dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1127
share rss forum feed


justin
..needs sleep
Australian
join:1999-05-28
kudos:15
Reviews:
·iiNet

250gb is generous - overage charges are not

Based on my experience with australian ISPs, 250gb download is to die for (more than three times the size offered by the most generous plans here). But almost all of them throttle anyone over their much lower limits, and let you run out the month at barely ISDN speed.

Ultimately throttling is a better solution than getting a huge surprise bill because the customer whose connection is getting eaten by a neighbor leaching off their wifi won't lose financially, and has an incentive to fix up their security.

I honestly think only a pirate is interested in approaching 250gb download, plus a handful of people who should re-consider their practice of pulling down their microsoft access databases from their office every night (or whatever it is that needs 250gb).

To make the system even more fair perhaps lower the cap further, and employ a limited amount of unused plan rollover, and throttle when cap is exceeded but allow more GB per month for a premium price. Of course provide a real-time daily and accurate display of usage, and don't charge for traffic to and from the ISP web servers.

It just makes more sense than unlimited with secret limits.

Turbocpe
Premium
join:2001-12-22
IA
said by justin:

Ultimately throttling is a better solution than getting a huge surprise bill because the customer whose connection is getting eaten by a neighbor leaching off their wifi won't lose financially, and has an incentive to fix up their security.
I think someone getting a surprise bill is much more incentive to fixing up their network/security! If it was simply others (neighbors) using their monthly allotment, the customer may not know if they are simply a casual or infrequent user.


Ebolla

join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
reply to justin
said by justin:

Ultimately throttling is a better solution than getting a huge surprise bill because the customer whose connection is getting eaten by a neighbor leaching off their wifi won't lose financially, and has an incentive to fix up their security.
Well they shouldnt get a surprise bill, the article indicates that in a 12month timeframe you can go over that limit once without being charged. I am sure at that time the person would likely receive a notice warning them. If they choose to ignore the letter and don't think to lock up wireless then I personally wouldn't see an issue with them being charged the fee.

I also dont think the charge should be lowered for overage. If someone is using 300gb a month and only being charged lets say $2/10gb then they will likely not care about the small amount of extra money as compared to $15/10gb.


justin
..needs sleep
Australian
join:1999-05-28
kudos:15
a lot of people have trouble remembering what happened in their bills and statements a month ago, let alone 12 months ago..


Ebolla

join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA
true, but the point was that they should receive a notice and hopefully lock up the security at that time, then they wouldn't have to worry about open wireless being used by others which in turn can potentially cost them overage charges.


runnoft
Premium
join:2003-10-14
Nags Head, NC
kudos:1
reply to justin
said by justin:

I honestly think only a pirate is interested in approaching 250gb download, plus a handful of people who should re-consider their practice of pulling down their microsoft access databases from their office every night (or whatever it is that needs 250gb).

I agree with most of what you say in your original post, but it won't ONLY be pirates who crack the 250Gb limit, the way we're heading, and that's part of what Comcast is worried about. We're heading towards people legally downloading films and TV programs over the Internet, rather than renting or PPVing them. Comcast doesn't want to foot the bill to build out networks to support that, especially if they're not the ones selling the content. I know, 250Gb is more film than most families will watch in a month (I've metered my heavy net use which only includes limited media downloads, and I'm always under 10Gb a month-- a two hour, non-HD film downloaded from Netflix is about 6Gb), but the same people that get throttled by Netflix because they get a little piggy at Netflix's trough are the same people that will have problems with Comcast's limits.

I also echo the concerns expressed by the guy writing the article about this-- there is a very high risk that Comcast would start generous and then start tightening up. Pretty soon it's a 50Gb limit unless you bought the downloads from Comcast, because then they can avoid spending money to upgrade supply. Their pricing models for cable TV services suggest this is the way it would go.


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to justin
They are clearly looking into this as a money maker.

If comcast and others would just make a few free changes and employ QOS to prioritize HTTP/HTTPS/SSL IMAP/POP3/SMTP DNS TELNET/SSH Routing/VoIP.

They would eliminate 99% of their customers who complain of slow browsing. Everything else can be delivered on a bulk priority which does not slow it down unless the node is congested. At that point they're effectively sharing the pipe with any downloaders after the above protocols.

Then they can feel free to upgrade as needed without pressure to keep mass downloaders happy.

It would be fine with me as long as it avoids caps and overage charges.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net


justin
..needs sleep
Australian
join:1999-05-28
kudos:15
Reviews:
·iiNet
some at comcast may see the opportunities to make money but if I was running an ISP i would see it more as a fairer allocation of costs. if the top 0.1% of user are responsible for 20% of your variable costs, and bring forward infrastructure upgrades and force them to be larger and more frequent than otherwise, I'd want those 0.1% to be paying that bill, or go to another ISP. Then I could drop the bill to everyone else.

The fee structures are out of wack: you pay more for higher speeds (that cost the ISP nothing to offer) but you pay no more for more data per month (that cost the ISP something).