Comcast announces placing data caps(beauclaar.blogspot.com)
beauclaar.blogspot.com
Comcast announces placing data caps
http://beauclaar.blogspot.com/2013/11/comcast-is-placing-data-caps.html
102 comments
I'm no Comcast defender (more clearly put: they are only below AT&T in terms of companies that I dislike), but I wouldn't say Netflix and online gaming eat up 300GB of data in "no time". I do both of those things regularly, and I stream around five HD basketball games per week, and I've only gone over 300GB once in twelve months. My average is around 220GB, which I'm on track for again this month so far. I rarely use torrents though, which I imagine would put a bigger squeeze on me.
That said, I'm looking forward to switching to Gigabit Seattle the moment I have the chance.
That said, I'm looking forward to switching to Gigabit Seattle the moment I have the chance.
The dinasour that figured out the maximum amount they could get away with charging.
I would say that I am probably about average in my consumption, and according to my router last month i did 217GB down and 22GB up. So I would say they are probably about right, not that I agree with what they are doing. My primary download usage is netflix / hulu plus, and primary upload usage is backblaze.
I second this.
No Netflix , Amazon , Roku or any set top box based streaming of any other kind either.
No gaming either.
This is my usage for the past three months:
http://i.imgur.com/ZDNGYVI.jpg
No Netflix , Amazon , Roku or any set top box based streaming of any other kind either.
No gaming either.
This is my usage for the past three months:
http://i.imgur.com/ZDNGYVI.jpg
IP Telephony bitrates are low, 64Kbps at most. Even if you were on 24/7 with a bitrate like that going both in and out at all times, it would still add up to only about 40GB.
How about backing up to online storage? Comcast's total should include uploads and downloads.
Alternate explanations: the meter is wrong, someone else is using your network, you're omitting a video porn addiction.
How about backing up to online storage? Comcast's total should include uploads and downloads.
Alternate explanations: the meter is wrong, someone else is using your network, you're omitting a video porn addiction.
You appear to have fallen short of 300GB all three months?
Don't you think that's awfully close to 300GB without ANY STREAMING or GAMING !?!?!
Not saying that it's a good decision, but I imagine Comcast has data on the Internet usage of millions of customers.
Yes, and they're also a corporation seeking profits, not a benevolent gift-giver who wants you to get the most fair rate possible. They own not only an ISP, but a cable company that they want you to subscribe to, and overage charges are pure profit.
For those who think this is a bad thing, consider that "unlimited" most often means "limited in an opaque way you cannot control". This cap and pricing structure adds some very nice clarity to exactly when you might exceed you quota. Personally, I would rather pay for the extra GB's than get my connection throttled at the end of the month.
Pricing May or may not be acceptable to some, but the model itself is better than "we will limit you if we feel like it".
Pricing May or may not be acceptable to some, but the model itself is better than "we will limit you if we feel like it".
If Comcast simultaneously were to commit to a 100% neutrality policy regarding the serving of that data, and would also commit to not traffic shaping - I.E. For my $50 a month, I would get a non-screwed-around-with-by-their-traffic-shapers 50 megabit/second stream - I might agree with you.
Unfortunately I suspect we will get both - a data cap, and Comcast will continue to screw around with your traffic feed so they can profit off the front end and the back end (charging for enhanced access to their customer) - basically screwing the customer in both directions.
Unfortunately I suspect we will get both - a data cap, and Comcast will continue to screw around with your traffic feed so they can profit off the front end and the back end (charging for enhanced access to their customer) - basically screwing the customer in both directions.
Agreed. This is not the only required step. I am actually mostly concerned with minimum guaranteed bandwidth and latency than anything else. Working from home means that I need a reliable connection more than anything. However, from what I have seen of all the different providers I had and researched, "unlimited" traffic is usually a very bad thing when you least expect it.
As someone who has dealt with telecommunications providers (Sprint, AT&T, Verizon) for the last 10 years on a professional basis, "Unlimited" is ALWAYS a code word for "There is a level that if you go over, bad things will happen to you, from traffic shaping, to outright cancellation of your account."
Honest to goodness conversation with Verizon I had in 2005 (we were purchasing about 100 M2M (Machine to Machine) CDMA circuits) - it was Pythonesque in its tortured logic.
Honest to goodness conversation with Verizon I had in 2005 (we were purchasing about 100 M2M (Machine to Machine) CDMA circuits) - it was Pythonesque in its tortured logic.
Me: So, I'm wondering how much traffic we can use?
Sales Guy: They are totally unlimited
Me: Great, so how much is "Totally Unlimited?"
Sales Guy: Just what it sounds like - No Limit.
Me: Right, but what is the actual Limit.
Sales Guy: It's unlimited.
Me: So, I can stream 100 kilobits/second continuously for 32 gigabytes/month/circuit:
Sales Guy: No, that would fall under our unapproved usage clause.
Me: Yes. I understand. So, I'm wondering how much traffic we can use?It's a step in the right direction. Comcast already cuts people off who download "too much" too many times. It used to be that "too much" was undefined, then it became 250GB.
The necessary next step is other internet providers competing on speed + cap. People can compare to an expensive LTE plan capped at 5GB, and make an informed decision. When there is FIOS at the same speed with no cap, or a 1Gbps uncapped provider, people have a real choice.
The necessary next step is other internet providers competing on speed + cap. People can compare to an expensive LTE plan capped at 5GB, and make an informed decision. When there is FIOS at the same speed with no cap, or a 1Gbps uncapped provider, people have a real choice.
Bullshit. This is monopolistic abuse by a rent-seeking monopoly that should be broken up.
Would you rather have them cut off your internet access entirely when you watch too many episodes of Breaking Bad in a row?
I will agree that most ISP's are fairly evil, but I would rather know where I stand with them than just get a notice that I am cut off for no good reason.
I will agree that most ISP's are fairly evil, but I would rather know where I stand with them than just get a notice that I am cut off for no good reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Thinking that those are your only choices is a prime example of why the broadband market needs far more competition. ISPs do not operate like electric utilities where they generate gigabytes to send down the line to your house. ISPs spend money on building capacity to transfer data, which they then sell to their customers in chunks. If they cannot provide they capacity they sold to their customer, it should not be the burden of the customer to avoid exceeding that capacity.
Thinking that those are your only choices is a prime example of why the broadband market needs far more competition. ISPs do not operate like electric utilities where they generate gigabytes to send down the line to your house. ISPs spend money on building capacity to transfer data, which they then sell to their customers in chunks. If they cannot provide they capacity they sold to their customer, it should not be the burden of the customer to avoid exceeding that capacity.
They are not the only choices, but I have never seen an ISP implement any other. I am not saying this is a ultimate solution to the ISP stranglehold on consumers. I am simply saying that this solution is better than the other common one.
This model is completely idiotic, since they have no need to limit any data at all. The only reason for limiting can be if their network is overloaded with traffic. And then data caps are pointless either, they need to ration bandwidth, not the amount of data per month to solve it. And even that is not a proper solution, if they have network congestion, they need to build up their network, that's it.
They pay for the traffic per GB you use. It is minimal but in the end I imagine it makes a difference whether the average user uses 300 GB or 300 TB.
Do they? Do you mean to the higher level networks? I doubt the amount they pay has a significant impact that mandates them to introduce data caps.
Here is a review of the issue: https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Cable-Industry-Finall...
In practice, data caps is an anticometitive junk devised by the cable networks to raise the price for those who stream video over the Web.
It would be proper for example to require to split any ISP business from any kind of video / TV service, since they have clear conflicts of interests there which have negative effect on user experience.
Here is a review of the issue: https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Cable-Industry-Finall...
In practice, data caps is an anticometitive junk devised by the cable networks to raise the price for those who stream video over the Web.
It would be proper for example to require to split any ISP business from any kind of video / TV service, since they have clear conflicts of interests there which have negative effect on user experience.
Unlike what a consumer might pay on AWS for traffic, large ISPs almost always typically pay for the size of circuits at the 95th percentile. They do NOT pay for traffic per GB you use for circuits that fall below that peak circuit size - there is zero cost to any ISP for actual usage - it's peak usage.
And, even then, peering makes pricing even more opaque, in which Tier-one providers negotiate mechanisms in which they agree to exchange traffic at zero cost, and just set up connections in meet-me rooms.
Regardless, The parent is right - cost is not a function of data sent, but a function of peak circuit size for the ISP - so, if there is a period in which there is little usage of their network, the ISP can serve traffic at close to zero cost to themselves.
And, even then, peering makes pricing even more opaque, in which Tier-one providers negotiate mechanisms in which they agree to exchange traffic at zero cost, and just set up connections in meet-me rooms.
Regardless, The parent is right - cost is not a function of data sent, but a function of peak circuit size for the ISP - so, if there is a period in which there is little usage of their network, the ISP can serve traffic at close to zero cost to themselves.
This comment assumes Comcast cannot provide unlimited data and clarity, which I believe could be a better option.
Quantify unlimited. Do you literally intend to saturate you connection 100% of the time? At what speed? Would you prefer they do not meter your traffic at 10Mbps or they give you 200 GB at 100 Mbps?
The simplistic view of GB/month doesn't work well for power users.
The simplistic view of GB/month doesn't work well for power users.
It's not in my knowledge how to quantify unlimited. Any definition of unlimited should come from the provider, Comcast.
If you cannot define what you want then do not ask for it.
The comment wasn't seeking any type of solution. The response pointed out a flaw in the original, unedited comment.
I could _maybe_ get behind you if they were charging a reasonable price when you go over the cap, but $10/50GB? That's insane! Given the rates I pay for extra transfer on my dedicated boxes from my provider, Comcast will make well over $9.50 for each extra block they sell.
"Will I get more data included in my monthly data usage plan if I upgrade to a higher Internet tier? While you may upgrade your Internet service at any time to receive more speed and performance, all of our tiers of service include data usage plans with 300 GB of data per month."
http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-u...
Sigh.
http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-u...
Sigh.
My hope is that they eventually conform all plans into one (at a locked speed/price), and then offer plans in varying amounts of capacity at a certain speed.
Much closer reflects a usage-based model, which makes sense for internet billing, whether people like it or not.
Much closer reflects a usage-based model, which makes sense for internet billing, whether people like it or not.
Does usage based billing truly make sense for an ISP like Comcast? If it's 4 AM and Comcast's network is mostly idle, does it matter how much bandwidth you use? Likewise, if everyone in your city uses their 300 GB between 5 PM and 8 PM, Comcast ends up having to spend more money to upgrade their network (or they just provide shit service). I wonder if some kind of billing during peak hours makes more sense.
Taken to an extreme I think you'd have pricing like Uber's demand-based pricing, which is really "fun" to think about.
Edited to add: Not that I want this at all! I'm just saying that billing based on network utilization seems to make more sense to me, since the bits on the cable are essentially free once you've got it set up. It quite possibly makes Comcast more money to bill based on bytes, and it's probably much easier to explain too.
Taken to an extreme I think you'd have pricing like Uber's demand-based pricing, which is really "fun" to think about.
Edited to add: Not that I want this at all! I'm just saying that billing based on network utilization seems to make more sense to me, since the bits on the cable are essentially free once you've got it set up. It quite possibly makes Comcast more money to bill based on bytes, and it's probably much easier to explain too.
They don't really want to do that because like cell carriers they have a large number of people using very little data and overpaying. They want to keep these people paying for much more than they use.
oh, that wouldn't change. but instead of:
$59.99 - 300GB @ 50mbps, $69.99 - 300 GB @ 75 MBPS, $79.99 - 300 GB @ 100MBPS
you'd see, in the future mind you,
$59.99 - 300GB @ 128 MBPS, $69.99 - 500 GB @ 128 MBPS, $79 - 800 GB (or, alternatively, $59.99 - 300GB, $0.n /GB afterwards)
$59.99 - 300GB @ 50mbps, $69.99 - 300 GB @ 75 MBPS, $79.99 - 300 GB @ 100MBPS
you'd see, in the future mind you,
$59.99 - 300GB @ 128 MBPS, $69.99 - 500 GB @ 128 MBPS, $79 - 800 GB (or, alternatively, $59.99 - 300GB, $0.n /GB afterwards)
That's an awful hope. My hope is that they are declared an illegal monopoly and an environment is created where actual competition can occur so we end up paying what bandwidth actually costs.
From http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/data-u...:
"These FAQs describe our new monthly data usage plan for XFINITY Internet Service in the following areas: Huntsville and Mobile, AL; Atlanta; Augusta and Savannah, GA; Central Kentucky; Maine; Jackson, MS; Knoxville and Memphis, TN; and Charleston, SC."
"These FAQs describe our new monthly data usage plan for XFINITY Internet Service in the following areas: Huntsville and Mobile, AL; Atlanta; Augusta and Savannah, GA; Central Kentucky; Maine; Jackson, MS; Knoxville and Memphis, TN; and Charleston, SC."
This explains why I thought this was old news. It has been in Nashville for a long time now.
How close do you get to monthly caps?
Currently I average around 200GB per month. Some months are closer to 300GB and 350GB and I pay the $10 overage fees. I only pay for Internet and only use Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Prime and that pretty much is what my B/W is tied to. If I could switch to something faster with greater B/W I would in a heartbeat but I just have no motivation since its paid for through work-related usage.
Thanks vapor. It gives me something to benchmark.
If they commit to providing suitable bandwidth for services such as Netflix and YouTube, I'm not sure how opposed I am to paying for bandwidth.
Estimates are that Netflix movies are 1GB/hr- or $0.20/hr at the Comcast rate. Not super cheap.
Estimates are that Netflix movies are 1GB/hr- or $0.20/hr at the Comcast rate. Not super cheap.
Netflix should be fine, they've already implemented Canada mode, where they stream super-low bandwidth versions. Because while 300GB may seem small for you, in Canada we have to deal with bullshit like 80GB caps on 35Mbps internet for $70/month.
It's worse than the third world for internet here in Canada. I'd say that you should be grateful for 300GB caps, but honestly, I think all caps should be abolished.
It's worse than the third world for internet here in Canada. I'd say that you should be grateful for 300GB caps, but honestly, I think all caps should be abolished.
We run into this a lot around the 8-9pm hour. Netflix on xbox seems to be the exception though. Everything else slows down equally (Bluray, phones, ipad, etc.)...not noticeable on anything other than the bluray player though but network stats definitely show it.
I notice this very same thing in my area. The mornings on workdays are considerably faster than evenings on the same days. I notice this when downloading ISOs for operating systems especially. I usually try and save my downloading of these things for morning so that it completes in 10 minutes vs 50 minutes.
> We will send you a courtesy "in-browser" notice and an email letting you know how much of the data included in your monthly plan you are using
That is the item that really bothers me. What Comcast is saying is that they will alter/inject their own content into a customer's HTTP requests when they deem it necessary.
That is the item that really bothers me. What Comcast is saying is that they will alter/inject their own content into a customer's HTTP requests when they deem it necessary.
I was wondering about this too when I read that... Is this an indirect admission that they actively use DPI?
This is actually a much better policy then the one in place 3-4 years ago when I had comcast.
Back then I had a cap of 150-200 GB/Month and if you went over they would give you a warning, but eventually boot you for repeated offenses. Now it looks like they will just charge you a bit more instead of kicking you off completely.
Back then I had a cap of 150-200 GB/Month and if you went over they would give you a warning, but eventually boot you for repeated offenses. Now it looks like they will just charge you a bit more instead of kicking you off completely.
I have Verizon FIOS which has no data caps although there was a story recently of a user that received a call when he went over 77 TB for the month:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/fios-c...
I really couldn't be happier with Verizon FIOS. For $74.95 per month I get 75 Mbps downstream / 35 Mbps upstream Internet, unlimited phone service and their Premium TV channel lineup.
Comcast is an option where I live as well but I can't imagine many people choose it. Twice now they've had a door-to-door salesman come around trying to sell it. No thanks.
I'm fortunate to be in an area that has a lot of broadband competition (including from wireless providers like Clear [now Sprint]).
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/fios-c...
I really couldn't be happier with Verizon FIOS. For $74.95 per month I get 75 Mbps downstream / 35 Mbps upstream Internet, unlimited phone service and their Premium TV channel lineup.
Comcast is an option where I live as well but I can't imagine many people choose it. Twice now they've had a door-to-door salesman come around trying to sell it. No thanks.
I'm fortunate to be in an area that has a lot of broadband competition (including from wireless providers like Clear [now Sprint]).
>> Twice now they've had a door-to-door salesman come around trying to sell it.
Only twice? I've got Frontier FIOS (what used to be Verizon), and I'll bet Comcast is at my door at least once a month. Add to that the flyers that constantly come in the mail.
On a side note related to the mailings, I've opened a few to see if they have a better deal than Frontier. Sure, it's almost free for six months, but good luck finding out what the rate goes to after the first six months. Check the fine print of the flyer, check the web site, damned if I can find it. Yeah, I think I'll pass.
Only twice? I've got Frontier FIOS (what used to be Verizon), and I'll bet Comcast is at my door at least once a month. Add to that the flyers that constantly come in the mail.
On a side note related to the mailings, I've opened a few to see if they have a better deal than Frontier. Sure, it's almost free for six months, but good luck finding out what the rate goes to after the first six months. Check the fine print of the flyer, check the web site, damned if I can find it. Yeah, I think I'll pass.
I've had FiOS for close to 7 years now. I really need to get my service upped from 20/5.
Broadband prices across the world:
(45 Mbps or more)
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70717000/gif/_70717869...
This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom.
For instance, at high speeds of 45 Mbps and over, the OECD report has the US ranked 30th out of 33 countries, with an average price of $90 a month. With phone and TV thrown in, plus some premium channels, these packages often cost $200.
"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," says Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy.
Although there are several national companies, local markets tend to be dominated by just one or two main providers.
"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."
Two-thirds get their broadband via their television cables, she says, because the DSL (digital subscriber line) service provided by phone companies over copper lines can't compete with cable speeds, while wireless and satellite services are subject to low usage caps.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24528383
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70717000/gif/_70717869...
This research echoes the findings of another report earlier in the summer by the OECD, which compared countries in terms of their broadband-only prices. Across all 10 download speeds and capacities, it consistently ranked the US near the bottom.
For instance, at high speeds of 45 Mbps and over, the OECD report has the US ranked 30th out of 33 countries, with an average price of $90 a month. With phone and TV thrown in, plus some premium channels, these packages often cost $200.
"Americans pay so much because they don't have a choice," says Susan Crawford, a former special assistant to President Barack Obama on science, technology and innovation policy.
Although there are several national companies, local markets tend to be dominated by just one or two main providers.
"We deregulated high-speed internet access 10 years ago and since then we've seen enormous consolidation and monopolies, so left to their own devices, companies that supply internet access will charge high prices, because they face neither competition nor oversight."
Two-thirds get their broadband via their television cables, she says, because the DSL (digital subscriber line) service provided by phone companies over copper lines can't compete with cable speeds, while wireless and satellite services are subject to low usage caps.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24528383
Telekom in Germany recently tried to introduce a similar data cap system on their flatrates ([1], with severe throttling to 384kbps after reaching the limit (between 75GB for their 16 MBit and 400GB for their 200MBit plans)).
Fortunately, a district court ruled that to be unlawful last month ([2], German). I fear, however, that a similar development in the US is more than unlikely.
[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130425/02255122829/deutsc...
[2] http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gericht-telekom-drosselung10...
Fortunately, a district court ruled that to be unlawful last month ([2], German). I fear, however, that a similar development in the US is more than unlikely.
[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130425/02255122829/deutsc...
[2] http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gericht-telekom-drosselung10...
In a world that is moving towards gigabit internet, which genius in Comcast thought 300GB is enough for most people? The internet is far from its peak. Already, we see more and more websites with background videos, beautiful images, and all kinds of wonderful media. At the rate of advancement we will consume even more amazing media on the internet (3D?) that will take up even more bandwidth as time goes on. By introducing a bandwidth saving mindset and forcing consumers to browse conservatively, Comcast is really going against the evolution of the internet. Like most companies that is destined to fail, Comcast makes decisions based on old and current data. They fail to take into account rate of growth and make policies that benefits and embraces the future.
Switch to Sonic Fusion DSL if you're in their service area (Bay Area, perhaps elsewhere?).
http://sonic.net/solutions/home/internet/fusion/
Far cheaper than Comcast and no gimmicks. The service runs about $50/month with all the little FCC charges, taxes, etc tacked on and comes with an unlimited nationwide phone line too. The speed is dependent on your distance from the central switching station of the phone company. I've had it in two locations with speeds ranging from 8 to 16MBit/s, on par with Comcast. Perfect for streaming any TV show you want to watch.
http://sonic.net/solutions/home/internet/fusion/
Far cheaper than Comcast and no gimmicks. The service runs about $50/month with all the little FCC charges, taxes, etc tacked on and comes with an unlimited nationwide phone line too. The speed is dependent on your distance from the central switching station of the phone company. I've had it in two locations with speeds ranging from 8 to 16MBit/s, on par with Comcast. Perfect for streaming any TV show you want to watch.
Sonic.net is great but unfortunately DSL technology isn't. I've also had sonic.net in two locations but my speeds ranged from 5-7Mbits. So it's worth a shot but it's not perfect.
Countries with widespread ADSL can attest to some of its downfalls. For example, try getting upload of more than 130kB/s on ADSL2+. ;)
This enables them to offer an upsale for an unlimited package in the future, which is what ISPs here in Canada have begun doing.
I pay extra for unlimited, and I need to since my family uses HD Netflix to watch TV, and I download a lot of entertainment content.
I pay extra for unlimited, and I need to since my family uses HD Netflix to watch TV, and I download a lot of entertainment content.
And this ladies and gentlemen is when healthy capitalism turns into corporate greed. Internet needs to become faster with more bandwidth so engineers can design products that utilizes it. I can think of several ideas that are stifled because of America's draconian internet service providers. I'm not a big fan of the government stepping in to fix things the free market wont, but this is one of those things where companies should be forced to innovate because they choose not to compete. Providing the internet is too profitable for them to need to compete. There is something wrong with that in a capitalist economy.
I don't quite understand how you think that the current ISP situation is an example of healthy capitalism or a free market. It is anything but. There is a ton of government regulation related to ISPs. So I don't see how fighting regulation with regulation is a good idea.
Freaking barbaric, is what this is.
At least they are offering more bandwidth at a price. Before it was a hard cap at 250GB with no way to buy more.
But still, it makes me want to up and move to Chattanooga.
http://chattanoogagig.com/
But still, it makes me want to up and move to Chattanooga.
http://chattanoogagig.com/
That's incorrect. The old comcast system took congestion into account. I routinely ran 500-600GB/month offsite backups, but I scheduled them for the middle of the night and midday, and I never got a nastygram for exceeding the cap. The new system pretends that all bits are equally expensive, regardless of whether the system is currently slammed or twiddling its thumbs, which is a profit-maximizing lie.
I suspect it was selectively enforced. I had a similar usage pattern and did get a notice.
Pick your poison.
Data cap.
Fully metered.
Data cap.
Fully metered.
How is paying for how much you actually use barbaric?
It's actuall the part where you can't not pay for what you don't use. Otherwise it's just stupidly overpriced.
My plan with Northland Cable is capped at 200GB. even with lots of Netflix streaming I've never hit my cap. the only thing that irritates me is that I have no way of knowing exactly how much data I use.
I have dealt with the 250GB cap for nearly a year and half, they always add the blocks on at 50GB for $10 per block. Luckily my internet is paid for through work so its trivial at the moment.
The cap is not the frightening bit of this announcement. That Comcast has declared they will MITM and hack user connections to all websites not using SSL is frightening.
Data caps is a completely brain dead idea. If they have problems with network congestion, they need to use bandwidth caps, not data caps. The later are just a rip off.
Its not a brain dead idea from a corporate policy to maximize profits. Datacaps allow them to not expand infrasture to accommodate growth.
Imagine if Google adopted a policy where each user was only allowed 300 queries a month. That means Google wouldn't have to expand their infrastructure to satisfy a growing demand for information. The only reason they don't do this is because Google profits from each query.
ISPs don't profit from their consumers downloading more data, it only costs them building more infrasture and employing network admins to maintain them. Its just internet providers generate a ridiculous return in profit for the amount of money they actually invest to provide internet. ISPs don't need to compete with other ISPs because how profitable internet is for them. They need incentive to provide better service and until something like Google Fiber forces disruption in the market; engineers will have an artificial roadblock preventing them from innovating.
For example a cloud based OS where users can access their PCs at home in realtime from terminals abroad will never be a reality until America is upgraded to fiber optic bandwidth. It causes to much latency to download and mount your filesystem onto a local machine. Anybody with experience using Plan 9 remotely understands this problem and knows I'm right.
As we become more dependent on the cloud to sync data between our mobile devices and PCs, datacaps will stifle innovative growth. Its something we need to vehemently battle to shift the market in our favor.
Imagine if Google adopted a policy where each user was only allowed 300 queries a month. That means Google wouldn't have to expand their infrastructure to satisfy a growing demand for information. The only reason they don't do this is because Google profits from each query.
ISPs don't profit from their consumers downloading more data, it only costs them building more infrasture and employing network admins to maintain them. Its just internet providers generate a ridiculous return in profit for the amount of money they actually invest to provide internet. ISPs don't need to compete with other ISPs because how profitable internet is for them. They need incentive to provide better service and until something like Google Fiber forces disruption in the market; engineers will have an artificial roadblock preventing them from innovating.
For example a cloud based OS where users can access their PCs at home in realtime from terminals abroad will never be a reality until America is upgraded to fiber optic bandwidth. It causes to much latency to download and mount your filesystem onto a local machine. Anybody with experience using Plan 9 remotely understands this problem and knows I'm right.
As we become more dependent on the cloud to sync data between our mobile devices and PCs, datacaps will stifle innovative growth. Its something we need to vehemently battle to shift the market in our favor.
This "maximizing profit" is an effective rip off fueled by pure greed and not any real need. They can perfectly build up their infrastructure without introducing these rip offs.
And I'm not sure how they can accommodate usage growth without building up the infrastructure. Data caps aren't going to help that, they'll just make bad service cost more, nothing else.
And I'm not sure how they can accommodate usage growth without building up the infrastructure. Data caps aren't going to help that, they'll just make bad service cost more, nothing else.
"vehemently battle"?? I am pretty sure lobblying will win any time of the day over "vehemently battling" citizens. Another lobby group from amazon or netflix can only push it the other way.
>> ISPs don't profit from their consumers downloading more data
They would, if it helped them compete. Oh yeah, this is all just a symptom of abuse of monopolies.
They would, if it helped them compete. Oh yeah, this is all just a symptom of abuse of monopolies.
Crap I just looked at my usage. Basically looks like I will be paying $10-$20 a month more. Not much money but that really irritates me.
Fuck Comcast. I use around 500gb/month. So I'm looking an extra $40 onto of the $80 I'm already paying for Internet only.
US you're ISP's suck please wake up and do something about it!
Now I'm not in a lot better position ISP's in London are not that much of an improvement.
However if i say Romania what pops into your mind? I my case internet speeds starting from 50Mb/s in every major city at a price equivalent to £6/month.
http://www.rcs-rds.ro/internet-digi-net/fiberlink?t=internet...
Now I'm not in a lot better position ISP's in London are not that much of an improvement.
However if i say Romania what pops into your mind? I my case internet speeds starting from 50Mb/s in every major city at a price equivalent to £6/month.
http://www.rcs-rds.ro/internet-digi-net/fiberlink?t=internet...
Do what exactly? Most areas in the US are served either by one provider that does whatever the hell it wants or multiple providers that offer the same awful service at the same terrible prices (ish). We can't vote with our money and we can't vote with our votes since our politicians (1) are clueless about all things technology (2) get the little knowledge they have from lobbyists and (3) won't do anything about internet problems unless they hear about it from a lot of voters, most of whom are also clueless about all things technology.
Well you're on a good track complain politicians don't care as much about the masses as they do about the noisy few on the news.
And sitting back complaining there's no competition won't get things done so build a company that actually strives to give customers a better service instead of milking them for every cent they can.
I'm not saying it's easy but if everybody is just complaining it will never get done.
And sitting back complaining there's no competition won't get things done so build a company that actually strives to give customers a better service instead of milking them for every cent they can.
I'm not saying it's easy but if everybody is just complaining it will never get done.
I assume Romanians are somewhat (equally) clueless about technology on average. What's the difference, then? What are they doing right?
Actually worse. Most people still have a hard time just doing basic things on a laptop.
The difference is teenagers are teaching their parents how to use laptops or other new electronics so they are improving slowly.
The difference is teenagers are teaching their parents how to use laptops or other new electronics so they are improving slowly.
Is £6/month a lot in Romania? Does it buy less than the $70 I spend for 50mbs?
Prices for most things in Romania are the same as in London but the income is a lot less that's what puts most Romanians in a nasty situation.
Imagine you living on (average us income)/6 while everything else around you has the same price it has now. That will give you a good idea.
Most people have a monthly income of about £250 if you were to convert it. Now that should cover all the bills and food, most Romanians own their houses so they don't have to pay rent which is good but that is still a bad situation regardless.
Imagine you living on (average us income)/6 while everything else around you has the same price it has now. That will give you a good idea.
Most people have a monthly income of about £250 if you were to convert it. Now that should cover all the bills and food, most Romanians own their houses so they don't have to pay rent which is good but that is still a bad situation regardless.
For reference, Romania's area is a little smaller than Michigan (the 11th largest US state). And about the same population as the state of New York.
So, it's not like it's a tiny country. We should be able to do that pricing in U.S.
So, it's not like it's a tiny country. We should be able to do that pricing in U.S.
Yes and the only major difference i see compare to London is that the last mile is done with Cat5 instead of phone line.
Not that much of a feat.
You also forgot to factor in terrain it is quite a mountainous country.
Not that much of a feat.
You also forgot to factor in terrain it is quite a mountainous country.
Am I missing something? How exactly is this increasing "the amount of data included in your XFINITY Internet Service"?
[deleted](1)
I hate comcast so much, they compress the shit out of their television content
It's about 1Mbit a month... (1Mbit = 328.5 GB).
That made my jaw drop. Netflix usage eats that in no time. Online gaming eats that in no time. Actually, web browsing for a family of 4 (which includes Youtube, etc.) eats that in no time. Today's "regular" Internet usage eats that in no time.
Which dinosaur thought that 300 GB was "more than enough?"