, TDS Telecom. Their internet has been up and down for months for DOCSIS 3 hardware and firmware upgrades. I think this has put a black eye more than providing the first unlimited service to their customers.

Re:Bend Broadband has had caps for over a decade

[yokem_55]

Not to mention, their previous top package, 100x5, is better understood to be the Unicorn tier. You'll never actually see those speeds. If only the local wireless company had caps more than 200 gigs... ;)

It's within their rights

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end it's entirely up to them on how they wish to charge for their products/services. However, it is up to you as the client to decide whether you want to move to another service provider... it's business 101 guys, come on!

Trail caps...

[MenThal]

You're being protected from digital dysentery; with the boob tube, the BS flows practically only in a hydrating direction, not a dehydrating one.

Eating more resources != doing it right

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: I block ads to avoid caps w/ hosts (1 file native to the IP stack). Privoxy is many parts not native that is harder to work with and more "moving parts" for breakdown/exploit AND resource consumption. There's also NO QUESTION regular expressions are NOT EASY for normal users. Hosts' data is easy for them to understand by comparison.

* Enabling/disabling hosts = easy too should I want to let in content from a site like ads (not that I would today, it's too dangerous with 'malvertising' & slows you down + EATS UP CAPS since today's webpages are SO BLOATED!)

Marginal results? LOL - hosts work to block out ads (& tons of other threats) AND GAIN YOU SPEED 2 WAYS (adblocks + hardcoded favorite sites @ top of hosts for faster resolution speeds vs. remote DNS)... what's 'marginal' about that? Nothing.

APK

P.S.=> I don't NEED scripts or regex complexity for hosts, a native single part to the IP stack RUNNING IN KERNEL MODE SPEED does the job... apk

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ helps vs. caps

[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 vs. DNS/routers/antivirus + less security issues/complexity. Compliments firewalls (w/ layered drivers blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lighten dns load). Gets data via 10 security sites.

Ads rob bandwidth/speed paid for, security (openbid adnetworks abuse), privacy in tracking + anonymity.

Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogtrackers) natively. Hosts != blockable by ClarityRay (like. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slower usermode browser addons)

Works vs. caps & HTTP PUSH ads w/ firewalls.

Avg. webpage = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... @ 2.3mb++

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "I've seen the code & yes it is safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

I can't be validly technically proven wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: I can validly technically backup anything I wrote here & none of you trolls can prove me wrong https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

(From respected security &/or technical sources behind me - what do you have? Downmod hiding the fact my subject above extolls OR trolling me off-topic like you are now is about it... lol!)

I've also been blocking ads BEFORE there was an "almostalladsblocked" using hosts (since 1997) so I can make the claim you are projecting is a "revelation" from you, lol... & doing it far more efficiently using what you already natively have that works in kernelmode as part of the IP stack itself vs. STUPIDLY illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" eating more resources + using more moving parts (for breakdown/exploit) like you fools do, lmao!

APK

P.S.=> I'm out there DOING things of value for more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online whereas you & "your kind" by comparison are NOT - & that, IS TRULY, that... apk

Want a job done right? Do it yourself via

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... as hosts data = easily user edited for adding OR removing entries + it's FAR MORE EFFICIENT using what you already natively have in the IP stack itself in kernelmode speed (vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" resources wasting usage in more moving parts for exploit + breakdown) + easily enabled/disabled via my program which obtains valid current data from 10 reputable security community sites for more speed, security, reliability + anonymity online FOR FREE...

* Courtesy of "yours truly", gratis... & you have IMMEDIATE control of the data (for adding or removing what you wish to it easily NOT WAITING OUT OTHERS UPDATES too!)

APK

P.S.=> Letting others do the job would probably BE the ONLY OPTION for most users with complex regex vs. hosts that are EASILY understood by users (same ease as understanding a phone book entry - NOT true w/ regex @ all for most users)... apk

It is time...

[martinfb]

It is time to classify internet access as a public utility. Period. It is totally unethical for ISPs to capitalize users every year with another unreasonable rate hike - or worse, unreasonable options. My elderly mother watches 3 broadcast stations only, and relies on the iPad (Facetime) to keep in touch with her grandkids (et al). She cannot afford, nor physically tolerate, the extensive travel to keep in touch as often as should be. Internet communications fill that need. She does not even want cable TV (which is all garbage reruns anyway), yet is being told that cable TV plus internet is $40/mo (for pitiful speeds of 768K - this is NOT DSL!) yet internet alone is $65/mo - for the same speed. Internet has become a necessity to maintain contact with our most valuable citizens - our wise elderly - to afford a more pleasant final years of existence and to keep them actively current within the family. This 'new' plan threatens to unreasonably increase her cost where there is no increase in her "income" (husband's pension) to cover it. So, perhaps she can cut back on food or water or sewer or taxes or other necessity to pay the cable CEO's rediculous salary! BULLSHIT! Make the internet more easily affordable and available as a right, since it has become as necessary as water and sewage, and police protection. What say you?

My city pretty much does that now

[peter303]

You get the other service, cable or internet, for only 30% more than a high priced first service.

Satellite's monthly cap

[tepples]

except the sat provider didn't offer internet at the time.

And even among those that do, such as Exede, the price per gigabyte is comparable to that of cellular Internet.

Does multicast over the Internet work yet?

[tepples]

I think the difference is that over-the-top video services are unicast, whereas traditional digital cable television is multicast. Or has accounting for multicast over the public Internet been figured out yet?

If the majority can't understand 95% billing

[tepples]

The only numbers that matter are a maximum rate throughput available on the network against the current demand of users on the network at that specific time.

In theory, a 300 GB/mo cap translates to a committed information rate just under 1 Mbps, as 1 Mbps * 2629746 seconds/month * 1 GB/8000 Mbit = 329 GB/mo. But consider a situation in which the majority of home subscribers have proven unable to understand 95th percentile burstable billing but can understand metering during peak hours. In a situation like this, what is the way to manage these numbers? But I agree with you that metering at off-peak hours, when neither the upstream nor the last mile is congested, is just a cash cow.

Let's go through Jarod Bona's tying criteria

[tepples]

Let me try to explain how the present situation fulfills each of the five tying criteria described in the article "Do the Antitrust Laws Prohibit Tying Products or Services Together for Sale?" by Jarod Bona:

• "The tied and tying items—that is, the first and second item—must actually be separate items (or services)." They are, as seen by the existence of satellite TV and fiber or DSL Internet in markets that have fiber or whose DSL qualifies as broadband.
• "the seller must actually condition the purchase of the first item (or service) on the purchase of the second item (or service)." The seller conditions data transfer greater than the cap on purchase of TV service.
• "The seller must have sufficient market power in the market for the tying item" This is true in markets without fiber to the home and whose available DSL service fails to reach 4 Mbps, the minimum to be recognized as broadband for some federal purposes.
• Finally, the article describes "The tying arrangement must affect a 'not insubstantial' amount of commerce in the tied item" and "The seller must have an economic interest in both the tied and the tying items" as gimmes.

Which criterion do you feel makes the bundling practice described in the featured article not a case of tying?

Cheap STBs exist but can't fast-forward

[tepples]

Does America no longer have broadcast (as in VHF/ UHF radio waves) TV services?

The USA has ATSC broadcasts, and STBs to watch ATSC broadcasts on pre-digital TVs are sold for under $100. But these under-$100 STBs don't support fast-forwarding near-live TV. STBs with this feature are made by TiVo, and a TiVo STB won't work without a subscription.

Re:Cheap STBs exist but can't fast-forward

[RockDoctor]

You mean there is NO other supplier of recording/ fast-forwarding STB in the US? That's astonishing. There are probably a dozen different models on the market (at most 1/6th the size of the US market!) ranging in price from £70 to about £180 depending on hard drive size and brand. One brand is a downmarket breed of Panasonic ; IIRC there is a nearly identical Hitachi with a larger drive. So I can only deduce that there is some non-technical issue not mentioned. I thought the US had courts to prosecute people trying to set up monopolies as you describe for TiVo - and which are obviously profitable for TiVo.

TiVo owns key software patents

[tepples]

You mean there is NO other supplier of recording/ fast-forwarding STB in the US? That's astonishing.

Remember that the United States is the home of software patents. Other makers of DVRs that allow simultaneous playback and recording have to license the "time-warping" patent from TiVo, usually after TiVo files suit. The only other widely used DVRs are those leased by cable TV companies and satellite TV companies.

Re:TiVo owns key software patents

[RockDoctor]

So? Buy one from abroad.

Re:TiVo owns key software patents

[tepples]

And have it 1. not support receiving ATSC because ATSC is pretty much U.S.-specific, and 2. probably stopped by customs as a result of an ICE ruling on TiVo's behalf.

Re:TiVo owns key software patents

[RockDoctor]

not support receiving ATSC because ATSC is pretty much U.S.-specific

Oh, I didn't know that. So, basically, by being exceptional, Americans lose. Oh well.

I've just been trying to set up a bank account abroad, specifically so that I can move abroad if this country takes a political lurch that I don't like next month. It's always an option.