Broadband caps/throttling

[gothamhunter]

I know this topic is discussed ad infinium, but I thought this article was interesting as it lists all the current large providers:
http://gigaom.com/2013/11/15/data-cap-2013/

In particular, I really enjoyed this comment when someone tried to compare data caps to having to pay for more eggs:

There’s a production cost to each egg. The ISP’s do not produce bits or bytes. What is the productions cost of a byte? ISPs own the lines that transfer electrons. What is the cost of transferring one electron, compared to transferring one million electrons?

I really fear for what the future might bring with this kind of stuff. I just wish Dubuque would get FIOS.

 

[darkswordsman17]

That's why people are pushing for the FCC to change the status of ISPs to common carriers so that if they pull the crap they have been the past several years that they'll get slapped hard. And it will be viable for 3rd parties to come in and do something about it (like cities building their own fiber networks for instance, or other corporations like Google).

Its a big big thing especially as the communication companies move to drop the phone line setup and move to IP, which could mean them getting out of the regulations keeping them in check there.

The next 5-10 years is going to be huge as far as regulations go.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Data caps are the most retarded thing. I'm just so glad we don't have any here.

What's scary is that they just passed a law recently saying that there needs not be net neutrality. What that means is ISPs are now allowed to start treating internet like TV. With the basic package, you wont get certain sites, like video sites for example. If you want video sites, then you have to pay more. Websites are basically going to be like channels.

This is not only going to suck for internet users but for website owners because now they'll have to fight all these ISPs to include their website as part of their packages... and probably pay money for it.

At this point we really need to start looking into meshnets/darknets as the internet as we know it is heavily under attack by the government and corporations, and it's only going to get worse.

 

[smackababy]

Data caps are nothing more than being about making more money from offering the exact same service.

I was a tech conference a few years ago and the CEO of Verizon was speaking about why they had to have data caps and literally every single number in his data was a lie. I didn't call him out on it (because, I was in the military and in a room full of high ranking officers), but I took note of just how willing companies are to lie. Now, I don't think the CEO himself was so much at fault (I'm sure someone wrote the slides for him), but the data was simply wrong.

And with net neutrality being struck down, it is only going to get worse. ISPs will start to throttle as they see fit and start charging for those that don't want the throttling.

 

[robphelan]

queue Spidey in 3, 2, 1

 

[SaurusX]

I've noticed that Time Warner hasn't made a peep about metered billing ever since Google Fiber was announced to be coming here. Probably just a coincidence.

 

[fleshconsumed]

queue Spidey in 3, 2, 1

Yeah... I've read this article yesterday on ATT filing patent that would allow it to bill customers based on what they download. This clearly shows where the ATT and the entire ISP industry is heading. I wonder how Spidey is going to justify billing 1GB of netflix at a higher rate than 1GB of downloading MS updates or just 1GB of youtube...

This shit is going downhill faster and faster. The sooner we reclassify ISPs as common carriers and allow third party providers to piggy back onto the backbone the better.

 

[Evadman]

There is a carrying cost to data, but it is very small. With personnel overhead, it works out to about 1.5 cents per GB transferred up or down on a non-mobile backbone network on each side (so total is abotu 3 cents when you back out the peer agreements between backbones) So yes, there is a cost but it is tiny.

That equates to around 4.5 cents for a netflix movie, or about $4 cost to comcast for the full 250GB comcast cap if inside comcast, or with a lopsided peer agreement, $8 maximum.

There's a pretty good markup, and any business that sells a physical product would kill for marking up a variable cost $4 to $8 item and selling it for $50. That also assumes every customer hits the 250GB limit. My bandwith last month cost Comcast and the backbones a total of $1.85 and I was charged $79.

 

[Pocatello]

There is a carrying cost to data, but it is very small. With personnel overhead, it works out to about 1.5 cents per GB transferred up or down on a non-mobile backbone network on each side (so total is abotu 3 cents when you back out the peer agreements between backbones) So yes, there is a cost but it is tiny.

That equates to around 4.5 cents for a netflix movie, or about $4 cost to comcast for the full 250GB comcast cap if inside comcast, or with a lopsided peer agreement, $8 maximum.

There's a pretty good markup, and any business that sells a physical product would kill for marking up a variable cost $4 to $8 item and selling it for $50. That also assumes every customer hits the 250GB limit. My bandwith last month cost Comcast and the backbones a total of $1.85 and I was charged $79.

There are other expenses to Comcast, besides the cost of providing service. Such as ads to tell customers how great Comcast is, compare to other service providers (I have directv, so I'm stuck with the dumbest ads from directv). Lobbyists, Senators, Congressmen, other elected officials aren't cheap.

 

[Red Squirrel]

What is stopping companies from introducing more competition, is it because of regulations on who can run cables (fibre etc), or is it just because nobody wants to do it? I imagine the upfront capital cost would be huge.

 

[Aikouka]

There are other expenses to Comcast, besides the cost of providing service. Such as ads to tell customers how great Comcast is, compare to other service providers (I have directv, so I'm stuck with the dumbest ads from directv). Lobbyists, Senators, Congressmen, other elected officials aren't cheap.

Well, keep in mind that as you discuss other business-related expenses (that aren't necessarily tied directly to the ISP side), Comcast does have other revenue streams!

 

[KMFJD]

Data caps are the most retarded thing. I'm just so glad we don't have any here.

What's scary is that they just passed a law recently saying that there needs not be net neutrality. What that means is ISPs are now allowed to start treating internet like TV. With the basic package, you wont get certain sites, like video sites for example. If you want video sites, then you have to pay more. Websites are basically going to be like channels.

This is not only going to suck for internet users but for website owners because now they'll have to fight all these ISPs to include their website as part of their packages... and probably pay money for it.

At this point we really need to start looking into meshnets/darknets as the internet as we know it is heavily under attack by the government and corporations, and it's only going to get worse.

We don't have them here? since when? You can pay for unlimited i suppose but all the providers i can get have cap limits (Mine is 20gb)

/Every time my WISP upgrades their service it is great for a couple of months, then the shear amount of demand will cripple the network during prime time after say 4-6 months later...i get amazing speeds during a power outage in my area though!

 

[Red Squirrel]

We don't have them here? since when? You can pay for unlimited i suppose but all the providers i can get have cap limits (Mine is 20gb)

/Every time my WISP upgrades their service it is great for a couple of months, then the shear amount of demand will cripple the network during prime time after say 4-6 months later...i get amazing speeds during a power outage in my area though!

I meant my ISP/city, and I mean land line internet. Cell is another story, the caps here are ridiculous. Not going to go far with caps like 50MB and 100MB. But uncapped 50/30 fibre internet is where it's at.

 

[gothamhunter]

What is stopping companies from introducing more competition, is it because of regulations on who can run cables (fibre etc), or is it just because nobody wants to do it? I imagine the upfront capital cost would be huge.

In our area, MediaCom has a monopoly; no one else is allowed to enter the market.

 

[Jeff7]

There is a carrying cost to data, but it is very small. With personnel overhead, it works out to about 1.5 cents per GB transferred up or down on a non-mobile backbone network on each side (so total is abotu 3 cents when you back out the peer agreements between backbones) So yes, there is a cost but it is tiny.

That equates to around 4.5 cents for a netflix movie, or about $4 cost to comcast for the full 250GB comcast cap if inside comcast, or with a lopsided peer agreement, $8 maximum.

There's a pretty good markup, and any business that sells a physical product would kill for marking up a variable cost $4 to $8 item and selling it for $50. That also assumes every customer hits the 250GB limit. My bandwith last month cost Comcast and the backbones a total of $1.85 and I was charged $79.

The bottled water and inkjet printer cartridge industries just smirked at you.

 

[Red Squirrel]

In our area, MediaCom has a monopoly; no one else is allowed to enter the market.

See that sucks, there really needs to be a stop to this monopoly and anyone should be allowed.

But guess it would not be capitalism without unfairness and greed.