dslreports logo
 story category
Senator Wyden Introduces Broadband Cap Bill
Would Include Systems to Ensure Meters Are Accurate

Senator Ron Wyden has introduced a new bill taking taking aim at broadband usage caps. According to a description of the bill on Wyden's website, the The Data Cap Integrity Act would attempt to impose industry wide standards not only ensuring that usage meters are accurate, but that caps and overages are actually being used to manage network congestion, not, as a recent NY Times editorial proclaimed, as just "a way for Internet providers to extract monopoly rents."

Click for full size
"Internet use is central to our lives and to our economy," said Wyden in a statement. "Future innovation will undoubtedly require consumers to use more and more data -- data caps should not impede this innovation and the jobs it creates. This bill is intended to help consumers manage their data more effectively and ensure that data caps are used only to serve the legitimate purpose of addressing congestion."

Bill passage is incredibly unlikely, as carriers have so far convinced regulators that they're just experimenting with "creative" pricing, even if the reality is that they're using the lack of competition to simply raise rates on a captive audience. While congestion is usually proclaimed as the reason caps are being imposed, the reality is you'll never see an ISP providing hard data proving that claim, because that data doesn't exist.

Worse perhaps is the fact that most ISPs fail to meter broadband usage accurately, something regulators like the FCC have shown they simply couldn't care less about.

The promise of usaged-base pricing is that such pricing lets light users pay less and heavy users pay more, though the tiers we've seen implemented so far simply impose overage penalties on top of flate rate pricing, resulting in higher rates for everyone. The best approach for regulators to take is to improve competition, though as we've noted time and time again, that's not something the FCC's interested in seriously addressing either.

Wyden's bill comes on the heel of a recent study proclaiming what most of our regular readers have known for years: broadband usage caps on fixed line networks aren't about congestion at all, they're about protecting TV revenues from Internet video. They're also designed to simply and raise rates on consumers who already pay some of the highest broadband prices across developed nations according to OECD data.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

Morfein
Lead Peon
Premium Member
join:2004-09-08
Brownsburg, IN

Morfein

Premium Member

Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines

Oh... we can cause congestion if we don't upgrade these systems. Then price gouge those using it, while also saving money by not doing those upgrades....

win/win

..but not for the consumer.
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Cambridge, MA

2 edits

devnuller

Member

Re: Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines

said by Morfein:

Oh... we can cause congestion if we don't upgrade these systems. Then price gouge those using it, while also saving money by not doing those upgrades....

This statement and topic is TOTAL FUD.

1) ALL Networks are CONSTANTLY being upgrade to keep up with demand. Anyone that makes statements to the contrary has no idea what they are talking about. Check out Sandvine and Cisco reports showing networks regularly doubling to keep up with demand.
2) An extreme minority of users are impacted by broadband usage caps. Those that use 100X more than everyone else shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us.... the 1% driving the majority of the upgrade cost for the 99%.
said by Sandvine Report :

In North America, the top 1% of subscribers who make the heaviest use of the network’s upstream resources account for 38.6% of total upstream traffic. The comparable downstream users account for 12.8% of downstream bytes. At the opposite end of the usage spectrum, the network’s lightest 50% of users account for only 5.2 % of total monthly traffic.

3) Broadband prices have been relatively flat with more speeds being added every year

Now let's talk about a real problem surprisingly ignored and accepted.

1) Wireless plans are starting to cost more than full triple play services. How is that justified?
2) $30 data plans / phone for a few GB??!?!?
3) Overages that impact the MAJORITY vs the minority
4) Wireless driving users to use their broadband vs their network
intok (banned)
join:2012-03-15

intok (banned)

Member

Re: Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines

said by devnuller:

said by Morfein:

Oh... we can cause congestion if we don't upgrade these systems. Then price gouge those using it, while also saving money by not doing those upgrades....

This statement and topic is TOTAL FUD.

1) ALL Networks are CONSTANTLY being upgrade to keep up with demand. Anyone that makes statements to the contrary has no idea what they are talking about. Check out Sandvine and Cisco reports showing networks regularly doubling to keep up with demand.

Bullshit.

If that where the case I wouldn't still be stuck on 1/384.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines

your neighborhood is not worthy of shareholder dollars is all. you can bet you will still be 1/384 while the McMansion developments with people pulling high six figures will have gigabit.
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Cambridge, MA

1 recommendation

devnuller to intok

Member

to intok
said by intok:

If that where the case I wouldn't still be stuck on 1/384.

Ah... extreme corner cases. The data all great arguments here are built on.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Give them incentive to not upgrade the lines

He does have a point though, If they truly where upgrading networks constantly he would not be at 2003 speeds still.
boller4prez
join:2008-08-20

boller4prez to devnuller

Member

to devnuller
1) ALL Networks are CONSTANTLY being upgraded to keep up with demand. Anyone that makes statements to the contrary has no idea what they are talking about. Check out Sandvine and Cisco reports showing networks regularly doubling to keep up with demand.

The cost to deliver a GB is constantly going down to neighborhood of a penny. Yes, networks are constantly being upgraded but so is the technology behind the scenes.

2) An extreme minority of users are impacted by broadband usage caps. Those that use 100X more than everyone else shouldn't be subsidized by the rest of us.... the 1% driving the majority of the upgrade cost for the 99%.

That would be fine if the $$ of overages were A) Being used to upgrade existing infrastructure B) Proved to be necessary.

As of now all you are doing is paying the same to receive less service. After all, the telco companies don't rebate you any money back if you happen to go under the arbitrary cap they've set in place.

They only charge you if you go over.

Rex
@comcast.net

Rex to devnuller

Anon

to devnuller

2) An extreme minority of users are impacted by broadband usage caps.

How about throttling?

Are we extreme minorities too?

See, I'm not a big user of streaming video, and the only time I use torrent networks is when I download a Linux/FreeBSD disc, which is perfectly legal as this is how many of them are distributed.

I am, however, tying to get some work done this weekend, but I've been thwarted by Comcast all day.

I am a Systems Administrator, so I pay $115+ tax for the highest broadband tier they offer (50Mbs), but when I begin transferring files via rsync and sftp, my transfers get progressively slower until they move at about 56Kbps.

Try moving a 4gig tarball through at that speed.

Oh, and I haven't even hit my bandwidth cap this month. I never do.

So, here I sit in what is supposedly the greatest country in the world, in one of the most tech-centric cities in the world (Seattle), paying over $100/month for broadband, and I'm getting the same speeds as I was in 1997.

And more often than not, I listen to my fellow consumers tell me that this is just fine ... after all ... I'm using more data than the average person.

God forbid an American spend his/her weekend on the Internet doing something more than watching compressed YouTube videos of men getting hit in the groin with a football. While the rest of the world leaves us further and further behind in broadband usage, we just apologize for monopolies that we have while blaming the customer.

There is no less intellectual approach to the problem than blaming the "1%".

There will always be a 1%.

Always.

When you kick off today's 1%, tomorrow's 2% becomes the 1%, until they get kicked off an the 3% becomes the 1% ...

Assuming they're all evil just because you aren't one of them, is kind of the problem with the American public in general.

According to the American public, it's always the other guy who gets too much government assistance. It's always the guy down the street who gets too much healthcare. It's always our neighbor who uses too much bandwidth.

It's all his fault.

And it's all the big, bad, broadband user's fault that he actually uses that big, expensive connection.

If he'd only grab a beer and turn on the football game like a normal person, he wouldn't have the problems that he does.

The way things are going, it looks like that's going to be my fate soon. Comcast has made it a very unproductive day.

Not that I can blame them. I'm completely at fault here.

After all, I'm an American consumer. I'm always at fault.

CosmicDebri
Still looking for intelligent life
join:2001-09-01
Lake City, FL

CosmicDebri

Member

Awesome Ideas

The bill has some great ideas, and looks to address issues that most consumers aren't even aware of. This of course, pretty much means it's defeat.

Too much lobbying by the big guys, plus the lack of knowledge or even interest by the average consumer will make it too hard to get it passed.....

Too bad, we could really use some help in this area.....
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Awesome Ideas

said by CosmicDebri:

plus the lack of knowledge or even interest by the average consumer

Because the average consumer only uses 50 GB a month. So if one has a 250 GB or 300 GB cap it's not an issue. Not to mention the average consumer doesn't have a clue how much a GB is and how much data their internet usage uses.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

Re: Awesome Ideas

Yep. How much download did the average user make 10 years ago? I think it's very likely we'll be over the 250 GB cap in another 10 years.
AlfredNewman6
join:2010-03-25
Columbus, OH

AlfredNewman6

Member

Re: Awesome Ideas

Nice to see the both of you getting along so well together under that rock, technologically shielded from the outside world and all it has to offer. Legal or not.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Awesome Ideas

said by AlfredNewman6:

Nice to see the both of you getting along so well together under that rock, technologically shielded from the outside world and all it has to offer. Legal or not.

I have no idea what that is suppose to be referring to or mean.
AlfredNewman6
join:2010-03-25
Columbus, OH

1 edit

1 recommendation

AlfredNewman6

Member

Re: Awesome Ideas

okay then you don't need access to anymore movies from netflix/hulu/crackle/etc, no more games from steam/origin/xbox live/playstation network, you don't need youtube (for all its own reasons), you don't need to connect your cell phone to your wifi at home, the list goes on.

The point is damn near everything uses the internet now from your home appliances to the latest tablet and everything in between. The more people find to do on the internet the more they will want to use those services they enjoy. Setting a cap is not only foolish IMHO but asking for problems in the long term. What was the average of yesterday will not be the average of tomorrow and at least Comcast understood that when impletmenting the cap of 250GB. A family of four who enjoy various forms of entertainment can use the internet without fear of running over a cap with that at least.

Then again you may be the only one using the internet at your household and merely use it for email/web surfing and that works you but what works for you doesn't work for someone else. For instance, I have a Steam account with over 130 games, not counting the free to play games I downloaded, and over the course of a month I downloaded all my games on a new rig I built. Once everything was downloaded an updated the tally was over 1.2 TB of data downloaded through Steam alone.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Awesome Ideas

I still don't get what your reply has to do with anything I said. That's the point I'm making. I'm pretty sure you misread what I said.
88615298

88615298 (banned) to axus

Member

to axus
said by axus:

Yep. How much download did the average user make 10 years ago? I think it's very likely we'll be over the 250 GB cap in another 10 years.

Probably sooner. The point is until people go over that 250 GB and get charged or disconnected they aren't going to care.

toby
Troy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA

toby

Member

Re: Awesome Ideas

said by 88615298:

said by axus:

Yep. How much download did the average user make 10 years ago? I think it's very likely we'll be over the 250 GB cap in another 10 years.

Probably sooner. The point is until people go over that 250 GB and get charged or disconnected they aren't going to care.

Seeing as most people don't know what 1GB even is, never mind 250 GB.... people won't know why they are being charged or disconnected.
steevo22
join:2002-10-17
Fullerton, CA

1 recommendation

steevo22 to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
But right now I have AT&T DSL. It's so slow I can't imagine going over my 150 GB cap.

However the funny thing is if I had AT&T Uverse, they wouldn't count my video in my cap at all. I could use 50 TB of video and it wouldn't bother them at all.

Why is that sensible?

That all being said, I would prefer faster internet speeds than I have now but with AT&T that's "all my address qualifies for".

If I had faster speeds I can imagine bumping against that cap. Sure I could.

NickD
Premium Member
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ

NickD to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
Comcast set a 250GB cap years ago, and it still hasn't caught up to average usage. They increased it to 300GB. I could see them increasing it by 50GB every 2 years. The cost to deliver a gigabyte will decrease as they upgrade their network.

I could understand mobile data caps being necessary as there is a marked performance decline at peak hours.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
Unless they drop their cable video package and seek video options from an alternative like Hulu or NetFlix. Then they will quickly realize what their cap is and the relative size of a GB. (At least in terms of how many movies fit in their cap.)
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
50GB is on the high end actually. I think the average is still around 35GB for most providers last I heard. 50GB for Comcast.
34764170 (banned)
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

34764170 (banned) to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

Because the average consumer only uses 50 GB a month. So if one has a 250 GB or 300 GB cap it's not an issue. Not to mention the average consumer doesn't have a clue how much a GB is and how much data their internet usage uses.

That's completely irrelevant. There was no justification for the caps in the first place. They had nothing to do with network management.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Awesome Ideas

said by 34764170:

said by 88615298:

Because the average consumer only uses 50 GB a month. So if one has a 250 GB or 300 GB cap it's not an issue. Not to mention the average consumer doesn't have a clue how much a GB is and how much data their internet usage uses.

That's completely irrelevant. There was no justification for the caps in the first place. They had nothing to do with network management.

I didn't say there was. And your response to my post is irrelevant. My point stands. People will not get up in arms until it affects THEM.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
So the average user should pay only about 25% of what a user of 250-300GB would, right?

Notice I did not say they use 1/5th so they should pay 1/5th. I understand there is underlying cost associated with all connections that are pretty much fixed regardless of speed and amount of usage so I gave them an extra 5% there to cover that. Maybe it is 10%, but regardless those light user's should not have to pay as much as the heavy users. Isn't that what they kept claiming when trying to desensitize us to all this?
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098 to CosmicDebri

Member

to CosmicDebri
Good ideas in Washington D.C. are met with Addendum, Watered Down Language, and ultimately are so far from the original wording, utter defeat.

At least we know there's one good representative in office. I commend the man for trying.
NoHereNoMo
join:2012-12-06

NoHereNoMo

Member

Too funny...

"...ensuring ... that caps and overages are actually being used to manage network congestion..."

means it would outlaw caps entirely (so, either no bill being passed at all or plenty of loopholes being added before being passed). Yep, works in theory.
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: Too funny...

Well -- it could mean that providers stop investing in upgrades in an effort to guarantee congestion. The problem is, Internet traffic is like the rush hour traffic. Everyone wants their stuff in the evening hours and monthly data CAPS don't address this problem at all. Perhaps daily "peak period" caps would address the issue. This would be similar to easing rush hour traffic by eliminating non-commuters from the roads during rush hours.
NoHereNoMo
join:2012-12-06

NoHereNoMo

Member

Re: Too funny...

said by rradina:

Well -- it could mean that providers stop investing in upgrades in an effort to guarantee...

customer dissatisfaction and disaffection.

Real networks--without caps--manage congestion automatically in way that's the most fair to each user of the network--not that your typical ISP has a "real" network. Caps--for monthly usage or otherwise--do nothing useful, nothing good for users of a network. They're entirely about marketing and money (for the ISP).
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Too funny...

Real networks don't need to manage traffic. They have ample capacity for all.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 recommendation

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Too funny...

said by silbaco:

Real networks don't need to manage traffic. They have ample capacity for all.

to the Mod:I did NOT mean to approve of THAT post.
can my approval be removed?
To silbaco See Profile That is an ignorant statement, Most networks have temporary congestion at some point.
Good management is to anticipate congestion based on usage patterns and new app designs, to budget for needed/known/upcoming growth, but no one can afford to deploy earlier than necessary, or predict uncontrolled growth from new "fad-like" demand patterns all the time .

If congestion and other problems didn't ever exist there would be a lot less demand for QUALIFED Network engineers.
NoHereNoMo
join:2012-12-06

NoHereNoMo

Member

Re: Too funny...

I thought he was being facetious (mostly anyway).
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco to tshirt

Premium Member

to tshirt
I wasn't being serious.

However there are some ISPs out there that do operate that way. Particularly ISPs that have ftth or cooperatives that offer good old ADSL. They don't or simply can't offer speeds fast enough to cause congestion.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Too funny...

I hoped you were be sarcastic about the post above you, which when beyond ignorant.
NoHereNoMo
join:2012-12-06

NoHereNoMo to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
Real networks are managed by qualified engineers seeking to make the network as efficient as possible for all users. ISP networks (typically) are managed by qualified engineers doing what upper-level management tells them to do in order to make the network only efficient enough to keep customers from leaving (as if most of them had any viable alternatives)--so, not what I call a "real" network.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

How long before we see the "DCIA Tax"?

This will only result in higher bills, and another round of finger-pointing when carriers try to innovate.

Industry had better counter this nonsense, and agree upon a metering standard, both software and hardware.

•••••••
SunnyD
join:2009-03-20
Madison, AL

1 recommendation

SunnyD

Member

I'd settle for truth-in-advertising requirements.

How about just mandating that using the word "Unlimited" actually means "Unlimited" without any sort of encumbrance (soft cap, throttle, hard cap), otherwise you have to explicitly state the limitations and not be allowed to use the word "Unlimited" at all in your advertising, period.

I don't care if there's limitations, but don't try to bury them underneath an asterisk. Maybe if consumers actually could find hard information about what they were signing up for, they would be a little more picky about where and how they choose to spend their money.
NoHereNoMo
join:2012-12-06

NoHereNoMo

Member

Re: I'd settle for truth-in-advertising requirements.

Given that the ISPs can't even explain how one's usage last month results in some nebulous congestion this month (or last month either for that matter--most customers with "high" usage achieved it by taking advantage of the non-peak hours when traffic is down), I certainly don't see any "truth-in-advertising" on the horizon coming from the ISPs.
MTU
Premium Member
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA

MTU

Premium Member

Oh, woe is us

What will the GB's (greedy bastards) do?
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

monopoly bill of right$?

WIRED broadband has no need for caps!!!
Stop protecting monopolies! DO something to increase competition to lower current prices!

••••••
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus

Member

I continue to be an optimist on this issue.

For now it does suck that we have these people getting lots of money for simply being the only game in town. But this can't stay like this for too long. Technology advancements will make sure of that. I think we only need to hold tight for 5 years or so before we see some real alternatives to these clowns.

••••••••
60632649 (banned)
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY

60632649 (banned)

Member

We're from the government and we're here to help

Run for the hills!
robherz
join:2001-06-20
Pacific Palisades, CA

robherz

Member

Re: We're from the government and we're here to help

Ah ha ha ha you and all of your stupid, sweeping, sophomoric political comments are SO original, brilliant, and funny.

How bout you keep them to yourself? The whole country already knows how flawed Tea-Party reasoning is, we don't need you to remind us.
60632649 (banned)
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY

60632649 (banned)

Member

Re: We're from the government and we're here to help

So what you're asserting is that you work for the socialist republic of Cali's government? Was it something I said?

MSauk
MSauk
Premium Member
join:2002-01-17
Sandy, UT

1 recommendation

MSauk

Premium Member

Yikes! Caps, Doesn't sound good to me

There is no congestion, period. It is all made up, BS.

Upgrade your network and use the Billions we give you every year. Stop worrying about stock prices and upgrade your network.
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

amungus

Premium Member

Thin. Effing. Air.

All they really want is more money for nothing.

"...help consumers manage their data more effectively..."

Hmm. The only part of the actual bill that looks to be halfway worthwhile is this. Still begs the question - define "unnecessarily discourage" please:

"(B) SMART DATA CAPS INSTEAD OF DUMB 8
ONES.—The Commission shall evaluate a data 9
cap proposed by an Internet service provider to 10
determine whether the data cap functions to 11
reasonably limit network congestion in a man- 12
ner that does not unnecessarily discourage use 13
of the Internet. 14"

The part that gets sneaky, however, wasn't well covered in the article here.

(1) IN GENERAL.—A covered Internet service 6
provider shall, upon the first day of Internet service 7
provided to a consumer, identify commercially avail- 8
able tools that allow the consumer to— 9
(A) monitor, in real time to the extent fea- 10
sible, the amount of bits that the consumer has 11
uploaded or downloaded, and the relationship 12
such information has to the terms of the data 13
cap of the Internet service provider; and 14
(B) control uploads and downloads on all 15
wireline and wireless devices that have access to 16
the Internet service network of the consumer.
17

So, here we are, back at square one that needs so much more emphasis with these discussions. The actual amount of USE that you get out of your connection. It is sad, that when measured as a function of "speed" sold to a person vs. the cap in question, that by and large, many of them come down to quite a tiny amount of USABLE service.

Take a 150GB cap from AT&T, which they still can't figure out (from what I've read recently, though perhaps this has changed). Let's pretend you have a 3Mbps service plan from them, for example.

Simple math: 150GB divided by 30 days = 5GB per day of use.

Say you have the 3Mbps service, which is 384KB/sec.

(5 gigabytes) / (384 KBps) = 3.79259259 hours
..........3.79 hours per day of full speed use.
Put another way, (150 gigabytes) / (30 days) = 60.6814815 KBps (continual use). This is probably the ugliest number to consider.

I propose, in all seriousness that we strongly examine that number in bold print above, and below. It is a complete sham. We need serious discussions over use for a household, and for future growth.

Let's look at a cable package at 20Mbps, with a 300GB cap, just to be generous, for those who have something close to that.

20Mbps = 2560 KBps
300GB by 30 = 10GB/day
(300 gigabytes) / (2560 KBps) = 1.42222222 days
(10 gigabytes) / (2560 KBps) = 1.13777778 hours

--summary--
DSL @ 3Mbps w/150GB cap = 3.79Hrs/day use, or 60.68KBps
Cable @ 20Mbps w/300GB cap = 1.14Hrs/day use, or 121.36 KBps

Sure, from one perspective, you get a larger file much faster. From another perspective, you cannot sustain your connection for as great a time without concern for hitting a cap.
See the problem here??? It's a total mess, that most people, when viewing the information in this manner start to say "wait, so you sold me a faster connection, that I can't use as often?"

Sure, not everyone uses their connection this way, but when we start hearing about bills introduced that include lingo like "control upload and download" (no mention of speed, or time, by the way), I have to wonder what good it really is for anyone, including Grandma.

We're being sold literally a fraction of the supposed "speed package" that gets touted.

Also, fair notice. My head is in pain today. If my math is broken anywhere here, please correct me and I'll amend.

••••

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

gatorkram

Premium Member

How about...

passing a bill that forces all last mile networks to be not-for-profit, and that CEOs have caps to how much they can pay themselves, and of course, like all not-for-profits, all moneys left over have to go back into the network.

and now back to reality, where we all must bow down and worship the all mighty dollar.

••••••

moomo
@rr.com

moomo

Anon

pays

who paid him

yamaro
@rr.com

yamaro

Anon

campaign contributions

I'm really surprised to not see Netflix in his list of campaign funders. Nike, BCBS, lawyers, and Intel top that.

Regulating the meters is going to be hard. When exactly a bit a bit? Do caps include ATM overhead for DSL users? What is the acceptable error margin? Is there going to be an audit on logs? Is traffic information private information that the government shouldn't be seeing? Do ISP subscribers actually care? What if this works and ISPs just raise prices to enhanced revenue? Are we going to pass a price ceiling law then?

I wish we could get to the root of the problem: the monopolies.
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678

Member

at&t directv users should get the same higher cap as

at&t directv users should get the same higher cap as U-Verse users.
LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14

LostInWoods

Member

Cap Neutrality

One provision I really like in this proposal was not mentioned in the article writeup.
(c) DISCRIMINATION OF CONTENT.— A covered Internet service provider may not, for purposes of measuring data usage or otherwise, provide preferential treatment of data that is based on the source or the content of the data.
As I read this, it would effectively outlaw attempts to count OTT content against the cap while exempting ISP content. In other words, the capping ISP would have to count bits for their own video product exactly the same way they do Netflix content.

I see this as aimed at Comcast trying to pretend their IP video shouldn't count while Netflix & Amazon Prime content should. Also, I think it would outlaw the latest notion of AT&T to extort protection money from content providers by ensuring that the "protected" content wouldn't count against the cap.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: Cap Neutrality

I don't think it would have any affect on At&t's idea. Companies would be paying extra for that instead of someone getting a free ride, which seems to be the aim of the provision.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: Cap Neutrality

Maybe you should read the statement again taking note of:
• Preferential treatment
• Regardless of source and content.

Paying to have it prioritized or not count is preferential treatment that takes into account the source and content of the data.
ConstantineM
join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA

ConstantineM

Member

why not only cap the peak use?

I was recently looking at internet offerings in a small city in Russia where I used to live back in the times when dial-up was popular.

Now with broadband, what I've noticed is that many providers over there still offer discounts during the night:

Many tariff plans have a 10Mbps cap during the daytime, 09:00/21:00, and then a 20Mbps cap during the nighttime, 21:00/09:00. What defines the daytime also depends on how provider does business: a provider that is mostly residential and that has a night-time-extra for every user may define it as 00:00/09:00, whereas one that provides the nighttime extra for a small premium, and, perhaps, also caters to many businesses, may go 21:00/09:00. Cost is about 400 RUB/mo, e.g. 13 USD/mo.

And in Moscow, one of the most expensive cities in the world, with home.corbina.ru, 500 RUB/mo (16 USD/mo) gets you 30Mbps unlimited, or 60 Mbps for 650 RUB/mo (21 USD/mo). Apparently, they don't bother to have daytime/nighttime tariffs in Moscow, probably because it'll cost more to actually implement such features than what it's worth.

In San Jose, where all of these networking technologies are developed by people on H-1Bs? You'd be lucky to get 10Mbps and 10ms to the nearest internet exchange!

••••••••

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Common carrier laws

I wonder if data traffic could be included in the so-called common carrier laws which require that passenger or freight traffic be carried without discrimination as long as a fee is paid, space is available, and it is safe.

Even though data is not a passenger or freight, it is still traffic that needs transportation and the roads are the cable and fiber lines.

Maybe if the common carrier laws could be applied to data traffic, the end of throttling, packet shaping, and deep packet inspection could come to an end.

In my opinion, I think state PUCs should regulate ISPs as the federal government is the most incompetent regulator.
biochemistry
Premium Member
join:2003-05-09
92361

biochemistry

Premium Member

Good for the goose

If they're going to mandate that health insurance companies have to spend a certain percentage of their intake on actually paying for healthcare, how about a similar bill for ISPs, thereby forcing them into upgrades.
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7

Member

wow

Omg, someone is actually thinking in washington?!?! Kudos to him
page: 1 · 2 · next