For those who stream Netflix/Hulu...

[bicker]

Well, as more and more movies/tv viewing and all that start streaming through the internet, the average person is more likely to start hitting that cap.

Absolutely, but that explains why they would be adopting the new rules, not why they shouldn't be. If the load is going to get a lot heavier, then better to have the caps in place before the service goes fully mainstream, rather than trying to get consumers to accept a change later.

People are always wanting better quality, and companies are finding it easier and easier to provide the better quality, but the internet companies don't want to keep up with the new technology that's available.

That is incorrect. They absolutely do. Meanwhile, consumers fail to adequately reward companies that do, so who's to blame? Consumers.

People don't want cable, because A) it's too expensive, and B) they don't always have the time when it's actually on to watch their shows. Look how many people "wouldn't survive" without their DVR boxes. The internet and streaming allows for people to do things on "their time".

People want something for nothing. They always do. Don't let that snow you into thinking that their childish demands are reasonable.

 

[bicker]

I disagree, the services that I have previously mentioned have no caps.

Yet. That's the point.

I do not see all of them imposing caps.

That would only make sense if the services you personally choose to use are ones that are nothing more than noise in the system (i.e., they don't use a lot of bandwidth). If you're not going to be watching video, then you're probably correct.

Also, if any company adds a cap and you are on a contract, you can cancel the contract due to the change in the contract.

Correct, and when they have all added caps, then what?

 

[3boymthr]

This is really and truly NOT new. We have had a cap with Comcast literally since we signed with them 2 years ago. We also had a cap with Verizon when we signed with them about 6 years ago. The issue is that people are starting to hit their caps because of streaming video and that some of the carriers are lowering their caps. I was told by Comcast that if I hit my cap I'd be required to move to a higher cap - such as provided to a small business. There was of course a significant increase in cost.

 

[Purseval]

I worked for 17 years at a company that made fiber optic cables for phone companies. The capacity of these cables vs the old copper cables is staggering. The plant I worked at used to have over 6000 employees and today it has less than 100. They made so much overcapacity that it put them out of business so I don't see where the complaints about not enough bandwidth are coming from. It sure isn't the fiber it must be at the network end in the switching equipment.

I remember some politicians saying how they wanted to make sure the USA was a completely fiber optic nation. I don't know who they think is going to make it for them, probably the Chinese like everything else.

 

[cmwade77]

The point is that I don't mind paying a few dollars extra per month to a company that has upgraded their infrastructure that does not impose caps. The problem is that many of the major providers are choosing to implement caps instead of upgrading their infrastructure.

Those that are implementing the caps that have upgraded their infrastructure, such as Verizon Fios and AT&T UVerse are doing so to encourage people to sign up for their television services instead of using Netflix, hulu, iTunes, etc.

The problem is that the cable service is too expensive in comparison to these alternatives. Note that on these services television is often provided through the Internet, so to say that there isn't capacity is incorrect. It all cones down to getting as much money as they can out of you.

This is why I do not see the services that I have mentioned imposing caps, as they do not provide television service.

 

[bicker]

I don't see where the complaints about not enough bandwidth are coming from.

I'm not sure that there necessarily are "complaints". Mostly, the issue is simply charging for a service what it is worth, getting fair value for the investments that have been made.

It sure isn't the fiber it must be at the network end in the switching equipment.

To the extent that there is a limitation of that sort, I suspect more likely it comes in the form of customer service and technical support, the costs of customer acquisition and promotion, etc.

 

[bicker]

The point is that I don't mind paying a few dollars extra per month to a company that has upgraded their infrastructure that does not impose caps.

There are loads of things that I'd be willing to pay a few dollars extra for, but there simply aren't enough people just like me to justify offering the better service I personally want for just that incremental amount.

The problem is that many of the major providers are choosing to implement caps instead of upgrading their infrastructure.

I think they're doing both. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, nor even necessarily directly related to each other.

It all cones down to getting as much money as they can out of you.

And if any company I own stock in doesn't respect their obligation to me to maximize my long-term return on investment, I'll happily join a class-action lawsuit against them.

 

[SandrA9810]

With the fiber optic lines in place, it's literally pennies for them to provide high bandwidth to it's customers. So why are we paying $40-$60 a month for service? Because that's what we've come to accept from the ISP.

It's just like a cup of soda. It's pennies for a business to fill that cup, but yet the consumer is still willing to pay $2-$4 for a cup of soda. Sure, we might say, well there's the cost of the cup, cost of the water/carbon, cost of ice. But the bottom line is it's still like 25 cents to fill that cup with soda. So what are they doing with the rest of you money??

Except ISP are getting $30-$40 dollar profit for providing you with internet service each month. And they are not returning that profit to the consumer in the form of better service/infrastructure. Lets just line the pockets of the CEO and shareholders, lets just **** on the consumer that's actually giving us this money.

The profit is there, the money is there, they'd just rather see their pockets growing rather than upgrading. And in reality, the US might be bigger (harder to rewire the whole country), but we're still ages behind other countries, with no desire to actually improve. Instead ISP's would just rather put a cap on consumers and call it a day.

 

[cmwade77]

There are loads of things that I'd be willing to pay a few dollars extra for, but there simply aren't enough people just like me to justify offering the better service I personally want for just that incremental amount.

I think they're doing both. The two things aren't mutually exclusive, nor even necessarily directly related to each other.

And if any company I own stock in doesn't respect their obligation to me to maximize my long-term return on investment, I'll happily join a class-action lawsuit against them.

Infrastructure is being improved, but not properly, in looking further into it, it really all ties into television service. I know, you are going huh? Well, let me explain.....

The main problem is that television providers are loosing money rapidy, let's face it, why should I subscribe to cable or Satellite? I have 100+ digital channels over the air for free (Los Angeles Area), realistically probably only ever will watch about 50% of those) add in Netflix, YouTube, Hulu and iTunes and there is no need to subscribe to television service anymore.

Bottom line is at present rate, traditional television providers will be out of business within 5-10 years, unless they do something to put a stop to this.

Now, here is where the problem really lies with the bandwidth caps (generally there is more than enough capacity to handle the data above these caps). If you notice the companies that have implemented bandwidth caps are all companies that offer (either directly or though subsidiaries/parent companies) television service in some form or another.

There are trying to save their revenue from television service.

Here is the dirty little secret on this though, most, if not all of digital television provided by these carriers is carried through the same bandwidth that the internet is carried through, which means there is definitely more than enough bandwidth available to handle the traffic for Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, iTunes, etc.

What's the real answer? Give up on television service as we know it. Bottom line is offer per channel subscriptions (or per view) that are watched over the internet, this will free up bandwidth (which really isn't anywhere near as limited as the providers would like you to think it is), will save customers money AND will get more customers to sign up for service, ultimately allowing the companies to make more money (not per customer, but more overall).

I know many are asking, can it really all be related to the internet? and the answer is a resounding YES....television, telephone and internet are all interconnected these days. Virtually everything goes through the internet at some point (even many "traditional" land line telephones).

Do we have the bandwidth to adequately handle all of this? YES

Do companies need to constantly be updating their technologies to handle ever increasing bandwidth consumption? YES

Now, I will say, that for many a capped service isn't bad and for them, offer a cheaper tier that is limited, but offer a reasonably priced unlimited plan as well.

 

[bicker]

With the fiber optic lines in place,

They don't appear in place, by magic. They come into existence due to the willingness of investors to risk their money to pay the incredibly high price to put the cables in place. The cost is so high, that after eight years of work, Verizon has decided to stop making the investment in any other areas. They have determined that the return on investment over the long-term, from consumers in what has become a commodity market for data service, will simply never provide a high-enough return on investment to make the investment worthwhile. If you live in Verizon territory, and you don't have FiOS in your town now, then you won't. You'll have to live with (cheaper and inferior) DSL, or without broadband entirely, until the government pays for it.

it's literally pennies for them to provide high bandwidth to it's customers. So why are we paying $40-$60 a month for service? Because that's what we've come to accept from the ISP.

Actually: Because that's how much the service is worth to you.

The profit is there

Incorrect. See above.

 

[bicker]

Infrastructure is being improved, but not properly

There's a difference between what is "proper" and what is good for us consumers. Calling what you want them to do "proper" is disingenuous. If we consumer really want to dictate the way things should be, then we have two choices: Either pay a lot more for folks willing to do things the way we want them to, or fork-over our own money, though municipal taxes, to essentially do an end-run around commercial operations.

Bottom line is at present rate, traditional television providers will be out of business within 5-10 years, unless they do something to put a stop to this.

That's a pretty crude statement (literally) - "television providers" is not one "thing" - rather, there are content generators (production studios), content aggregators (networks, syndicators and independent channels), and content distributors (cable and satellite service providers, and others using new technology).

The production studios are relatively safe. While technology changes may result in some unfair undercutting of their ability to derive full value for their work, it is not absolute.

Networks and independent channels always have been in conflict with each other. Technology seems to be opening the door to new kinds of content aggregation. Indeed, it is possible now to have content generators be their own aggregators, if they can connect directly up to a distribution schema. So yes, networks and independent channels are in trouble.

Distributors, in the end, were not necessary to start with, if you lived close enough to the transmission antennas. The switch to reliance on wired transmission is a reflection of the desire for more choices. The issue here is that if you want that content, you're still going to have to pay the distributor to get it, even if you utilize a new technology aggregator. However, distribution isn't structured to be financially viable that way. But you still need distribution.

So they can't go out of business, because if they do, then you can't get the content you want via new technology aggregators. It's almost chicken-and-egg. And the logical result in that distributors will simply switch from charging a lot for content to charge a lot for pipeline service instead. They're going to make their money either way, perhaps a little more one way and a little less the other, but unless you see dozens of trucks coming down your street laying new cables, you're going to have to do business either with "the phone company" or "the cable company" (satellite service providers, incidentally, can't support new technology aggregators as far as I know). And so you're just moving the shells around... it still the same shells though.

And that's where the conflict comes into play: People are insisting that this situation should lead to them getting what they've always been getting, but for a lower price. However, that makes no sense, because the value they personally derive from what they're getting is not going down.

What's the real answer? Give up on television service as we know it. Bottom line is offer per channel subscriptions (or per view) that are watched over the internet, this will free up bandwidth (which really isn't anywhere near as limited as the providers would like you to think it is), will save customers money AND will get more customers to sign up for service, ultimately allowing the companies to make more money (not per customer, but more overall).

My way makes more sense: Pay the content generator for access to their content - either by episode or by subscription to a full season, perhaps; and pay the distributor for how much bandwidth you use - metered service. Skip the middleman entirely.

You pay for every gallon of water you use; you should pay for every bit of data you consume.

 

[cmwade77]

I disagree with the water analogy, there are many places that you pay a flat rate for water, no mater how much or how little you use. There are even some places where you pay a one time fee for a "share" of water when you buy a piece of property. In addition many places still have wells that they filter and get their own water and only have to pay for their equipment, currently there is no such option as this for the Internet, I am simply trying to show why the water argument is a bit flawed.

Verizon is still installing FIOS in many areas around here, but I don't think this is the wat to go in the end. I think different wireless technologies will prove to be what we end up with. They are relatively cheap to install, currently can offer up to 100mB/s, and soon will be able to have speeds of 1gB/s or faster.

Bottom line is a customer using more data doesn't cost the provider more, they are not charged by how much data is being used. Now as I said, tiered plans that end up with unlimited would be fine. I would even be ok with a plan that starts off at a low price of about $5 for 10GB, thn charges $1 for each additional 10GB with a maximum cost of $30 per month or something like that, but there must be an unlimited option that is reasonably priced.

 

[Lewisc]

They don't appear in place, by magic. They come into existence due to the willingness of investors to risk their money to pay the incredibly high price to put the cables in place. The cost is so high, that after eight years of work, Verizon has decided to stop making the investment in any other areas. They have determined that the return on investment over the long-term, from consumers in what has become a commodity market for data service, will simply never provide a high-enough return on investment to make the investment worthwhile. If you live in Verizon territory, and you don't have FiOS in your town now, then you won't. You'll have to live with (cheaper and inferior) DSL, or without broadband entirely, until the government pays for it.

One "issue". Municipalities won't let Verizon "cherry pick" and only offer FiOS in the more affluent areas. The more customers who order VOD through vendors like Neflix instead of through Verizon's VOD the less motivation Verizon has for FiOS.

Verizon denies it but I wonder if their original plan was to ignore some communities.

 

[bicker]

I disagree with the water analogy, there are many places that you pay a flat rate for water, no mater how much or how little you use.

There would be no difference with bandwidth: Probably $15 per month + $5 for every 5GB, perhaps even with the incremental metered price graduated like with water, based on usage.

There are even some places where you pay a one time fee for a "share" of water when you buy a piece of property.

I see no reason why you couldn't do that, if you wanted. Establish a co-op to compete with the broadband provider, lay your own "pipes", etc.

Again: Same as with water.

In addition many places still have wells that they filter and get their own water and only have to pay for their equipment, currently there is no such option as this for the Internet, I am simply trying to show why the water argument is a bit flawed.

But you're grasping at straws to do so. The water model works, even though you don't like its ramifications.

And you can get your communications, entertainment and information through means other than via broadband.

Verizon is still installing FIOS in many areas around here

Incorrect. What I said before is the actuality: Verizon has stopped expanding the footprint of FiOS. They will develop the service in the municipalities where they have already run the fiber, but will not run fiber for residential data service in any new municipalities.

Link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361919,00.asp

By the way, some interesting numbers in that article, such as "it costs Verizon roughly $750 per household to wire up an entire neighborhood, as well as an additional $600 per house on top of that amount." How long do you expect investors to wait for their return on that investment? How long until you'll have paid Verizon $1350 more for what they're providing you than it costs them to provide it? I don't know about you, but I've been getting 8%-9% return on my rather conservative investments, even factoring in the credit crash. That means my money should double every ten years or so. That means that if that $1350 was mine, you'd have to pay $11.25 per month just for profit, for me to consider Verizon worth investing in.

I think different wireless technologies will prove to be what we end up with.

I don't disagree that they'll play a role, but in the end, it is still bandwidth. It is worth what people do with it, not what it costs to provide. People who are insisting on paying what it costs should resign themselves to building their own network, because the people who invest in businesses aren't idiots. They aren't charities. They invest to create value, and then they charge consumers based on that value.

 

[cmwade77]

I am not saying that they can't make a profit, I am saying that they can't gouge me and expect to get away with it, I know their costs and know what a reasonable profit would be.

Putting caps in is being done in place of improving infrastructure, which will be a continuous process, which is why $30 or so for unlimited acces is perfectly reasonable. I deal in IT all day long, every day. We are currently in the process of upgrading our infrastructure for our network, so I know quite well what it really costs to do so. This included upgrading to a fiber connection at work, you definitely pay mire for the guaranteed service, but that is because technicians are on call 24/7 to keep your service up and running and you ge guaranteed bandwidth.

With the lower price, there is only a guarantee that you can access, not a guarantee of speed, but it is still unlimited with many companies and should remain that way.

Other countries offer unlimited Internet at lower prices, yes they are smaller, but that doesn't matter. Here in the states we have many more companies, which means that we are essentially breaking into smaller countries.

Bottom line is I will not support metered service without an unlimited option.

 

[bicker]

I am not saying that they can't make a profit, I am saying that they can't gouge me and expect to get away with it, I know their costs and know what a reasonable profit would be.

Well, they can charge what they think is a fair price, and what you consider "gouging", and "get away with it" in all the ways that matter to them. What is reasonable to charge for a mass-market service is determined by the market, not any one consumer.

Putting caps in is being done in place of improving infrastructure

No, that's not true. It is being done in addition to improving infrastructure when a business case can be made for improving infrastructure. As I indicated, Verizon's gamble on providing fiber to the home didn't pay off, so expecting service providers to do that is unreasonable.

Other countries offer unlimited Internet at lower prices

Indeed. The German government subsidizes it.

Good luck advocating that sort of thing, here.

We are a different country. Not everyone is into the kind of collective approach that European and Asian countries prefer, and the folks who don't like the collective approach to things get a vote, just like everyone else here.

Bottom line is I will not support metered service without an unlimited option.

And I will continue to support a system whereby folks who barely use a service don't have to subsidize the heavy use of others.

 

[msjprincess]

There would be no difference with bandwidth: Probably $15 per month + $5 for every 5GB, perhaps even with the incremental metered price graduated like with water, based on usage.

I see no reason why you couldn't do that, if you wanted. Establish a co-op to compete with the broadband provider, lay your own "pipes", etc.

Again: Same as with water.

But you're grasping at straws to do so. The water model works, even though you don't like its ramifications.

And you can get your communications, entertainment and information through means other than via broadband.

Incorrect. What I said before is the actuality: Verizon has stopped expanding the footprint of FiOS. They will develop the service in the municipalities where they have already run the fiber, but will not run fiber for residential data service in any new municipalities.

Link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361919,00.asp

By the way, some interesting numbers in that article, such as "it costs Verizon roughly $750 per household to wire up an entire neighborhood, as well as an additional $600 per house on top of that amount." How long do you expect investors to wait for their return on that investment? How long until you'll have paid Verizon $1350 more for what they're providing you than it costs them to provide it? I don't know about you, but I've been getting 8%-9% return on my rather conservative investments, even factoring in the credit crash. That means my money should double every ten years or so. That means that if that $1350 was mine, you'd have to pay $11.25 per month just for profit, for me to consider Verizon worth investing in.

I don't disagree that they'll play a role, but in the end, it is still bandwidth. It is worth what people do with it, not what it costs to provide. People who are insisting on paying what it costs should resign themselves to building their own network, because the people who invest in businesses aren't idiots. They aren't charities. They invest to create value, and then they charge consumers based on that value.

They probably made it back pretty fast considering that they were able to get rid of a lot of field techs once the fiber was up. Fiber is practically maintenance free compared to copper so they need less and less tech. $1350 is less than a weeks salary for one field tech.

 

[bicker]

The problem is that they weren't able to get rid of the copper, because too few customers switched. And even for those that did switch, they found that they had to offer too many promotional discounts, that they weren't able to get that amount of extra profit as a result from most of their customers.

The reality is that they didn't make back their investment. The project failed. That's why they stopped expanding the footprint.

 

[KATIESMOMMY]

You can check your usage here, I was worried because we have the internet and netflix always going, but we are only using a third of what is allowed

www.MyUsage.att.com

 

[Charade]

This will hit the limit quite quickly, depending on the length of the calls, I would estimate 2 weeks.

I disagree. VOIP is a low bandwidth use of the internet. For example, given the 250GB limit for Comcast, most VOIP services run between 50kbs and 125kbs. At 96kbs (which is 12 bytes of data per second) you could talk on the phone for about 2,777,777,777 minutes before using 250 gigabyte of data. So chat it up!!!


For reference, my old Vonage service had 50kb and 96kb choices while my PhonePower service has 16kb and 125kb choices.