Get ready to start paying more for Internet usage.

[SephYuyX]

I was unable to find a corresponding online article, but when I picked up a Sunday newspaper it was a headline lol.

Apperintly Time Warner, Comast and AT&T are trying out a new method of payment in Texas atm. Since ISPs are having to shell out more to handle the increased bandwidth usage of a lot of users, theyre going to start charging accordingly. I think their basic schema right now are plans form 30~50$ for 20~40gb transfers per month, every gb over will net you another 1$

They say it isnt fair for people who are using more bandwidth to hinder the rest of the users and to take advantage of the ISP, so they are going to start charging.


Obviously this isnt an issue for a lot of people, theyre mainly targeting 'illegal filesharers', but now that there is a lot more legal streaming content out there, and especially what will becoming out in the future, those gb limits are going to be easily reached by normal users.

[Alleya]

These systems already exist.

No one signs up for them, people who have it forced on them change providers.

It will fail.

[Shuemue]

These systems already exist.

No one signs up for them, people who have it forced on them change providers.

It will fail.

Indeed, they've been trying this continually in the UK, there's always a new, better, faster, unlimited ISP around the corner.

[Killgannon]

i lol at the people still using retail ISPs

Step up to a REAL ISP (if you can, it is DSL after all, and pricey, but you get what you pay for)

by Real i mean full access to the internet, no port blocking, no DPI (deep packet inspection), no blocking access to the entire alt.* newsgroups on your nntp servers (hi verizon), no telling you what you can and can't do on your connection (as long as its not illegal, who cares)

[Alleya]

I should revise my previous assessment.

This service would actually be very successful if they targeted it to older people/seniors and other casual users of the internet by offering high speed at a very reasonable price ($15/mo?). They could wipe up the remaining dial-up market and pick up new users pretty handily.

But they don't. They set this shit up and still expect people to pay $50 a month for it.

[netz]

I should revise my previous assessment.

This service would actually be very successful if they targeted it to older people/seniors and other casual users of the internet by offering high speed at a very reasonable price ($15/mo?). They could wipe up the remaining dial-up market and pick up new users pretty handily.

But they don't. They set this shit up and still expect people to pay $50 a month for it.

This situation gets a bit tougher when you have two choices for internet access: the incumbent cable provider, or the incumbent phone company. Not everybody can get COVAD to service DSL for Speakeasy to function, and I don't know of too many people reselling Verizon or SBC/AT&T's DSL service.

Your other choices involve going to the cell phone companies. 5GB of bandwidth will run you $70 monthly for approximately a 1.0/500 connection from Verizon and slightly worse from AT&T. Same price for unlimited from Sprint. Expect latency to be pretty horrible on occasion, but tolerable often.

The rest of the world already lives under capped plans, but it depends where you live if they're expensive (Australia) or not (UK, Canada).

It's yet to be seen if Verizon is going to start capping people, and even if the high volume people jump from cable to DSL, they didn't want those customers in the first place. Win/win for the cable providers, as the technology itself is the limiting factor here. If a huge exodus happens, and Verizon ends up with the majority of the torrenters, expect them to react.

[Charla]

Win/win for the cable providers, as the technology itself is the limiting factor here.

I would contend that the technology to continue to provide effectively unlimited bandwidth does in fact exist, and that ISPs simply prefer to use their existing technology, and pretend that there are no better alternatives.

[fantasticdan]

I would contend that the technology to continue to provide effectively unlimited bandwidth does in fact exist, and that ISPs simply prefer to use their existing technology, and pretend that there are no better alternatives.

Fios is more expensive for less bandwidth compared to standard cablevision internet around here.

[mikazuki]

the infrastructure costs billions, so while it's true that the entire world's cabling could be overhauled to a standard which would be convenient for another 50-100yrs, it's more profitable for network owners to wait until what they have currently burns. local loop unbundling is a result of this profit maximisation.

incidentally a lot of dsl providers in the UK impose physical (rather than contractual) limits on download by switching heavy users to a fraction of the available total, that is, 25% of the available bandwidth is populated by the heavy users, while the remaining 75% has the light users (allowing them all to peak at once, while heavy users get a consistent poor connection).

[guartz]

the infrastructure costs billions

If I recall correctly, government gave out nearly 200 billion to implement such a thing about 10 years ago. Except the money was pocketed and nobody did anything about it.

[netz]

I would contend that the technology to continue to provide effectively unlimited bandwidth does in fact exist, and that ISPs simply prefer to use their existing technology, and pretend that there are no better alternatives.

Fios is more expensive for less bandwidth compared to standard cablevision internet around here.

FIOS doesn't have the bandwidth restrictions that the cable companies try to pretend don't exist. DOCSIS 2.0 can only feed so much when split between your neighbors; it's why cable HDTV is kinda crummy in some places, and decent in others -- they simply don't have the bandwidth to effectively service all of what they promise they can do.

Charla's pretty much spot on. I simply meant that with what the cable providers currently offer, the only manageable solution for them is to start capping people. If only they'd upgrade...

the infrastructure costs billions

If I recall correctly, government gave out nearly 200 billion to implement such a thing about 10 years ago. Except the money was pocketed and nobody did anything about it.

Reality is worse than that. We're actually still being taxed for those "improvements" that never happened.

[fantasticdan]

FIOS doesn't have the bandwidth restrictions that the cable companies try to pretend don't exist. DOCSIS 2.0 can only feed so much when split between your neighbors; it's why cable HDTV is kinda crummy in some places, and decent in others -- they simply don't have the bandwidth to effectively service all of what they promise they can do.

When they first installed fios service around here, they had a tiered service plan with the cheapest package being 10Mbps down, 1 up for $30 a month. Mean while I get around 20Mbps down, 2.5 up (I'm not sure what they advertise, but that's what I actually get) with $30 cablevision internet. They had a higher tier service with about the same download and more upload than what I get, but it was like $50 a month.

Looking at their website now, they don't seem to offer a tiered service anymore to new customers, at least when ordering online. I only see a $58 a month plan for 20Mbps down 5 up. Is it worth an extra $28 a month(plus the $30 activation fee they charge) to potentially increase my upload speed? Not to me.

[Charla]

Is it worth an extra $28 a month(plus the $30 activation fee they charge) to potentially increase my upload speed? Not to me.

Not yet, but if that cablevision isp decided that you were being a bandwidth hog because you know how to use a p2p client, the equation would change in a hurry. (note that I am using hyperbole, but I would also not put it past several ISPs to continue to charge more for less over the next several years)

[Tyche]

<3 my cable internet company. No restrictions and the only time I've ever caught any shit is when I uploaded about 7gb in a day. They gave me a call and asked me nicely to try and keep it under 5 lol.

[octopus]

Well, I love my Fios and would never change to another ISP as long as they don't start monitoring your usage. Can't beat fiber to the home.

[Lordwafik]

This has (unfortunately) been the standard in australia for years and doesn't look like it's changing ever. For a look at future america's broadband, look here! http://whirlpool.net.au/

Cable onry :

For an example of a shitty plan that's also popular, take a peek at Telstra.

http://bc.whirlpool.net.au/bc/isp-1/telstra-bigpond.htm

The first plan screams LOL! 29.95 a month, for 200 megabytes, where uploads are counted (oh yeah, that's the new norm they're trying to pull on everyone, thank god I locked myself into an old plan and refuse to change). You pay 150 DOLLARS per extra gigabyte over 200 megs. How awesome yeah?

How would you like the EXTREME plan ? Extreme telstra means you pay $140 a month, for 60gb, with counted uploads, and pay 150/gb if you go over!


My ISP is no better, they've released these "Fusion" plans which are all horrible, but like I said earlier, I'm locked into an older plan which seems like a great value in comparison to these <_<

http://bc.whirlpool.net.au/bc/isp-3-1/o ... -cable.htm

Optus's best plan is 110/month for 30gb, uploads counted, excess data "Shaped" (this means if you go over 30gb, they drop your bandwidth to 56k).

[Killgannon]

This situation gets a bit tougher when you have two choices for internet access: the incumbent cable provider, or the incumbent phone company. Not everybody can get COVAD to service DSL for Speakeasy to function, and I don't know of too many people reselling Verizon or SBC/AT&T's DSL service.

Sucks to be them then =/ even then for a lot of people its Cable or Dial up... or satelite.... (god id rather have dialup lol) or spend big bucks for T1 ($279+/m) because they live out of range of DSL

It's yet to be seen if Verizon is going to start capping people, and even if the high volume people jump from cable to DSL, they didn't want those customers in the first place. Win/win for the cable providers, as the technology itself is the limiting factor here. If a huge exodus happens, and Verizon ends up with the majority of the torrenters, expect them to react.

and boy does verizon react

AT&T at least has said they wont do jack shit about torrenters, but they are going to do the pay per bandwidth thing, I work in this industry a LOT of people are not going to go over, there will be some that do, but the majority are not, the use it for internet news/email and thats all... I feel sorry for people who work at home, especially if they're doing a lot of downloading/uploading on their connection and are stuck with these kinds of plans... there is always other options of course, some cities are offering metro wireless (the city is saturated with wireless St Louis for example), and there are other local ISPs that also offer DSL

@wafik, not only that but Telstra also uses its own proprietary connection type... ever wonder wtf those other connection types are in your router? (pppoa and telestra) hi2u europe/australia

[netz]

FIOS doesn't have the bandwidth restrictions that the cable companies try to pretend don't exist. DOCSIS 2.0 can only feed so much when split between your neighbors; it's why cable HDTV is kinda crummy in some places, and decent in others -- they simply don't have the bandwidth to effectively service all of what they promise they can do.

When they first installed fios service around here, they had a tiered service plan with the cheapest package being 10Mbps down, 1 up for $30 a month. Mean while I get around 20Mbps down, 2.5 up (I'm not sure what they advertise, but that's what I actually get) with $30 cablevision internet. They had a higher tier service with about the same download and more upload than what I get, but it was like $50 a month.

I think you're pretty god damn lucky with what you got, heh. Not everybody has the same quality of cable service, that's for sure.

My $50 a month sent to Charter gets me a 550KB/sec download rate and a 64KB/sec upload rate. (so that's what, about 4Mbps/512Kbps?)

[octopus]

It's yet to be seen if Verizon is going to start capping people, and even if the high volume people jump from cable to DSL, they didn't want those customers in the first place. Win/win for the cable providers, as the technology itself is the limiting factor here. If a huge exodus happens, and Verizon ends up with the majority of the torrenters, expect them to react.

and boy does verizon react

Am I missing something? The link has nothing to do with Verizon capping people because of bandwidth cost by users. This is about them refusing to let users access alt.binaries newsgroups because they found out all those illegal shit being on their own usenet servers...

[Killgannon]

It's yet to be seen if Verizon is going to start capping people, and even if the high volume people jump from cable to DSL, they didn't want those customers in the first place. Win/win for the cable providers, as the technology itself is the limiting factor here. If a huge exodus happens, and Verizon ends up with the majority of the torrenters, expect them to react.

and boy does verizon react

Am I missing something? The link has nothing to do with Verizon capping people because of bandwidth cost by users. This is about them refusing to let users access alt.binaries newsgroups because they found out all those illegal shit being on their own usenet servers...

its an example of how verizon will over react to things

"oh hi 2% of our in bound traffic is bit torrent, therefor you are no longer allowed inbound traffic"
(or basically you cant download shit ever)