DrJBHL DrJBHL

Capping Starts Tomorrow – An End to an Era

Capping Starts Tomorrow – An End to an Era

 

 
 

On Monday, AT&T will begin restricting more than 16 million broadband users based on the amount of data they use in a month.

This means that a majority of U.S. broadband users will now be subject to limits on how much they can do online. You can do more, but it’ll cost you – and how!

“AT&T's new limits - 150 GB for DSL subscribers and 250 GB for UVerse users (a mix of fiber and DSL) - come as users are increasingly turning to online video such as Hulu and Netflix on-demand streaming service instead of paying for cable.” – Ryan Single http://www.wired.com/

AT&T joins Comcast and numerous small ISPs in putting a price on a fixed amount of internet usage.  Your “Unlimited” plans have gone the way of “dial up” which prevented the growth of the Internet to what it is today.

Now they’ve got you by the short and curlies, let’s see you give anything up. Canada just went through this. Stephen Harper (a fine man and Canada’s PM) put a stop to it there, but at a price: Netflix’s quality has dropped severely.

“Comcast's limit, put into place after it got caught secretly throttling peer-to-peer traffic, is 250 GB - which the company says less than 99 percent of users hit. AT&T plans to charge users an extra $10 per month if they cross the cap, a fee that recurs for each 50 GBs a user goes over the cap. And while 150 GB and 250 GB per month might seem like a lot, if you have a household with kids or roommates, it's not too difficult to approach those limits using today's services, even without heavy BitTorrent usage.” – Ibid

For those not accustomed to calculating their bandwidth usage, video streaming and online gaming use much more bandwidth than web browsing or e-mailing. For instance, Netflix ranges from .3 GB per hour to 1.0 for normal resolution movies and up to 2.3 GB per hour for HD content.

“It should noted that U.S. limits are far from the world's worst: Canada's recently imposed restrictions prompted Netflix to give customers there a choice of lower-quality streams to keep their usage down, because users are charged up to $5 per GB that they exceed their cap. Caps are also worse in Australia.” - Ibid

Hello! Reality check ISP’s:

“It's not about the cost of data – bandwidth costs are extremely low and keep falling. Time Warner Cable brought in $1.13 billion in revenue from broadband customers in the first three months of 2011, while spending only $36 million for bandwidth - a mere 3 percent of the revenue. Time Warner Cable doesn't currently impose bandwidth caps or metering on its customers - though they have reserved the right to do so - after the company's disastrous trial of absurdly low limits in 2009 sparked an immediate backlash from customers and from D.C. politicians.”

What’s it really about? It’s about competition. The ISP’s want to sell you movies, games and video. So do Netflix and other third parties like Hulu. The ISP’s would rather have you spending money on their video services. In other words, they want all the marbles.

So what’s the problem? Instead of laying more pipe, the ISP’s want profit for nothing and to squeeze out the competition by causing the quality of the video to drop seriously if they want to stay in the market. Once that happens, guess what the ISP’s ads will say? “Why pay more for quality like this?”.

As new users are added, the problem will only worsen, and you’ll pay more for even less.

The only solution is to lay more pipe. But that would keep things as they are and the ISP’s would get to Utility Company rates instead of reaping the HUGE profits they do from their fiefdoms. As if Utilities are cheap.

“Indeed, the question of who gets to write the rules about the internet's pipes is the major bone of contention in the net neutrality debate, both for terrestrial and mobile data networks. When the new net neutrality rules go into effect, ISPs won't be able to block their online video competition, but there's no rule against doing that with bandwidth caps or tiered usage pricing.” – Ibid

What sucks the most? It’s about meeting Wall Street’s profit growth expectations, not in making things affordable and reasonable. Screw that (and us).

This greed is also detrimental to getting to and keeping first place in economic, scientific, technological, educational and every other growth you can name.

It throttles the “natural resources” needed to build and encourage the growth. For that reason, if not for your own pocketbook you should be on your feet screaming. BTW – more pipe means more jobs locally to lay the pipe.

This just goes to show, yet again, what's good for Wall Street often doesn't translate into what's good for Main Street.

Source: http://www.wired.com/

208,125 views 106 replies
Reply #101 Top

I'll count one US dollar as 6.50SEK (Swedish Kronor) eventhough the US dollar has swung through the years.

*/* = Downloadspeed in Mbit/Uploadspeed in Mbit.

8Mbit = 1Mbyte. So if I would have had 8Mbit then if I hover over uTorrent it would say 1.0MB/second. Do you understand?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The people of the US truly seem to be owned by the corporations.

I've only seen one video about netneutrality but it was on a site like those Alex Jones have that you check out a few times but don't get back to.

 

Here in Sweden I've never heard of capped internetaccess except dial-up back in 1996 or so.

My first internetaccess was through ADSL and it costed me 18$ for 8/1.

 

 

I've had 10/10 optic fibre for a year for 28$/month. I managed to talk my way to 25$ :grin:

Now I got 25/10 optic fibre FREE for 3 months. Then it is 32$/month for 25/10. That's acceptable though I would be happy with 4/4 but they don't offer that.

http://www.tele2.se/bredband/via-datauttaget.html <--- 6.50SEK = 1 US dollar. How do your prices compares to ours?

There's no cap. It's completely unlimited. I now understand why so many warezgroups topsites were in my country :P

Reply #102 Top

Well, one of the commissioners who is voting on the big comcast merger in the FCC, is joining Comcast.

 

I hate saying this, and it sounds radical, but I think nothing's going to change in America, until the rich get scared of losing everything in some form or fashion.  It's going to take something like this to reverse the trend.

 

If more coprorations were owned by people like Brad, that wouldn't be a problem, but unfortunately that isn't the case.

Reply #103 Top

Yeah, not many would sell a profit-making entity like Impulse (even if they would receive a fair amount of cash) because it distracted too much from the process of making good games.  Almost all corporate moguls would never offload such a big source of profit for any reason.

Best regards,
Steven.

Reply #104 Top

Quoting ElanaAhova, reply 87
check out the economist "Wolff"   He has a pretty good explanation;   www.rdwolff.com  
End of ElanaAhova's quote

Thanks for pointing me to Prof Wolff, amazing teacher. I will be going through all his articles.  k1

Just finished the Feb Monthly update on Capitalism and will be watching these regularly now. 

Capitalism Hits the Fan Movie is a must see if you can ignore the preview only overlay.

Reply #105 Top

Quoting StevenAus, reply 103
Yeah, not many would sell a profit-making entity like Impulse (even if they would receive a fair amount of cash) because it distracted too much from the process of making good games.  Almost all corporate moguls would never offload such a big source of profit for any reason.

Best regards,
Steven.
End of StevenAus's quote

 

I don't think that was Brad throwing away money, but Brad thinking that in the long-term, he may not have the capability to keep Impulse profitable.  Concentrating on the games might make Stardock more money in the long-term.

 

Most corporations just concentrate on the short term and don't worry about the consequences.