A happy message for Sava.. AT&T Bandwidth Caps.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Wed May 04, 2011 6:45 am

Sava700, what you posted is 100% correct in regards to the AT&T bandwidth caps. And I am happy that I did not go back to them as a end user. What also is alarming, is that it is illegal as well. Why? Because when you, the end user bought this service from the Internet Service Provider (ISP) and there was "no" clause in the Terms of Service (TOS) that said that you, the user agree to the bandwidth cap that AT&T and I'm sure others ISP will be following. People will argue this fact, and / or you'll find that the ISP "changed" the TOS without the acknowledgement of the end user. That is a 100% true fact.

Another true fact that you pointed out, is ISP's like AT&T and also Comcast and other "do not" want end users to use streaming movie services like NetFlix and Hulu. They would rather over charge you for their service and make you pay "more" for that sort of service and charge you "more" for regular internet use. It's a WIN/WIN for the ISP companies. All of this wraps up with Net Neutrality that legal entities and groups have not reacted on enough and / or side stepped the issue when presented.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed May 04, 2011 7:03 am

250 gig monthly allotment for UVerse customers......even though my household is very heavy on internet usage....kid is torrenting his massive music collection pretty much 24x7, wife is transferring her real estate pictures and files all the time, I do lots of remote work and lots and lots of downloading of updates, files, drivers, and even uploading...it won't be a concern. 250 gigs is quite generous. It will only impact a small percentage of users that are really exceeding the intended use (like running dozens of torrent/p2p servers or something). Even if I had the 150 gig DSL cap, my household would have to try very hard to exceed that.

If steps such as they're doing are what it takes to allow them to keep their prices down for the larger percentage of customers...that's fine by me, I stand up and applaud (and so does my wallet). Why let the small percentage of their customers that abuse their bandwidth..and impact performance for the rest of us, forcing the ISP to upgrade their infrastructure and pass the costs on to the other 97% of us normal users? It's a "lose-lose" for that high percentage of regular customers.

Some stats: "a 150-GB DSL customer could receive 10,000 emails, download 2,000 digital songs, transfer 3,000 photos, stream a one-minute YouTube video 5,000 times, watch 100 hours of high-quality TV and still have enough bandwidth to stream 13 HD-quality movies or 25 standard-quality ones."

Post by **Philip** » Wed May 04, 2011 9:24 am

Shinobi, it is legal, as you agree that they can make changes to the ToS when you sign up.

As for the "generousity" of bandwidth caps, they're direct shots to video streaming, rather than p2p IMHO. P2P usage has dropped from over 20% of total traffic to 9% in the last few years (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... irates.ars) while video streaming accounts for at least 30% of traffic... According to this article video streaming has jumped 600%!!! in the past year. A single HD movie streamed from Neftlix accounts for a couple of Gigabytes of data.

I know I watch Netflix and some On Demand movies, I'm online all the time, I do some backup transfers from the website, the kids stream video to their computers, and we easily average over 100Gb/month, we've hit 200Gb+ once or twice. I believe many AT&T DSL subscribers that stream a lot of video will be hitting the 150Gb DSL cap.

It would be interesting to see how Verizon FiOS and videostreaming sites like Netflix/YouTube/Hulu react next.

Lefty · Post by **Lefty** » Wed May 04, 2011 9:31 am

I have had months that I have gone over 250Gig. Its not all the time, but I have. I guess thats why I have so many external drives.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed May 04, 2011 9:41 am

Philip wrote: P2P usage has dropped from over 20% of total traffic to 9% in the last few years (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... irates.ars)

I'd seen that article...and I don't believe it. I think they based those numbers on the big traditional p2p programs like old limewire...and they're not counting torrents. All I see and hear from kids and their massive iPod/MP3 music collections is that they got them on torrents.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Wed May 04, 2011 11:43 am

The funny thing about this is AT&T is claiming they said users WANTED a cap.. LMAO!! I mean wow... First Comcast then soon more to follow just as I said which kills innovation. More and more is coming in the form of digital and more bandwidth is needed but if you offer faster packages but cap the usage many could hit these caps in days let alone a month.

This is the BS that AT&T is feeding people now after the cap was set:

"Our approach is based on customers' feedback," said Mark Siegel, spokesman for AT&T. "They told us that the people who use the most should pay more, and they also told us we should make it easy for them to track their usage. We think our approach addresses these concerns."

It all depends how you ask the question.

If someone asked, "Do you believe people that use significantly more data than the average user and consequently slow down everyone else's connection should be charged more?" The answer will be majority yes.

If someone asked, "Do you believe that data consumption should be capped and those who go over the cap should be charged more?" The answer will be majority no.

You can point to greed plain and simple.. read this as posted on another site it shows it exactly how it is:

What is not known how the information was communicated to AT&T, specifically, what question did they pose to gain such feedback. If they sent out a survey that asked, "Do you believe that the top 2% of broadband users should pay more than the remaining 98%" then of course you will hear consumers ask for higher premium to that demographic.

Further, if AT&T were truly worried about their broadband being overrun by heavy downloading, why aren't consumers using under the cap being rewarded for their efforts or, at minimum, given "rollover" data as they do with their cellular service. AT&T needs to be honest and call the caps what it is, a tax on users to pad their bottom line. While that will never happen, they are trying to cover it up by saying users requested the data caps.

I know Cat and I have argued this over and over...and it's not the amount of the cap but just the CAP in general. Once you allow one to do it others follow and soon we will see the caps get smaller and smaller. They increase packages, raise prices and drop a cap - all following in the line of the future.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Wed May 04, 2011 11:53 am

Another article I read over on CNN

Cisco recently forecast that video on-demand usage will double every 2 1/2 years. AT&T said its customers are using more broadband as data-intensive video services like Netflix become more popular. Video currently makes up 40% of all Internet traffic and will exceed 91% by 2014, according to Cisco.

Though typical broadband users don't come close to approaching the caps now, the increase in average video consumption will undoubtedly cause a greater number of users to exceed their limits in the coming years.

That could force broadband providers to raise their caps in the future if customers begin to complain.

To head off a backlash, AT&T is sending customers alerts when they reached 65%, 90% and 100% of their data allotment each month. The company is also giving customers an undefined grace period before it charges them for another 50 GB. AT&T also is allowing customers to check their data usage online.

I really enjoyed that last part.. the meter they will put up so you can monitor your usage.. hell mine with Comcast hasn't worked in half a year if not longer. I've called and complained and we walk through whatever trying to fix it for nearly 30mins or more and still don't work so as far as I'm concerned till the meter works I'll use whatever I want and never worry about the cap.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/03/technol ... /index.htm

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed May 04, 2011 12:31 pm

Sava700 wrote:They increase packages, raise prices and drop a cap - all following in the line of the future.

Yet their own example shows otherwise. Lets review shall we?
DSL...lower speed (up to 6 megs), lower price, lower cap (150 gigs)
U-Verse...higher speed (up to 24 megs where I am), higher price, higher cap (250 gigs)

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Wed May 04, 2011 2:48 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Yet their own example shows otherwise. Lets review shall we?
DSL...lower speed (up to 6 megs), lower price, lower cap (150 gigs)
U-Verse...higher speed (up to 24 megs where I am), higher price, higher cap (250 gigs)

It's as of now.. you add a cap while not increasing bandwidth but at the same time higher price each year for the same speeds and you stifle innovation and the ability for the internet to grow or the digital usage to increase. Same setup with Comcast..they increase my monthly fee, don't increase my speed package but still keep a cap that may sound generous to many but is still a cap. It's not all about little jimmy and his torrent usage.. torrents are hardly a issue any more when you compare it to video streaming and HD content.

Unholy · Post by **Unholy** » Wed May 04, 2011 3:04 pm

I dropped them for Sonic.net. Uncapped 20Mbps ADSL2+ depending on distance & POTS for about $53 a month still using AT&T's lines. No caps yet and better service through the same lines.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Wed May 04, 2011 4:38 pm

Just some curiosities... (And when I say cable TV, I'm using it as a generic for Cable, FIOS, Satellite, etc...)

I wonder how much bandwidth cable TV uses...

I wonder if they will soon adjust cable TV prices according to how much time a person has their TV on... I actually know people that haven't turned their TV off in ...a couple of years...

How does cable TV compare to internet TV... Is the amount of bandwidth different...

Just some things for you guys to think about...

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Wed May 04, 2011 5:00 pm

Ken wrote:Just some curiosities... (And when I say cable TV, I'm using it as a generic for Cable, FIOS, Satellite, etc...)

I wonder how much bandwidth cable TV uses...

I wonder if they will soon adjust cable TV prices according to how much time a person has their TV on... I actually know people that haven't turned their TV off in ...a couple of years...

How does cable TV compare to internet TV... Is the amount of bandwidth different...

Just some things for you guys to think about...

Depends if the cable TV is commercial free or not.. I'm sure there are a lot of factors that come into play for differences but a pay per use scale for internet is NOT what we need cause you can bet the amounts will be really inflated for what they should be. Biggest problem most don't understand is broadband (3mbps downspeed average) isn't available to many people in this country alone. There are people in this area that are still on dialup cause that is all they can get unless you go with a Sat co and pay an insane amount for a very VERY low capped usage not to mention it isn't much better than dialup. I would imagin if the DSL/Cable providers push more into these rural area's they would acquire more customers which would help keep the prices low from a higher subscriber rate.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Wed May 04, 2011 5:05 pm

Philip wrote:Shinobi, it is legal, as you agree that they can make changes to the ToS when you sign up....

Hi Philip.. I read what you wrote, but here is the deal.. when I signed up with AT&T.. like 2 year ago, thier was nothing stated in regards to a "cap" in there TOS, nor that they could change the TOS without contacting me (the end user). And that is another thing. AT&T and other companies very rarely make there TOS known in the open, or send updates to their users as well in regards to TOS modification. A little song and dance? A little slight of hand? Very much so..

To all of my IT colleagues, it does not help You, or anyone else by agreeing, supporting, accepting this sort of TOS modification and Caps. The majority of You get "unlimited" bandwidth now, and rather than these ISP's expanding their infrastructure (which they do not want to spend money on) and adding movie services and lowering their prices to be competitive, they would rather follow an unethical practice by undermining their competitors services and jacking up prices for you, the consumer, and give you far less.

And as I have said to many supporters of this sort of ISP action(s), You don't think this will affect you.. down the road.. it will.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Wed May 04, 2011 5:07 pm

I signed up for Netflix streaming on Saturday; found out about the new caps on Sunday. I'm sure I'll be paying $10 for extra 50 GB chunks for a good while.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Wed May 04, 2011 5:12 pm

Burke wrote:I signed up for Netflix streaming on Saturday; found out about the new caps on Sunday. I'm sure I'll be paying $10 for extra 50 GB chunks for a good while.

I love Netflix streaming.. and I'm sorry man that you have to spend more,, I'm sure shortly we all will, if this BS keeps up.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Wed May 04, 2011 5:49 pm

Burke wrote:I signed up for Netflix streaming on Saturday; found out about the new caps on Sunday. I'm sure I'll be paying $10 for extra 50 GB chunks for a good while.

They are stating that there is a undisclosed grace amount beyond the cap but that still doesn't make the cap right. As I stated a while back, how come those that don't hit the cap don't have adjustments done or what you didn't use isn't rolled over each month?

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed May 04, 2011 8:08 pm

Shinobi wrote:Hi Philip.. I read what you wrote, but here is the deal.. when I signed up with AT&T.. like 2 year ago, thier was nothing stated in regards to a "cap" in there TOS, nor that they could change the TOS without contacting me (the end user). And that is another thing. AT&T and other companies very rarely make there TOS known in the open, or send updates to their users as well in regards to TOS modification. A little song and dance? A little slight of hand? Very much so..

I remember when FiOS and Uverse came out and we talked about caps, and the TOS was worded in a way to allow for future changes. Like most, they say they can edit it at anytime without warning. The ways that count as notifying customers are pretty vague as well. Its shady, but its not illegal.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Wed May 04, 2011 8:22 pm

Shinobi wrote: To all of my IT colleagues, it does not help You, or anyone else by agreeing, supporting, accepting this sort of TOS modification and Caps. The majority of You get "unlimited" bandwidth now, and rather than these ISP's expanding their infrastructure (which they do not want to spend money on) and adding movie services and lowering their prices to be competitive, they would rather follow an unethical practice by undermining their competitors services and jacking up prices for you, the consumer, and give you far less.

And as I have said to many supporters of this sort of ISP action(s), You don't think this will affect you.. down the road.. it will.

My views come from working with ISPs, their engineers, sales, being in their datacenters, and working as a strategic partner/reseller with them. With broadband, it never officially was an "all you can eat" package you could use 24x7, it was designed (as any ISP sells bandwidth) as an oversubscribed model. There is an understanding of accepted use. If an ISP has 500,000 customers...and every single one of those 500,000 customers gets online and starts doing bandwidth intensive stuff all at once..the ISP will have a meltdown of equipment...it cannot, literally, and business wise, dedicated full bandwidth to every single client it has. It's not financially feasible.

There's a logical reason that "business grade connections" cost someone more than a home grade connection....primary reason is that it's expected you will use more of the ISP resources...you're using a much larger percentage of their bandwidth than the common home user.

From a network management point of view, say you're in charge of the network for an office building of 500 staff. Over a few days, you notice a huge degradation in performance in your network...a very high percentage of employees are having problems getting their work done...in the line of business applications they run. You start troubleshooting the network in this building....and you find that 2 employees happen to have computers that are doing something that is generating exceptionally high amounts of traffic...bringing the network to its knees.
Your options are:
*fix those 2 computers so that they calm down....thus allowing the network to regain functionality, and the other 498 employees can now get back to productive work
*or create a huge capitol expense for the business and upgrade the entire network with 10 gig fiber connections to each desktop...figuring that if you throw enough money and bandwidth into the network...it will become fat enough to accomodate those 2 heavy users and still allow the regular users to do their work. But...what's to prevent those 2 users from realizing they now have more bandwidth and doing more to go suck all of that up now..and you're back to square one?

Being an ISP is not lucrative. In the early days of broadband..there were many smaller ISPs around. Most people are just familiar with the big phone company and whatever cable provider is in their area. But there were usually many DSL ISP options. Years ago. Those numbers have dwindled. I miss those smaller ISPs....I had a lot of friends that worked at them, and I spent a lot of time in those data centers. I wish they were still around, but it's gotten too tough for them.

Big bandwidth is expensive. A lot of people just say "Ah give us more bandwidth..oh yeah..but don't raise our prices". You work with in IT..you probably have an idea of what an DS3 costs...but with broadband speeds commonly getting above 20 megs now ...heck a DS3 will barely float 2 to 3 households. I sure as heck don't want to divide that 6 grand or higher monthly bill with just 2 of my neighbors!

Something has to be maintained to keep traffic in check as things slowly grow. And due to our country being very large...and our infrastructure being old and poorly designed, our bandwidth infrastructure across our country has some difficulties. How many different carries does a packet have to travel across from one coast to another? Now compare this to some countries overseas that many people admire....due to having gigabit internet. It's probably a small country, with just a few large cities...dense population, easy to connect, and probably gov't subsidized..one ISP. Fairly easy to provide fat bandwidth for everyone.

horsemen_ · Post by **horsemen_** » Wed May 04, 2011 9:19 pm

i dont see the cap listed on the dsl sites

and my bill still say unlimited

http://www.att.com/dsl/shop/compareDirect.jsp?wtLinkName=Compare_Plans&wtLinkLocation=BDY

i have the dsl elite plan

Post by **Philip** » Thu May 05, 2011 12:13 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:I'd seen that article...and I don't believe it. I think they based those numbers on the big traditional p2p programs like old limewire...and they're not counting torrents. All I see and hear from kids and their massive iPod/MP3 music collections is that they got them on torrents.

I generally believe it (with some degree of error, as with any study).
P2P is mostly torrents, and not everyone is doing it. Even if there are 30% of internet users who actively use p2p for pirated content, and amass a couple of 100Gb of mp3s/movies/pr0n/etc. in the long run, most of it is just stored, and not using bandwidth once transferred.

Post by **Philip** » Thu May 05, 2011 12:25 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote: ....
Being an ISP is not lucrative. In the early days of broadband..there were many smaller ISPs around. Most people are just familiar with the big phone company and whatever cable provider is in their area. But there were usually many DSL ISP options. Years ago. Those numbers have dwindled. I miss those smaller ISPs....I had a lot of friends that worked at them, and I spent a lot of time in those data centers. I wish they were still around, but it's gotten too tough for them.

Big bandwidth is expensive. A lot of people just say "Ah give us more bandwidth..oh yeah..but don't raise our prices". You work with in IT..you probably have an idea of what an DS3 costs...but with broadband speeds commonly getting above 20 megs now ...heck a DS3 will barely float 2 to 3 households. I sure as heck don't want to divide that 6 grand or higher monthly bill with just 2 of my neighbors!

Something has to be maintained to keep traffic in check as things slowly grow. And due to our country being very large...and our infrastructure being old and poorly designed, our bandwidth infrastructure across our country has some difficulties. How many different carries does a packet have to travel across from one coast to another? Now compare this to some countries overseas that many people admire....due to having gigabit internet. It's probably a small country, with just a few large cities...dense population, easy to connect, and probably gov't subsidized..one ISP. Fairly easy to provide fat bandwidth for everyone.

While you have many valid points, big bandwidth has become much cheaper lately, and those small ISPs were just strongarmed by the big players who own the pipes.
There are network centers where you can get $10 per Mbit/month multihomed BGP bandwidth (320 Gigabytes of actual transfers, not 95th percentile), and I'm not talking Cogent, or purchasing huge quantities either. Just a few years back that same badwidth would cost well over $100/month. Have those savings been passed on to small businesses and consumers ? Not really... There are data centers still charing you $150 for the same bandwidth.

Anyway, my simplistic point being, if I can find bandwidth for $10/Mbit (320Gigabytes), imagine what the cost is to big Tier 1 companies who own their own fiber ? Forget DS3 pricing, my bet is each residential customer probably costs them about a dollar in bandwidth.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu May 05, 2011 12:30 pm

"We" would classify p2p as mostly torrent..but that article just briefly mentioned stuff like limewire....makes me think they only "thought of" the popular big p2p players.
In my experience, the heavier torrent users are hitting the bandwidth as close to 24x7 as they can. Many have their uploads going all the time. And I have to have my edge router throttle my kid 'cuz he has his downloading every single minute he's not in school..pretty much soon as he's home from school...into the mid hours of dawn, and all weekend. His computer is nearly constantly active 24x7 with it.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu May 05, 2011 12:44 pm

Philip wrote:While you have many valid points, big bandwidth has become much cheaper lately, and those small ISPs were just strongarmed by the big players who own the pipes.
There are network centers where you can get $10 per Mbit/month multihomed BGP bandwidth (320 Gigabytes of actual transfers, not 95th percentile), and I'm not talking Cogent, or purchasing huge quantities either. Just a few years back that same badwidth would cost well over $100/month. Have those savings been passed on to small businesses and consumers ? Not really... There are data centers still charing you $150 for the same bandwidth.

Anyway, my simplistic point being, if I can find bandwidth for $10/Mbit (320Gigabytes), imagine what the cost is to big Tier 1 companies who own their own fiber ? Forget DS3 pricing, my bet is each residential customer probably costs them about a dollar in bandwidth.

Bandwidth "should be" getting cheaper....and it is sort of, but as you mention...it's not being passed down by the big guys yet.

Co-lo pricing reductions are rather separate....because the cost at datacenters has been dropping due to another big factor...."density".
How many clients can they stuff into 42 U's now? Versus just several years ago? Average servers dropping to 1U...and then dual in a U, and then blades...and then many virtualized in 1U now. So for a 42U space, they're getting more revenue. And "cost per client" has gone down big time due to less overall electricity and cooling per client.

Back to bandwidth dropping in price....yeah it should be dropping much faster, but I've only seen it slightly dropping when it comes to bandwidth within an ISP....products such as ATT opteman (fiber), Comcasts biz optics products. But I believe a big factor that hurts us here over in the US is the fact that there are so many spoons in the pot as we look from east coast to west coast, it's hard to get them all to settle down at the same time. Fat bandwidth between your ISPs main gateway...and you...isn't what counts for home users...it's after that which counts. (sure for businesses 'n site to site VPNs and stuff..yeah)

Post by **Philip** » Thu May 05, 2011 12:56 pm

I was talking just about bandwidth pricing in datacenters (more specifically at a peer exchange point with 15+ carriers), not the servers/density and other sides of datacenter economics (rack space, power usage + HVAC and backup power, hardware and any other cost is priced separetly, and much higher than that). I don't care how many pizza boxes you can stick in a full rack, bandwidth has its own price and it is just pennies to the big guys IMHO.

Post by **Philip** » Thu May 05, 2011 1:02 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:"We" would classify p2p as mostly torrent..but that article just briefly mentioned stuff like limewire....makes me think they only "thought of" the popular big p2p players.
In my experience, the heavier torrent users are hitting the bandwidth as close to 24x7 as they can. Many have their uploads going all the time. And I have to have my edge router throttle my kid 'cuz he has his downloading every single minute he's not in school..pretty much soon as he's home from school...into the mid hours of dawn, and all weekend. His computer is nearly constantly active 24x7 with it.

I totally agree there are some users like that and there is no free lunch... There should probably be some cap. I used to know a guy that was running P2P 24/7 with two separate cable connections, and 15 SCSI drives for storage (2 separate PSUs), lol.

However, I can also see how you can easily hit 200Gb with a family of 3-4 active internet users and simply video streaming, without any P2P. Media streaming (especially HD video) eats bandwidth as popcorn, residential bandwidth usage has changed dramatically recently. Verizon doesn't seem to have congestion problems with FiOS, maybe Comcast and AT&T should upgrade their networks instead of picking on Netflix ?

I mean, users are paying for the bandwidth they use after all.

X-Nemesis · Post by **X-Nemesis** » Thu May 05, 2011 5:16 pm

Why only in North America are we seeing the need for Caps and the ongoing claim that they are necessary and inevitable, when Europe and Asia have no such issues at all? If these ISP's would take some of the insanely gross profits they are wracking in and put it towards their infrastructure we would not need caps at all.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Thu May 05, 2011 6:52 pm

X-Nemesis wrote: If these ISP's would take some of the insanely gross profits they are wracking in and put it towards their infrastructure we would not need caps at all.

..exactly.. Thank You.. That was part of my comment as well...

If you look at any type of companies out there in general, they will expand their own network in regards to more users, and more file space, bandwidth ECT. You cannot keep adding new users with out expanding the LAN/WAN at some point. ISP's are no different..

The main reason again.. it is easier for the ISP's to circumvent the need to upgrade their infrastructure by just saying "oh.. is illegal file sharing".. "oh.. it's audio and video streaming" and then set certain caps set in place, and raise prices instead of spending their own money upgrading their network. What ISP's also will start doing, is raising their caps more, and at the same time charge even "more" money to their customers.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri May 06, 2011 7:08 am

But ISPs "ARE" upgrading their infrastructure frequently. Look at the speeds you can get now, versus years ago. Around 5 or 6 years ago, getting Comcasts 6/768 was awesome...and then 8 down, and then powerboost came out, and now look...you can get 15/3, you can even get 105/10 Extreme package!

For the past 2 years....I've seen AT&T's trucks rolling out fiber across the neighborhood. And people are upgrading to U-Verse at a fast pace...taking advantage of these upgrades.

I work with a smaller cable ISP that's only in a few New England states, they've been behind in their provided speeds...they just completed a big (for them) upgrade that increased the backbone for CT up to their primary data center up in NH....and all of their CT clients got an increase in speed from this...albiet small, like from 6 to 8 megs, or 12 to 15 megs..depending on which package you were on...for the same price.

And going back to comparing the US to some places in Europe or Asia...check out my prior comments about that..for many of those places, it's easy for them. And many of them do have "these problems"....hang out in a lot of broadband forums and you'll find people from overseas complaining about how stringent their ISPs are.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:01 pm

Got to keep the ball rolling forward this time

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/a ... _caps.html

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:14 pm

Shinobi wrote:Got to keep the ball rolling forward this time

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/a ... _caps.html

Good read....this pretty much says it all

"Caps on broadband usage imposed by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can undermine the very goals that the Commission has committed itself to championing," the letter said. "While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways. Unless they are clearly and transparently justified to address legitimate network capacity concerns, caps can work directly against the promise of broadband access."

But they need to go after Comcast also.. the caps even at 250gigs a month are too low for what your capable of doing. Comcast will argue about shared nodes and whatever but I don't buy that. If you have a user hammering the node/network they will know it and can deal with them on the side in a professional manner while not punishing the rest. Or what about the amount I didn't use..say I used only 100Gigs last month I should then get 150 added on to the next month and so on!! If I can no longer say I'm paying for "Unlimited" internet then at least roll over what I haven't used and I'm clearly paying a lot for!

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sat May 07, 2011 6:58 am

Sava700 wrote: Comcast will argue about shared nodes and whatever but I don't buy that. If you have a user hammering the node/network they will know it and can deal with them on the side in a professional manner while not punishing the rest. Or what about the amount I didn't use..say I used only 100Gigs last month I should then get 150 added on to the next month and so on!! If I can no longer say I'm paying for "Unlimited" internet then at least roll over what I haven't used and I'm clearly paying a lot for!

Networks don't work that way, it's real time traffic, You cannot time warp when your traffic will flow through the pipes. It's not like minutes on a cell phone plan, it's an "capacity" issue. Again, going back to oversubscription..which is a necessarily evil to stay in business....like it or not. In order to guarantee good performance for the vast majority, they need to ensure that a small group of selfish users don't think it's an all you can eat free buffet for themselves.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Sat May 07, 2011 10:20 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Networks don't work that way, it's real time traffic, You cannot time warp when your traffic will flow through the pipes. It's not like minutes on a cell phone plan, it's an "capacity" issue.

Then up the capacity and increase the ability for the extra traffic with the amazing amounts of profits they turn each Quarter..sure they are doing some but not enough and it hurts innovation.

Again, going back to oversubscription..which is a necessarily evil to stay in business....like it or not. In order to guarantee good performance for the vast majority, they need to ensure that a small group of selfish users don't think it's an all you can eat free buffet for themselves.

If there is a issue with a few "selfish users" that are WAY WAY up there on usage and I'm not talking near that cap either as even 250gigs/month is not enough IMO..then talk to them or deal with them alone and not hurt it for the rest that may or may not need more bandwidth depending on the month.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Sat May 07, 2011 9:02 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote: In order to guarantee good performance for the vast majority, they need to ensure that a small group of selfish users don't think it's an all you can eat free buffet for themselves.

Mr. Yosc.. I am very fond of you..

and maybe you have corporate ISP interests. But here is my retort... In order to provide good service as an ISP, an ISP has to "expand" their infrastructure to accommodate new users. That's a fact. Say there was no "small group of selfish users" , an ISP still has to upgrade their own infrastructure at some point. Just this alone, without any users "over using" the bandwidth, ISP's would "still" enforce caps because they can hide behind having caps, as to not spend any money to improve their services. The ISP's are saving money, and charging you, the consumer/end user, $$more$$.. for less. It does not do anyone any good, to hop on the "pro-cap" train.

And as I said before.. You have to say to yourself: "I have this" (unlimited bandwidth for "years") and "now XYZ ISP.. you want to give me less" (limited amount of bandwidth, and what I do on the internet) and "charge me more money !?!"

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sun May 08, 2011 7:13 am

Shinobi wrote: an ISP still has to upgrade their own infrastructure at some point. Just this alone, without any users "over using" the bandwidth, ISP's would "still" enforce caps because they can hide behind having caps, as to not spend any money to improve their services. The ISP's are saving money, and charging you, the consumer/end user, $$more$$.. for less. It does not do anyone any good, to hop on the "pro-cap" train.

And as I said before.. You have to say to yourself: "I have this" (unlimited bandwidth for "years") and "now XYZ ISP.. you want to give me less" (limited amount of bandwidth, and what I do on the internet) and "charge me more money !?!"

This is what I don't understand though, so many people are saying ISP aren't upgrading...yet..just 2 posts up on this page I just illustrated examples of 3 ISPs in my local area alone that have definitely upgraded their speeds. Many ISPs have upgraded to well beyond 10 times the speeds they had just 5-7 years ago. And I see this in other states that we have clients at also. Docsis 3 for cable is rolling out all over the country. Fiber...either true FIOS, or hybrids like U-Verse, are doing the same. Matter of fact....I cannot think of a single ISP that I somehow work with, that has not done bandwidth/speed increases over the past 5 years.

Prices...bandwith is also cheaper these days than it was several years ago.A few years ago if you wanted the max speed from your phone company, you'd be paying about 100 bucks/mo for a 6/768 pipe. Now you can get a 20/2 pipe from them for less money. Cable internet has stay roughly the same price, but you're getting easily over 10 times the bandwidth you did years ago for that same money. If not technically less money per month for a fee, you're paying less per meg of speeds than you were a few years ago. Example...say you were paying 59/month 5 years ago for a 7/1 cable connection, now you probably have at least a 15/2 connection for just a few dollars more per month, but certainly not double the price per month...even though your bandwidth doubled.

I've never seen, in writing, in the TOS, for a home grade account, the words "Unlimited Bandwidth". Early in the broadband days some advertised it as "always on"..to lure away from dial up users. Deep in the TOS the actual terms were usually something like "within acceptable use/within reasonable use". The only time I ever had true unlimited bandwidth in my house, was the time I had a business bridged DSL line to my house.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Sun May 08, 2011 10:45 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:This is what I don't understand though, so many people are saying ISP aren't upgrading...yet..just 2 posts up on this page I just illustrated examples of 3 ISPs in my local area alone that have definitely upgraded their speeds.
.

Only upgrades in my area from ISP's have been in how to bill people more. If I'm going to see my bill increase I should expect to see not only speeds increase but reliability in service and good customer service all of which I know Comcast has failed at in more than 3 years alone.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Sat May 14, 2011 2:48 pm

Netflix is fighting back.. and they are right on the money!!

Netflix: ISPs Kill Web Freedom, Suck All Profits

Netflix isn’t going to take the bashing of its video streaming service lying down anymore. The online video rental company met with the FCC Tuesday and released a letter it filed Wednesday that shows how it really feels about broadband caps, ISPs’ arguments about the overwhelming traffic video will cause and the profits such caps can capture for ISPs. The fight is a crucial one as ISPs start implementing broadband caps and try to halt Netflix in other ways, such as the argument over peering with Level 3 Communications.

In a letter to Representatives Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Reed Hastings CEO of Netflix expresses disappointment that members of Congress are trying to hobble the FCC’s attempts to implement some type of network neutrality rules. Hastings’ letter was mild enough, but it included an earlier letter to Secretary General of Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Robert Morin that dropped quite a few bombshells. Canada has recently allowed the country’s wireline operators to impose higher wholesale costs for smaller ISPs, which has resulted in some of the smaller ISPs crying foul and being forced to cap their customers’ broadband in order to contain their own costs.

http://gigaom.com/broadband/netflix-isp ... l-profits/

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun May 15, 2011 1:16 am

Sava700 wrote:Netflix is fighting back.. and they are right on the money!!

http://gigaom.com/broadband/netflix-isp ... l-profits/

It all boils down to the same old story...Comcast is at the forefront of the pro-cap argument because they were a cable company first, an ISP second. Since they own the last mile, they want to keep you as a cable AND as an ISP customer. The future is on demand via the net and people are HAPPY to pay for it. That's why Netflix exists. People want to watch what they want when they want. It's a-la-carte. Comcast sees this as a threat to their profit model which resides in cable, not in them being an ISP. They do NOT want you getting content over the internet if you aren't a cable subscriber. Right now, I can get most of what I want to watch via the web, iTunes, Netflix, and Hulu Plus. HBO is currently testing the waters in streaming their content over the net with the launch of their hugely popular HBOGo iPad app. The content companies themselves can see the demise of cable TV. Comcast doesn't want to let go. So what you are all seeing is the death gasp of Comcast as a cable TV provider. In the very near future, you wont need a cable TV provider. Everything will be streamed over the net. Comcast will eventually adapt but one thing is for sure, they will raise prices on their internet service in order to make up for those lost profits. In any case, it's over. Some people make the uneducated argument that they won't be able to get the news or live sports. I haven't watched a news cast in ages. I get real time news right on my iPhone or iPad direct from the local news stations or CNN, or MSNBC, of FOX, etc. I get real time weather on my phone. I have Apple TV so if I want to watch sports like baseball, I can subscribe to that via Apple TV LOL. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/appletv.jsp

So what's left? Face it, it's over for Comcast as they know it. Thank God.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sun May 15, 2011 8:57 am

I've worked in cable since a week after I retired from the Marine Corps. I've been a headend tech since October 2005. We literally have not stopped upgrading VOD & HSD since I stepped foot in the headend. I have personally installed millions of dollars worth of CISCO equipment just to rip it out sometimes only months later for the latest. We have 4 7609s in my small headend and just had a webex class on the next gen CISCO and it is a whopper! The amount of fiber we have hung is unreal and we've replaced almost every node with the latest C-Cors that are capable of 4 downstreams and 4 returns. Maintaining & upgrading our capacity & QOS is not an after thought or something done with leftover crumbs. One other guy & I are constantly updating our node combing plans to ensure capacity numbers are where they need to be. Comcast sets the bar high and takes their capacity serious. Every Monday morning we are treated to an email with numbers and a grade for our area. The tools alone to keep track of our network is impressive. Yes, HSD is a money maker and "after" all the equipment is in place the overhead is less than TV but it doesn't maintain itself or come free. As far as caps go I don't paid to think about that but they aren't doing it to make people at SG bitch. Hopefully some day they will be in a position to relax caps? Seems data usage is following the same pattern as waist size so it's a constant battle of the bulge.

Not making excuses for many of the bitches here as I am a consumer also, but just letting you know from someone in the trench that the work is 24/7 & the money spent.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Sun May 15, 2011 11:33 am

Leatherneck wrote: As far as caps go I don't paid to think about that but they aren't doing it to make people at SG bitch. Hopefully some day they will be in a position to relax caps? Seems data usage is following the same pattern as waist size so it's a constant battle of the bulge.

Not making excuses for many of the bitches here as I am a consumer also, but just letting you know from someone in the trench that the work is 24/7 & the money spent.

It's not about bitching.. It's not about SG, the Caps by Comcast and others are about innovation restrictions and the future of the internet to have unrestricted growth. Jawz is right, Comcast is trying to hold on to the Cable tv part with death grips right now. This area alone is horrible for their TV service as they keep dropping channels yet the prices are rising way beyond normal inflation. The prices for internet through them is rising way beyond normal inflation as well which goes back to one of my earlier complaints. Lucky for me after a few years back when Comcast screwed me over for about a year I've managed to get whatever in price I wanted from them by keeping accurate records of every little screw up they do. The normal everyday Jill and Joe won't pay attention like I do, they just wanna read a little news, send some emails, download a few songs and watch some youtube vids from time to time so they never see the latency problems that may come up that Comcast refuses to fix by making excuses not to spend the money. I'd switch over to FIOS in a heartbeat if they had it in this area or something that had better speeds for a similar or lower price.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sun May 15, 2011 12:59 pm

Let me know when you find the perfect buffet and I will gladly sit at your table.