Will Frontier Enforce New 5GB Cap?

If your provider argues that their cable lines are at capacity and a usage cap is needed because of that, ask them exactly how they deliver video on demand and voice over IP telephone service to their customers. Data is data. There doesn’t seem to be an impending demand that we turn off our televisions after three hours, stop ordering video on demand, or hang up our “digital phone” line because of a capacity problem.

dear cable company,

please take the bandwidth from HGTV, all the religion channels, all the business channels (CNBC, etc.) and all the shopping channels and add it to my broadband cap.

thnx

And tack on ESPN, ESPN2, MTV, MTV2, VH1, WE, Oxygen, SAOP, and all of the music channels.....

Give me per byte billing for ALL services crossing the link, and let me pick ONLY what I want too. The base price should be about $5.

cw

oh crap, I forgot about the music channels; wonder how much those suck up?

Ok, so with digital cable, you free'd up a whopping 2 channels.

All those channels you listed, you can throw on 2 6MHz channels. And that is the whole thing with DOCSIS 3.0....using multiple channels.

Well, technically, in cable systems (most of them) that still have analog channels, some of those channels are on analog too, like ESPN, ESPN2, MTV, VH1... so those right there would free up 4 channels on their own.

Hence I said with digital cable.

Cause I know, we have most of those on analog, except for the music channels, which are on digital.

Why would they want to?

Dave Burnstein's right; this is policy is clearly designed to prevent video downloading from cannabolizing Frontier's own video offerings. They want you to buy premium TV content from them, not off the internet.

Which, as a private company, they're perfectly entitled to do, so long as they disclose the caps. If you don't like it, you can move to an area served by a different provider - isn't that want you guys always say?

Sounds like a bit like a conflict of interest.. are they a common carrier ISP or are they a content provider?

Both you say? Then we should be talking about a neutral third-party bandwidth provider, free of all this bullshit.

Bingo. The minute a company provides internet access, but creates disincentive to another companies similar product via that access, is engaged in anti competitive behavior and should be punished as such. This is precisely why we need the ISP to be a "dumb pipe". To provide internet access. Let the media companies compete on their own merits and products.

cw

Most DOCSIS nodes are fed off a single 6MHz channel.

Do you honestly think that I made my whole list of crap I don't watch? This is why people want ala-cart programming. I can list the channels I do want to get in a very short list. If I could cut my bill in half, I would be happy.

And before anyone goes off on me about how it would kill the media companies... I don't care. This is the economy that we are in. Any money I don't have to spend is a good thing for me, and my kids. Why is it that it's ok for people to lose their homes, and have a hard time making ends meet from month to month, when these gluttons are making profits quarter over quarter?

cw

Perhaps they should cancel their cable TV and focus on paying their mortgage/rent and other necessary bills? Just a thought.

I'm sure that would cut into their profit margins.

I don't disagree with you there. But the people who got screwed with subprime mortgages would not likely be saved by lowering their cable bill by $20, or eliminating it and saving $70.

cw

I agree, but I was more pointing out that the people who are in that situation probably wouldn't cancel their cable ... they probably aren't willing to sacrifice. They'd rather have someone else bail them out or pay their own way. Sacrifice is hard, hand-outs aren't. (Look at the Home Makeover family as a perfect example.)

I bought a house two years ago and my credit wasn't the best. They tried to throw all sort of "creative" financing at me so I could get the house I really wanted, but I stopped myself and actually researched. I consulted with friends who own houses, read online about the different loan types they were throwing at me. I wound up with a $50k cheaper house - with a more expensive 30-year fixed mortgage - but there won't be any surprises and I know my payment will be easier to make over time and my interest rate won't budge.

I guess what I'm getting at, is I can sympathize with the people who were taken advantage of, but they bear just as much responsibility for letting themselves get into the situation as the predatory lenders who took advantage of them.

x2

Not true. Video delivered from my cable operator does not have to go out over the backbone which is where the bottleneck occurs. The equipment and the cost for bandwidth after it leaves the head end is tremendous. TV content does not have to travel over this part of the network so your assumption is totally wrong.

You should do some research and rethink your entire post.

I'll touch on a few for you:

The bottleneck is in the last mile more than the back=bone.

Data costs are still data costs but they are not "tremendous"...

TV content DOES in fact travel over "this part" of the network.. I suppose you're not aware, in Comcast's case, how they transport some of their video content?

But anyway.. I'll let you off to that research.

.. I'll ask them this question as soon as this person explains which box of crackerjacks they got their information from. It's a nice spin and flame to make, I'm guessing, a point..? but it's complete lunacy and idiotic at best.

All telephone traffic runs over a very small amount of frequency.. and his/her cute attempt to talk about VOD? Um.. it's a freaking VIDEO company.. why would they not have VOD? I suppose he can't see past his own selfish arguments to understand that these MSOs offer more than one product and not just internet, not just telephone, and not just video.. I suppose that the new argument is to stop delivering cable TV and phone service and put it all towards internet.. I mean, because, after all EVERYONE only uses the internet.

His statement may strike a chord in some people that are looking for something to rally behind, but when you step back and take an educated look at it, the entire comment was a piece of sh*t... If he wants to argue capacity, then argue capacity, but to attack other services to favor one, the argument weakens. The same could be said of VOD fans that the internet takes up too much space if they were to view the internet as a waste.

Sorry Nasa, but your argument on pulling those channels, ESPECIALLY HGTV, is a bad place to go because HGTV is one of the channels are the high side of viewership/ratings. Further, while you don't watch religious channels (nor do I) there IS a viewership. In the Twin Cities, for example, I once argued over PEG and local orig programming.. there was a HUGE lash back on my comments as they were much more popular than I thought.

Still.. What the quoted posted said, and you said as well doesn't resolve an issue at all.. not in the way they are being stated.

5GB? They can't be serious.

Yeah, even on a 10 Mbps line, no less. That's about 68 minutes to your cap.

So if'n you think you might ought use your internet connection more than say 1.5 tenths of one percent of the time, then you'd be one of them there internet hogs!

Gouge and steal, it is. Gonna be afraid to use the damn internet before too long.

I can hear the mass exodus taking place form this ISP. Way to shoot yourself in the foot Frontier, lol Idiots

I think that Frontier is indeed in trouble and is ripe for a takeover. They can't afford to sink money into their outdated infrastructure, so they are trying a limit so that their subscribers don't overload the system. I really think that this is the case.

Then why did they buy ADSL2+ DSLAMs and deploy them in their Remotes and COs? That was not cheap and now instead of 1.5 and 3.0 they offer 10.0 and possibly higher speeds. It sure does not make a bit of sense.

And if they are wanting to be bought out, it is stupid to implement a new restrictive Byte CAP in there TOS/AUP that will reduce their subscriber count. That makes them look less attractive to potential buyers while the mass exodus continues from their service.

they only offer those speeds in a very small area

You do realize where Frontier has most of their service, right? (cough cough Rural areas cough) Not many places for people to mass exodus to. Besides, you have NO idea how they came up with 5gb. How do you not know that they ran their numbers and found that (and I'm making this up) that 90% of their business used less than 5gb while the other 10% used quite a bit more. The amount that 10% uses drives up more cost than they produce that it's cheaper to lose them? So while it makes sense for people like use to say "f 5gb"... for the most part, they probably ran the numbers and it won't hurt them.

This is a common mistake people around here make all the time. IF this is what they did, and I'm almost certain they have, then it's the smartest business move ever made by a company in order to save their collective asses. Good for some consumers? no... not at all. However, too, around here, a mass exodus is called on many news stories like this.. and to this date, none have happened. In Frontier's case, there isn't really anyone to mass exodus to.

So far the cap is not enforced. When that happens and a new customer who just signed up for 10 Mbps service or an existing customer that just upgraded from 1.5 Mbps to 10.0 Mbps ADSL2+ sees that they will use that 5 Gb in under a single day if they have multiple family members and they watch Youtube, Veoh, all the Free content at ABC, NBC, CBS, Sci-Fi, NetFlix et al. Then add a couple of game players getting Steam Updates or buying a 4.3 Gig Game DVD online by download from Steam of the latest 1st person shooter only find out they used up the entire months bandwidth in one download.

Hell, dial-up can pull around 12 Gigs in 30 days when you run it 24/7 on a second line so what does that tell you about the reality of the 5 Gig Cap?

I don't think it's a common mistake by any means that people make on here all the time. 5GB is ridicules, and people aren't idiots. Even caps for mobile broadband are higher than this, and it doesn't take a mental heavyweight to figure out that the service can run on a desktop. In this day and age, people are more price point conscious than ever before. Sorry but saying that "they ran their numbers and found 90% use 5GB or less?" Are you kidding me? I wanna see one user who uses their connection regularly and stays at 5GB or under. Please show me this.

That's a lot crap. (please take the bandwidth from HGTV, all the religion channels, all the business channels (CNBC, etc.), nd tack on ESPN, ESPN2, MTV, MTV2, VH1, WE, Oxygen, SAOP, and all of the music channels.....

Certainly a lot of waste here. 5 GB cannot be for real. Even satellite gives you that.

Not only that there is a monthly modem rental fee even if you have your own modem. Other IPS give you a %100 free to own modem.

Frontier, now that is a company name I have not heard in awhile. I used to be a central NY-based Frontier Cellular cellphone customer back in 1997. The cellular division got bought out multiple times and now is in the hands of Verizon. I didn't realize the company was still around.

5GB a month is way too low. These days I exceed that on my Sprint wireless broadband account, thanks to two one-hour-per-night's of Slingbox (standard definition) viewing and 30 minutes of Skype video use.

Time for gov't intervention and investigation into this profiteering.

hmmmmm and what would you tell the Gov't? that you deserve more bandwidth so you an watch your porn or steal your movies or stream your Slingbox?

They can do what ever they want. They own their network and are a private company. You and everyone else can choose not to use them.

And if the gov't sticks their nose into their business and rates go up you better believe yours will to even if you don't use them and you can then sit there and keep your damn mouth shut because you wanted the FCC to bail your ass out.

Well get this they're a phone company. They'll just pay their way out of the FCC and get what they want. They're not there to keep you happy with your internet. They're in business to make a profit on their phone service and offer extra services. People that can their their DSL should be happy they can instead of using WildBlue.

And why would the price go up? We saw from Bell Canada that these claims of congestion are a total lie. They're simply abusing their market position to profiteer. And worse, when you call Frontier, agents lie claiming to know nothing about the cap, that it's just a "guideline" or worse that the customer is confusing Frontier with Time Warner's caps. And you defend this practice, expecting Frontier customers to beg "Please sir, I want some more". Good show.

Both "stop the cap" and Consumerist use the cost to Frontier of additional bandwidth at 10 cents/GB. Of course, like all these sites, they don't offer any proof at all how they come up with that number.

people drop them like a hot potato.

and go to what? their dial-up?

Redhat fedora is 3.7GB.

Download that and use up most of your monthly limit.

»torrent.fedoraproject.org/

I believe that downloading media content is not what the Internet was designed for. If you want to watch a movie, either pay for the huge load you are putting on the network or go rent it from blockbuster.

An infinite amount of bandwidth would be so wonderful but it is just not the reality of it.

Today, I downloaded 2 .iso files from dell.com to get a PowerEdge server re-installed and firmware-updated, 2x 550 Mb = 1.1 Gb.

Yesterday I re-installed my laptop with Debian 4.0r4, I downloaded the DVD at 4 Gb.

That alone reached the 5 Gb cap, within 2 days.

I have no problem with implementing a cap to curb mass-downloaders, but the cap would have te be AT LEAST 50 Gb, and just like EasyNews accounts or your cell phone, it needs to be "rollover" so you can save up for big downloads.

I have EPIX/Frontier DSL here in Wilkes Barre. They charge 10$ more per month than any of the competition (for the same 3meg service). I originally signed up with EPIX and Commonwealth telephone, who owned EPIX, because they were a local company and I had seen their Management on a Public television show speaking about DSL and ISP's being a gateway to the internet. I have to admit that I am really thinking of tanking them even if they don't cap. They make you take a local line (even though I use and prefer Vonage)which runs about $30 a month, then they charge $39.99 per month for the DSL. Now they are crying about bandwidth when Verizon will do the same service for 29.99 a month. Believe me, unless they are looking to go bankrupt, they had better reconsider, especially in areas where we are lucky enough to have a choice.

and who are you to tell them they need to stop offering the POTS line and just do barebones? And i doubt VZ will provide you the same thing since you're in a Fontier serviced area. VZ won't touch that area since Fontier is your actual LEC and not a reseller.

Actually they do, i am in a metropolitan area, my next door neighbors have verizon and I have Frontier. I have been solicited by Verizon and can get their service. I was always skeptical because I wanted to stay local, but believe me, there are places where they will scoop you up. I even checked and i can port my phone number as well. Wilkes Barre isn't rural. I have several choices which include Cable.

5GB... wow. I'm not opposed to caps in principle- otherwise there will always be that small minority downloading 500GB a month. But only 5GB??? It's not uncommon for online game patches to be 2-3GB.

50GB would still be a bit low, but more than the average user consumes.

Where the hell are you getting "2-3GB" for a game patch from?? Unless your picking up a backlog of patches for an old game. You still wouldn't hit 1GB most likely. Try shooting for under 100-500MB for average patch size these days. And that is for the AAA games out there.

Hacker

What if you did this to make big $$$:
1) Buy Frontier stock.
2) Buy a DS-3 for one month
3) Send data at 45mb/s to Frontier IP blocks. This is about 14,580GB/month.
4) Frontier customers pay big $$$ for going over caps
5) Frontier stock goes up from big overage collections
6) Sell Frontier stock
7) Frontier stock crashes as customer leave, but who cares, you got yours.

Or how about this. Everyone on DSLReports just randomly sends 1500byte packets to Frontier IP blocks just to make everyone go over their caps. I was thinking about randomly selecting a Frontier IP each day and sending data at 1mb/sec (my Internet speed) to that IP. I don't need responses, just sending I can do about 10GB per day. It might be entertaining.

Bad Idea

and let them contact RR's abuse team and watch RR drop you like a rock without TWC or Brighthouse ever lifting a finger. Remember you are a customer of RR NOT the cable provider. RR will and can drop you like a rock if they want AND REFUSE to give you service.

Yeah, no kidding. I was just going to tell him if he tried that with me I'd have a little chat with his ISP (even though I don't care, I have Frontier business grade). That crap is in violation of most any AUP out there.

It's a sad day. Just a few days ago I talked to my mom and she said that Frontier installed the equipment and she can get DSL at the house now. Sadly, that was the same day I learned about the 5GB cap. Sprint still works, and it's mobile, but I'm betting I'd be able to get Frontier's highest speed package since the RT is right across from the farm.

I talked to TWC on Friday and found that I could get a better deal on the Internet and Phone service than I was paying with the package I was receiving. I was getting unlimited long distance in the US and DSL Max for $64.95. When the contract ended, it jumped to $84.99. Called to renew and could not get the old deal any longer, it was going to be $69.99, but I had to renew a contract for 1 yr. The TWC offer is 59.90 for both. After 6 months the phone will increase and after a year the internet will increase and it will still be cheaper than Frontier. Been with Frontier for 6 years and had no major complaints. I'm sure that they will be losing a fair amount of customers. The problem is that most will not even find out since they are not on any feeds or newsgroups like this.

This doesnt bode well though. With Directv on demand being broadband based and my wife working from home via a vmware session into a remote citrix sessions after just a few days I'd break their cap for 100% legitimate reasons!

Good God, just a few linux Ubuntu downloads and updates and I'll be over that easy. And yes, I too was going to do the NetFlix thing.
Ya know, Frontiers Asshole must be huge, cause they sure fit a lot of corporate heads up there.