dslreports logo
 story category
Net Neutrality: An American Problem
Australian ISPs say America needs to learn from them

The heads of Australia’s three major ISPs have caused some controversy by stating that network neutrality is only an American problem (and further suggesting that America’s Internet companies may want to take a lesson from Australia if the U.S. net neutrality issue is ever going to be resolved).

quote:
"Simon Hackett, the managing director of Adelaide-based ISP Internode, argues that it is ridiculous to suggest bandwidth is "running out" … "I don't subscribe to the view that network capacity is finite at all... Optical fibre basically doesn't run out of capacity, it's just a question of how fast you blink the bits at each end."
Hackett and other Australian ISP leaders go on to say that the U.S. business model offering unlimited plans is the real problem and that the Australian pay-as-you-go model for Internet services is the appropriate way to deal with the issue.

view:
topics flat nest 

Mega DETH
It's All About The Ping
join:2003-08-20
Watertown, WI

Mega DETH

Member

pay-as-you-go model

pay-as-you-go model, just say no!

swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

1 edit

swhx7

Premium Member

Re: pay-as-you-go model

Pay-per-byte isn't inherently abusive. It simply depends on the price. It only seems bad because there's so little competition in broadband, and therefore high prices.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

ITALIAN926

Member

Re: pay-as-you-go model

High prices? Have you been at the gas-pump lately?

lol

swhx7
Premium Member
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

swhx7

Premium Member

Re: pay-as-you-go model

What does the price of gas have to do with the price of broadband?

Broadband prices in USA are more per unit than in many of the other advanced countries. E.g., in Japan or scandinavia, you can get more for less.

What I was alluding to, however, was abuses that are economically equivalent to higher prices. "Terms of service" with extensive restrictions on customers and virtually no real obligations for providers; data-mining and other violations of network neutrality; low caps - these reduce value per dollar and are made possible by lack of competition.

With real competition, pay-per-byte would be innocuous, because price per byte would be declining and terms would be fair.
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA

Ahrenl

Member

Re: pay-as-you-go model

Prices for internet are quite high. Unless you want dial-up, which I contend isn't the internet.

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium Member
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

1 recommendation

Duramax08

Premium Member

Re: pay-as-you-go model

LOL, That was win.

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl

Member

Re: pay-as-you-go model

said by Duramax08:

LOL, That was win.
They deleted my post??? Guess Justin and the Aussies are touchy.

Why I hate Australia: Ebay sellers down there. Ordered something. Never sent. Reported it to their police force. This flatfoot NEVER investigated (4 complaints from me and others) the person's "business". He walked around it and said, "Okay, thanks for your cooperation." Came real close to getting this "Inspector" fired by the way.

aussie
@auroraenergy.com.au

aussie to Anon

Anon

to Anon
Supergirl,

First of all why the heck are you insulting Australia? I could just as easily call America a hellhole, but there's no need for that. I think American customers get screwed just as badly in a lot of different ways (Health care, perscription drugs etc.) but again no need to bring that up.

Dark ages? According to the WHO that would be America, especially in most of the markers that they look at, education, infant mortality America is consistantly at the bottom of most first world countries.

Internet here is expensive no doubt, but our costs are different then yours. We have very few cables going out of the country which is where most of the internet is, which is why our costs are higher. Yet America is still moving to a pay as you go model - so who's getting screwed? At least we have a financial reason why we can't have all you can eat, yet since most of the English speaking internet is in the US why are you guys getting screwed so badly? Your bandwidth costs would definitely be a lot less then ours.

Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium Member
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

Duramax08

Premium Member

Re: pay-as-you-go model

Australia residents can't own legal guns that ive heard of. If someone breaks into your house, You are gona get owned unless you got a handy bat or stick. Here, We don't worry about that. If someone breaks into our house or enters our house with out permission, We can shoot them since we will be protecting ourselfs. Also, Is it true you cant have any type of gun including paint ball guns and bb guns?
Expand your moderator at work

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

kamm to Duramax08

Member

to Duramax08
said by Duramax08:

Australia residents can't own legal guns that ive heard of. If someone breaks into your house, You are gona get owned unless you got a handy bat or stick. Here, We don't worry about that. If someone breaks into our house or enters our house with out permission, We can shoot them since we will be protecting ourselfs. Also, Is it true you cant have any type of gun including paint ball guns and bb guns?
Why is it that gun-lovers are unable to spell/write in their native laguage (forget speaking other ones)?

Texas is an utter shame for the Union, along with its gun-touting pickup drivers, that's the truth.

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl

Member

Re: pay-as-you-go model

said by kamm:
said by Duramax08:

Australia residents can't own legal guns that ive heard of. If someone breaks into your house, You are gona get owned unless you got a handy bat or stick. Here, We don't worry about that. If someone breaks into our house or enters our house with out permission, We can shoot them since we will be protecting ourselfs. Also, Is it true you cant have any type of gun including paint ball guns and bb guns?
Why is it that gun-lovers are unable to spell/write in their native laguage (forget speaking other ones)?

Texas is an utter shame for the Union, along with its gun-touting pickup drivers, that's the truth.
Far more guns per person in Wyoming. Low crime rate too. Try to rob someone; everyone pulls out their gun.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

1 recommendation

67845017 (banned) to aussie

Member

to aussie
I dunno, I have to go with Supergirl on this one.

You Kangaroo lovers can keep your crappy broadband thoughts to yourselves.

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

2 edits

1 recommendation

kamm to aussie

Member

to aussie
said by aussie :

Supergirl,

First of all why the heck are you insulting Australia?
It's a simply reply to this ridiculous @sshole from Internode who is acting like if he wouldn't be the head of one of the most ridiculous ripoff schemes called AUS ISP service...
quote:
I could just as easily call America a hellhole, but there's no need for that. I think American customers get screwed just as badly in a lot of different ways (Health care, perscription drugs etc.) but again no need to bring that up.

Absolutely true and internet is one of them - but hey, Australia is actually LOT WORSE than the US when it comes to internet access.
quote:
Dark ages? According to the WHO that would be America, especially in most of the markers that they look at, education, infant mortality America is consistantly at the bottom of most first world countries.

And Australia is on top of it, right? C'mon, you guys were unable to even populate most of your land... IIRC there are more Poles than Aussies...
quote:
Internet here is expensive no doubt, but our costs are different then yours. We have very few cables going out of the country which is where most of the internet is, which is why our costs are higher.

If you have a little knowdge about tier 1 pricing you know it's an utter BS - you guys get @ss-raped by your local ISPs and your gov is perfectly fine with that... they are raking in ~2000-3000% profit on every bit they serve you.
Your internet - and any consumer electric pricing, justfor the record - as almost as bad as New Zealand (which is probably the worst in the developed world.)
quote:
Yet America is still moving to a pay as you go model - so who's getting screwed?

No, we are NOT MOVING THERE, only greedy MF corporations try to paint a completely false economy to fool legislators into this false sense we need anything like that - WE DO NOT NEED IT, it's nothing but a RIPOFF SCHEME.
quote:
At least we have a financial reason why we can't have all you can eat,

No, you do not have unless you count feeding your @sshole ISPs fat as a reason.
quote:
yet since most of the English speaking internet is in the US why are you guys getting screwed so badly? Your bandwidth costs would definitely be a lot less then ours.
"English speaking internet"? I'm afraid you're not making too much sense...
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

1 recommendation

gaforces (banned)

Member

Unlimited

It worked pretty good till the file stealer's started sucking huge amounts of bandwidth.
Kazaa, Limewire, BitTorrent, and now all the new file stealing programs are still rampant, sucking the bandwidth from my games :P
Pay for your dam shite!

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: Unlimited

said by gaforces:

It worked pretty good till the file stealer's started sucking huge amounts of bandwidth.
You can keep saying that and keep saying that, but it never makes it true.

Comcast wanted to prohibit VPNs due to bandwidth -- back in 2000, then reallowed them in 2003 as long as you doubled your bill and kept your usage under 3 GB!

The cap kept coming up -- here's a recap and links to Comcast's 2001 plan to cap users.

And finally, for the past year or two, legal video streaming from websites use more bandwidth than P2P file sharing video. The users are telling us that they just want the video, they don't care if it costs a couple of bucks or comes with some ads. They're leaving P2P because the video is now available on Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, Fancast -- etc. If there's a bandwidth crunch, it's being driven by demand for video, not by a demand to steal.

And, given Comcast's threat to cap at any moment now -- for years, it's pretty clear that they've been willing to raise the possibility at any convenient excuse to do so. In this case, themselves. They're capping because they want to keep cutting off high-volume users.

james16
join:2001-02-26

james16 to gaforces

Member

to gaforces
Are you joking? It's those "file stealer's" who were the driving force behind the increased bandwidth you now enjoy.

Also, perhaps if you want to be taken seriously, you should stop calling it "file stealing" and call it piracy, copyright infringement, sharing or something that makes sense.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather to gaforces

Premium Member

to gaforces
You mean it works fine until providers look to defend their video revenues from emerging internet based video providers like Netflix, Apple, Microsoft, Hulu and Amazon.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

1 recommendation

nasadude to gaforces

Member

to gaforces
said by gaforces:

It worked pretty good till the file stealer's started sucking huge amounts of bandwidth.
Kazaa, Limewire, BitTorrent, and now all the new file stealing programs are still rampant, sucking the bandwidth from my games :P
Pay for your dam shite!
uh, not so much:

The P2P stats are the ones that came as a complete surprise. Like you, I have read many reports that suggest P2P applications account for the majority of the traffic on high-speed networks. But McPherson’s data suggests otherwise:

* 20 percent of traffic is P2P applications
* During peak-load times, 70 percent of subscribers use http while 20 percent are using P2P
* Http still makes up the majority of the total traffic, of which 45 percent is traditional web content that includes text and images. Streaming video and audio content from services like YouTube accounts for nearly 50 percent of the http traffic. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone — streaming TV shows from Hulu and videos from YouTube have been on a major upswing, as noted by our colleagues over on NewTeeVee.


this is from an April Gigaom article; I believe even more recent stats show an increasing share of b/w sucked up by streaming video.

so stop ur stoopid rants blaming p2p for the evils of the toobz

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

kamm to gaforces

Member

to gaforces
said by gaforces:

It worked pretty good till the file stealer's started sucking huge amounts of bandwidth.
Kazaa, Limewire, BitTorrent, and now all the new file stealing programs are still rampant, sucking the bandwidth from my games :P
Pay for your dam shite!
WHAT A BS. If they wouldn't push the envelope you would be still paying $800-100 monthly for your loser 1.5Mbit DSL - stop spreading stupid corporate propaganda.
gaforces (banned)
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA

gaforces (banned)

Member

Re: Unlimited

Rampant!

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

kamm

Member

Re: Unlimited

said by gaforces:

Rampant!
You had it coming...

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 edits

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

If the ISPs in the US do as they do in Australia then all the net neutrality issues will go away. Because the ISPs will make enough money to expand infrastructure continuously and will not care if 3rd party video content providers push GBs of data down the pipes because the customers will PAY for that privilege.

Of course the content providers might not like this option, because people might decide to watch cable TV than pay what it REALLY costs to deliver video over the internet.

Australian ISP quote:
"I think that's actually where things will finish up," he says. "Be it electricity, travel, petrol, we as humans have got used to the idea that the more you use the more you pay, albeit with a discount. The Net in the US just magically decided to avoid that, and now I think they'll have to come back to reality."

Glaice
Brutal Video Vault
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY

Glaice

Premium Member

Re: Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

That is if you are upper class, you wouldn't care. Middle and lower class will get hit hard with this.

MeMeMeMeMeME
@bellsouth.net

MeMeMeMeMeME

Anon

Re: Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

That's right, lets not punish the poor and middle class by making them pay for the bandwidth they use or mortgages they can't afford. While we're at it, I think a Bentley shouldn't cost more than a Kia! Why should the rich have all the luxury cars, yachts and mansions?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

said by MeMeMeMeMeME :

That's right, lets not punish the poor and middle class by making them pay for the bandwidth they use or mortgages they can't afford.
Sure they can pay for their badnwidth expecpet the ISP want to charge $1-$1.50 overage which is at least 10X more than the actual cost of the extra badnwidth. So I'm fine with what you are saying as long as ISPs do not charge more than 10¢ per GB overage. Deal?

Oh and by the way it does NOT cost TW $50+ a month to provide someone internet service and only allow 40 GB of bandwidth. Sorry. If that's true they need to get out of the ISP business because they suck at it.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Um... Pay as you go will expand their wallets (ISPS), shrink consumers, and get us FAR LESS. I'd rather have 1mbit internet that is unlimited than 100mbit with a 5GB cap. But hey, in your reality, anything that consumers want is BAD>

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

said by jc10098:

But hey, in your reality, anything that consumers want is BAD>
Keep using your "Big Lie" tactic. Hitler would be proud of you.

Raptor
Not a Dumptruck
join:2001-10-21
London, ON

Raptor

Member

Re: Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

I see what you did there.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation

KrK to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:
But hey, in your reality, anything that consumers want is BAD>
Keep using your "Big Lie" tactic. Hitler would be proud of you.
Bam! Instant Godwin's law.

The thing is, how is that a lie? You are definitely advocating the position that would be the worst case scenerio for consumers and the best case for business--- which is consistently your position across many, many threads.

•••••
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Wow, comparing my theories to Hitler. That's an Ultimate low for you TK. Anyway, was that the best retort you could come up with? Obviously, your lack of response and gravitation towards "witless remarks" shows that your take on this issue is in line with the rest of your Anti Consumer remarks. Nothing I said is a lie.

Why should I PAY per GB. So are ISPS going to charge ALL CONSUMERS a base plan on the GB model or just for overage. My guess is for overage to fatten their wallet. You'd lose 95 percent of your revenue stream if people as a whole were changed 50cents to 1 dollar a GB. Seeing how by their tallies, 95 percent don't go over their "CAP". So which is it bud? Charge everyone the same model and have NO BASE FEE, or just MILK money out of people for overages. I think ISPS want their cake and ice cream too.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Big lie? Looks like the perfect description of you.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by jc10098:

But hey, in your reality, anything that consumers want is BAD>
Keep using your "Big Lie" tactic. Hitler would be proud of you.
Um.... MODS where are you? Invoking Hitler? How do you know they guy he is insulting isn't jewish? Maybe some of us other posters are and don't appreciate these Hitler comments.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

said by 88615298:

[...] Maybe some of us other posters are and don't appreciate these Hitler comments.
LMAO. Wow. Speaking of not having any sort of point to make. Hey, don't you have a book burning to get to soon?

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

1 recommendation

KrK to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
All bill by byte would do is cap the Internets future usefulness and protect existing content delivery methods.

Video via the net would die due to the exorbitant pricing model. And if ISP's would charge what it REALLY costs for bandwidth then it won't be a problem, either.

Thing is, they won't. They'll be thinking charging 10x 20x 100x 1000x the actual cost.

Glaice
Brutal Video Vault
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY

Glaice

Premium Member

Re: Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

Nonsense, they should EXPAND and upgrade their existing infrastructure since those evil companies are swimming in cash..

Capitalist
@cgocable.net

-1 recommendation

Capitalist to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

If the ISPs in the US do as they do in Australia then all the net neutrality issues will go away.
False. Capacity issues will go away - is that what you meant?

Try not to forget:
said by pnh102:

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with capacity. Net Neutrality has everything to do with an ISP not discriminating between certain types of traffic, especially that which competes with its own offered services.
---
said by FFH5:

Because the ISPs will make enough money to expand infrastructure continuously and will not care if 3rd party video content providers push GBs of data down the pipes because the customers will PAY for that privilege.
False. Nice try Enron boy.

Are you suggesting that a for-profit business operating under accepted accounting practices is committing fraud by misstating earnings or betraying shareholders by paying out infrastructure capital as dividends and boardroom salaries? Nah.

Oh, surprisingly, I've never heard you refer to the terms for one of the parties in a two party commercial services contract as privileges. Are you regressing to the far left or abandoning all pretenses of true capitalism?

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

If the ISPs in the US do as they do in Australia then all the net neutrality issues will go away. Because the ISPs will make enough money to expand infrastructure continuously and will not care if 3rd party video content providers push GBs of data down the pipes because the customers will PAY for that privilege.
That's assume that ISPs would actually use the money to expand infrastructure. Sure, they would use some of it, but most will line their pockets, be used for other financial gains, or on lobbyists.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

If the ISPs in the US do as they do in Australia then all the net neutrality issues will go away. Because the ISPs will make enough money to expand infrastructure continuously and will not care if 3rd party video content providers push GBs of data down the pipes because the customers will PAY for that privilege.

Of course the content providers might not like this option, because people might decide to watch cable TV than pay what it REALLY costs to deliver video over the internet.

Australian ISP quote:
"I think that's actually where things will finish up," he says. "Be it electricity, travel, petrol, we as humans have got used to the idea that the more you use the more you pay, albeit with a discount. The Net in the US just magically decided to avoid that, and now I think they'll have to come back to reality."
you mean make more money to line their pockets, not improve a god damned thing and then raise rates every year.

MysticGogeta
The Robot Devil
Premium Member
join:2005-03-14
Katy, TX

MysticGogeta to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Would also kill innovation if all company's did this. Why spend more money to increase speed if you don't have to.

••••••••••••••

Ual
@bellsouth.net

Ual to FFH5

Anon

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Because the ISPs will make enough money to expand infrastructure continuously and will not care if 3rd party video content providers push GBs of data down the pipes because the customers will PAY for that privilege.
Problem with that is the assumption that they can ever "make enough money". Unfortunately with the ISP situation in the US, what would end up happening is no capacity upgrades, then they would tell us bandwidth is scarce and not enough to go around, so we're going to raise your per MB fee by 5% next month, etc etc.

Rogue Wolf
An Easy Draw of a Sad Few
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY

Rogue Wolf to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
You seem to be missing one significantly obvious problem with the bill-by-byte system.

Will I have to pay for data I did not request?

Will I have to pay for pop-up or pop-under ads that are delivered to me without consent, especially graphic-heavy Flash ads? Will I have to pay for all the Internet "noise" (hacked boxes pinging for vulnerable ports, etc.) that comes my way? Will I have to pay for spam delivered to my inbox?

The instant I have to pay for one byte that I did not request, your argument falls flat on its face. That is not capitalism; capitalism dictates that I ask for something, receive it and pay for it. This is like sending me junk mail postage-due.

Bill-by-byte will likely turn the Internet into a cloistered theme park, as only the "big players" will be able to afford to put up anything, and few people will venture beyond those few sites because doing so could cost them too much. Goodbye, expansive frontier of free speech; hello, one more way for the corporations to sell us things.

•••

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 recommendation

Dogfather to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Says the corporate spokeshole.

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

kamm

Member

Re: Bill-by-byte would end all net neutrality questions

said by Dogfather:

Says the corporate spokeshole.
HAHAHAHAA, "spokeshole" - awesome!

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

1 recommendation

dvd536 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

If the ISPs in the US do as they do in Australia then all the net neutrality issues will go away. Because the ISPs will make enough money to expand infrastructure continuously and will not care if 3rd party video content providers push GBs of data down the pipes because the customers will PAY for that privilege.
Because the ISPs will make enough money to expand infrastructure continuously the lengths of their yachts!
-
there i fixed it for you.

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

2 edits

kamm to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

If the ISPs in the US do as they do in Australia then all the net neutrality issues will go away. Because the ISPs will make enough money to expand infrastructure continuously
They ALREADY DID AND STILL DO.

It's just that they rather pcoket all the profit instead of reinvesting more than the minimal level necessary to maintain basic usability.
quote:
and will not care if 3rd party video content providers push GBs of data down the pipes because the customers will PAY for that privilege.

There's no privilege to pay for - fuckin ISP IS GETTING PAID TO PIPE ME WHATEVER I REQUEST, THEY HAVE ZERO FUCKIN RIGHT TO PICK AND CHOOSE.
Any ISP that limits access to legal content SHOULD BE SHUT IMMEDIATELY BY AUTHORITIES FOR CENSORSHIP.
quote:
Of course the content providers might not like this option, because people might decide to watch cable TV than pay what it REALLY costs to deliver video over the internet.

There's NO ADDITIONAL COST - bits are bits, you already get peid for it, STFU and stop pcketing all the profits and start modernizing your networks.

It's easy as 1-2-3.

ISPs HERE, IN THE US, MAKE AN EVRAGE 1000-1500% or OVER ONE THOUSAND PERCENT PROFIT ON EVERY SINGLE BIT OF BANDWIDTH THEY DELIVER, FOR more than a DECADE NOW.

WHERE DID ALL THE MONEY GO?

YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE WHOLE ECONOMY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PERPETUALLY PUSH BACK YOUR ALWAYS-DELAYED INVESTMENTS.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

This Makes No Sense

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with capacity. Net Neutrality has everything to do with an ISP not discriminating between certain types of traffic, especially that which competes with its own offered services.

To illustrate this fact, an ISP can offer slow, pay-as-you-go and/or capped broadband that is completely neutral in regards to where the packets go. Conversely, an ISP can offer guaranteed 999999999999GBps service over fiber optic cables that only lets you browse certain websites or use a limited number of services. The former is truly neutral, while the latter has extra capacity.

texans20
Premium Member
join:2002-09-28
Texas!

1 recommendation

texans20

Premium Member

Pick

Lets take a look at Time Warner Cable. Their profit margin is a modest 6.6%. That means if your bill is $100, they paid $93.40 to provide your service and kept $6.60. I think even Obama socialists can agree that's not extraordinary by any means. Now there is no public information that specifies how much Road Runner makes or what they spend specifically on broadband, but my best guess is it's around that same percentage. Time Warner will focus on maintaining that 6.6% profit margin and can't simply absorb the costs of increased bandwidth consumption.

The choices left are they either have to stop costly upgrades until the network becomes slower for all, they'll have to raise costs so they can upgrade and maintain their modest profit margin, attempt to charge content providers like Youtube for the cost of upgrading, or place limits on what each customer can use. That's it, those are your choices. Period. No other choices but those four.

•••••••••••

mod_wastrel
anonome
join:2008-03-28

mod_wastrel

Member

It's somewhat comforting to know

that the heads of Australia's ISPs are as clueless as those of Comcast and their ilk.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: It's somewhat comforting to know

said by mod_wastrel:

that the heads of Australia's ISPs are as clueless as those of Comcast and their ilk.
That's why they want metering here, to help take pressure off them at home.

They want to be able to argue that it's "Standard practice" worldwide, when it isn't.

Notice they didn't mention Japan's or Korea's Internet pricing....
TheMG
Premium Member
join:2007-09-04
Canada
MikroTik RB450G
Cisco DPC3008
Cisco SPA112

TheMG

Premium Member

Agreed but disagreed.

I do agree that some sort of caps is a necessary thing. The "all you can eat" model just doesn't work in the long run.

However, I do not agree with the Australian ISP's way of doing things. Their caps are really low and prices are very high. $150-$175 ($124-$145 USD) for 100GB? No thanks!

I'm currently paying $50 per month for 10mb cable with a 100GB cap. MUCH more reasonable!

aussie
@auroraenergy.com.au

aussie

Anon

Re: Agreed but disagreed.

Having lived in Canada as well, the cable prices there are pretty unreasonable. 18mbps/768kbps for $99 + 13% tax for 100Gbps with Rogers.

Also Aussie prices are higher because most of our data is international, and we currently have two cables going out of the country. With competition and more cables these prices should come down. Most American data I'm assuing is local, so it wouldn't make sense that your prices would be higher then ours.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB to TheMG

Premium Member

to TheMG
said by TheMG:

I do agree that some sort of caps is a necessary thing. The "all you can eat" model just doesn't work in the long run.
Doesn't work for whom? As far as I've seen, it's just the providers bellyaching about an imaginary bandwidth shortage in order to triple dip.

Internet services marketed to me as an all you can buffet work just fine for me. It's the restrictions/caps/throttling that are imposed thereafter that is the problem.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

KrK

Premium Member

Just ask an Aussie how they like their ISP's charges

... and you'll see how much they really love those super low caps and sky high charges and metering.

kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

kamm

Member

Re: Just ask an Aussie how they like their ISP's charges

said by KrK:

... and you'll see how much they really love those super low caps and sky high charges and metering.
Exactly. And they actually believe the utter BS their ISPs are lying to them about high bandwidth costs - when in fact they are often making TWICE the 1500% profit US ISPs are making on bandwidth.
TheMayor
join:2002-05-09

TheMayor

Member

Doesn't Australia charge an arm & leg for Access

Last I checked, their prices were expensive, and you hardly got bandwidth for the price.

If the US broadband companies decide to go that route, they would need to probably give a nice amount to start with & then make it fairly cheap for x amount over the amount.

If they were to do some sort of pre-pay, then people would probably want to carry whatever they didn't use to the next month.
booyah50
join:2008-08-09
La Habra, CA

booyah50

Member

learn from us...

I'm a high bandwidth user with my Roku Netflix player, but if I weren't I'd still want those high bandwidth users out there. They are the ones who push, push, and push the network capacity higher and higher.

I can understand throttling super high bandwidth users on shared networks such as point to point wireless and cable systems, but as a premium dsl user, I don't see legitimate reasons to clamp down. It's not like using electricity where usage is actually work performed in a power plant.

Australian citizens ought to learn from us and demand all you can eat bandwidth.
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

amungus

Premium Member

several problems

I see so many problems with that story...
"and the problem for the telcos in the US is they are having to expand their networks as they go, but they are not getting paid any more money."
I beg to differ, everyone's been expanding, upgrading. And guess what, we already ARE paying for it. Inventing another way to magically charge another fee for a connection is pure and simple crap. These ISPs are still doing just fine, and they're still making PLENTY of money for upgrades every so often.
"From my point of view, [Net neutrality is] an artificial problem created out of fear of modifying the business model," says Hackett."
What a turd. It's not an artificial problem if it's actually a problem, now is it? Self contradicting lameness right there. Again, how is that not foul if:
1) I pay for a 9Mbps connection
2) I pay for hosting at whatever plan level, and so do ALL websites... be they google, yahoo, netflix...
3) People download things
4) ..WAIT! I'm sad and puppy dog eyed Ma Bell who feels like she's been left out of the party, and I want to charge BOTH OF YOU AGAIN, MORE MONEY, so you can still party at my place...

Wait a sec. So I pay to connect with the world. Websites pay to connect to the world. Show me again, where the frak do you just insert a "magical" 3rd charge? As far as I'm concerned, the network already charges at BOTH ENDS, and is therefore being used to make money from BOTH TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE. Granted, that's if both parties are on the same network, but hey, that's what PEERING agreements are for, right??????????

We've been getting along just fine with upgrades for years now. This is absurd.

Finally:
"In the US, an ISP is visibly afraid of the idea of customers pulling video 24/7."
Frak that. The networks SHOULD be able to handle people using their whopping 6Mhz worth of cable space for a solid internet link that can deliver at least NTSC SD quality video all day, and all night long.
If this can't be done, then STOP magically increasing these speeds for a little longer until the network is up to the task.

I've gone from 3Mbps to 9Mbps since around 2002.

I'd much rather have that 3Mbps available consistently than a flaky 9Mbps that isn't available all the time.
Some people have DSL for this very reason - AT&T doesn't seem to bother people if they use their full abilities.
Cable being a different animal has different challenges to make a network operate in as stable a fashion, with as consistent a service for all of its users. Still shouldn't matter, especially if the likes of Comcast want to keep saying cable's "better" than DSL

I feel sorry for Australians having to pay per megabyte. It sounds like a very bad deal for them unless they barely use the internet.
pbarrow
Premium Member
join:2003-09-16
Montgomery, AL

pbarrow

Premium Member

pay-as-you-go model

I have a friend in Australia who I talk to almost every day on msn messenger.
From what I get from her is that Australia is a god awful place to live when it comes to cost of living issues.
As an example:
----------------------
we have what is called rego and ctp insurance
that costs me about $270 every 6 months, people not on pensions pay 100 more
then on top of that we have to pay car insurance
----------------------
They have Caps on internet usage and pretty low caps also.

I think Australia should keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to financial matters.

aussie
@auroraenergy.com.au

aussie

Anon

Re: pay-as-you-go model

Cost of living is comparable with Canada (lived in both). Insurance here for cars is lower, but other things like food etc is a bit higher.

However minimum wage is $15/hour. So the wages here are also a lot more. Plus health care and prescription drugs are subsidised by the government. You can also have private insurance if you want your operations done quicker, but overall it's a decent system.
Kevmeister
join:2008-09-29

1 edit

Kevmeister to pbarrow

Member

to pbarrow
said by pbarrow:

From what I get from her is that Australia is a god awful place to live when it comes to cost of living issues.
Before you go casting aspersions against Australia, you should take a good objective look at your own country. Our country provides public healthcare for all citizens and does not demand private health insurance, and does not - effectively - discriminate against those who cannot afford it.

It also does not have anywhere the number per-capita of gun-wielding crazies, gun-related injuries, school shootings and the like.

We could make lots and lots of comparisons, but I think that for you to draw a conclusion of Australia being a "god-awful" place to live based on one data point is moronic to the extreme. You don't even bother to consider the difference in wages between the two countries.
said by pbarrow:

I think Australia should keep their opinions to themselves when it comes to financial matters.
I don't understand America's political system particularly well, but are you a Republican by any chance?

Either way, America is hardly standing out as a pinnacle of financial prowess lately now, is it? Or was I only dreaming about a $700 billion rescue package going to your congress to bail-out all those financial institutions?

Or how about America's current account deficit this year which I think will be 1 TRILLION dollars and America continually holding their hand out to incur more and more foreign borrowing by selling more and more US treasury bonds.

You guys spend way more than you earn and no-one wants to take any responsibility insofar as an increased tax burden.
So, just reiterate for me America's financial credentials?

DarkSol64
join:2005-06-26

DarkSol64

Member

paying per gb would be great depending on cost

i remember someone stating 20 a month for speeds than 10 cents per gb is fair.. I would love that cause I would use 2-4$ worth of gb every month(if that) and it would only cost 22-25 a month rather than the 45 it is now!

•••••••
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA

GhostDoggy

Member

Has nothing to do with bandwidth.

But, it has everything to do with restricting the content you get. If you are not getting it from Comcast or AT&T then Comcast and AT&T want to either make sure you don't get it at all, or pay a hefty fine by charging you on the one thing they can: bandwidth.

Does anyone really thing the recent imposition of the 250GB/month cap by Comcast is about people downloading music illegally? Not a chance. They simply do not want you getting your entertainment from the competition via streaming video services.

If you have the top-tier cowsumer broadband and were capable of getting 8-9Mbps streaming video from, say, ESPN HD for free or for $5-7/month and the response was you'd drop the $80/month cable TV bill then you can imagine the fear (and the greed) they are living.

Charging per byte isn't going to work, because they'd simply not upgrade anymore and increase the per-byte charge over time. And remember, they are already imposing a 500-1000% over-subscription of that core bandwidth as a normal practice, and its worse at almost any aggregation point.

Just like AT&T not wanting you to move to VoIP, the cable industry doesn't want you moving to 3rd party video streaming services.
stewie316
join:2007-04-11
Jackson, MI

stewie316

Member

Nope

Lost os people in australia worry about going over there 5GB cap. When they do its slow slow slow and a mass pain in the a**....
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

JAPAN in october gets sychronous 1GPBS

all for the nice price of about 56USD/month

and what do we get in north america.
im effectively paying 200 times that price for 5 megabit