ISPs Are Now Forcing Cord Cutters To Subscribe To TV If They Want To Avoid Usage Caps
from the damned-if-you-do dept
We've noted time and time again how broadband usage caps on fixed-line networks are arbitrary, unnecessary, and harm innovation. They're also a useful weapon against streaming video competitors, and the natural evolution of TV competition. Caps can be used to either punish users who try and cut the cord with higher prices, but they also allow ISPs to exempt their own streaming services from said caps (something currently being done by both Verizon and Comcast), thereby giving these services a distinct and unfair advantage in the market.But broadband ISPs are now coming up with a new way of attacking cord cutters: forcing them to subscribe to television if they want to avoid usage caps.
Back in January, AT&T announced that the company would be happy to remove usage caps on its wireless network, but only if you subscribe to DirecTV or U-verse TV service. Then last month, AT&T carried this idea over to its fixed-line broadband network, announcing that it would be imposing new usage caps on its broadband users starting May 23. While AT&T says it will generously allow users to pay $30 more per month to avoid usage caps entirely, it also announced that users who subscribe to its TV services will be able to avoid usage caps entirely.
This month, an Oregon company by the name of Bend Broadband followed suit, informing its users that it would be happy to remove its usage caps (ranging from 150 GB to 500 GB), but only if users subscribe to television service. Bend offers up a misleading explanation for why caps are necessary in the first place in a company FAQ:
"The continued migration of Netflix usage from mailed DVD to Internet streaming/download, as well as other data intensive uses of the Internet, are impacting all providers of high-speed Internet service. While we certainly acknowledge and appreciate that content rich services like Netflix make our high-speed offering more valuable to the end user, the volume of data associated with this content drives significant incremental investment in the network and the need to purchase more bandwidth in order to maintain the user experience and this must be funded."Right, but that's bullshit. U.S. residents already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world; money that any earnings report will clearly illustrate is more than enough to offset what at this point is only modest network upgrades. As one cable CEO recently noted, most of the heavy investment is over, and the name of the game now is milking these uncompetitive markets for all they're worth until either broadband competition magically sprouts from the ether, or regulators wake up from a deep slumber and shut down the price gouging party.
Usage caps on fixed-line networks are nothing more than rate hikes on uncompetitive markets, and anybody claiming otherwise either has been swindled by a good salesman, or is selling you something themselves.
There's absolutely nothing good about this trend. ISPs are using a lack of competition in the broadband space to impose usage caps. They're then using caps to force subscribers to sign up for TV services they may or may not actually want. It's a mammoth, misleading and anti-competitive abuse of two markets simultaneously, all sold to consumers under the lie that ISPs need even more revenue to keep funding unprecedented investment and innovation. In reality, the entire push may just be one of the largest cons ever perpetrated on consumers in the modern communications era.
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, bundling, cord cutting, data caps, isps, tv, tying, usage caps
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What they are actually saying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawsuit time
Since almost every Cellular and Internet provider are going this way, I think it's time we urge our State and Federal AGs to go after them via the Rico act.
Extortion is as extortion does, and this is just plain extortion.
Either you pay us for something you don't want, which will cost you a mega-bundle, or we'll charge you a not-so-mega-bundle for not charging you the mega-bundle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AT&T Uverse Doing it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's the price difference?
If the bundled TV costs more, then the cable companies are attempting to penalize its customers even more than they originally planned.
Sounds like a "fuck you" to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The wrong person
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuit time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The wrong person
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How does data compare?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lawsuit time
Finding the names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of the senior officers and board of directors of those companies and making them public so that "we the people" can make our "displeasure" clear to them might be one way.
If they start receiving thousands of e-mails and phone calls stating something simple like "We are against your 'usage caps policy' and will continue to call and e-mail until that policy is changed."
As long as no one gets verbally abusive, and they remain polite on the calls, while a nuisance, I can't believe that the police are going to hunt down every person making the calls / sending the e-mails.
We could also all reach out to our congress-critters both state and federal levels to let them know of our displeasure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The wrong person
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How does data compare?
If the cable box isn't smart enough to send a "stop" signal to the local distribution hub, it could be receiving the datastream 24x7, which would be a rather large amount of data, even with compression.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monopoly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How does data compare?
However, the real issue is cord cutting, and unless the ISPs start insisting on a quota of viewing of their channels, the viewer figures will drop, along with the value to the advertisers, even if they keep up the subscription numbers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not bullshit. You are conflating two things:
1) There is not enough competition, there is monopoly or duopoly, so ISPs abuse that power to charge high rents. That's also true.
2) More data traffic does not cost more money for the ISP. That's false.
The problem, as always, is just #1. US customers pay too much regardless of caps, and we do so because of a lack of viable competition.
Caps, by themselves, are not wrong. They are just a part of the service offering limiting how many trips you can make to the buffet table. If ISPs want to impose them, that's just their right as they design and shape their product.
When Taco Bell sells you a 12oz drink to go for $1...it could have been 16oz, or it could have been unlimited fountain drinks. The fact that they offered just 12oz at a buck is a cap, and it's not unfair. It's just the shape of that product offering.
What I'm saying here is very unpopular on this site, but be sure to understand me correctly:
a) YES, many ISPs are using caps in an anti-competitive way, to reduce the viability of competing video services that run OTT. This is wrong, an monopoly issue, and fodder for the FTC.
b) There is nothing inherently wrong with caps, and they even have a fundamental fairness and logic to them, in that: customers that use more should pay more, and should fund the next round of capacity investment.
c) Of course consumers, and Techdirt readers, don't like caps. Who wants a limit applied to them. But the discussion isn't about what we want or feel. It's about economics and policy.
d) Yes, caps limit innovation. But so does any resource that is not infinite. Bandwidth is NOT infinite, so the fact that a scarce resource constrains innovation is the correct outcome. It is not the only such limit. Things like Human Resources, money, waking hours, and available technology ALSO limit innovation. Doesn't make it wrong. In fact, much the opposite, treating a scarce resource as "free" would result in the wrong economic allocations.
e) I agree 100% with Karl that the ISP that caps traffic should not be allowed to exempt their own content from that cap. This is clearly an unfair monopoly practice of service-tying.
f) I agree that more competition would reduce the use of caps. More competition is needed.
g) Stop hating on caps. Start hating on any anti-competition use of caps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
RF spectrum is limited by the laws of physics and the laws of man. You can't create more of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How does data compare?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's No Bullshit
--Bend Broadband
"Right, but that's bullshit. U.S. residents already pay some of the highest prices for broadband in the developed world; money that any earnings report will clearly illustrate is more than enough to offset what at this point is only modest network upgrades"
-- Karl
It's not bullshit. You are conflating two things:
1) There is not enough competition, there is monopoly or duopoly, so ISPs abuse that power to charge high rents. That's also true.
2) More data traffic does not cost more money for the ISP. That's false. There are annual billions spent on infrastructure upgrades, equipment upgrades (CapEx), and truck rolls, energy use, network payments to Tier 1 carriers, staffing, maintenance (OpEx). The amounts spent are related to the amount of data traffic the network carries. MORE TRAFFIC COSTS MORE.
The problem you're feeling, as always, is just #1. US customers pay too much regardless of caps, and we do so because of a lack of viable competition.
Caps, by themselves, are not wrong. They are just a part of the service offering limiting how many trips you can make to the buffet table. If ISPs want to impose them, that's just their right as they design and shape their product.
When Taco Bell sells you a 12oz drink to go for $1...it could have been 16oz, or it could have been unlimited fountain drinks. The fact that they offered just 12oz at a buck is a cap, and it's not unfair. It's just the shape of that product offering.
What I'm saying here is very unpopular on this site, but be sure to understand me correctly:
a) YES, many ISPs are using caps in an anti-competitive way, to reduce the viability of competing video services that run OTT. This is wrong, an monopoly issue, and fodder for the FTC.
b) There is nothing inherently wrong with caps, and they even have a fundamental fairness and logic to them, in that: customers that use more should pay more, and should fund the next round of capacity investment.
c) Of course consumers, and Techdirt readers, don't like caps. Who wants a limit applied to them. But the discussion isn't about what we want or feel. It's about economics and policy.
d) Yes, caps limit innovation. But so does any resource that is not infinite. Bandwidth is NOT infinite, so the fact that a scarce resource constrains innovation is the correct outcome. It is not the only such limit. Things like Human Resources, money, waking hours, and available technology ALSO limit innovation. Doesn't make it wrong. In fact, much the opposite, treating a scarce resource as "free" would result in the wrong economic allocations.
e) I agree 100% with Karl that the ISP that caps traffic should not be allowed to exempt their own content from that cap. This is clearly an unfair monopoly practice of service-tying.
f) I agree that more competition would reduce the use of caps. More competition is needed.
g) Stop hating on caps. Start hating on any anti-competition use of caps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Distinction without a difference.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's No Bullshit
Mostly bullshit.
Infrastructure upgrades is partly driven by demand for the Internet, but is also part of providing a service.
As for the rest:
Regular equipment replacement, which automatically upgrades the equipment due the the way electronics develops, is part of the operating costs, and independent of data usage.
Low power electronics consumes the same power whether is is idle or carrying traffic. and newer equipment uses less power.
most truck rolls are due to weather events, backhoe incidents, and vehicles hitting poles, and so have no relationship to the amount of data being carried.
If the usual peering arrangements apply, the ISPs are not charged for excess data delivered to them, but rather the originator bears the cost. Further content delivery networks greatly reduce the traffic on, and costs of tier one network usage.
Further, as the the "we will not charge you extra if you subscribe to cable" shows, they are more worried about their legacy cable business than the actual cost of providing Internet services.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AT&T is not meeting the FCC definitions of broadband. They have over valued their service and it is not worth the price they are demanding to continue service with them.
I will change to another ISP and tell AT&T where they can put it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Monopoly
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Comcast caps
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The wrong person - thought police
What of authors and movies in which the story portrays such an act? Are they held accountable if someone commits the acts mentioned in the book or movie?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I just got this in the mail
I got a notice from AT&T UVerse that I am getting the Unlimited Usage for free, because I have the TV Plan (A $30 value!)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone hit by this needs to contact their States AG
Multiply each by (( 60 * 60 * 24 ) / 8 ), and that's how much "bandwidth" you've paid for.
Anything less than that is breach of contract.
Everyone knows that you'll never hit that number constantly, but it gives a good number to compare to.
Usage caps below this number illegally limit the service you've paid for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Those regulators are on the ISP payroll. No telling how any checks they get in the mail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Time to share the account with the neighbours
In the past we got email, ftp, news and other services on top of the internet access. With gmail, yahoo or startmail, the only thing needed from the ISP is the connectivity.
Time to share the account with two or three neighbours!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My real problem is that I don't own a TV set. I have 5 PCs but no TV. Don't need one, don't want one. When I had cable TV service I used it on average once or twice per month. Figured it was an unnecessary expense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Time to share the account with the neighbours
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How does data compare?
TL;DR: they're trying to increase profits because they can, and watching internet "outside" data actually INCREASES their net costs.
A) Anything that lets them earn more profit is good. Raising prices or bundling does that, as long as the costs for any new thing doesn't exceed the updated price. (And if so, just raise the selling price.) Alternatively, holding prices steady while cutting costs works as long as everyone puts up with it.
THAT is the primary crux of their argument. We'll make you buy more and pay more, period. Whatever it is doesn't matter.
B) NOW to the interesting part. I'll pick on Hulu and Netflix and the Duggars but the comparison is the exact same for literally ANYONE.
Let's start a isolated home network. Poof, you have computers, routers and (virtual?) cabling connecting everything. The computers can share data between the others, or not. Bandwidth is "free", after you've spent the money to buy and install the cables and routers -- ignoring depreciation/replacement, insurance, and power costs. (Lightening strikes happen, and utilities aren't free. But they're fairly stable and cheap, so let's call these operating costs free. Equipment costs are $HARDWARE/(3*12) or maybe 5*12.)
Let's assume we're the Duggar family with 24 kids. Each has an hour a day to use their separate computer (and thus the network.) A nice, steady bandwidth load that matches just what we've installed.
Now let's bring up a media server -- http://plex.tv (Or Emby. Or Kodi, or MediaPortal / Myth / whatever.) Rip your legally purchased DVD/BRs and place the files on a server (and go to jail because that's highly naughty, you bad pirate!) and now you have more to share besides cooperatively editing homework files between adjacent rooms. The kids start watching cartoons an hour a day. Server space for the DVD files increases, network load increases. But it's all good and quite manageable.
Now you have upgrade growth costs when the kid in the bedroom completely saturates the link to a computer every day. More capital investment in more computers, routers, and wires, and management and maintenance. (But he's only supposed to be watching TV an hour a day, not all 24! He's using 24 people slots, the slacker! Spankings for you!)
So I have to upgrade my equipment because my kids (customers) are using more than their fair share. If they *all* do, then instead of 24 hour-slots I now have 24x 24 hour-slots. Damn kids, they're not supposed to be using computers while they sleep, only while they're awake and physically ON the computer. (When I originally said "Unlimited Usage" I meant YOU, not your COMPUTER. You're supposed to just know what I meant, even if I change the terms long after the fact.)
But it's still all manageable. You let bandwidth increase and overload until they kids gripe enough, and then you buy more routers, cables, and servers if necessary. Oh, and more DVDs too. Don't forget you have to provide that media from somewhere -- it costs and takes time to purchase, convert, and so does adding storage space.
As a matter of fact, that's just SO MUCH of a hassle that you decide to outsource it. You add a special computer connected to a satellite receiver dish that can receive (and then broadcast on your local network) movies that someone else has encoded for you. Heck, they can even start sending real-time video down that pipe that your kids can watch.
Everyone's happy. The kids are using their computers 1-24 hours a day, network load is manageable with a few peaks now-and-then, your local Plex media server is supplying movies while the dish receiver is feeding the Plex server movies as well as handling real-time shows.
THIS configuration is IMPORTANT. Notice you have a CLOSED NETWORK: the users can only receive what they themselves can provide AND the media sources that YOU provide. Costs are controlled by what you store on the media server and the dish (what you purchase from your media provider.)
In particular, notice you're watching a show (ie, copying a file) with a specific size (ignore stuff hat changes the size/quality during transmission) that comes from plex/dish over the wires through the routers to your computer. THAT'S A KNOWN STATIC COST: the purchase of the actual media and the operating costs of running the network. Power isn't $0, and capital certainly isn't $0 either -- buy they're amortized and mostly fixed.
(Gee, this sounds like Cable-TV 30-odd years ago. I wonder why?)
Now on to the Hulu/Netflix stuff: let's take our Duggar 24-user home network and add a second router that now goes to: the Internet.
You're paying for that new outside connection either by: $/byte, or flat fee unlimited usage or ... peering.
What?!? WTH is PEERING?!!? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=internet+peering) In a nutshell: it's a gentleman's agreement between big regional internet companies that let's THEM swap data back and forth.
Why is that important? Because "The Internet" and "The Cloud" doesn't actually exist -- it's just a bunch of independent big, medium, small, and tiny parts all working together, all owned by independent entities.
(The names below have been changed to protect the guilty.)
If you're physically in NY watching a movie physically located in LA, your PC connects to your (tiny) home network to your ISPs router, which then sends data from your small (suburb) ISP to it's medium regional (state) provider, which sends your data to IT'S upstream big provider (time zone). Now, this big provider talks to systems within it's own EST timezone. But there's a large pipe between EST and CST, and CST and MST, and MST and PST, and LA's located in PST.
So the four large timezone providers got together and all agreed: You know what? We all have a whole bunch of data running around. We all talk to each other all of the time. These humongous monthly bills we keep sending and paying to each other is ridiculous. I pay you a heap of money, then you turn around and pay most of it right back to me.
SCREW this monthly billing money sloshing around, we're tired of it. Everyone keep track of what you send and receive to everyone (Remember, there are only 4 of them in this example, and EST doesn't touch PST. So it's not hard to figure out what goes where: as a provider, if it comes in either I keep it myself or pass it on.) SO: once a month, they all get together, compare and subtract their numbers, and THEN pay for what they've truly used. If EST and CST both ship 5 PB between them, they call it even. If CST ships 1 PB more to MST than it does, MST bills CST for 1 PB of actual usage.
Makes sense? The big-a$$ providers, who swap data between themselves all day long, have a THIRD way of paying for their usage. Even though they might be sending Petabytes of data per second, as long as they receive the same amount from the same source they just call it even.
(Up until a year ago, the Duggars could probably enter a peering group on their own recognizance. Not anymore though. Oops -- fame is so short-lived.)
Back to the Duggar's net internet link.
Let's watch a brand new show: "Forget About the President: The Stupidest People in Congress Talk to Their Even Stupider Electorates." It's an hour long with 535 episodes, each one taking exactly 1 hour and 1 GB of space and bandwidth.
If it comes in over the dish link, we're just paying known standard media and transmission fees, and each computer receives exactly 1 GB of show over our internal network.
If we've stored it on our media server, we've paid to receive the show and have to pay for the physical storage to store it. (And this media server, Plex or whatever, allows us to watch Video On our computers whenever we want or even on ... Demand. Gee, does a Video On Demand service sound familiar within an ISP?)
But notice that actually watching the show uses 1 GB over the internal routers and network while payment for the media is done once and is effectively "free" from then on (And then maybe a yearly charge for longer access for popular shows -- shades of movies Net and Leaving Netflix anyone?)
Notice that bandwidth cost ISN'T free -- $0 -- but it's mostly a static cost. More hardware = more capital tied up = more installation charges = more bandwidth cost, but it's still mostly a static cost. You provision up to the average load, and allocate more when necessary / tired of complaints about sluggishness. Or, maybe not.
AND NOW COMES THE FUN PART: LET'S WATCH HULU. (You've been waiting for this, haven't you -- right? Anyone still here? Hello???)
Same show, same 1 GB size. But notice the route: suddenly we're hitting that new Internet router. HEY WAIT! They're BILLING us for that! The more we use the more they want to bill. What, do they think we're made of money? And even worse: it's not even a static bill -- it changes over the amount people watch.
So now I'm PAYING for a service that I provide (you can watch the show on my server, if it's still there, that is) and I'm not even getting anything out of it. Any payment there goes to Hulu -- NONE of that goes to me, and I'm even PAYING for them to access it. That's not right; that's just not right. Hulu is completely ripping me off -- and my kids/customers? They're not giving me any money either, they want bandwidth to support this thing. And they tell their siblings, and now THEY want even more bandwidth. Ungrateful whelps.
Let's put that exact show on Netflix. And the exact same thing happens, they're absolutely no change to anything except that the name on the outgoing check still isn't to *ME*, the one that provides all of their bandwidth.
Netflix, though, in the past tried to be a good neighbor. Netflix, at their own expense for a large enough provider, will set up and remotely manage a Netflix media server: one that holds tens of thousands of movies. There's still some internet access -- Netflix has to update the movies there somehow -- but it's only once per show, not one per time. The people (and computers) watching shows on Netflix talk to this box if possible, and fail back to Internet-Netflix if the show isn't available.
So our 1 GB Politician show now runs over our local network again. Netflix is using our internet bandwidth to update their boxes, the users are using our internet bandwidth to watch non-popular shows, everyone's ALWAYS using our internal bandwidth, and we might not be making any money on this Netflix deal but we're not losing it as much as over Hulu, who ALWAYS goes out and accesses The Internet.
So: Netflix mostly only uses the ISPs internal bandwidth while Hulu always uses The Internet and forces egress charges.
So in summary for watching our special 1G show: A 1GB show ... is a 1GB show ... is a 1GB show.
As long as the data is stored (sourced) somewhere on our internal network, the cost to us is effectively $0. And you pay for access!
Netflix, even though it's on our internal network, uses our internal bandwidth, some of our internet bandwidth and doesn't bother to pay us anything -- the losers!
Hulu ISN'T on our internal network and forces an Internet egress charge on every show that gets watched. Not only are they not paying us money, they're effectively CHARGING us for the privilege. Same with YouTube. Gaaa! THIEVES, ALL OF YOU!!
The Internet is only to be used for blogs and emails and Facebook. Something nice and small and not-heavily used, with text and static pictures even better.
High bandwidth things like movies need to be locally sourced and stay only on our internal networks and not egress outbound that costs money.
Anything that costs us money is bad if it doesn't have a corresponding profit source. We've worked hard for our monopolies, and any high-bandwidth thing actually located on the real internet is costing us money. Even Netflix, located ON our internal network, is costing us money by using our local bandwidth by not paying us for the privilege.
Sigh ... so how can we keep the users from internet egress? USAGE CAPS!
We can't make the internet media companies pay us to support access to them, so we'll make the users do so in their stead. If they want to go outside our network and NOT use our local services, they'll pay us for the privilege to do so. We charge more than it costs, so that's all good.
And if we can coerce them to purchase a bundled plan, we're now providing a extra service and of course can charge more. After all, the original cost of the system, while expensive, is negligible; the media costs, while expensive, are static. The only wild cards are internet media usage which use our internal bandwidth for free and even make us pay for egress access to their media.
Now, **THAT** is exactly why 1GB "network-local" HDTV is not 1GB HDTV from (10% egress) Netflix or not 1GB HDTV from (100% egress) Hulu.
You thief. Quit stealing our precious internet bandwidth and pay us more for the privilege, why don't you already?
And this is why "Net Neutrality" is doomed: internet egress will never be "neutral" since it costs them money while providing absolutely 0 revenue in return. Hell, except for a mandatory bullet point ("We're the internet") it's probably negative revenue.
"We never stop working for you" -- sorry, I meant to say stop thinking up ways to charge more and provide less. Netflix in CA? Sorry, too many users, that's all bottlenecked at egress points. Never mind that Netflix wants to install hardware solutions for free.
"Thank you for your business; your call is very important to us, please hold" -- that's why don't hire enough call-center workers and waste your time: because you put up with it.
I'm a Plex user, but that's as far as it goes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Time to share the account with the neighbours
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FWIW, I'm an engineer, I design, build and test networking equipment. I've also done plenty of IT projects.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If a tower lacks the backhaul to support a fast connection then it is reasonable that users would be throttled or experience some QoS management. Most people can accept that. The problem is that users are also being (over)billed and/or throttled based on Total amounts of data transmitted, which has nothing to do with congestion.
Caps on wired connections is even more criminal. Past the capital costs of making the actual connections and maintaining equipment there is almost no difference between the costs of a heavy user and someone who checks their email weekly. Data is not a limited resource like electricity or water.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuit time
My service isn't subject to a data cap (yet), but I would love to see a class action lawsuit against big ISPs and against the municipalities that grant them exclusive access.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's No Bullshit
Peering is just for Tier 1 to Tier 1 carriers.
Smaller carriers, like Bend, must pay the Tier 1.
Since traffic demand per customer keeps growing year after year, it DOES cost annual money to continue meeting that demand.
My argument is those that consume significantly more traffic should pay somewhat more than those that consume the norm or less.
"Further, as the the "we will not charge you extra if you subscribe to cable" shows, they are more worried about their legacy cable business than the actual cost of providing Internet services."
Yes, but like Karl, you're now conflating two things. The caps themselves are not evil. They are being used anti-competitively. It's like a 2x4 board. It's not evil. It holds up my house. But if you hit me on the head with it, I perceive it as bad. Really, though, the problem is you hitting me on the head, the board is neutral. Our US problem is that, due to the state of competition, most of our exposure to caps is when the ISPs hit us on the head with them. This is why you and Karl misinterpret the cap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The problem with your perception is that in the US, caps are pretty much ONLY used anti-competitively. That's to be expected, since we have too little competition.
Caps are not anti-competitive. They are part of a service offering. In the US, all fast food chains let you fill and refill your soda cup. If Taco Bell offered caps on their drinks of one fill-up per cup, is that anti-competitive? No. But, you might go to Burger King instead. So the cap is just part of their offering. The only difference is that the customer has options.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's No Bullshit
Also, due to content delivery networks, the demand for tier one use does not scale with increasing demand for streaming video.
These offers are purely an attempt to protect their cable subscription number. However, when people subscribe but ignore the cable service, just to get the unlimited Internet data, the Nielsen rating for show will drop, which impacts their adversing revenue. What will they do then, require a minimum number of hours a day of cable viewing to qualify for unlimited Internet data?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lawsuit time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mandatory TV
1. I don't own a TV set, so I have to buy one, and something for it to sit on.
2. I have a free ISP-supplied cable modem, but no "set-top box", which I must rent from them.
Gonna take a long time to amortize those costs against the "savings"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There is nothing inherently wrong with caps
Caps are implemented in one of two ways. Either surprise overage billing, or throttling. Both cases cause market uncertainty for the end user. The end user never really knows when it is time to upgrade until it is too late, and their business may be harmed as result. Add the fact that a request for upgraded service is as likely to result in an outage as a successful upgrade, and you start to see why customers are so pissed off.
Usage capping is shitty customer service. Period.
Competently run networks don't need it. The cable cabal is already switching at layer 4, (yet another dick move) so it isn't like they don't already have equipment in place that COULD run more user friendly QOS strategy. Though it would be less privacy intrusive, and cheaper to do this at lower OSI layers. This has been true for many years now.
Network management is about improving reliability and performance. Usage capping is just going out of your way to fuck people for an extra nickle. If there was competition in these markets, they wouldn't do it. And that is how you know that usage capping is an anti-trust activity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I think Karl is competent enough that at least HE should make the distinction, yet I don't think he agrees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's No Bullshit
You are correct. Caps are a blunt tool. They are an over-simplified method of demand management, and they don't directly address the peak load problem.
But they do indirectly address it. And the alternative, that ISPs give you complicated windows of time when you have different traffic allocations is...too complicated, and consumers would reject it.
So, the blunt tool is what is used because customers will tolerate it, but would not tolerate the more precise management of demand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's No Bullshit
There are better ways of handling the peak load problem via QOS management of capacity given to heavy users, and/or video streams. However from the story:-
Which makes it clear that network congestion is NOT the problem they are trying to solve, but rather the loss of cable subscriptions to streaming services, especially when wireless caps are removed if someone subscribes to a cable service. Given what the companies are offering, it looks very much like you are using abstract arguments to justify a blatant manipulation of a market.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's No Bullshit
I've been extremely* clear that I agree with that point. So, no, I'm not "using abstract arguments to justify a blatant manipulation of a market."
But this point does not mean that caps are bad. Just that they are a tool that's being used anti-competitively in this case.
*See point 1) and point a) in my original comment, where I VERY specifically not that it is market manipulation. I mean, come on! I wrote it at the top of each fucking list!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It is fair and logical that a few should fund what the many will reap.
It is fair and logical to slow down your speed, creating congestion by keeping data in the pipe longer, when you choose a lower data plan.
It is fair and logical that these companies have billions of dollars to acquire other companies. Obviously they can already hardly cover expenses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
programvb.com
http://www.programvb.com/2017/03/Channel-Frequency-alhafez-TV.html
http://www.programvb.com/2017/0 3/channel-frequency-daleel-tv.html
http://www.programvb.com/2017/03/channel-frequency-tarteel-tv.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]