If You're Going To Meter Or Cap Broadband, Shouldn't You Provide A Meter?
from the where's-the-problem? dept
With various ISPs implementing forms of capped or metered broadband, you would think it would be standard (if not required) that they also provide consumers with the tools to measure their consumption. Otherwise it seems a bit unfair to say you can only use x amount, but you have no way to know when you've actually done so. But, it seems that hasn't really stopped various ISPs. News.com is noticing that despite capping broadband connections at 250 gigs/month for many months (and rumors and screenshots of it), Comcast still refuses to deliver a broadband monitoring solution for users. If that's the case, it makes you wonder how accurate/reliable its own internal monitors are, and how it can guarantee that users actually get the 250 gigs they're promised. Perhaps I'm missing something, but is it really that difficult to measure broadband usage? If so, that would seem to be yet another reason that ISPs might want to stay away from metered broadband: the cost of developing a system to actually track it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, broadband caps, metered broadband
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://humdi.net/vnstat/
A bit old, but if like pretty picture view:
http://www.sqweek.com/sqweek/index.php?p=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they are full of it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they are full of it
Mike and I disagree about caps, but I'm certainly on board that ISPs can't effectively use a cap without an excellent "odometer", and should also include outbound messages when thresholds are crossed (50%, 80%, 90%).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gve you a meter ?
If you knew that your cap was about to be exceeded, you might just stop using the damn thing and then the poor ISP would be out the stupid overage fee.
It is not unlike the bank fees and all the silliness that goes along with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gve you a meter ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gve you a meter ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gve you a meter ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gve you a meter ?
I like to call it the corporate raping of America, but that's just me :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To put it another way, Comcast uses this illusory "cap" merely as a means to get rid of users they no longer want to serve.
The wireless companies are lucky. The "own" their networks so they can limit any service they don't like. But ISPs such as Comcast are forced by tradition to carry everything the net has to offer, including services that directly compete with their services. This is just their attempt at leveling the playing field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As mentioned, Australia has it. Bell in Canada has it. Comcast may have other reasons not to have it, but their issues aren't a reason for all over ISPs to back away from capping bandwidth.
Sort of like finding one house with a leaky pipe so the rest of us should live without water for the rest of our lives.
Mike, you never cease to amaze me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's plenty of reasons not to cap and meter broadband, what Mike's saying in this article is that if you're going to do it you should give something to the consumers of your service to monitor their own usage.
Also, your analogy is flawed because unlike water, a world without capped and metered broadband would be a much brighter place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All that is being said is that if you are going to cap usage - you better offer a way to monitor usage. If you are not going to offer a way to monitor - it's probably a bad idea to cap.
But no - the water companies in your world can cap your water usage, but not offer you a way to know how much water you have used - NICE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What didn't he check? Does Comcast cap bandwidth? Does Comcast offer a bandwith monitor so capped users can see how much bandwith they have used? THAT is the story - not some snarky comeback that is contrary for contrary's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Where am I missing what you're after? Or are you truly just trolling? I believe the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"that would seem to be yet another reason that ISPs might want to stay away from metered broadband: the cost of developing a system to actually track it."
It's wrong on many levels. First, there are plenty of ISPs with metering systems. Second, Mike hates capped internet usage (it goes against his "FREE!" view of the universe), and third, the issues of Comcast should in no way stop other companies from doing what they see as right.
It is a massively overreaching conclusion, one drawn only to support Mike's large universe view, not to impart any useful information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As the others have written, comcast has a cap, caps should come with a good meter. That's the bulk of the article, and not even you are debating it. Butchers who charge by the pound should have a scale in the shop...not so radical.
His last sentence is not the crux of his article. Mike is merely tying it onto some ongoing arguments he makes. He says that there appears to be a cost to the project of implementing meters. He then makes the minuscule leap of logic to the fact that this cost counts against any benefits. Why can't you make that tiny leap?
It's simple cost/benefit analysis.
There is one blatantly wrong, self-contained falsehood in this thread, and it's yours:
"Comcast may have other reasons not to have it, but their issues aren't a reason for all over ISPs to back away from capping bandwidth."
Well, as a guy who works with telecom carriers, let me assure you that sentence is wrong. Every ISP looks at their competitors to learn lessons. I get paid to help them to it. If Comcast has reasons not to have caps, ALL the other ISPs want to know as much as they can about those reasons, and how they relate to their business. If "a reason not to have it" is found at Comcast, then it usually IS "a reason for all other ISPs to back away". It won't be the only factor in their decision, but it will be one.
Do you not know the concept of cost/benefit analysis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more water!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should invest in more streets, than in traffic cops
Shouldn't be hard to implement. But if the broadband companies had to spend $50.00 to replace all the cable modems, DSL modems and similar hardware currently in service, wouldn't it make more sense to invest that into building out infrastructure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They should invest in more streets, than in traffic cops
The bottom line is, this is about money. Whether it be financing the application to provide the statistics or simply wanting to charge overage fees. There is no reason they can not. Simply, they will or have not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They should invest in more streets, than in traffic cops
- meter each user
- get that data into a telco-grade database
- develop a real-time database update data feed from meters
- develop systems that trigger actions at certain events like overage
- change marketing
- develop web pages for user self-support
- develop notification systems like email and SMS
- get an SMS partner to deliver messages
- have a call center trained to handle inquiries, remediation
- have a system to implement repercussions, like throttling
- integrate all of this
This is a real project, and not trivial. It costs money, it takes time. It is, however, the kind of things that ISPs, telcos, and MSOs do (in their slow, plodding manner). What is actually more likely to happen is that most of them will carry on stumbling as they are, until a nimble vendor (billing company, throttling company, etc.) sells them on a complete solution. Then they'll skip to the integration step.
In short, it's totally doable, it's not prohibitively expensive, but don't expect turtles to move like hares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small Claims Court
Sue them in small claims court for the max allowed.
When many people do it, it will make news and it might get their attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am a ComCast User
If they are not trying to MAKE you go over the limit, I don't know what they are doing....
F'in B A S tards..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOWN with broadband caps!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The caps themselves are a ridiculous idea, but imposing extra fees/restrictions without letting you know much you have used in the first place should be criminal.
BTW, in Australia, we generally get the option of internet shaping OR excess fees, depending on how much we value the fast speed - is that so in the US as well? or is it only fees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I used to run out of gas ALL the time, then I got cautious and just use the trip odometer, reset each fillup. I now know my range is 120 miles riding + as far as I am willing to walk after that.
A normal gas tank meter gives lots of useful information through all levels in the tank. Honda's stupid light is almost useless: it tells me, suddenly, that I'm out of gas and desperately need more NOW. And even that light is better than what Comcast offers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bottom line, a PC-based meter can't be assumed to have measured all of the traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Router Bandwidth Monitor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nah, just means no seeds for you suckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know, it's not like you're 3000 miles apart from the Yahoo Yahoo boys of Lagos. Tell them I said "Phflllt!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You ZA people tend to hit a lot of the same sites we Americans hit, served from...America. A very high percentage of your traffic travels overseas.
However, you don't have a lot of undersea fiber to connect you, so the big ZA ISPs must use satellite to pull in the foreign content. That's expensive, even with lots of local caching. Your ISPs, thus, can't offer unlimited because they don't have unlimited wholesale deals.
And that's why your caps come with good notification systems, because your ISPs have had some time to develop and integrate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast doesn't want it's customers to know...
Comcast is not interested in providing a service. What Comcast wants is as much money as they can squeeze out of a customer, even if it will cost them that customer's business.
I know, that doesn't make any sense. However, there are people who do not have a choice. Outside major metropolitan areas, most small towns have only one choice for cable. DSL may or may not be available. Worse off, in some major cities, collusive agreements between cable providers prevent actual competition between said providers except in areas of new home & commercial construction. Even then, in some areas it's already been divided up as to who gets what.
At any rate, with what amounts to a hostage market, it should be no surprise that Comcast treats its customers shoddily and fights municipal ISPs tooth and nail.
Microsoft is not the evil empire, it's Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is simple. The FCC just needs to require that any ISP that caps bandwidth has a real-time tool for customers to check their usage. It's not really that outrageous of an expectation. Same goes for traffic shaping. If an ISP is going to dump my packets, it should be able to tell me when and which packets are getting dumped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only 250gigs.
250gig cap. You don't want to know the digusting things I would do to have such a data cap in my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only 250gigs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You already have a meter
Admittedly a power outage or device reset loses the numbers. Most users have a reasonably consistent profile over time so it should not be too hard to estimate a general value.
The advantage of this is that it is YOUR meter so you can trust the results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think they offer DSL.
You do realize that they are a cable company right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BW Meters
Most Major Canadian ISPs have BW Meters for their customers: Bell, Shaw (I believe), Telus, and Cogeco. The only one that your customer can't see on their own without jumping through 50 hoops is Rogers.
Give the guy a break, he (or someone he knows) probably got tagged with an over-use charge and couldn't find out what happened :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do people hit that cap ?
"despite capping broadband connections at 250 gigs/month"
Poor dears. I have a 35Gb/month cap, and that's considered large to most people I know near me in Australia. I don't often go near it but there are times I do.
To keep on topic though, the ISP should provide some form of monitoring tool. My ISP (iiNet) provide a sweet set of tools for managing your account and viewing usage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do people hit that cap ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close...
just get out of the ISP business altogether?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meters
It's a good idea, but you're inconsistent if you don't also monitor those other meters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meters
Yah, I know a guy who tried that with his electrical power meter. His meter showed that he used a lot less electricity than the power company's meter, but they still charged him based on their meter. They even replaced the meter a couple of times, but it didn't make any difference. Long story short: Eventually, they told him they were going to cut him off if he didn't pay up. Can you imagine that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is a web based free meter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you agree to a fee
Late fees, overdraft fees, insufficient fund fee, maintenance fee, exceeding cap fee, convenience fee, downgrade fee, early termination fee, in activity fee, unpublished phone number fee, check bag fee, print ticket at home fee, restocking fee, fee for including a safe in your hotel room, etc. By the way, in reading this text, you have just agreed to pay me a reading fee of twenty five cents. Thank you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few corrections
2. How can Comcast easily beter broadband? Push an update to all modems (simple) that enables SNMP and sends the data back to Comcast. Done.
3. In reality, 250GB is just an arbitrary limit that Comcast equates to "a lot of data". From what I've heard/seen, they're only going to cut a customer off if they're downloading/uploading enough to congest the network for everyone else. So at that point Comcast has the choice to cut the person off, or upgrade their infrastructure, or make the customer move to a business plan whete a higher payment means Comcast can invest more into their infrastructure.
4. Want to measure your own usage? Grab a router compatible with DD-WRT or tomato, install it and there you go. Any Linksys WRT54-series router (G, G2, GS, GS2) can support the firmware, as can some of their higher-end routers (like my WRT310N) and routers of other manufacturers (for example the Dell TrueMobile 2300 if you can believe that). So you can go ahead and monitor your own usage.
I don't like caps and overages (or service cutoffs; we don't have after-overage throttling in the US for wireline carriers) more than the next guy, however people need to get their facts straight. Comcats's 250GB "soft cap" is to my knowledge the most liberal one in the residential ISP field for companies who do cap usage. If you don't like the cap, $60 per month will buy you a business-class connection at their lower tier (6/1 or 12/2 depending on the area) and you're good to go.
I have Comcast in Colorado and it works fine. I use TWC (no caps yet, thankfully) in Texas and it works fine. I use a wireless ISP in Texas, with a 25GB cap...I haven't hit that cap in a long time since the internet is pretty crappy to begin with. If I had a 250GB cap on the wireless connection, I'd be on a higher speed tier and download more, but they don't offer that. So I do all my downloading in town, where the tubes are clear...yay adaptation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Just Don't Want To
The mistake you seem to be making is that of making an unfounded assumption.
You seem to be assuming that because Comcast is not providing the information that it is difficult to do so. Having experience as an engineer in this area, I would say that it would be very easy to do. So, if Comcast isn't, then I'd say that it's likely just because they don't *want* to.
If so, that would seem to be yet another reason that ISPs might want to stay away from metered broadband: the cost of developing a system to actually track it.
That's a conclusion based your previous faulty assumption of Comcast's motivations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Caps?
So be happy with 250Gigs for a monthly cap I say.
http://www.nwtel.ca/personal/internet/cable/cable-ultra/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No smoke here!
http://www.nwtel.ca/personal/internet/cable/cable-ultra/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No smoke here!
http://www.nwtel.ca/personal/internet/cable/cable-ultra/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]