Slashdot Mirror
Terabyte-Using Cable Customers Double, Increasing Risk of Data Cap Fees (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: U.S. cable Internet customers are using an average of 268.7GB per month, and 4.1 percent of households use at least 1TB, according to new research by the vendor OpenVault. Households that use at least 1TB a month are at risk of paying overage fees because of the 1TB data caps imposed by Comcast and other ISPs. Terabyte users nearly doubled year over year, as just 2.1 percent of households hit the 1TB mark last year, according to OpenVault. OpenVault found that households that face data caps use 8.5-percent less data than un-capped users, suggesting that cable customers limit their Internet usage when they face the prospect of overage fees. According to OpenVault, the caps can help cable companies avoid major network upgrades.
Specifically, "OpenVault's 2018 data also shows that average usage for households with flat-rate pricing was 282.1GB/HH, more than 9 percent higher than the 258.2GB/HH average usage for households on usage-based billing (UBB) plans," OpenVault wrote. Stated another way, customers facing caps and overage fees use 8.5-percent less data than un-capped customers. Un-capped customers are, naturally, more likely to exceed a terabyte. "The percentage of flat-rate (non-UBB) households exceeding 1TB of usage was 4.82 percent, a full percentage point higher than the 3.81 percent of UBB households who exceeded the 1TB threshold," OpenVault said. The 268.7GB average household data used in December 2018 was "up from 226.4GB/HH [household] at the end of June 2018 and a 33.3 percent increase over the YE 2017 average of 201.6GB/HH," OpenVault said. Median usage was 145.2GB in December 2018, "up from 116.4GB/HH in June 2018 and a 40 percent increase over the YE 2017 median of 103.6GB/HH," the company also said.
Specifically, "OpenVault's 2018 data also shows that average usage for households with flat-rate pricing was 282.1GB/HH, more than 9 percent higher than the 258.2GB/HH average usage for households on usage-based billing (UBB) plans," OpenVault wrote. Stated another way, customers facing caps and overage fees use 8.5-percent less data than un-capped customers. Un-capped customers are, naturally, more likely to exceed a terabyte. "The percentage of flat-rate (non-UBB) households exceeding 1TB of usage was 4.82 percent, a full percentage point higher than the 3.81 percent of UBB households who exceeded the 1TB threshold," OpenVault said. The 268.7GB average household data used in December 2018 was "up from 226.4GB/HH [household] at the end of June 2018 and a 33.3 percent increase over the YE 2017 average of 201.6GB/HH," OpenVault said. Median usage was 145.2GB in December 2018, "up from 116.4GB/HH in June 2018 and a 40 percent increase over the YE 2017 median of 103.6GB/HH," the company also said.
Fuck Comcast and their shitty network. They should have to pay for upgrades to their crappy-ass network. Thankfully Verizon doesn't need to add caps to their network because it's all fiber and can handle the extra traffic.
The most I ever used was when gathering evidence of the performance problems with the ISP. It was Virgin Media, and they were prioritizing speed test sites so that you couldn't prove that their service was crap.
I decided to use a non-speed test site to gather evidence. They ran an FTP server that mirrored some popular Linux distros and games. I created a simple script to keep downloading some ISOs with 16 threads, saturating my connection for weeks at a time. All the while I gathered speed data, and could see that regular as clockwork every afternoon and all weekend it was crippled. 150Mb down to about 1.5Mb with massive packet loss.
Eventually they noticed and shut down the FTP server, but by that point I had enough data to make my case. Got a fairly substantial refund and out of my contract, moved on to Zen over wet string.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Data caps are simply made up fiction to charge you more. They are similar to the made up fees like "HD access" and "multiroom DVR". They are charging a lot of money for things that cost nothing to implement. Only oligopoly suppliers can get away with fictional charges like these. If you don't pay those fees then they purposely break their service to make things worse for you.
The only true number that matters is aggregate peak demand. If aggregate peak demand exceeds network capacity then packets are going to drop. So if the ISPs were being truthful and selling real services instead of fictional ones, they would sell plans with bandwidth caps that kick in only during times of congestion.
I am 100% in favor of last mile ISP regulation back to POPs which allow free interconnect to any ISP provider. It is silly to run multiple sets of wires to each house. Instead there should be regulated wiring back to a POP supporting 25K homes. This model would allow you to subscribe to any ISP with a presence at the POP.
True! You could go to a gym and use their wifi to download Netflix shows, then take home the cached content! Oh whoops, I stopped reading what you wrote half way through. :-)
Yes, this true for me using a Roku. There is no power-off button/command and when you turn your TV off, you Roku continues streaming. For something like a Netflix movie at least it will stop after the movie ends. But some shows continue to next episode. You have to remember to stop streaming before you turn off your TV and tell your family members/guests to do the same
I use a Harmony remote now (in three rooms) to send a 'Home' command during the power-off sequence. I hate source devices (Roku, Chromecast, Blu-ray players, etc.) who do not offer a direct power-off/standby command. I thought HDMI-CEC would solve the problem but it doesn't seem to and it creates a host of other problems as there are so many bad/incompatible implementations
Haven't used Apple TV in a while but I think it behaves just like Roku.
Back to the original article, yes, I have trouble staying below the 1 TB. Only two people in the house and using YouTubeTV as a service. I have to reduce video-resolution most of the time (not ideal). Cord-cutting is the reason.
You could just plug these devices into a "smart" power strip, and have the strip disable devices it detects in standby mode.
I have 3Mb/s DSL, which doesn't quite allow 1TB/month (0.003 Tb / 8) * 365 days / 12 months * 24 hours * 3600 seconds.
So, a high speed customer should expect to able to pull a lot more than that.
This is is being framed as 1TB being excessive, when really it isn't.
The dawn of video ads was the time i decided to block everything. Adblockers + SafeScript. I haven't been bothered by ads in years. Also no tracking..
Sure it is done to make money. As people leave cable the cable companies need to replace the lost revenue so data caps are a way to get money from cable cutters. The idea that cutting the cord will save most users money not going to be the case; they’ll pay the same or more just to different companies, at least until cable companies go to all streaming and sell bundles.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
That is the peak demand part of the equation. For sure it costs money to expand peak demand capacity. If you are going to sell people gigabit modems then you need to have the peaking capacity to handle them. So why don't they charge you for bandwidth limits during peak hours? Data caps have nothing to do with peaking.
"The only true number that matters is aggregate peak demand. If aggregate peak demand exceeds network capacity then packets are going to drop. So if the ISPs were being truthful and selling real services instead of fictional ones, they would sell plans with bandwidth caps that kick in only during times of congestion"
You 100% got it. Cost to ISP's is about gigabit/sec peak not gigabytes per month. Only addition is some types of traffic are cheaper due to POP caching e.g Netflix caching servers.
A competitive ISP structure leasing last mile to POP as suggested would allow for much better indication in ISP choices between caching, transit purchases and peering. Also clever models based on customers who would pay premium for capacity at peak, latency etc.
In the real world data caps have no relation to peak capacity needs. You could give 1M customer a one byte cap and if they use it all at the same time your need 1M byte capacity. If they all use it sequentially you only need 1 byte in capacity. Data caps are simply artificial constructs that are designed to raise prices.
If they were truly worried about congestion they would sell $20 plans like 100Mb, when 50% congestion it degrades to 50Mb, at 75% congestion degrades to 10Mb, over 90% you can't use the network. And then have $100 plans that never degrade.