Comcast throttling Bittorrent traffic

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

because that hose being open wide all the time makes all the neighbors around him get 12psi less pressure in their house. why should his neighbors suffer lower quality service just so he can leave his hose on(download hentai pr0n or steal movies)?

Gee, I dunno, maybe they shouldn't advertise all this "water" capacity if they can't provide all this "water" to every customer?

 

[RapidSnail]

*oops*

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

because that hose being open wide all the time makes all the neighbors around him get 12psi less pressure in their house. why should his neighbors suffer lower quality service just so he can leave his hose on(download hentai pr0n or steal movies)?

Gee, I dunno, maybe they shouldn't advertise all this "water" capacity if they can't provide all this "water" to every customer?

"up to", read the acceptable use policy.

Seriously, bandwidth costs money. If you want to run your connection full blast all the time then you are more than welcome to pay for that kind of service.

Face it leachers, the days of "all you can eat" are over. And you can thank P2P users for that change. The pay by byte model is coming very shortly.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

because that hose being open wide all the time makes all the neighbors around him get 12psi less pressure in their house. why should his neighbors suffer lower quality service just so he can leave his hose on(download hentai pr0n or steal movies)?

Gee, I dunno, maybe they shouldn't advertise all this "water" capacity if they can't provide all this "water" to every customer?

"up to", read the acceptable use policy.

Seriously, bandwidth costs money. If you want to run your connection full blast all the time then you are more than welcome to pay for that kind of service.

Face it leachers, the days of "all you can eat" are over. And you can thank P2P users for that change. The pay by byte model is coming very shortly.

Who died and made you bandwidth nazi anyway? No baud for you!

It sounds like you don't have a problem with them using it as much as what they're using it for.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: jersiq

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

Maybe because the other, larger percentage should also be allowed to use 90 % of that capacity also? They are paying customers also, are they not?

Maybe the company should provide the bandwidth they're supposed to to everyone then or stop advertising so much and overloading their networks.

Comcast has gotten steadily worse over the past 3 years. As soon as they started pushing their TV ad campaign service plummeted and now seems to reach new lows each passing year.

It's funny because I went to their FAQ section the other day to set up my dad's Outlook for his Comcast email account and that was one of the top questions, and they said they don't throttle bittorrent.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

because that hose being open wide all the time makes all the neighbors around him get 12psi less pressure in their house. why should his neighbors suffer lower quality service just so he can leave his hose on(download hentai pr0n or steal movies)?

Gee, I dunno, maybe they shouldn't advertise all this "water" capacity if they can't provide all this "water" to every customer?

"up to", read the acceptable use policy.

Seriously, bandwidth costs money. If you want to run your connection full blast all the time then you are more than welcome to pay for that kind of service.

Face it leachers, the days of "all you can eat" are over. And you can thank P2P users for that change. The pay by byte model is coming very shortly.

I doubt that day will ever come. Think of all the online games that require high bandwidth. Companies like Blizzard will lobby against these kinds of policies since they know it'll cause their numbers to dwindle since people aren't going to want to play anymore if it'll cost them exponentially more than it used to.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: aplefka

I doubt that day will ever come. Think of all the online games that require high bandwidth. Companies like Blizzard will lobby against these kinds of policies since they know it'll cause their numbers to dwindle since people aren't going to want to play anymore if it'll cost them exponentially more than it used to.

Oh it's coming very soon. It's not a question of if but when that will occur. The providers can't keep bleeding money. Online games don't need much bandwidth at all really.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: aplefka

I doubt that day will ever come. Think of all the online games that require high bandwidth. Companies like Blizzard will lobby against these kinds of policies since they know it'll cause their numbers to dwindle since people aren't going to want to play anymore if it'll cost them exponentially more than it used to.

Oh it's coming very soon. It's not a question of if but when that will occur. The providers can't keep bleeding money. Online games don't need much bandwidth at all really.

That is not true at all. Hell, just browsing the net all day will pile up gigabytes of bandwidth even if you do no downloading or media streaming. That plus there is a market to consider. Think about how easy it is to call your ISP, quote a deal going on with a different provider and tell them you are thinking about switching, and then all of the sudden your next 6 months of payments has been reduced by $20 a month. The industry is cut throat enough to the point where we will not see what you are talking about happen anytime soon if ever. A lot of the reasoning falls back on the classic supply meets demand arguments. This is also why you see things like Verizon FIOS not being incredibly expensive even though they offer speeds which crush what DSL and cable providers offer.

Also, providers are not bleeding money. Even the ISPs who are not the top dogs in the market are making a lot of profits which are not dwindling.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: eos

Originally posted by: spidey07
:thumbsup:

Smart move. They are eliminating the small percentage of people that use 90% of the networks capacity. This will enable better service to all customers.

Very smart.

Proof of the bolded comment?

I'm not allowed to release information. But in general on broadband residential services 5% of the users use 90% of the capacity and it's almost always P2P.

So? They're paying for a level of service, why can't they use it.

That's like charging someone for the use of a water hose, saying that the hose is 1" in diameter and always turned on --and then cutting them off for leaving the hose on all the time. Who cares if they use it or not? Why penalize someone for using the level of service that you've offered them in the first place?

because that hose being open wide all the time makes all the neighbors around him get 12psi less pressure in their house. why should his neighbors suffer lower quality service just so he can leave his hose on(download hentai pr0n or steal movies)?

Gee, I dunno, maybe they shouldn't advertise all this "water" capacity if they can't provide all this "water" to every customer?

"up to", read the acceptable use policy.

Seriously, bandwidth costs money. If you want to run your connection full blast all the time then you are more than welcome to pay for that kind of service.

Face it leachers, the days of "all you can eat" are over. And you can thank P2P users for that change. The pay by byte model is coming very shortly.

I doubt that day will ever come. Think of all the online games that require high bandwidth. Companies like Blizzard will lobby against these kinds of policies since they know it'll cause their numbers to dwindle since people aren't going to want to play anymore if it'll cost them exponentially more than it used to.

even if you dont game or download anything, someone who browses a lot of sites will eat over a gig a day, especially with video news feeds and such that every site now uses

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: aplefka

I doubt that day will ever come. Think of all the online games that require high bandwidth. Companies like Blizzard will lobby against these kinds of policies since they know it'll cause their numbers to dwindle since people aren't going to want to play anymore if it'll cost them exponentially more than it used to.

Oh it's coming very soon. It's not a question of if but when that will occur. The providers can't keep bleeding money. Online games don't need much bandwidth at all really.

lol.

i like how you keep saying this as if it's factual but you have yet to provide any type of link.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
[
That is not true at all. Hell, just browsing the net all day will pile up gigabytes of bandwidth even if you do no downloading or media streaming. That plus there is a market to consider. Think about how easy it is to call your ISP, quote a deal going on with a different provider and tell them you are thinking about switching, and then all of the sudden your next 6 months of payments has been reduced by $20 a month. The industry is cut throat enough to the point where we will not see what you are talking about happen anytime soon if ever. A lot of the reasoning falls back on the classic supply meets demand arguments. This is also why you see things like Verizon FIOS not being incredibly expensive even though they offer speeds which crush what DSL and cable providers offer.

Also, providers are not bleeding money. Even the ISPs who are not the top dogs in the market are making a lot of profits which are not dwindling.

I don't think you're following what bandwidth is. It doesn't matter how much data is moved, it matters how much over time. Games are a trickle compared to constant downloading.

I'm not making the pay by model up. Every conference I've been to and almost every provider I deal with tell me it's coming. There will still be an all you can eat option but it will be MUCH higher priced than today because you just can't keep raping their networks without paying.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: aplefka

I doubt that day will ever come. Think of all the online games that require high bandwidth. Companies like Blizzard will lobby against these kinds of policies since they know it'll cause their numbers to dwindle since people aren't going to want to play anymore if it'll cost them exponentially more than it used to.

Oh it's coming very soon. It's not a question of if but when that will occur. The providers can't keep bleeding money. Online games don't need much bandwidth at all really.

How are they bleeding? If you mean bleeding with to much money maybe, but not from loses. Comcast has been raking it in, and others don;t seem to be hurting either.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Xavier434
[
That is not true at all. Hell, just browsing the net all day will pile up gigabytes of bandwidth even if you do no downloading or media streaming. That plus there is a market to consider. Think about how easy it is to call your ISP, quote a deal going on with a different provider and tell them you are thinking about switching, and then all of the sudden your next 6 months of payments has been reduced by $20 a month. The industry is cut throat enough to the point where we will not see what you are talking about happen anytime soon if ever. A lot of the reasoning falls back on the classic supply meets demand arguments. This is also why you see things like Verizon FIOS not being incredibly expensive even though they offer speeds which crush what DSL and cable providers offer.

Also, providers are not bleeding money. Even the ISPs who are not the top dogs in the market are making a lot of profits which are not dwindling.

I don't think you're following what bandwidth is. It doesn't matter how much data is moved, it matters how much over time. Games are a trickle compared to constant downloading.

I'm not making the pay by model up. Every conference I've been to and almost every provider I deal with tell me it's coming. There will still be an all you can eat option but it will be MUCH higher priced than today because you just can't keep raping their networks without paying.

The only way I could ever see this happening would be the case where all of big players in the industry decide to gradually and slowly raise their prices. There isn't going to be any kind of overnight change. It probably won't even happen over the course of a year.

You could do the package deal thing you are talking about but you would have to do it in such a way where the user who doesn't use a lot of bandwidth could choose a package which is cheaper than whatever they are paying now while those who need the "all you can eat" option will be paying more. I still do not see this happening though because the internet is changing and the way your average Joe is using the internet is changing too.

More and more people are downloading.
More and more people are streaming media or using sites that stream media in addition to there main purpose (ie youtube, myspace, and news sites).
More and more people are gaming for hours a day.

Many are doing a combination of the above and they are doing it at a more constant rate year after year which satisfies what you are talking about in regards to the whole data being moved over time thing. Do not forget that limited internet usage is how this industry began and it failed due to demand and competition. What has changed in the industry which would allow it to revert back to this business practice?

If what you are describing is truly a problem then perhaps a solution needs to be developed but I do not think the solution you propose is the one which will work. It will not bring them more profits which is the only purpose here.

 

[manowar821]

The ISPs that would do this and then whine about how much bandwidth costs are pathetic. If it's so difficult to serve so many people (most of which actually don't use that majority of their alloted bandwidth/speed), tell me why ISPs in Japan, France, Sweden, or a better example, Russia (very large distances between population centers, like in the USA) don't pull this kind of shit?

These ISPs think they're special, and it shows with how they're holding back on real upgrades, their terrible customer service, and how they run their network on inferior cabling rather than using the already run (but still dark) fiber optic lines. They're not taking the title of "common carrier" seriously, and it doesn't help that we have only a handful of larger ISP networks in our country... They can get away with this because customers tend to be stuck with one or two choices for higher-speed Internet access.

This is a disgusting business model. "Instead of upgrading our infrastructure and technologies like most other companies should and would, we will just throttle (and perhaps some-day, brown-out) the content and protocols so that our systems aren't stressed, or so we don't have to pay a larger sum of money to our providers." Real classy, assholes. You don't belong in the business of providing a connection to the world of free information and ideas, you belong in the diamond business.

...Or something similarly useless...

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: manowar821
The ISPs that would do this and then whine about how much bandwidth costs are pathetic. If it's so difficult to serve so many people (most of which actually don't use that majority of their alloted bandwidth/speed), tell me why ISPs in Japan, France, Sweden, or a better example, Russia (very large distances between population centers, like in the USA) don't pull this kind of shit?

These ISPs think they're special, and it shows with how they're holding back on real upgrades, their terrible customer service, and how they run their network on inferior cabling rather than using the already run (but still dark) fiber optic lines. They're not taking the title of "common carrier" seriously, and it doesn't help that we have only a handful of larger ISP networks in our country... They can get away with this because customers tend to be stuck with one or two choices for higher-speed Internet access.

This is a disgusting business model. "Instead of upgrading our infrastructure and technologies like most other companies should and would, we will just throttle (and perhaps some-day, brown-out) the content and protocols so that our systems aren't stressed, or so we don't have to pay a larger sum of money to our providers." Real classy, assholes. You don't belong in the business of providing a connection to the world of free information and ideas, you belong in the diamond business.

...Or something similarly useless...

Very good points. Especially the parts comparing Europe's ISPs. If they can pull in tons of profit with what they offer then no business in this country should complain. I feel that companies like Comcast just got so far ahead of the competition for a while that their quality just when straight down the tubes and now they are in way too far over their heads. They are also spoiled and the execs don't want to fork over the cash to bring their quality up to speed because god forbid they can only spend a 2 week vacation in Italy or Japan 8 times a year instead of 10. :|

 

[vi edit]

T-1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines) Ave. cost $400.-$550./mo.
You could get away with about 24 dedicated dial up users using this full time. I really don't know what the actual balancing was set at...50-75 accounts associated per line?
~$20 per user ($475/24 users)

T-3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s) Ave. cost $4,000.-$16,000./mo.
70 users a month @ 5mb connections with full use.
~$128 per user ($9000/70 users)

OC-3 - 155 megabits per second (100 T1s) Ave. cost $20,000.-$45,000./mo.
This will support around 248 users @ a full 5mb saturated rate.
~$133 per user ($33,000/248)

OC 48's, 192, ect? HUNDREDS of thousands per month.

Anyone with a 5mb connection paying $130 a month?

Bandwith provided to subscribers has outpaced bandwith available to providers. A sustained burst rate is not possible without charging lucrative amounts of money to subscribers.

-----------------------------

ISP's are just like an all you can eat buffet. The buffet has a pretty good idea of how much a typical customer eats. They know how much raw ingredients to buy and how much of a particular item they should put out at a time. It works fine for most people.

But if they routinely had a bus load of eating competition trainees coming in and eating 5x the amount of food that a typical person eats then those estimates are completely thrown out of whack. They are paying the same as everyone else but their consumption is ruining it for all other people who want to use the buffet.

It's difficult to compare the US to other countries. Internet connections in Cananda and other countries are heavily subsidized by the tax payers.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
T-1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines) Ave. cost $400.-$550./mo.
You could get away with about 24 dedicated dial up users using this full time. I really don't know what the actual balancing was set at...50-75 accounts associated per line?
~$20 per user ($475/24 users)

T-3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s) Ave. cost $4,000.-$16,000./mo.
70 users a month @ 5mb connections with full use.
~$128 per user ($9000/70 users)

OC-3 - 155 megabits per second (100 T1s) Ave. cost $20,000.-$45,000./mo.
This will support around 248 users @ a full 5mb saturated rate.
~$133 per user ($33,000/248)

OC 48's, 192, ect? HUNDREDS of thousands per month.

Anyone with a 5mb connection paying $130 a month?

Bandwith provided to subscribers has outpaced bandwith available to providers. A sustained burst rate is not possible without charging lucrative amounts of money to subscribers.

-----------------------------

ISP's are just like an all you can eat buffet. The buffet has a pretty good idea of how much a typical customer eats. They know how much raw ingredients to buy and how much of a particular item they should put out at a time. It works fine for most people.

But if they routinely had a bus load of eating competition trainees coming in and eating 5x the amount of food that a typical person eats then those estimates are completely thrown out of whack. They are paying the same as everyone else but their consumption is ruining it for all other people who want to use the buffet.

It's difficult to compare the US to other countries. Internet connections in Cananda and other countries are heavily subsidized by the tax payers.

I question whether or not that comparison in figures is worth considering. The only reason why I question it is because I realize that T-1, T-3, and OC-3 connections are not even close to being in demand for the residential user as DSL and Cable is. Hell, your average user doesn't even know that those services exist let alone the speeds they can provide. The supply meets demand theory shows that this lack in demand will result in the prices of those services to be much higher than they would be if they were in just as much demand as DSL and Cable. Therefore, you cannot just whip out some math based on those figures and toss a question like "Anyone with a 5mb connection paying $130 a month?" at us and expect those answers to contribute much here.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I question whether or not that comparison in figures is worth considering. The only reason why I question it is because I realize that T-1, T-3, and OC-3 connections are not even close to being in demand for the residential user as DSL and Cable is. Hell, your average user doesn't even know that those services exist let alone the speeds they can provide. The supply meets demand theory shows that this lack in demand will result in the prices of those services to be much higher than they would be if they were in just as much demand as DSL and Cable. Therefore, you cannot just whip out some math based on those figures and toss a question like "Anyone with a 5mb connection paying $130 a month?" at us and expect those answers to contribute much here.

The point is that is the going rate for all you can eat services for those particular speeds. This makes consumer broadband the deal of the century in that respect and proves that it isn't feasible for a provider to give those speeds at a constant without significantly raising the price for it.

This stuff is VERY expensive. The optics alone for a single interface can be 150K or more. That's for a single pair of fiber on an optical switch. A single port/blade. Even a decent sized city is going to have dozens of these switches and hundreds of links between them to form the main transport network.

I just don't think people have any idea how much this stuff costs. And when you have a small percentage of abusers eating that up you're going to whatever you can to slow them down or get rid of them - for the betterment of ALL subscribers.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I question whether or not that comparison in figures is worth considering. The only reason why I question it is because I realize that T-1, T-3, and OC-3 connections are not even close to being in demand for the residential user as DSL and Cable is. Hell, your average user doesn't even know that those services exist let alone the speeds they can provide. The supply meets demand theory shows that this lack in demand will result in the prices of those services to be much higher than they would be if they were in just as much demand as DSL and Cable. Therefore, you cannot just whip out some math based on those figures and toss a question like "Anyone with a 5mb connection paying $130 a month?" at us and expect those answers to contribute much here.

The point is that is the going rate for all you can eat services for those particular speeds. This makes consumer broadband the deal of the century in that respect and proves that it isn't feasible for a provider to give those speeds at a constant without significantly raising the price for it.

This stuff is VERY expensive. The optics alone for a single interface can be 150K or more. That's for a single pair of fiber on an optical switch. A single port/blade. Even a decent sized city is going to have dozens of these switches and hundreds of links between them to form the main transport network.

I just don't think people have any idea how much this stuff costs. And when you have a small percentage of abusers eating that up you're going to whatever you can to slow them down or get rid of them - for the betterment of ALL subscribers.

I don't know how much it costs and I have been wrong before so if that is the case here then so be it. I just do not believe that those figures represent how much "all you can eat" services cost for each customer at those speeds no matter how many customers choose to buy it. However, I do believe that they represent how much it costs given the current demand for them. The point with tossing the whole supply meets demand theories in the middle of those figures is to show that the costs for those speeds per consumer would be drastically lower if the demand were just as high as it is for DSL and Cable. How much lower would it be per mb? I can't really say, but I believe that it would be comparable to say the least.

The bottom line is that all of the most popular ISPs are currently raking in tons of profits despite the trends of their users using more bandwidth than they used to use. Based on how the public reacted to their bills that they got from going over their limit back in the day and what the industry did in response to that reaction, I doubt we will see the industry revert back to the old ways. Perhaps they will come up with something brand new though. We'll see.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I question whether or not that comparison in figures is worth considering. The only reason why I question it is because I realize that T-1, T-3, and OC-3 connections are not even close to being in demand for the residential user as DSL and Cable is. Hell, your average user doesn't even know that those services exist let alone the speeds they can provide. The supply meets demand theory shows that this lack in demand will result in the prices of those services to be much higher than they would be if they were in just as much demand as DSL and Cable. Therefore, you cannot just whip out some math based on those figures and toss a question like "Anyone with a 5mb connection paying $130 a month?" at us and expect those answers to contribute much here.

The point is that is the going rate for all you can eat services for those particular speeds. This makes consumer broadband the deal of the century in that respect and proves that it isn't feasible for a provider to give those speeds at a constant without significantly raising the price for it.

This stuff is VERY expensive. The optics alone for a single interface can be 150K or more. That's for a single pair of fiber on an optical switch. A single port/blade. Even a decent sized city is going to have dozens of these switches and hundreds of links between them to form the main transport network.

I just don't think people have any idea how much this stuff costs. And when you have a small percentage of abusers eating that up you're going to whatever you can to slow them down or get rid of them - for the betterment of ALL subscribers.

Or how about they, the ISP, be honest and say you only get up to X for Y. Not you get all the X you want for Y. Let the free market settle it. If its a bad deal it will fail if it works best then people will pay more or go else where.
Of course a lot of these ISP are under the old way of making money and that is through a monopoly and being able to charge anything they want. Now that there is some competition they are acting like little children. One place we almost bought a house internet was $60 or so a month. Mind you they had a monopoly. The same company charges less then $40 for the SAME plan in another city.

These new ISP want their cake and eat it to. They are greedy and lie, and if they have a problem tell them to get out. Like you said they are just "bleeding money" everyday right. :roll: So tell them to cut it out and save all that bleeding they are doing.