Talk > Rants, Raves, and Praise > Why is broadband going back to age of dialup with

Why is broadband going back to age of dialup with

First they will start us on 20gb,40,or60gb cap then say its not good for their business its still using too much of their bandwidth and every gb must be paid so will take that away as well once we buy into their propaganda of usage who abuse bandwidth which IMHO are nonexistent.

No one complains about electricity being metered because most don't use much but if everyone uses as much as bandwidth on their internet there would be a revolution by tomorrow morning. I think by doing this they are shooting themselves in the foot.

I rather have the choice to use less or use more and not be controlled by $$$ or greed. Unlimited is what we are accustom to and by placing limit and using pay by gb is only gonna hurt poverty even more.

You don't have to be on the computer 24hrs a day to use a lot of bandwidth, if you're downloading a lot of stuff for personal enjoyment hitting hundreds of gb is as easy as 1-2-3. It really sucks to be the person on the edge being fleeced by the middle sales person using any means possible to make more money without any investment. They want lots of money the easy way and wants us to foot the bill. I am not buying into their nonsense of 5 percent of user using most of the bandwidth, may as well be 1 percent of user. lying to the public that it won't affect their usage is like taking extra candy from a kid that was once unlimited and say you need to pay for each and everyone of it. Its shady marketing that won't work on intelligent people. They know the majority will believe anything if the few does not speak up so they count on that.

reply to jadebangle

Re: Why is broadband going back to age of dialup with

And your comcast example...comcast's cap is at 250 gb if you are using more than that I believe you SHOULD pay an extra fee because it simply is not average or expected home use of bandwith....

reply to jadebangle
I think the US is is pretty stout in the cities and suburbs, lacking in the hinterland because there is no money in it.

Go live in a rabbit cage in S Korea or Japan and and it will rock. About the same.

reply to CylonRed

So even if you have to wait 5 days to transfer the data it would still be considered 'infinite'? Sorry - usability is in the equation for me and once it stops being remotely useful - the bandwidth is effectively gone.

I think your missing the point. Yes, if the link gets saturated, then you will get slower speeds. BUT that link will always be there available to transfer infinite amounts of data.

This is exactly what the problem is. Overloading a node to save money at the expense of people not getting advertised speeds.

Example (no where near correct numbers, but you get the idea):
- It costs an isp $100 to install your line.
- You pay $5 a month for your line.
- After 20 months, the isp breaks even and every month after is profit.
- This is where they get greedy. Instead of using (some of) the money (a pure profit minus line costs) to increase speeds, they use it for themselves.
- Now you have customers overloading a node (killer apps) when they could have upgraded prior to the bandwidth crunch.

Not just 'slower' speeds but effectively STOPPING data. Sorry - I was around with the ILUVU virus - it shut down a work network covering 2 countries. Took 15 minutes to switch from one email to another one before they unplugged the network to clean it up and dealt with it for 3 more days. In that sense - it is VERY finite imho. Yes, the link is there but if you can't get anything across it then it is useless.

I guess the thought is that ISP's are making a killing but the reality is - very few do. Problem with updating is that it would happen constantly - every year upgrades would have to be done and simply cost more and more while people will not want to pay for the upgrades.

I guess thats why I love being on the iProvo fiber network. My 10Mb Connection could be upgraded to 100Mb just by a software configuration change at the NOC (same with Utopia).

Edit: But I guess there would also need to be backbone upgrades at iProvo if everyone did that.

reply to jadebangle
Hehe...Americans are spoiled children, who have 85% of the net paid for by parents, but complain about price

Outside of the walls of America, broadband is sold by G's used, hours are not measured it's G's. It is amazing that people think that a $60.00 a month superfast connection should entitle them to business class use.

What happens when parents stop paying the bill???

Caps, groan, on that front how about lifting up speeds!

The normal use of broadband, by general consumers is around 10G a month, it's the blatant trolls of 500G's a month on a RESIDENTIAL account that will force the broadband industry in America to follow International trends in how it's paid for, by the G.

A heavy user? Then pay for it before you screw it for everyone, buy a bloody Business account if you use more than normal. Don't bitch if your parents pay the bill...YOU pay the bill and then understand how bandwidth is sold! What bandwidth is to the industry, is not your concept or many people looking for that elusive free ride.

reply to jadebangle

Hmmm...

reply to Kiwi

reply to utahluge
Some of us cannot take people seriously when they are clueless about how bandwidth gets to them.
*ALL* ISPs have to pay for the bandwidth WE consume by the GB.

You seem to think that for the $40-$60 per month you and I pay that is is perfectly alright to use it like a DS or OC line(run it full tilt 24/7). WRONG!
ISPs are in it to make a profit.
When you start costing them more than you are paying, they are not happy!

Go get a line that you can trash every minute of everyday.
You will soon find that those types of lines aint cheap!
I don't care who is paying for your connection, just stop acting like they owe you hundreds/thousand of dollars worth of bandwidth for $40 per month.
Use your connection like it was designed to be used.

As for the children remarks, people will get treated like they act - so if the shoe fits...
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera

reply to utahluge
David articulated the real problem rather well, the reference to children was simply because if people understood how, why and what bandwidth is, they would not be so fast to look so stupid.

As pointed out, you are buying speed, not large goobs of bandwidth; when ISP's provide residential use, they are predicting normal residential use, which incidentally is 0-10G a month. Now, it's the misunderstanding of what people "Think" they are buying that causes the problem. If more than 'Customary' use is used they WILL sell it by the G and so far we have been very, very lucky not to have it sold that way.

Now if you think a business model will just keep sucking up a lose, they won't. It will move from selling speed to selling by the G -Or if you like actual "Usage".

As for the point items that has nothing to do with how bandwidth is managed or sold, it's even further OT than any other comment.

No. you are dead wrong, they won't be out of business, customers will be begging for the the old days. That comment is reflective of absolutely no understanding of how the broadband market works, even after getting a clue from David's post, you buried yourself even deeper into the pit of "I just don't get it".

It's those people using 200+ G a month that will bury decent pricing for everyone, companies normally start losing money after 25G on a moderate residential plan. Nobody has to have stella math abilities to work those numbers out in terms of fallout.

reply to Kiwi

reply to jadebangle
Your ISP pays by the GB. Hosting companies pay--and charge--by the GB. Yahoo pays by the GB. Google pays by the GB. Everyone pays by the GB, except the end user.

Metered home connections are, IMO, inevitable. With a reasonable cap (heck, Comcast's 250 GB would serve most users for quite a while even WITH HD coming along) and a fair per-GB-over price, I'd even welcome it. Those bandwidth hogs the cablecos complain about? Suddenly they're not a disease to get rid of, but a revenue stream to be nurtured and allowed to grow: ie, incentive to increase capacity so that these guys can use even MORE per month and thus, pay more!

With reasonable initial caps, as long as at least some of the money from overages was used for network improvements, I'd be all for it.

This, from someone who has bittorrent running 80% of the time.
--
Think outside the fox...Seamonkey

reply to jadebangle
The truth about this is that despite you and me being used to unlimited traffic that most ISP's offer in the USA , worldwide many ISP's charge for traffic.
I would assume this prevents network abusers and heavy load on the network.For most people , internet usage is under 2GB a month.
But thanks to God tho , most ISP's in the US would almost certainly continue to offer unlimited traffic like they do now since with modern use or broadband where just surfing youtube for 30 minutes can add up to hundreds of MB of traffic is unwise and impractical.