The Hole ISPs Dig When They Choose Throttling Over Capacity

said by deadi:

Thats really a bold statement considering there is no real choice in most places.

said by ke4pym:

There is -always- a choice. You can choose to have what you've got, or nothing at all. Nothing is always an option. But one most people won't take and the companies of the world know this.

said by DaSneaky1D:

You don't even have the room to say "nothing at all" is a choice. There are people out there that have uses/obligations that can't be satisfied with "nothing at all" as an option. If this ISP is all that they have to work with, and they use their market stance to offer shoddy service, then people are at a disadvantage and don't really have any other option, do they?

said by gefflong:

Some of us don't have the luxury of being able to say "no."

I, for one, use my connection for work. If I disconnect, I don't work. I don't work, I don't make money. I don't make money, I have no place to live. I think you get the idea.

If an internet connection is nothing but a luxury, I would agree... having none is an option. However, for those of us who work and make money with our connection, we don't have a choice if there's only one company.

said by deadi:

Yes, you build to support all your users. My provider, and most others do not seem to have a problem with this. Mis-management?

said by jsouth:

Actually he is partially right here. They should expand their capacity, but they shouldn't do it for those who routinely download gigabytes of material a month and strain the system. I'm not talking about 50 or even 100gigs. I'm talking about those users who download 300-400gigs a month every month.

said by deadi:

... Mis-management?

said by karlmarx:

Well, if the pay per byte model is so good, why don't any of the major ISP's do it?

said by karlmarx:

First: There is no 'minute' cost for using your connection. Unlike a phone call (switched network), where a phone call ties up a circuit for x amount of time, a packet based network doesn't use any 'resources' if it's not being used. So the concept of charging by 'time' is meaningless.

said by karlmarx:

Now, charging per byte. Granted, the pipes are a finite resource. The limiting factor is how much data the equipment can handle, AT ANY INSTANT. Unlike oil, or other 'physical' resources, the limit on an internet connection is not 'how much' (i.e. if you're not using 100% of your bandwidth, it's lost) but how much per user. If I travel 100 miles, my car uses about 3 gallons of gas. So, I'm out about $7.50. However, if I download 100GB, my 'pipe' didn't consume any 'resources', but I DID use a percentage of the total pipe.

said by karlmarx:

To put it in numbers, if a particular node can handle 100mb/sec, in a perfect world, that node would move about 30TB of data every month. In a typical 500 user node, that means every person could download about 60GB per month. And, if every user DID download 60GB/month, the incremental cost to the ISP would be, umm, ZERO.

said by karlmarx:

We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that.

said by karlmarx:

We don't live in a perfect world, so some users do 500GB/month, and others do 1GB/month. If the ISP's were to charge 'by the byte', then 500 people at 65.00/month, would mean that the ISP would charge you $1.00 per GB/month. Now, I have NO PROBLEM paying $5.00 for a 5GB/month plan, but the ISP would never do that.

said by truocchio:

logistics of counting the total "used" bytes because of issues such as overhead, computer generated traffic, viruses, spam, etc.

said by truocchio:

Imagine calling in and arguing about how many bites and bytes you actually consume with tech support....ah!

said by KoolMoe:

So if you annoy a wealthy neighbor and he decides to set some packets to 500k and ping your connection repeatedly for a week, you'll be cool with paying for that bandwidth, right?
KM

said by fAcEtIOUs:

...you build them for the average user and you throttle the hogs or boot them off. No matter how fast you make your network or how much bandwidth you provide, the abusers will always find a way to eat up all available bandwidth. Unless, of course, you move to the pay-by-byte model. Then everyone, except the non-rich hogs, will be happy with speeds.

said by Sir :

Legitimate uses for Bit Torrent is NOT a moot point. Your contention would mean that every time a new use for bandwidth is invented there would be a corresponding increase in price.

said by Sir :

Instead, imagine this crazy scenario: Data is data. Period. If I want to waste my bandwidth pinging 1 million different hosts at the same time, who cares.
I paid for a 'pipe' to send data.

said by Sir :

I am going to send data. If the ISPs can't make money.... Hmmmm? Maybe charge more?

said by pb2k:

You make it sound like a new instant messaging system . We are talking tens of thousands of terabytes every day running across the internet in one of the most inefficient manners possible.

said by pb2k:

Bit torrent is an application that simply does not work well with today's internet infrastructure.

said by pb2k:

The internet, is still ultimately a client-server environment, and the cost of trying to properly decentralize it would be huge.

said by pb2k:

I personally really like Comcast's burst speed idea, it provides quick bursts of upstream data when you need it, and keeps bit-torrent from destroying the network. Personally, I wouldn't mind if my ISP (Shaw cable) gave me 2mbit burst upload speed (up to 45 seconds), and reduced my sustained upload to 128k (down from 1mbit).

said by pb2k:

Remember, bit torrent is still largely pirated material, so pointing out the legitimate uses for the program is a moot point.

said by xsiddalx:

"Distributed" distribution works much better than single server distribution from a cost perspective.

said by xsiddalx:

Same manner as distributing CPU cycles on cheap machines to solve a problem may be cheaper than buying a monster server (SETI as an example). If the cost is deemed inexpensive enough to people, they will donate CPU cycles

said by xsiddalx:

or in the case of BT, unused bandwidth.

said by xsiddalx:

Not sure I understand this. The cost of doing anything isn't huge, it is as distributed as the internet. No 1 company bears the costs, although we seem to be heading towards a smaller number of companies through their own choice.

When was the internet centralized? Would you elaborate?

said by xsiddalx:

Send the idea to sales and marketing. I am certain they like that type of direct information from customers (cheaper than conducting user surveys)

said by xsiddalx:

If the model is "client-server", the internet is truly destined to be little more than a new television distribution model with more fine-tuned advertising and interactivity and more content.

said by xsiddalx:

The telcos and cable companies have certainly gambled on the "internet distribution" method based on the asymmetrical models they have deployed. As more independent ISPs are absorbed, it become a self-perpetuating myth. They are both sorta "investing in the future" with going along with the flat price model at the moment. It mirrors fuel in a manner. Everyone bellyaches, but most customers will continue driving even when given a choice. The LD companies figured out the business model of "customer apathy" back in the 90s as well. Sadly, we really don't generally vote with our dollars (or local currency) until there is a real competitive environment.

said by kd6cae:

If you lease a dedicated server box from a data center, you're usually given so many gigs of bandwidth per month, above which point, you pay overage fees.
Your server's network connectivity speed is a symmetrical amount, usually 10 or 100mbits/sec, and if you stay within your allotted bandwidth limit, which is usually in a good facility plenty for even the highest end average usage such as streaming audio/video, that kind of plan seems to work, and you get the full capability of the network.
Why can't or won't cable/DSL provider offer similar tiers of service, where users could enjoy the full upstream/downstream possibilities of the network they're on? I'd think doing something like that would be a neat thing to try.