Usage limits
P. Thompson
If and when RR implements this on a widespread basis the various
malcontents here will have a real issue to complain about:
Warning letters trouble broadband subscribers
Comcast targets heavy users, but some say limits aren't clear
Associated Press
SAN JOSE, Calif. By all accounts, George Nussbaum demands a lot
from his Internet connection. He streams video and transfers large
files from his office. His family downloads movie trailers, and his
stepson listens to and buys music online.
Mr. Nussbaum subscribes to his cable TV provider's high-speed Internet
service, which, he thought, was built for such high-bandwidth
activities. Then, in November, he got a letter from the provider,
Comcast Corp., ordering him to dial down his usage or face service
termination.
Until last summer, the service was advertised as "unlimited." But
Comcast, citing its "acceptable use" policy, is cracking down on the
heaviest users on the premise that their consumption could degrade
their neighbors' service.
A number of broadband providers are beginning to offer different
tiers of service, charging high-volume users more. Some, particularly
wireless providers, charge extra for heavy use.
Comcast, critics say, is trying to impose limits without telling
consumers that the service is limited.
Looking for answers
Mr. Nussbaum, who had no idea how many gigabytes he used, was willing
to cut back. He called to find out by how much, but customer service
had no answer. Then he asked how much he used. Again, Comcast
wouldn't provide a number.
Last month, Mr. Nussbaum got a second letter threatening suspension
or termination, so he decided to sign up for a digital subscriber
line offered by his phone company, Verizon Communications.
"How am I supposed to know what my limits are?" said Mr. Nussbaum, an
engineer from Plaistow, N.H. "It was actually kind of ridiculous."
'Changing the rules'
"They have the right to control their service and offer different
services to different people," said David Willis, an analyst at the
Meta Group. "The problem is you can't keep changing the rules all the
time."
Most broadband companies have vague policies, but Comcast's appear to
be the most aggressively enforced. It provides no tools for monitoring
bandwidth and does not give any specific guidance.
Comcast says the people who receive the warning letters typically
consume 100 times more than the average user.
"The total number of customers who have had their service disconnected
is well below one one-hundredth of 1 percent of our overall Internet
customer base," said spokeswoman Dana Ryan, reading from a prepared
statement.
But the nation's largest cable company refused to reveal the average
consumption among its 4.8 million high-speed Internet subscribers.
Ms. Ryan also would not say how many received warnings or exactly how
many have had their accounts suspended or terminated. Excessive use
is a problem for Comcast and other providers because they must predict
bandwidth use and buy the capacity. If too much is consumed, it can
bog down the local network and also affect profit margins.
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Associated Press Syndicate.
For more information go to:
--
Lord, protect me from those to whom you speak directly
Leave the no-spam in, correct email address
Mike Yetto
> If and when RR implements this on a widespread basis the various
> malcontents here will have a real issue to complain about:
>
> Warning letters trouble broadband subscribers
> Comcast targets heavy users, but some say limits aren't clear
>
So far this issue is only real for Comcast. After nearly a year of
rumors that RR will impose limits I have still to see evidence that
it is happening.
Mike "certainly not here" Yetto
--
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free
government ought to be to trust no man living with power to
endanger the public liberty."
- John Adams
Howie
nature of cable is that the bandwidth is shared among the users in a local
node. If there's some guy in my node who is hogging up the signal, I'd just
as soon have him off my node. Like it or not, cable Internet is a Communist
state.
"P. Thompson" <no-...@new.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.040208...@malacandra.localnet...
bscabl
im certianly not in the class of the piracy rings out there
but imposing limits goes against exactly what theyre selling.. "unlimited
internet"
tiered pricing, or changing thier advertising, or whatever is fine.. but
imposing a limit and selling it as unlimited is illegal in most places...
"Howie" <fo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:cRPVb.205260$6y6.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Boyd Williston
news:Xns948A9051E5...@24.25.9.43:
> "Howie" <fo...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:cRPVb.205260$6y6.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> And what would be so terrible about Road Runner imposing usage limits?
>> The nature of cable is that the bandwidth is shared among the users
>> in a local node. If there's some guy in my node who is hogging up the
>> signal, I'd just as soon have him off my node. Like it or not, cable
>> Internet is a Communist state.
>
> And the basic tenet of communism is "to each according to his needs".
> So your own logic *supports* the "hog".
That's according to his *needs*, not according to his *wants*. The basic
tenent of communism works out in reality to "No one really has big needs,
so no one should be wealthy." Except the political leaders, of course.
me2
"bscabl" <bsc...@no.spam.nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rFUVb.9272$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Unlimited internet access is just that."UNLIMITED INTERNET ACCESS" not
unlimited Downloading there is a big difference.
Howie
to maintain fairness for all is to impose some mechanism to discourage
excessive burdens on a shared resource, and cable, unlike DSL or dial-up, is
more shared than the others (albeit the others are really shared as well).
"bscabl" <bsc...@no.spam.nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rFUVb.9272$um1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Mike Yetto
> "Howie" <fo...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:cRPVb.205260$6y6.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> And what would be so terrible about Road Runner imposing usage
>> limits? The nature of cable is that the bandwidth is shared
>> among the users in a local node. If there's some guy in my
>> node who is hogging up the signal, I'd just as soon have him
>> off my node. Like it or not, cable Internet is a Communist
>> state.
>
> And the basic tenet of communism is "to each according to his
> needs". So your own logic *supports* the "hog".
>
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs."
Mike "take what you want, pay all you can" Yetto
me2
"J" <two...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aumh20hd6a2qq1jp3...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:53:12 -0600, "P. Thompson" <no-...@new.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >If and when RR implements this on a widespread basis the various
> >malcontents here will have a real issue to complain about:
>
>
> The amount of toadying for Time Warner in this group is remarkable.
>
> Let's see...extrapolating the toadie philosophy to other consumer
> items:
>
> * McDonalds. "So? Your burger is cold? Where on the sign does
> it way that it's served hot? It's got pickles, mustard and onion like
> the sign say...right? Quit whining!"
>
> * WalMart. " Yeah, the stores filthy and the employees rude, but
> we've got low prices like the sign says! Quit whining!"
>
> * Microsoft "Yeah, your machine reboots every half hour on its
> own, but so what? Where in our literature does it say Windows
> can't crash? Quit whining!"
>
> * GM "Yeah, the car got 30MPG when you first got it, but a year
> later gets 10MPG. Where in the literature does it say that this car
> is supposed to ALWAYS get 30MPG?! Quit whining"
>
> I suspect the toadies in this group are just the run of the mill
> Usenet trolls....
>
All Very Good points J, Very good, your starting to get it. And if you don't
like those things about those particular companies you go elsewhere to get
those services or goods. Either the company changes the way they do things
or they just loose your business. That's how capitalism works. You get a
STAR for the day.
On the other hand I really don't think any of those companies listed above
will implement, up-grade, or help any one in anyway STEAL there products or
aid it the THEFT of other peoples products. So for that you can QUIT WHINING
Good Day :)
Tony Miller
<two...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:53:12 -0600, "P. Thompson" <no-...@new.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>malcontents here will have a real issue to complain about:
>
>
> The amount of toadying for Time Warner in this group is remarkable.
>
> Let's see...extrapolating the toadie philosophy to other consumer
> items:
>
> * McDonalds. "So? Your burger is cold? Where on the sign does
> it way that it's served hot? It's got pickles, mustard and onion like
> the sign say...right? Quit whining!"
Go to Burger King
> * WalMart. " Yeah, the stores filthy and the employees rude, but
> we've got low prices like the sign says! Quit whining!"
Go to K-Mart
> * Microsoft "Yeah, your machine reboots every half hour on its
> own, but so what? Where in our literature does it say Windows
> can't crash? Quit whining!"
Install Linux
> * GM "Yeah, the car got 30MPG when you first got it, but a year
> later gets 10MPG. Where in the literature does it say that this car
> is supposed to ALWAYS get 30MPG?! Quit whining"
Buy a Ford
And extrapolating your problem...
Find another provider.
> I suspect the toadies in this group are just the run of the mill
> Usenet trolls....
Quit whining. ;)
-Tony
--
Reliable, "eggable" Unix shell accounts. http://www.jtan.com/proshell/
cl00bie @ IRC - /server cookie.sorcery.net 9000, http://www.sorcery.net
We welcome WebTV'ers - http://www.sorcery.net/help/index.html#WebTV
Maarten Andriessen
"Howie" <fo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:cRPVb.205260$6y6.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The
> nature of cable is that the bandwidth is shared among the users in a local
> node. If there's some guy in my node who is hogging up the signal, I'd
just
> as soon have him off my node. Like it or not, cable Internet is a
Communist
> state.
If you think about it, there used to be a time where water, gas, and
electricity were all "flat fee" when they were first introduced. Electricity
metering appeared somewhere in the 1920ties when all sorts of electrical
appliances were hitting the market, and the light bulb was no longer the
only item that required power. The first fridges, affordable recordplayers,
and so on.
The same with water and gas. They also started with a "flat fee" rate when
they first started. Gas metering was widely introduced after World War 2,
when oil and coal heating started to dissapear, and every house (in cities)
was connected to gas lines. Since gas became hugely popular to heat your
house it had to be metered.
Water was gradually metered over time as well, and nowadays virtually every
house has metered electricity, gas and water. There are still communities
out there that pay a flat rate for either gas or water, but not many. Some
of us may have water included in the rent because there is only one meter,
and 3 appartments on a lot, but thats a different story.
Even phone service was flat-fee at one time, but not for long. In the very
early days one would pay one flat fee to place a call, and the amount of
minutes this call was was not counted. Nor did it matter that it was long
distance, you just needed one of those ladies with the big switchboard to
talk to that could put you through ;)
Is Internet the next utility? Internet has become so common in the modern
household, and broadband connections are still growing. Europe, Canada,
Japan and Korea are all WAY ahead of the U.S. when it comes to the number of
broadband connections per capita, and in all of those countries imposing
bandwidth usage limits is a hot topic and often done already.
And yes, why not? A logical mind would argue that since we pay for gas,
water, electricity etc - why not pay for Internet by the byte? Internet is
becoming as much as a standard utility as gas, water, electricity. Not too
long from now you can fill out your broadband signup form right at your
rental agency, next to your telephone service, gas, water and electricity
signup forms.....
The real argument against imposing limits are virusses, spam, DDoS attacks,
and the current price of the service. One could argue that there is a lot of
data you never asked for, but this can be solved by the ISP by giving out a
"free" gigabyte to cover all that crap you did not want. Further more, the
price needs to come down. Nobody is paying a base rate that is $45 for
either gas, electricity, water, and even phone service. The base rate is a
lot lower, and on top of that you pay what you use. So if usage limits are
going to be imposed, the base rate must come down. Lets say $30, a "free" 2
Gb to cover all the data you don't want, and then $1 per every Gb you
download.
It would be something I could live with..... but I don't think all the
freeloaders and pirates will be too happy ;) For now I do not think anything
will happen. The war between DSL and Cable has just begun. Cable upped
speeds, DSL is upping speeds and lowering prices. The first party to impose
usage caps will simply lose customers.
We'll see what happens..... but I predict that somewhere in the future
Internet will be just as much a utility as gas, water etc..... a metered
service. You pay what you use.
Maarten
Tony Miller
<nos...@nospam.dutchusa.com> wrote:
<Snip>
> The real argument against imposing limits are virusses, spam, DDoS attacks,
> and the current price of the service. One could argue that there is a lot of
> data you never asked for, but this can be solved by the ISP by giving out a
> "free" gigabyte to cover all that crap you did not want. Further more, the
> price needs to come down. Nobody is paying a base rate that is $45 for
> either gas, electricity, water, and even phone service. The base rate is a
> lot lower, and on top of that you pay what you use. So if usage limits are
> going to be imposed, the base rate must come down. Lets say $30, a "free" 2
> Gb to cover all the data you don't want, and then $1 per every Gb you
> download.
And another really nice side effect of all of this would be to make those
idio^H^H^H^Hpeople who are infected by viruses, worms and whatnot, pay for
their ignorance. I they launch a DDOS attack unknowingly on someone
they'll end of paying for the bandwidth they used to attack with.
What the cable companies will HAVE to do is have some real-time tools
available (packet meters or whatever) with a user settable threshold of x
bytes /minute. Then if they start bursting without knowing it, an alarm
can go off and they can shut down, unplug and get clean.
If they don't look, or don't set the thresholds they can pay for it
anyway.
> It would be something I could live with..... but I don't think all the
> freeloaders and pirates will be too happy ;) For now I do not think anything
> will happen. The war between DSL and Cable has just begun. Cable upped
> speeds, DSL is upping speeds and lowering prices. The first party to impose
> usage caps will simply lose customers.
Years ago, when I had dial up, I was with a company who offered unlimited
internet for a flat fee. What ended up happening is there were a bunch of
"campers" camping on the phone line 24/7 and tying up the lines at prime
time.
I moved to another provider who offered 300hr/month at the flat rate.
This gave you 10 hours a day, but prevented the campers from being on 24/7
(but if they wanted to they could pay extra to help pay for the required
upgrades.)
> We'll see what happens..... but I predict that somewhere in the future
> Internet will be just as much a utility as gas, water etc..... a metered
> service. You pay what you use.
I agree. And I think it's fair. Most website hosting plans have
bandwidth caps that are spelled out.
Boyd Williston
news:MPG.1a91f790c...@news-server.columbus.rr.com:
> In article <Xns948AB5038AB66bo...@130.133.1.17>,
> boydwillist...@yahoo.com says...
> And there is a big difference between communism and Marxism.
>
>
According to Webster's 7th New Collegiate dictionary, communism (2c)
is..."a final stage of society in Marxist theory...in which goods are
distributed equally." That doesn't sound like a big difference to me.
Bender
> wrote:
> I suspect the toadies in this group are just the run of the mill
> Usenet trolls....
Why does the phrase "it takes one to know one" come to mind here?
Howie
folks who feel it is their mission in life to make me smile with endless
unfunny jokes or "interesting" or even "vital" information that they forward
along ad nasium will think twice when they have to PAY for hogging the
broadband. yep... I'm ready. Put me on the meter!
"Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc2ih1...@home.cigardiary.com...