ISPs, the root of all evil...

[Echofoot]

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/...roadband-caps/

Is anyone else as deeply disturbed by this as I am?
The ramifications are huge.

[mrtr33]

I mean, on one hand, yes, they are restricting the amount of bandwidth they'll allow you to consume. But let's be realistic for just a moment. Are you ever going to hit that limit?

The only ISP we have in my community has restricted bandwidth to customers for a long time. They cap you out at 100 GB per month. I work from home in a capacity where I RDP into a computer across the country, and I don't come ANYWHERE close to meeting that max. We watch Hulu probably twice a month, and I usually stream Pandora in our living room. I download music and movies online as well. I think I might have got up to 20 GB once, but I had to try hard.

If I had a dedicated IP, and was hosting my own server, I'd be concerned. If I played WoW all day every day, I'd be worried. If I watched more than 2 HD movies per day every day of the month, I'd be worried. But as it stands now, I don't notice a bit.

[Echofoot]

While yes, I may never hit that cap personally, it sets a scary precedent. What with the rise and popularity of HD content, not to mention our increasing use of cloud based services, our dependace on huge bandwidth services is nearing a necessity. What's to hold these isps from setting the tune to what they want us to pay?

[ashauler]

Yeah, it's almost like capitalism or something.

[mrtr33]

While yes, I may never hit that cap personally, it sets a scary precedent. What with the rise and popularity of HD content, not to mention our increasing use of cloud based services, our dependace on huge bandwidth services is nearing a necessity. What's to hold these isps from setting the tune to what they want us to pay?

In a word, competition. Even without any here in my community, it's still the best deal I've been offered in terms of cost and what I get for my money. If I bundle my services and sign a 12-month contract, that cost drops as well. Dramatically. My cable is practically free.

Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I see a few potential good things out of this, aside from the above reason:
1) If anyone is mooching off of my wireless network (I'd be surprised), I would be able to find out easier. And they would be able to find out easier. No sense in waiting for the subpoena to come, if they can nip suspicious activity in the bud early. I can check my usage daily and would be able to pick up on any suspicious overloaded bandwidth.
2) ISP's have to be feeling the heat from people that have moved solely to tablet (iPad / Android) computing. It's still in it's infancy, but won't be for long.
3) Maybe look into the speeds they offer. If they're limiting the bandwidth, chances are they're increasing the speed. That's the way it works with my current ISP. I'm clocking speeds I didn't have in the office from my home. A business partner I work with has a couple of webservers with a small ISP who offer tiered rates for their services based on speed. While other web hosting companies may offer you great speeds, they come with bandwidth limits. This particular company charges depending on the bandwidth speeds desired.
4) That cap is always in the back of my head, though, so even though I haven't begun to scratch the surface of my limit, sometimes, when provided the option of watching a movie online or reading a book, I pick up that book. And that's never a bad thing, either.
5) Google and others have been threatening open, public wifi for some time now. Libraries, coffee shops and other hangout spots offer free wifi now. No longer is the only place to get your online fix from your home, or even something you're stuck paying for.

So I see your point. I really do. And I hate that I'm stuck paying the same amount for limited service. The per GB rate is absurd. If I were even close, or thought I could get close, I'd raise a stink, and I think other people would as well. But for now, 100 GB is unattainable.

[richardson1337]

While yes, I may never hit that cap personally, it sets a scary precedent. What with the rise and popularity of HD content, not to mention our increasing use of cloud based services, our dependace on huge bandwidth services is nearing a necessity. What's to hold these isps from setting the tune to what they want us to pay?

I have always been and will be against cloud based storage. Some companies that offer that service will have a disclaimer stating that anything that is lost stolen or damaged is basically the customers problem. Also, your trusting someone else with a wide variety of valuable information (financial and health being the biggest).
I see cloud companies becoming a bigger target in the future for hacking groups and malicious software.

[CptnBlues63]

While yes, I may never hit that cap personally, it sets a scary precedent. What with the rise and popularity of HD content, not to mention our increasing use of cloud based services, our dependace on huge bandwidth services is nearing a necessity. What's to hold these isps from setting the tune to what they want us to pay?

First off, the business/company/people that own the infrastructure get to dictate what you as a customer pay to use said service. This is true for natural gas, water, elecricity, etc. They paid to install the equipment necessary to bring this service to your door and they have to pay to maintain it. So it's only logical they can dictate how you use it and how much. For example, in some places in the summer when conditions become drought-like, many cities will say "no more watering your lawn" as they're trying to conserve water to ensure we all have what we need to live.

Secondly, you're allowed to not use any service you don't wish to. Nobody is forcing you to be on the internet. Don't want to be held to the ISP's standards of usage, simply don't sign on with them. If you want it, you have to pay. To quote one of my all time favorite Sci-Fi novels "TANSTAAFL" (there ain't no such thing as a free lunch)

"The real problem ISPs want to fix is congestion due to limited infrastructure. Cable customers share what are known as local loops, and the more that your neighbors use their connection, the less bandwidth is available to you — a situation that becomes painfully clear in the evening, when cable users see their throughput fall"

Already most, if not all ISP's oversubscribe their segments. There is a finite amount of bandwidth available. If only two people are using it, there's a whole lot less congestion than if 250 are. There's a formula that can be used to calculate the maximum number of users a segment (what the article calls a "local loop") can support. Just for example, let's say the number for your segment is 150. Chances are, your segment is supporting more like 250 users. All fighting over the same limited amount of bandwidth. Add on to that the bittorrent users and you're lucky you can load web pages quickly at all during peak hours. For more information on network congestion google "contention based network" and do a little reading. The internet is a contention based network.

The ISP's are never going to "fix congestion" because they're the ones responsible for it at the home level because they do, and will continue to oversubscribe the segments to make more $$$. Better infrastructure would help, but that's a very expensive consideration and we're already paying enough as it is. You don't expect your ISP to donate the cost of fiber optic to your house for free do you? Or provide you with a fiber based network interface?

The people running programs like bittorrent 24/7 who deal in up/downloading of illegal software, movies, and music are the worst bandwidth hogs. Why shouldn't they have to pay more than the average user who never exceeds his limit? Personally, the ONLY people I think will complain about this system are those thieves who like to call themselves "pirates".

Bandwidth caps should not be an issue for the average user. If you rely that much on streaming HD video to your TV I might recommend you invest in a DVD player to avoid that issue.