Comments on: Baggage and bits: Overage fees have unintended consequences

Maybe paying by the bit for Internet service is fair, but it's still going to be disruptive. Take a look at an analogous situation in a different industry: airlines.

[k2dave]

Bandwidth caps have been in satalite service for quite some time. Once exceeded speed is reduced till a certain time where the cap is renewed. It sort of works, but it really slows down a lot when the cap is exceeded. It would seem to me that such a cap, with a reasonable drop in speed, but not to excessively slow rates would be reasonable. For example once monthly allotment is exceeded drop the rate to 1/4 or 1/8 full bandwidth. This should still be fast enough for voip services as speed is not decreased, just bandwidth, and perhaps video, but will reduce any continuous high bandwidth using application load on the isp's resources to a reasonable level.

[newbelgium]

Agreed. Here are some additional concerns: http://netequalizer.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/to-quota-or-not-to-quota/

[DorianBenkoil]

Makes me wish I lived in a developed country with a real telecom policy.

[b_in_austin]

Well, most consumers don't realize that corporate accounts with ISPs frequently do have bandwidth "limits" - they are charged based upon the amount of data that is pulled from their web sites and other Internet services.

So when you download a bunch of videos from some company's web site, you can be assured that the ISP of the hosting service is collecting $$$s for each one of those bits. What is missing from this article is that the consumer ISPs (which sometimes are the same as those providing enterprises with Internet access) want to get paid in the same manner by the consumer.

Anyone ever notice that a gigabit network in your house costs less than $100 plus the monthly electrical bill to keep the Linksys/DLink/Netgear/SMC/... switch running? But once you connect that puppy to the Internet, it costs $40 month for a megabit down and a quarter of a megabit up. Those cables in the ground sure do cost a lot of money - either that or are incredibly profitable. Long live Wimax - er, uh, duh. Damn, that looks like it will be monopolized as well...

[Lerianis]

Do you people who are saying that this is fair REALIZE that the rate these cable companies get on their bandwidth limit is 500GB for 10 DOLLARS, in most areas? That is coming straight from my cousin who works for Comcast in their network management department.
Really, the only 'cap' needs to be as much as you can use at the download rate that these companies give you 24/7/365 a year. That is absolutely the ONLY bandwidth cap that is acceptable to me.

[b_in_austin]

I never said it was fair. I'm saying that the same bits are already paid for once. Now, the ISPs at the edge want a cut. Seems like double-dipping

[330Andy]

Sounds to me that the companies want to put more money in their overstuffed pockets.
I run off a local cable service (Massillon Cable Communications)
I hope that won't happen to me.

[bpob1977]

This reminds of the early 90's when home internet access was still relatively new. The point is the actual number of bits consumed is largely irrelevant. The problem comes from high bandwidth useage during peak times. At 3 am in the morning, who cares if you're streaming HD? It's not like is costs the ISP any more -- the network infrastucture is already in place to handle the peak loads.

Also, in many cases I don't directly control the actual number of bits I download. How many programs automatically download updates? How big are said updates?

This attempt by the industry to charge per bit or institute caps smacks of a money grab. If they have a legitimate capacity problem, then they need to address it by looking at their peak bandwidth demand and limits. If it keeps my internet working, I can tolerate a certain amount of bandwidth limiting during peak times, but then they need to adjust their prices accordingly.

[only_truth]

Excellent article, concerns, and comments by other users. As I see it, there is no other sufficient option but to continue with unlimited throughput at a maximum bandwidth as is the current business model. ISPs should be able to handle this maximum quantity at all times, which would be the sum of the bandwidths of every consumer. If there's a problem with the infrastructure, up the prices. That's the only thing that can work due to the framework of the Internet as it stands today.

[only_truth]

Excellent article, concerns, and comments by other users. As I see it, there is no other sufficient option but to continue with unlimited throughput at a maximum bandwidth as is the current business model. ISPs should be able to handle this maximum quantity at all times, which would be the sum of the bandwidths of every consumer. If there's a problem with the infrastructure, up the prices. That's the only thing that can work due to the framework of the Internet as it stands today.

[Marc1000]

From the point of view of the broadband ISP, this isn't about the cost of providing the bandwidth. It's about protecting their current and future markets. Most of us get broadband from the same company that provides cable. The cable companies want to prevent tv, movies and radio over internet because it cuts into their revenue streams. The cable companies also covet the telephone market, as it is another revenue stream. The so-called "triple play" they like so much.

Getting the public to accept metering use is the first step to killing the competition. The basic problem is that the cable companies are in competition with their customers. (Comcast vs. NetFlix, AT&T vs Vonage). The content provider owns the delivery channel. This has been illegal in the movie business for 90 years. A studio cannot own a movie theatre chain. A major broadcast network (CBS, NBC, ABC) could not own local stations. The reason is that there is a major conflict between the carrier's monopoly (or oligopoly) and the competitive needs of a content provider. If carriers with monopoly or oligopoly rights are also content providers, they will always devolve to favoring their own content to the detriment of the consumer.

As they say, those who do not read history are destined to follow it. In this case the cable execs have read history and are actively trying to turn back the clock to the bad old days.

Also, metering is the first step towards eliminating the net neutrality that has made the internet so great. This has been discussed on the PC Mag forum. See the first reader post at http://discuss.pcmag.com/forums/1004401904/ShowPost.aspx.

[Lerianis]

Marc, you hit the nail on the head with the cable companies wanting to prevent over the internet TV, movies and radio because it cuts into their revenue streams.
That is the ONLY reason why they are pushing for this "Pay by the Gigabyte" plan: because they want to lop off the internet TV, music and movie services before they even get started.

[brick53]

Those who are disabled and unable to explore the social world other than through the internet.
Typically, these people are heavy users of bandwidth. No one ever considers these persons plights. Who wants too though? Let the good times roll and bury the bad times in a hole.

[bjnovack]

Since at least some of the ISPs in question were given $300 billion in tax incentives to build out the network with the 1996 Telecom Reform Bill, and they took the dough and put it against their bottom line and never did build out the network (I dunno about you but I call that theft) they have no excuse for this. This whole "shortage of bandwidth" is an artificial construct so they can beg more money from Uncle Sugar via the USF. And they'll play the good little spies (while charging the govt dough for the wiretaps) to get that largesse. Meanwhile they have a much more insidious plan for the use of all that bandwidth.

We should go back to separation of internet service and content via Local Loop Unbundling. That's what they did in France and other countries where they have successful internet that is faster, cheaper, and more competitive than ours. In France, the providers who started as wholesale buyers are now building out their own fiber. They also have a choice of a dozen providers or more. We used to have that, and that's when the internet boomed. Then our conservatives in the court system overturned it in a lot of jurisdictions, and we now have . . . the duopoly, which means Censorship (Verizon with Naral, AT&T with Pearl Jam) and eventually a walled garden. You think what's happening in China can't happen here? Only here it's the corporations who want to control what we see, what we read, what we eat and what we think.

Some of you have commented on what we will lose. Have you ever thought that the loss is the intent? The OPEN internet is the biggest threat to unbridled capitalism that ever existed. How can the corporations sell us things we don't need if they can't force us to watch certain narrow programming choices? How can the global corporations get their corporation friendly politicians in office if there's a bunch of netroots and lobbying dough disclosure sites that show why those politicians shouldn't be voted in? A merged and dumbed down media is what SOLD us the War in Iraq, and they want to be able to sell us a War in Iran next, so they can sell more bombs and keep the war profiteersin business, but they can't do that unless they, the global corporations, control the propaganda outlets. The internet, as it exists now, stands in the way of all that.

The stakes are much, much higher than just some economic reasons, or some accessibility reasons, or some pricing reasons. It's all about stopping FREE SPEECH, and replacing it with Bread and Circuses.

[Lerianis]

Bjnovack, you are right about the 300 billion that they were given to improve their networks. Really, Congress needs to pass a law trying to get that money back, because the companies in question didn't use the money the way that Congress wanted them to.
That is 'breach of contract', as they say, and it is a jail time and severe fine punishable offense for anything over 1 million dollars.

[StarLagoon]

How would you like THIS "service"?
Hughesnet (aka Direcway) will charge you $60/mo then any day your usage hits 200MB they will shut you down for 24 hours to a speed so slow that it makes the web unusable. Try downloading a program such as Quickbooks Free trial or watching one too many YouTubes and you're pretty much done for the day. It really sucks. I'm sorry but in this age of reasonably large programs, video and music files, 200MB is really easy to exceed. 24 hours of 5Kb download speed as a penalty is a bit heavy handed.