dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
6075
adamg
join:2013-03-01
7501

adamg to Demog

Member

to Demog

Re: [Rant] bandwidth metering turned back on?

quote:
250 or 350 GB is a lot of data period, regardless of the speed of your pipe.
Speak for yourself. Some of us do more than check email and use facebook. I live with 3 other college aged guys, who all play PC games. Buying PC games these day's usually involves downloading the entire game over Steam or something similar. It can add up quickly.

I figured I was covering my bases by signing up for the most expensive connection that SL offers. But apparently 350 gigs is "fine", because grandma and the kids just use facebook and SD quality Netflix. Meanwhile, people like me, who were using the internet for games, or linux distributions, etc, back when people thought it was weird that someone would sit in front of a computer for more than an hour, are now treated like we're doing something wrong by using the internet to it's full potential, just like we always have.

Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21

Cabal

Premium Member

said by adamg:

quote:
250 or 350 GB is a lot of data period, regardless of the speed of your pipe.
Speak for yourself. Some of us do more than check email and use facebook. I live with 3 other college aged guys, who all play PC games. Buying PC games these day's usually involves downloading the entire game over Steam or something similar. It can add up quickly.

I figured I was covering my bases by signing up for the most expensive connection that SL offers. But apparently 350 gigs is "fine", because grandma and the kids just use facebook and SD quality Netflix. Meanwhile, people like me, who were using the internet for games, or linux distributions, etc, back when people thought it was weird that someone would sit in front of a computer for more than an hour, are now treated like we're doing something wrong by using the internet to it's full potential, just like we always have.

When I was in college, we always paid for business class. Not to do so with 4 or more people would have been crazy.
adamg
join:2013-03-01
7501

2 edits

adamg

Member

"Crazy", would be suggesting that people in their 20's with a couple of college roommates, should pay 300 dollars per month for a 20 meg internet connection and a ton of features that they have no use for.


ScooterTejas
@cebridge.net

ScooterTejas

Anon

Boy...we have 4 people who are pretty active on the internet, gamers, netflix, tablets and have never come close to 250GB. I think we'd have to watch Netflix every day for multiple hours plus all our other stuff to do that.

The ability to pay is not relevant.
ScooterTejas

ScooterTejas

Anon

"According to Sandvine, a company that makes network management tools used by cable operators, only about 1.5 percent of U.S. broadband households use more than 250GB of data per month. And only about 1 percent exceed 300GB. On average, broadband users in the U.S. use about 32GB of data per month. "

»news.cnet.com/8301-1035_ ··· o-loses/

Almost a year old, but things haven't changed that much.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle

Premium Member

How about in a few more years? If you stream a 4k movie, you'd blow through that cap in just a couple titles alone. Compare what you use now to what you used 5 and then 10 years ago.

Can the cap accommodate you now, yes. Will it be raised in the near future to accommodate more bandwidth intensive applications and media? That's the scary part.
adamg
join:2013-03-01
7501

adamg to ScooterTejas

Member

to ScooterTejas
This is what gets me; the argument for why caps are needed, seems to be that no one comes close to exceeding the caps. Explain this logic to me please, because it doesn't seem like there's an actual issue. I don't hit the cap most months, but there have been months where I've gone way over it. I shouldn't have to be penalized just because Suddenlink has no competition, and the "average" user is comprised of 10,000x as many casuals as 10 years ago who do nothing but facebook.

Gaming doesn't burn a lot of bandwidth, downloading games is what burns a lot of bandwidth. If you game on a console, this isn't an issue. If you game on a PC, you can burn through it fast, as it's quickly becoming the primary means of game distribution.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

1 recommendation

Karl Bode

News Guy

1. The caps aren't necessary, why would you support them when there's a threat you'll have to pay more?

2. Many worry the caps won't scale. Investors want their returns, what better way than to keep tightening the noose?

3. It's anti-competitive. If #1 is true (which it is), that means the caps are used to hinder online video and protect TV revenues. That's anti-competitive.

4. As we saw with Suddenlink, companies have a very hard time tracking usage accurately, and regulators don't care.

Any consumer supporting these measures is rooting against their own best self interests.
lwaster
join:2001-02-12
Jonesboro, AR

lwaster

Member

said by Karl Bode:

1. The caps aren't necessary, why would you support them when there's a threat you'll have to pay more?

2. Many worry the caps won't scale. Investors want their returns, what better way than to keep tightening the noose?

3. It's anti-competitive. If #1 is true (which it is), that means the caps are used to hinder online video and protect TV revenues. That's anti-competitive.

4. As we saw with Suddenlink, companies have a very hard time tracking usage accurately, and regulators don't care.

Any consumer supporting these measures is rooting against their own best self interests.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jdmm72
join:2002-02-12
Cary, NC

jdmm72 to lwaster

Member

to lwaster
250 through 350GB per month isn't a lot. If I restart my Crashplan backup, it streams up at 2Mbps. 2Mbps x 60sec/min x 60 min/hr x 24 hours/day *30 days/month / 1byte/8 bit = 648Gb/month before ANY other internet usage. Oh, and don't forget all the random pings from everywhere (China, Russia, and SL) adding to that.

Now that's a lot of data, but that is exactly what I ended up doing (switching from Carbonite to Crashplan), right as they introduced the meters, "for informational purposes" before, I also got the "You use too much" data letter, and then when the derecho went through my area knocking out all electricity to the point you couldn't even purchase gasoline, my meter kept ticking. And I wasn't home the whole week before, yet it kept ticking through the whole week, through the whole time power was out, and through the other end.

ScooterTejas
@cebridge.net

ScooterTejas to Karl Bode

Anon

to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:

Any consumer supporting these measures is rooting against their own best self interests.

Incorrect. I don't want my internet to suffer because of people utilizing their full bandwidth 24x7 and exceeding the cap by a large margin. These people are node killers, ruining it for everyone else. I expect my ISP to monitor their network and doing something about abusers.

Ignorance is not an excuse either. If you infect your PC and it turns into a bot flooding the network, I want my ISP to pull your plug. If you decide to drop your TV package and want to have 4 TVs constantly streaming video and my speeds suffer, I want you cut off. If you have collected every movie, TV show, song every created and want to back up it all up to your unlimited cloud account and aren't smart enough to piece meal it over time...the same.

Like it or not, ISPs are going to protect their network and cut off the 1% that abuse the system in the best interest of the everyone else. Expecting them to anticipate every technology change and over build their network to support whatever might happen in the future for what you currently pay is crazy. I don't want to pay more so you can DL 1 TB each month and I don't want slow speeds because of it either.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram

Premium Member

You have some valid points, but I think fair use and abuse are not the same thing.

Using the full speed of your connection 24/7 for the full billing period would be abuse for sure, and should not be tolerated.

Someone being infected with a virus or trojan, also shouldn't be in the same category as someone who is using their connection for legit reasons.

But...... just because I want to use my connection the way I see fit, doesn't mean I should be subjected to unreasonable overages, and that is exactly what is going on, or will be, if they re-enable their policy.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle

Premium Member

The thing I don't understand is why using ALL of your connection is abuse? Just because the cable company has sold a customer a tier that they can't support when it is used to it's potential should NOT be a fault of the customer.

The fact that one person, or a handful of people can bring an ENTIRE node to it's knees is just a convenient thing that the cable company can use to harvest more money from all customers. They are not removing the "infringing" customer, just adding a couple extra dollars. So the idea that caps are about clearing congestion is simply invalid.

I wonder what the public's reception would be if the cable industry just told the truth about caps. Don't sugar coat it or turn the issue into something it's not even about. If they could produce any facts that it actually costs more to provide more bandwidth (to an always on connection) then I would be more ok with caps. That would bring it in line with a utility, pay for what you use.

Personally Scooter, I don't want ANYTHING to do with your idea that the internet should be accessed on set terms. Surely you don't think that the power company should be able to disconnect you for using 'too much' power? Or any other service, product, or utility that you use. Would you be ok with your phone being turned off because you talked on it 'too much'?

ScooterTejas
@cebridge.net

ScooterTejas to gatorkram

Anon

to gatorkram
If you are in the top 1% which is about 10 times more data downloaded than the average customer I don't think you are entitled to "use my connection the way I see fit", but if are only using 50GB a month I guess you can.

As far as infected or "legit" I don't see a difference. Same for knuckleheads that run open wifi. You are responsible for the devices that connect to your network and the data use. Stupid is not a defense.

Fair use and abuse can get very gray. I could easily argue that someone using 10 times more than average is an abuser. The ISP has to draw the line either through caps or higher plans and no matter how they do it, people will complain.

Look at the cell phone industry. In the "unlimited" days, the top 1% data users used 40%+ of the data, today with pay for overages and throttling the top 1% uses about 15%. There are other factors at play but the cell industry could not afford the "use my connection the way I see fit" mentality for the top 1%, so they changed the rules. The same is happening with the ISPs.

If you want to be a top 1%er, you are going to have to pay for it.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle

Premium Member

Then to have your plan make ANY sense at all, you would need to add in the ability to REDUCE your bill for not using what the 'average' user does. I still don't see why you are ok with charging more when it won't reduce congestion at all. If you can link to some study that is able to show that cable bandwidth caps have positively effected congestion, that would be a different story entirely.

In the cell phone industry, it was become FAR faster and easier to use bandwidth intensive apps over wifi. Fees didn't change the amount of data consumed, it just changed how it was delivered. Besides, if you're in an area like where I am, I doubt you could reach the top 10% of use if you left the cell radio streaming 24/7.
areacode304
join:2006-08-26
WV

areacode304 to ScooterTejas

Member

to ScooterTejas
said by ScooterTejas :

...I don't think you are entitled to "use my connection the way I see fit", but if are only using 50GB a month I guess you can.

At what point did you become the arbiter of appropriate bandwidth usage, and why was I not given the opportunity to veto such a terrible idea? It's terribly arrogant of you to act as if what you think should matter to others, and trying to hide your self-righteousness behind a stupid emoticon is transparent and cowardly.
said by ScooterTejas :

As far as infected or "legit" I don't see a difference.

I'll wager that you "don't see" a lot of things.
adamg
join:2013-03-01
7501

4 edits

adamg to ScooterTejas

Member

to ScooterTejas
said by ScooterTejas :

said by Karl Bode:

Any consumer supporting these measures is rooting against their own best self interests.

Incorrect. I don't want my internet to suffer because of people utilizing their full bandwidth 24x7 and exceeding the cap by a large margin. These people are node killers, ruining it for everyone else. I expect my ISP to monitor their network and doing something about abusers.

Ignorance is not an excuse either. If you infect your PC and it turns into a bot flooding the network, I want my ISP to pull your plug. If you decide to drop your TV package and want to have 4 TVs constantly streaming video and my speeds suffer, I want you cut off. If you have collected every movie, TV show, song every created and want to back up it all up to your unlimited cloud account and aren't smart enough to piece meal it over time...the same.

Like it or not, ISPs are going to protect their network and cut off the 1% that abuse the system in the best interest of the everyone else. Expecting them to anticipate every technology change and over build their network to support whatever might happen in the future for what you currently pay is crazy. I don't want to pay more so you can DL 1 TB each month and I don't want slow speeds because of it either.

So if I were to max out my connection for a combined total of 7 hours in a 1 month period, or 15 whole minutes a day, you would consider that to be "abuse"? And what if the majority of that usage was after midnight? Am I still an "abuser"?

Suddenlink isn't "protecting" their network, they're reaping the glorious benefits of being a government-granted monopoly. You need to look no further than the fact that THEIR streaming video doesn't count towards the cap.

Just look at Google. They're showing up in random cities, building fiber infrastructure from the ground up, and offering connections 10 times faster than Suddenlink for half the price, with no cap, and they fully plan on turning a profit.

If Cable ISP's are going to start metering bandwidth like it's water (and even attempting to use that false analogy themselves), then it needs to be done strictly in that manner. That way, you aren't paying for more than you're using, and I'm paying for what I'm using. They haven't changed anything else though, we're still paying as much or more as we always have based on the available speed alone. Does it really seem fair to you that I pay several times more than a 10 meg user, for a connection several times faster, yet I don't even get a 50% increase in cap space?

Are you starting to see what the real problem is here? It's not Suddenlink "protecting" its network from "abusers", it's Suddenlink making up the rules of the game, because they have no competition. It's ISP's like Suddenlink recognizing that content on demand is the direction that the internet is heading, and they want to stifle it and get a piece of the action at the same time.

ScooterTejas
@cebridge.net

ScooterTejas

Anon

I'd love to have Google Fiber though it would be more than I am paying now. To listen to you guys that would be so wrong...some terrible big corporation charging more.

Google has not stated anywhere that I can find that they are making a profit. What they are doing is making a splash, in 3 test markets anyway. Cherry picked cities, the last one gave Google its fiber network for a dime, maybe they are making money or maybe these cities are lose leaders, they certainly can afford it. Lets see what happens if they ever go nationwide. Which would be great as today google fiber is only as fast as what is on the other end.

I guess the crux of our difference of opinion is I never thought I had truly unlimited internet. Every ISP has always had abuse provisions and I have always known that if one pushes it, then are going to have a problem. Technology changed and now some of you seem to want to DL 10 times as much data with no change to your agreement with your ISP. They are big fat rich cats who should invest another small fortune in their network without passing on any expense to you nor should they be allowed to cap your greater use in anyway.

Not gonna happen. One way or another we will all pay for network upgrades to support the tremendous growth in data usage. In the mean time I want protection from pigs who think it is an open buffet and ruin it for everyone else.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode to ScooterTejas

News Guy

to ScooterTejas

Incorrect. I don't want my internet to suffer because of people utilizing their full bandwidth 24x7 and exceeding the cap by a large margin. These people are node killers, ruining it for everyone else. I expect my ISP to monitor their network and doing something about abusers.

There's a HUGE difference between warning infected botnet machines or a very, very small number of customers who are pulling down 500GB a month or more -- and imposing caps and overages for EVERYBODY. The former is a network health issue done by all ISPs, the latter is designed to protect TV revenues. Conflating them is misleading.

Again, if you're rooting for caps and overages you're rooting against your own best self interests.
Moostang
join:2009-03-24
Tyler, TX

1 edit

Moostang to lwaster

Member

to lwaster
I seriously doubt any provider on the planet has a network that can handle 100% utilization from everything they've sold. A CMTS downstream running QAM256 is approximately 37.5 of usable bandwidth. Multiply this by the number of downstreams in a downstream group (say 4 channel bonding) and you get a total of 150mb. My d3 modem currently bonds to 4 channels.

If a single 107mb customer uses their bandwidth 24/7 then that leaves 43mb for the rest of the modems on this downstream, with is about 3 15mb customers if they used all of their capacity.

Cisco recommends no more than 200 modems per UPSTREAM. Let's just say there are only 20 modems per upstream, There are up to 4 upstreams per downstream (depending on the card), times 4 downstreams (4 channel bonding) equals 16 upstreams with 320 Total modems for the 4 channel downstream group. If all users are "average users" this downstream group will rarely saturate if at all.

However, if only 10 of those modems have 15mb contracts and decided to use 100% of their contact, they would reach the 150mb capacity of 4 channel bonding.

It is not realistic to build a network based on potential usage if all users used 100% of their bandwidth. They would not be able to serve but a fraction of any city before the cost grossly outweighed the revenue. Networks are built based on actual utilization, not potential utilization.

I am against caps but I also realize how harmful it is when tons of people utilize all of their bandwidth 24/7.
areacode304
join:2006-08-26
WV

areacode304

Member

said by Moostang:

If a single 107mb customer uses their bandwidth 24/7

...then they've spent a LOT of money on HDDs.

SDL L3Tech
join:2011-06-07
Tyler, TX

SDL L3Tech

Member

or all of their neighbors are getting free internet and are chewing on a lot netflix/hulu streams hehe

ScooterTejas
@cebridge.net

ScooterTejas to Karl Bode

Anon

to Karl Bode
Caps only impact those that repeatedly violate them. You are talking about a "very, very small number of customers".

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle

Premium Member

Scooter, technology didn't change. It's still 'broadband' and it's still using the Docsis layout.

The 'crux' would be more along the lines that you are simply compliant with whatever the cable company wants to do to your service and we are not. How do you even know that the usage meter is actually accurate beyond the cable company themselves telling you that they checked it and everything is fine. Caps are simply a TERRIBLE idea, at least in their current form. It does absolutely nothing to relieve the network of congestion. Caps aside, you still have nodes that can't keep up on a daily basis, let alone if someone wanted to try and fully use their connection.

The biggest issue I see in the way of caps is that it is simply an ADDITIONAL charge for the same service we have been using. That is down right unacceptable and has no logical argument for why it has been implemented to begin with. It makes no sense that anyone would be alright with their service being changed with no change in the pricing scheme. Now, if caps and speed tiers were gutted and a low, flat rate was initiated with true usage based billing that was REGULATED like ALL other forms of consumables, I would have absolutely no problem with it. It's extremely unlikely that will ever happen though because that design is so much in the users favor it's hilarious. People want to say that only 1% of the users are doing all the harm and the other 99% average out to 5-12 Gigs of data (numbers others have pointed out in this forum) how do you think the billing would work out.

Sure, it's all fun and games right now while only a 'very, very small number of customers' approach the cap. What will your stance be if the caps don't rise as average use increases? REALLY want to know what your stance is when your bill sees a price increase to provide the same caped bandwidth while it's cost the cable company less to provide it to you.

Bottom line though Scooter, how does making someone pay a small additional fee protect you from them consuming that bandwidth? If anything, that top 1% just became the cable companies best customer. Again, caps do not relieve network strain, they simply provide added pricing

ScooterTejas
@cebridge.net

ScooterTejas to areacode304

Anon

to areacode304
said by areacode304:

said by ScooterTejas :

...I don't think you are entitled to "use my connection the way I see fit", but if are only using 50GB a month I guess you can.

At what point did you become the arbiter of appropriate bandwidth usage, and why was I not given the opportunity to veto such a terrible idea? It's terribly arrogant of you to act as if what you think should matter to others, and trying to hide your self-righteousness behind a stupid emoticon is transparent and cowardly.
said by ScooterTejas :

As far as infected or "legit" I don't see a difference.

I'll wager that you "don't see" a lot of things.

It is terribly arrogant to think you can do whatever you want without regard to the impact to others.

Use some logic... if you use excessive amounts of data the impact is the same, regardless of your excuse. Ignorant, intentional, doesn't matter. If you are willing to pay more SL will let you be as clueless as you want.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA

moldypickle

Premium Member

Again, how does that relieve stress on the network? You keep arguing against yourself.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram to lwaster

Premium Member

to lwaster
The thing is this... If I do want to use my connection full speed 24/7 and I pay for the overages, it doesn't make the burden on the network any less. In fact it does nothing at all, well, except make the company more money. So the logical conclusion is the limits and overages are designed to discourage you from using the network more than they think you should be.

ScooterTejas
@cebridge.net

ScooterTejas to moldypickle

Anon

to moldypickle
said by moldypickle:

Scooter, technology didn't change. It's still 'broadband' and it's still using the Docsis layout.

lol, you missed the point entirely. You're right, while ISPs performed massive upgrades to their networks the underlying ISP technology is the same.

What did change is companies like Netflix went from shipping DVDs via USPS to using ISPs as the delivery mechanism. USPS lost a on of revenue and ISPs gained a bunch of expense when that happened.

moldypickle
Premium Member
join:2009-01-04
Haughton, LA
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD

moldypickle

Premium Member

Then your point is to no longer innovate and move forward?

Sure there is more using the internet now these days, but providers have yet to change. They would rather monetize the innovation of others. Before you try and argue that they use the money to upgrade (and there are plenty of markets that haven't seen an upgrade in years) the main upgrade on our end is continuing to increase speeds. Considering the idea behind caps from the industry stand point and your arguments is that bandwidth is a finite source and only so much can be used at one time, what is the point of a speed upgrade? To allow fewer users to saturate the link at any given time? Seems a bit self serving don't you think, to continue to increase the speed but limit your bandwidth.

But to argue that isps gained a bunch of expense due to netflix is almost laughable. What is the cost difference to fill a DATA CABLE to 10% of capacity vs 90% of capacity? Hell, netflix has even gone as far as to install 'local' data caches on the core networks of several isp thereby eliminating incoming data costs.

If you were crusading about needing TRUE usage based billing such as other utility companies, I could get behind that. But your entire idea about caps is off axis as is.

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram to lwaster

Premium Member

to lwaster
The ISPs picked their business models and now they want to change them. Not only do they want to change them, but they want to keep the old ways too.

No other business can I think of, where the company selling you a product wants to limit how much of it you use.

Either switch to per unit pricing, or drop the overages, you can't have it both ways and expect people to be happy about it.

The whole scam here, is they want to overcharge the people who use almost nothing, and scare everyone else with these overages not to use to much data as well.