Americans "catching up" with us

[Noreen]

Some people use the Internet simply to check e-mail and look up phone numbers. Others are online all day, downloading big video and music files. Should they pay the same price for access?

For years they have, with subscribers sharing a buffet of all-you-can-download Internet access, regardless of how much they consumed. But now three of the country's largest Internet service providers are threatening to clamp down on their most active subscribers by placing monthly limits on their online activity.

One of them, Time Warner Cable, began a trial of "Internet metering" in one Texas city early this month, asking customers to select a monthly plan and pay surcharges when they exceed their bandwidth limit. The idea is that people who use the network more heavily should pay more, the way they do for water, electricity, or, in many cases, cell phone minutes.

That same week, Comcast said that it would expand on a strategy it uses to manage Internet traffic: slowing down the connections of the heaviest users, so-called bandwidth hogs, at peak times.

AT&T also said Thursday that limits on heavy use were inevitable and that it was considering pricing based on data volume. "Based on current trends, total bandwidth in the AT&T network will increase by four times over the next three years," the company said in a statement.............

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/15/technology/online.php

[Sebby]

How long before the internet grinds to a halt, I wonder?

[Rik]

It's not often we're ahead in anything.

[Sebby]

Indeed. Typical, then, that it's something negative.

[Noreen]

Well, as things stand at the moment I'm quite happy that people who download more should pay more.

[Rik]

Me too.

[madasahatter]

Indeed. Typical, then, that it's something negative.

Tbh Sebby, I don't really see charging more for using more bandwidth as negative - it's the way it should be imo. After all, IDNet have different packages - the ones with the higher inclusive traffic are dearer - nothing wrong with that, and is the way forward.

What I do think is wrong, is all the ISPs that use traffic management whilst claiming their products are unlimited. If they were honest and put limits on whilst charging accordingly they wouldn't have a problem.

[Rik]

Agreed, Mad. 

[Sebby]

Tbh Sebby, I don't really see charging more for using more bandwidth as negative - it's the way it should be imo. After all, IDNet have different packages - the ones with the higher inclusive traffic are dearer - nothing wrong with that, and is the way forward.

What I do think is wrong, is all the ISPs that use traffic management whilst claiming their products are unlimited. If they were honest and put limits on whilst charging accordingly they wouldn't have a problem.

I agree. I meant negative in that they're catching us up for being bandwidth hogs!

[madasahatter]

I agree. I meant negative in that they're catching us up for being bandwidth hogs!

Ah rite - get ya 

[doc_holiday]

Well, if I can be controversial here for a minute... I have yet to see a fact filled example of how someone can use 300gb of data a month legally.  How many Linux distributions can you download and install in a month anyhow?

[Rik]

A lot of it simply isn't legal, Doc.

[doc_holiday]

I have a theory... if everything on the net was kept legal, there would be little need for usage allowances.  Yes, I know bandwidth consumption in on the increase due to streaming TV, etc., but keeping it legal would largely solve the problem.

[Sebby]

I agree to an extent, though with services like BBC iPlayer, it's much easier to use a lot of bandwidth, though perhaps not 300GB!

[john]

Sorry but I have to disagree with some of the comments here. The reason why there are download limits and other restrictions is because the existing infrastructure cannot cope with the demand of the users. Rather than restricting demand they should be trying to accomodate it especially as new services will require more bandwidth.

I'll admit that whilst the internet cannot cope with the demand they do have to restrict it somehow and charging those who use it more is probably the fairest method providing that the money is used to improve the service. Those ISP's who are cutting the price to the bone in order to attract more customers are not doing anyone a favour if they then are unable to contribute much to the cost of new  and faster equipment.

300Gb a month might seem a lot at the moment but 10 years ago 3Gb would probably be considered the same. If we eventually get High Definition TV on demand through the Internet for example, then 300Gb might not then seem so large.

[doc_holiday]

300Gb a month might seem a lot at the moment but 10 years ago 3Gb would probably be considered the same. If we eventually get High Definition TV on demand through the Internet for example, then 300Gb might not then seem so large.

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I for one have seen my bandwidth usage go up.  Three or four years ago, I was using on average 5 to 6gb a month. I'm running double that now.  The applications that I am running are more demanding.  iPlayer, Zatto, and other similar apps will continue this trend for everyone.

My original point was that I have yet to see under current conditions a rationale, backed by factual data, how someone can use up 300gb month after month legally.  This challenge has been issued a number of times on Thinkbroadband and no one has yet to answer it.

My friend who used to run one of the medium size ISPs in the country told me that in his experience a disproportionate amount of bandwidth is used by a very small percentage of their user base. I can't remember what figure he used, but it was very small. My theory was if these people kept it legal, then the issue of usage caps would probably not be necessary.  The averages in general would be much smaller and light users would offset the occasional or even regular heavy user more easily.  This is a utopia though because P2P software has given the ability for people to literally set up their own 24/7 personal data centre.

You do also make a very good point. I don't think that the ultra cheap unlimited deals have helped us much, except to make broadband as universal as dialup was. The trouble is that people pay a tenner a month expecting they are a leased line with an SLA, unlimited downloads, etc.  The ISPs that are doing this are advertising in such a way to encourage it as well. I wished the various regulatory authorities would crack down on this.

I was thinking about the roll out of ADSL2+, it seems the speeds are going up, but the costs of the backhaul, etc. is not keeping up. Fundamentally, before we even talk about fibre, we need to see the scale of economy kick in to start to create some cheaper bandwidth costs in this country.

[Danni]

I suppose being stuck on a slow connection for over a year has done something good for me- it's reduced my bandwidth usage. I have all this bandwidth and such speed, and can't think how to use it (though the Ubuntu repository mirror is seeming more tempting now ).

Of course, it helps that my two favourite American TV shows have finished for a few months

[john]

HI Doc, I agree that 300Gb a month for an individual is very suspect but even then I know that some ISP's which advertise unlimited downloads also have a 'fair usage' clause. I can see that many large companies would use more than 300Gb but they'll be paying a lot more than £10 a month for 'unlimited'.