Limited broadband connection?
Posted by ctitanic on 06/16/08 in General, Opinion, The Internet
I know that you may not believe it but I have reading lately a lot of reports like this.
Now, the idea of capped service with metered rates, stern warnings, or cancellations above a monthly limit are fully in fashion. For the last few years, companies like Comcast and Verizon’s wired broadband division have warned users about excessive downloads, degraded their service, or canceled their accounts, often with little recourse, and sometimes denying it all the while. Enough states’ attorneys general and FCC staff and commissioners have been involved that what was implicit has become explicit, but with the related effect that caps have become much lower than what they were in the ad hoc days before these changes.
I have read about same plans at AT&T so probably the happy days of unlimited broadband are gone and your will start to see in your bill a new charge for browsing too much.
Written by ctitanic · Filed Under General, Opinion, The Internet
Tagged:
Did you like this post?
Share your vote!
(No Ratings Yet)
You can also participate in other conversation in our active forums with 200,000 other Members. It only takes 2 minutes to 
Well, the good news is that such bandwidth management (or throttling, choose your terms) is highly unlikely to affect normal browsing. The limits will be set high enough and the proper QoS will be applied that standard http traffic will be pretty much unencumbered, I believe.
The bad news is that downloading large files, especially via P2P applications, will become much slower if it is not blocked completely, depending on the application used. Some ISPs will possibly then create service plans allowing P2P downloading, or allowing bandwidth to be bought in bursts, but we will see how the market for that sort of service matures.
I know from discussions with ISP project managers that most ISPs in the US, Europe and Asia are looking at creating specialized quota based Service Plans tailored to gamers (speed and priority), downloaders (volume) and Skyype/VpIP users (priority and guaranteed bandwidth) and then charging for them on a different scale from normal home and business plans.
Z
True, video will make a difference..but plain old garden variety browsing and the occasion funny video of cats acting stupid, as the majority of people behave on the web, will come under the quota limits pretty easily.
I do see your point however. Heavy video use or power user downloading even without file sharing may start running into problems…or at least cost more for the same level of performance we are used to.
Today is going to be an issue for a few people, tomorrow many people are going to be affected by this.
Nods..I agree…which is why issues such as Bandwidth management and Service Plans are being looked at now and rightly so. In the future, people who download massive amounts of data from such VoD services as Netflix will be able to pay for service plans tailored to give them the right amount of bandwidth, optimized for VoD. Everyone will pay for the resources they use rather then a general fee.
We need to remember we are still at the very beginning of this revolution. When cities were first wired for electricity, you paid a single fee to be connected, then used as much as you wished. As more and more people started using the same current, billing schemes were introduced so you paid for what you used. Bandwidth is the same way. the days of plugging into the stream and using all you could manage are ending as more and more people need to use the bandwidth…the age of service plans and enforced QoS is at hand, be that good or bad.
I do not have much of a problem with bandwidth caps and tiers of service. But, I’ll only agree completely when the ISPs do more to bring higher than megabit throughput to all US users in rural areas. I have a vacation home 40 mils from here - which is 75 miles from a major US city - that has no broadband access available at all. The exclusive contract cable TV company does not offer internet connectivity, the monopolistic phone company offers no DSL (not even the low speed junk).
Give everybody decent access and then you can talk about metering it.
Universal coverage is certainly a goal of any ISP< but in rural areas without an extensive infrastructure in place, it is usually difficult, expensive and very high maintenance. Look at the difficulties plaguing some Native American reservations in the Southwestern US, where the only way to get dependable internet service is to pay through the nose for satellite dishes.
The ISPs would argue that tiered services is a way to ensure that rural areas get the service they need, since every user would be paying for what they use. If User A in the big city wants to pay for 100GB of downloading a week, that will make it easier to spend capital to create the infrastructure to bring at least minimum service to hard to access areas.
As a business model it has it’s merits, but we are used to “unlimited” bandwidth plans and having the ISPs think that leveraged services and advertising were the keys to making a profit for them. They assumed that the connection was the free razor and the services and content they provided were the income generating razor blade. They are slowly realizing there is no way for them to make their money that way. Content is the razor, free to anyone who wants it and can get to it…the bandwidth you use to access it is the razor blade, and that is where they will begin charging you.
Z
Reviews
Featured
Contests
Videos
Polls
Site Items
Comments
Tags
In the Forums
Blogroll
Category Archives
Sponsors
Get our Feeds
Sponsors
Awards and Honors
News Team
Managing Editor
» Chris Leckness, MVPSenior Editor
» Jack Cook, MVP» Susan Tyson
Editors
» Frank Garcia, MVP» Tim Hillebrand
» Steve Laser
» Doug Smith
» PsionAndy
» Radimus
» Zealot
» Jay Donovan
» Rest of the Staff
More Feed Stuff
Podcast/Video Feeds