“And the LAST thing I want is some tool in DC mandating how the Internet should work”

It was worth repeating.

@29, @47: Right, you’d rather a cartel of Telcos determine how the internet should work for you through collusion on usage limits.

Two libertarian tools who would rather bend over for the ‘free market’ (read: giant corporations using publicly subsidized infrastructure, technology, and corporate tax breaks) than to have a regulator arbitrate the reasonable limits of service for the sake of the entire country’s progress, GDP, and so on.

Glad to be with ATT

Why the uproar over bandwidth caps? Should we all be able to place as many phone calls as we want (over copper lines) for a fixed fee? Or use as much water as we want for a fixed fee? Or use as much electricity as we want for a fixed fee?

The issue of net neutrality, in my eyes, comes down to ensuring that content creators aren’t discriminated against. Content consumers, on the other hand, should expect to be bound by the unfortunate reality that drives economics: scarcity.

I believe this their primary motivation is limiting growth of competition to the cable TV end of things. With so many TV program/movie over IP services popping up, and with channels putting their programing on websites, broadband is providing a real alternative to the cable TV monopoly. Right now you can get TV and movies from sites like Joost, Netflix, PBS, SciFi channel, and lots more. Today you can get a fairly good diet of entertainment, and it will only get better as time goes on. Soon people won’t bother with cable - they will just watch directly from websites of interest. The only way the cable companies can slow this down and temporarily keep their TV monopoly is with bandwidth caps.

Lets start a poll here to see how many of us will switch ISP to protest against metered internet.

Welcome to the real world.
I hate but understand bandwidth caps. They enforce fair use. Is there anything wrong with that? But, yes it can be abused. I would hope to expect 150gig for a typical service would be more then enough. 40gig is a joke.

$1 per extra gig is not bad however.

In my experience working with ISP’s, if you let the users abuse, thats exactly what they will do. Putting in a method to charge those who take advantage of the service sounds fair. Its just, like anything, it can be used to screw the users if the ISP wants. Ie, if you have a gun, you can keep the peace, but you can also rob them blind.

This is ridiculous. It will not only affect innovation for companies that rely their consumer have access to all you can eat, but will curtail innovation across the board as consumers will in general have less access.

Sad thing indeed.

One more reason to leave the states

This is what we live with in Australia and we have many internet providers (although Telstra has a near stranglehold on the copper). Some plans ‘rate-limit’ when you go over your download limit, so you don’t pay more, but you drop back to 64kbps.

It does mean that IPTV is dead in the water here unless the ISPs provide it as free usage, which is the way it appears to be heading. For example Telstra’s movie download service doesn’t count against your usage quota, but you’re stuck with using them as your ISP and content provider.

May I point out that the current situation is a construction of the current regulatory format.

Local, State, and Federal politicians and Bureaucrats love the current setup. They can posture and pontificate against the evil telephone companies. Oh that’s right there are new villains the cable companies.

They destroyed AT&T with the changing regulatory landscape. Now they want to muck around with the internet.

And, people are foolishly looking for the BOZOs, who created the problem in the first place, to solve the problem and save us from the evil ISPs.

Give me a break!

Look at the computer marketplace; falling prices, increasing capabilities, and a lot of energy in progress. A free and unregulated market means that we have to send the gooferment to the penalty box.

All they do is ‘penalize’ us!

@alex (50)

The problem with the scarcity theory is that when large corporations are allowed to control supply, whether through monopoly or cartel, then they can create the conditions for scarcity. This is the reason utilities have been regulated from almost the beginning.

Lest you all forget the lesson we learned from deregulation of electricity in California: Companies will lower supply in order to increase profit if given incentive to do so.

Call me a communist if you like (I’m actually a Green-tarian), but I think that there are certain public goods - such as electricity, phone, and internet - that have reached a ubiquity and necessity such as to be considered the birthright of every citizen. Allowing large companies to manipulate supply, and therefore prices, in a market with extremely inelastic demand is will only hurt the consumer and fatten the corporate bottom line.

I’m not a fan - and I think it’s ironic how it’s the polar opposite of the voice model. But I still understand why they’re doing it.
http://tinyurl.com/42vbkw

Alternatively how about open it up so that anyone can lay fiber, cable, phone line, or towers. Accidental competition in dsl and cable helps a little, how about opening it up all together?

Setting a maximum price is fine, but if some company wants to lay fiber and make a go of it, why would it be our policy to stop them? Making it fair for cable (or phone, or satellite) companies doesn’t make sense, they are grown up companies and need to grow or shrink based on their ability to please customers.

Unmetered bandwidth? WTF IS THAT??!

I live in a shitty country with a shitty teleco monopoly too, it bites.

@vijay gill
@Morgan
@alex
@James Gardiner

You are the voices of reason in this debate. I am a bit surprised that the readers of Tech Crunch would have such a one-sided, “emotional” reaction to what is a basically a business problem. I see it like this….

At some point the internet connection is going to replace all forms of incoming media. Imagine that all your hi-def TV, and all of your audiophile quality music comes through your internet connection on demand. Anything you want to watch or listen to anytime you want.

Does anyone think that the current telco/cable infrastructure could support this?

So the telco/cable folks who are on the hook for overselling bandwidth to consumers know that when this day comes they are basically screwed. They will have to invest more and therefore charge more. In fact many (e.g. Verizon have been taking on huge capex for building out their network that they will have to recover at some point). Metered bandwidth is as good a way as any for looking at how to deal with this. It may not be the way things end up and just a step along the way - after all the customers is always right and at least this group of customers have spoken.

We may have to use an outside firm of consultants.

i think its fine for an OPTION, i.e if they want to offer customers a cheaper monthly package with a GB cap. However Having lived in New Zealand previously, this system was entrenched, and very expensive. I believe it did cripple innovataion and hinder high tech entrepenuership.

-Karl

There’s nothing wrong with paying by the byte for internet access. If I paid by the byte for internet access, perhaps I would be able to access the bandwidth they sold me. However, the rate mentioned is exploiting the asymmetry of the market.

15Mb/s is 4860GB/month, which at $1/GB is $4860/month of maximum charges if we ignore upload bandwidth.

On average TWC will probably make an extra $10-50/customer with this, which isn’t very offensive. However, this rate makes services like storing all your data in the cloud artificially expensive; one example of a service which I think could create far more than $10-50/month of value for each TWC customer in the next decade.

Local cable monopolies are supported with the argument that it would be too expensive to allow multiple physical networks to cover the same area; but the cost of redundant physical networks is far outweighed by the potential value that government licensing of cable monopolies is destroying in favor of an unimaginative local optimum of slightly increasing TWC’s shareholder returns.

This is what happens when the FCC continues to drag its feet on allowing more competition for broadband access beyond the cable companies. They need to let the phone companies come in once and for all to lay Fiber to the homes and then make the pipe common to any provider that provides the service to the house. Then open the flood gates to any provider, not just the bloody cable companies. Here in Brooklyn, NY we finally have a choice for broadband now that FIOS has finally rolled into the city to put the pressure on Optimum Online (Cablevision)…I had a talk with the FIOS representative just the other day about their service options which start with 20Mbps data throughput (about 10 Mbps faster than the average Optimum Online speed for the basic plan) I didn’t ask about monthly caps though.

The thing with the caps that really is a showing of disingenuous intentions on the part of the cable companies, is that the back end fiber trunks can easily be fitted with DWDM switches (if they haven’t already been) DWDM allows trivial multiples of existing bandwidth to be upgraded by literally flicking a switch. No truck rollouts needed and essentially null cost, the existing fiber lines can theoretically take thousands of lambda’s (distinct wavelengths of optical data) essentially making trunk bandwidth infinite….yet here they are lying about their need to “preserve” a resource that they can procure for nothing, at will. As if electrical engineers (like myself) who are trained in the Fiber technologies available today won’t spill the beans on their plans.

The minute I ever hit a bandwidth cap from any provider is the minute that provider will wish they never put a cap in place. I have been telling only my non engineer colleagues about DWDM and fiber and how lambda’s make bandwidth issues moot, if they piss me off I’ll have to start telling everyone else.

For more on the technologies discussed: wikipedia has some mature articles on FTTP( fiber to the premises) and DWDM (dense wavelength division multiplexing).

@magixman

There a many good examples/arguments here on both sides of the issue, but I think you hit on something when you asked “Does anyone think that the current telco/cable infrastructure could support .. anything you want to watch or listen to anytime you want.?”

I think the unanimous answer here would be No. I’d like to ask, What type of environment is going to get us there faster: markets with monopolies or markets with competition? My guess is competition.

I think the focus of the article is on “government intervention of markets” and “monopolies”. If these types of pay-per-byte services thrive in a competitive markets, fine by me. At least we’ll get competitive pricing.

Another step towards making America a second world nation in the days to come:
http://citadel-of-light.com/20.....from-1770/

p.s.

Bravo Michael, it’s an excellent issue to get behind.

And, I think any Europeans upset with past articles will appreciate a post of this nature.

note: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008.....m-machine/

Come on…who needs start-ups?
1. they are unknown 2. they are unstable 3. they often fail.
Why not trust Time Warner Cable? This big company knows what best for us.
Need more arguments? Not convinced yet? Then listen to Laurence Lessig and convince yourself. http://change-congress.blip.tv/#784007

I think they destroyed AT&T with the changing regulatory landscape. A hot debate is taking place at http://www.Billionairepal.com now among hollywood celebrities and beaitiful people. Many guys said they were super-excited about it~

It isn’t an emotional response, just the question that remains unanswered by the “let ‘em charge what they want to” people– the taxpayers are subsidizing the build-out of the communication infrastructure. This is not being done because we feel that the communications companies need a hand at boosting profits, but because we need to communicate.

So Taxpayer pays communication company for infrastructure improvements to improve his communications and keep pace with his growing communication needs. Communication company happily accepts payment, builds out half what it promised to Taxpayer, then reduces the communications ability of Taxpayer to create a “crisis”, then tells Taxpayer that to alleviate the crisis, Taxpayer has to give them more money for infrastructure improvements.

And you’re okay with this, so I’m very happy for you. Personally, I don’t like it when I get screwed.

And by the way, using phone-over-copper as an example of scarcity is an incorrect assessment as well. I never recall paying by-the-call for landline telephone service. I remember paying for time spent on calls made outside a predetermined area. Distance does not equal scarcity, it equals a business model which balanced the needs of a community to communicate within itself with the needs of the provider to collect revenue.

I think installing a wimax tower using Xo’s LMDS would solve the problem

@josh

I am 100% in favor of free markets as a way to get to on demand media nirvana at the best price. I did not get too worked up about Michaels rant on monopolies because in most markets we have competition between Ma Bell Reinvented and the Cable Guy. It is not all that we could wish for as far as competition is concerned but a bit shy of the pure monopoly us geezers remember that prompted federal action that ultimately benefited everyone.

Man, I can’t wait until GWB is out of office. Having a Monopoly and then using it to raise prices unfairly should be illegal. First, they stop city wifi, now this. IF they do this in addition to shaping traffic it’s totally BS. I need to do some fact checking, but I heard somewhere that never since right before the great depression has there been such a great divide between the rich and the poor. This routine gouging, suing, raping, & everything else that corporate america is doing to innocent working class lower middle class people is getting to the point where its sickening. Customers have been paying a huge price to Time Warner so they could expand their freaking network, not spend a billion dollars on Bebo. Talk about a board that needs ousted. Don’t screw up and then make your customers pay, that goes for any other provider. I’ll drop Time Warner (look me up, 10 year customer) in a heartbeat if this thing goes any further.

@ dang son - don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out clown

Lack of competition aside, I don’t see anything wrong with metered bandwidth. Low-usage subscribers have been stuck subsidizing heavy users so it makes far more economic sense to make people pay for what they eat. Buffets are for food…when you know what the upper-bound for consumption is.

Additionally, carriers no longer have to throttle heavy traffic applications such as bittorrent because usage is aligned with revenue.

@ #5: since when did internet access become an inalienable right? No shit those who pay more should get more bandwidth.

I don’t see what the problem with this is. The lack of competition is a bad thing and should be fixed; however, I think charging for usage is fine.

Competition in a competitive market will force the rates to be reasonable.

Goverment should make sure the markets are competitive NOT determine the business model companies should follow.

This just pisses me off. Not that it will change. Cable companies are always pulling this crap. They control the internet.

I’m an American, but I live in Australia currently, where cap plans are the only thing available, really (if you want fast speeds). My boyfriend and I are with iiNet on a 40/40gb setup. While we’re not reaching that limit, just the fact that we have a limit is annoying.

We’re moving to the States in 2009, and there’s no way we’ll go with a plan that has a metered bandwidth. I hope a lot of people will leave them.

This is a good thing. Far far better than letting them controlling bandwidth with QOS and futzing with network neutrality.

Price hikes like this are very very visible, so people won’t have a hard time switching when they see their bills going up, or at least, clamoring for more options.

Insidious things like giving preference to one search engines traffic over another is *not* visible and people won’t always realize it’s their provider screwing them over, so won’t clamor for better options.

This is great news. I think all providers should be told to do this whenever they whine about network congestion.

Considering bandwidth at the levels they are moving cost about .07 cents a gig to move the 40 gig limit cost them $2.80.

Time Warner Bandwidth Metering is Criminal especially considering that they are a monopoly in many areas.

Time someone sues there ass for an illegal monopoly!!

Same good “old” companies that operate from the perspective of scarcity and just not get it that world is changing. All they are going to achieve is extinction. The innovation, they are hoping to stifle, is going to destroy them.

What kind of crap is this?!? Metered bandwidth is the worst….I have experienced this first-hand in Australia, and it is very restrictive to say the least.

Thats incredible! Here in western europe, the few providers that still have limits are ditched big time by the customers. This is not the way to go for a broadband provider. Where does all the greed come from??

I would actually consider myself to be a heavy user and I don’t know what I would do if I had a 40GB cap. In all honesty I would probably end up using one of my neighbors open Wifi hotspots for some of my browsing and downloading, I don’t think it would hurt them too much but it would definitely keep me from having to be charged another $5-10 per month.

“The goal is to limit average data usage” Doubtful. The goal is to extract more revenue from higher usage customers? Exactly how is this different… than.. um.. anything? Wow, bucketed pricing schemes, that’s some brand new shit! Why aren’t you all bent out of shape that Netflix does this too?
Have you stopped to consider why this is being piloted in Beaumont and not Silicon Valley? Because they want to see how a community more represntive in terms of the rest of the country deals with the billing scheme. What’s likely going to happen if the pilots is a success is that 90%+ of this country won’t blink and you tech geeks will bitch until you have something new to cry about. Like always.
Have you also stopped to consider that a tiered pricing scheme could introduce a price point that would compel a new demographic of users who previously could not afford broadband internet?

Metered internet is how it has been from the beginning in India. For about 500 Indian Rupees(about 13$) per month - one gets around 1.5G upload/download with 2 Mbps speed.. Higher plans let you download/upload more. The unlimited plans are 256-384 kbps only and cost around 900 rupees (23$) per month

I am a Korean, living in Korea. A lot of competition does drive the price low here, but you should also expect a lot of … digging. When they poured money into broadband network construction in the beginning, everyone thought that they were crazy and would go bankrupt. Fortunately, the demand was larger than had been predicted.

I think the fixed vs. variable pricing is a different issue from low vs. high prices. There can be high flat prices and low variable prices. Variable pricing is not always bad. Here in Korea, the reason I have not subscribed to Wibro (similar to Wimax in the US) is that the providers all have fixed monthly pricing. I only want occasional connection when I am outside, which means variable pricing is better for me (unless they charge a high base fee anyway).

And the term “medieval” is in the title because we all know how in the 12th century cable companies used their monopolistic status to restrict Internet access for everyone who wasn’t a king, squire, earl or duke. Right?

Capped plans = less online piracy to these big companys, so its a win for the RIAA and MPAA. Get used to it america every ISP will do this soon.

If I send unrequested packets to Beaumont Texas, the customer has to pay for it right? (Think UDP.) Otherwise, how can the cable company tell what’s unrequested and what’s not.

Therefore, you can now run up someones bill whenever you choose, and the cable company won’t be inclined to help or even believe the customer.

Here in Canada,

for ~38$ USD, I get a download speed of 800 kbits/s and a combined up+dw cap of 2 GBs.

High speed goes for 55$, and is about 10-15 Mbits/s, with a limited dw bandwidth of 20 GBs.

Over either limits, I pay 9$ / GB, with a maximum overpay of something like 40$.

There’s an unlimited bandwidth plan, if I remember well, that goes for about 80-90$.

All these numbers are approximate, I didn’t want to remind myself in detail how crappy canadian companies are on their customers.

I envy the US just getting metered - I live in the UK and we’ve had metered only internet access on virtually every package available - anything not metered is on “Fair Usage” which is essentially a metered package but they don’t tell you the limit.

To get 8Mega Bit Per Second (spelt out so there’s no confusion) on even a cheap ISP with over 200Giga Bytes per month “usage” you have to pay £80 - that’s about $150! It’s crazy expensive. All the UK’s big ISPs charging £15/£20 ($30/$40) give meters around 10/20Giga Bytes. Check http://www.aolbroadband.co.uk/.....p?urlseq=9 for AOL’s package - $60 for 10GigaBytes a month!!

Couple that with our crippling low connections speeds (countrywide average is 4.3MegaBit - I achieve 2.1MegaBit in the second largest town in England) and you should be pleased to have what you’ve got!