I'm getting this serious feeling of bias here. So I have no idea if I'm going to be able to convince (or enlighten) at all, or rather just be called a "shill for the company". Ah well, I can't help myself.

Okay, the data caps you speak of here specifically are bandwidth used in a month. Extra charges for going over the bandwidth used.

Your original post (specifically the video I watched there) was talking about download speed. The guy was asking "why bother capping speed at all" if the technology exists to go really, really fast (fiber). My response to this original question was "the infrastructure isn't there / is too costly to implement / the company can't handle everyone using that speed in a sustained way".

Regarding the bandwidth caps, the reason they are there is to protect the company so that they can offer service without interruption or collapse. It would be nice if the infrastructure out there could handle everyone downloading whatever they wanted forever, but it doesn't exist.

Personally, in my own experience, businesses have a LOT less pull than the individual person. Businesses use FAR less internet than people. Businesses use POS (incredibly small data transfer), and then stuff that amounts to web surfing. A phone network takes incredibly little data on the network.
The heaviest users of an ISP's service is the general public. What they want hugely defines how an ISP builds it's infrastructure to handle load and use. If an ISP wants to move into a target city, they are looking at general public coverage... not whether a business will be using the service or not. In my experience, I don't believe you'll need to worry about Proctor & Gamble affecting how you get your internet.

Data Caps are there so that the ISP won't get crushed by spiking loads. The speed people can get can cap out their "usage" in literally 24 hours. This is because if everyone had unlimited speed and unlimited bandwidth... well, some people would use it asap, and suddenly everyone's connection would slow to a crawl because some people will load up P2P and hog the ISP's bandwidth. The few heaviest users would drop the overall access for everyone else... because an ISP's infrastructure isn't unlimited.

Sure, an ISP could packet shape and block, throttle, or find and report/ban users of P2P. But that smacks of 1984, and I'd rather that a few people get away with copyright infringement than opening that door to the "information police state". It's bad enough already with the way media is.

Data caps protect the ISP's service so that 5% of the people can't ruin the service for the other 95%. They want 95% of the people to be happy, and let the other 5% of people do most of what they want to do, just without abusing the infrastructure.

To be frank, the data caps don't really affect the majority of people. That link you posted specifically says:

"Netflix said its streaming service in Canada will by default now use two-thirds less data on average, with only a minimal impact on video quality. A customer can choose to select two higher quality streams that use more data."

To me, this sounds like they went from no choice in the bandwidth used, to multiple choices of bandwidth used, including ones that use more. How is having choice (that includes what you had before, or better) a bad thing? If I live in an area where the infrastructure isn't there to accommodate the data involved (such as a small town out in the middle of a lake, so I'm stuck with microwave tower signal, etc), then having the option to get Netflix without taxing my service is great.

And you believe the ISPs on this, when they are on record as saying " We get more money by not investing in our  product."  Time warner actually said this.

Caps are about price-gouging, pure and simple.  WHy is it when Time Warner tried to introduce caps in 2009, the four markets they picked where the four markets they had a total monopoly in?

I so want to leave NC now, but I'm job-tied until 2012.

I believe the ISP I have personal (non-consumer related) dealings with, and have specific inside knowledge of (with both marketing and operations). Most of my comments are from firsthand experience and knowledge, not some corporate "statement for the press".

I'm not saying that it's solely about making customers happy, and nothing about revenue/profit. Clearly, making money is the point of running a business.

But bandwidth caps being about price-gouging "pure and simple" is being hyperbolic.

Bandwidth caps had been around in Canada for the last decade. Considering that the only option up until now for those that used more bandwidth than was allowed has been to turn people's service off, I'm not sure how that equates to getting more money. Sounds like losing money to me.

The actual real numbers (data I've seen myself) of people who get even close to their cap is in the "less than 5%" mark. That's a lot of effort and heartache over a rather small percentage of people that a company might grab a little extra cash from.

Considering limits are in the tens to hundreds of gigs, and people can easily hit terabytes of bandwidth used per month (again, something I've personally witnessed) even on fairly normal speeds, it's hard to think that the decades old caps aren't something to do with preventing degrading service.

Now, I do have to put a big caveat on this: I don't know anything about US markets and companies.

Here in Canada, there really isn't a monopoly going on. In the few areas where there's only one ISP capable of bringing in service, the pricing methods are influenced by the fact that the company is provincially/nationally influenced, and government regulations enforce reseller competition. Not to mention non-land limited alternative options (satellite and cell options) still giving people at least some kind of choice.

If things are as bad in the US as people are implying, then it's just one more reason I'm glad I'm up north.

Nice.

There currently are "onDemand" style things around right now here. I'd love to see the day that ALL my TV can be bought a-la-carte like that. I don't buy access to a station or a network, but rather I buy a TV show I want to watch, and the only information that needs to be sent to me is menu data and the show I selected.

Canada , where the ISPs actually got the citizenry to revolt.  Your guys may actually be worse.

I expect this to become a secondary election issue in Canada.

There is a secondary reason besides price-gouging.  The ISPs also run cable, which is overpriced and outdated compared to stuff like Netflix and Hulu.  This is about burying those businesses, along with burying businesses like Steam and Impulse on the side.  Any PC gamer needs to be alarmed at what is going on.

Actually? I'd like to see an "Impulse" type app from which I can pick and choose whichever offering I wish to see, and from different ISPs if mine doesn't offer what I'm searching for.

Without a Cooperative, what are the chances of that ever happening? 

Hmm. I give examples, logic and reasoned responses, based on personal experience in this field, all in a light tone of open conversation. What I get back is alarmist parrotry, with no examples, proof or even explanation backing it as "rebuttal". Might as well say "Nuh-uh!".

Your statement, Alstein, about "burying businesses" sounds like you care more about destroying and taking down "the man", than wanting a company to change or move forward. I have anti (current) establishment friends who dream of a day when what's happening in Egypt, etc, will happen here against the long list of stuff our governments do against it's own citizenry. At least he has a reasoned and logical response to anyone trying to refute him.
I think I'm done trying to have a conversation about this.

Sorry Doc, your stuff is normally pretty good, but on this one I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I see a lot of problems with what's going on, but more in the vein of slow advancement in applying current technology (roadblocks in getting rid of analog and packaged services, etc). I really can't get behind the doomsaying.

I can understand (and even agree with) the feeling that things aren't advancing fast enough. See my sentiments above that mirror your own comments on an Impulse app. I just don't agree with the "average person is going to get screwed" sentiment.

let's see.  Local cable monopoly owns the ISP.  People start cancelling cable due to Netflix being a better alternative.  See a conflict of interest here?  I certainly do.

I'm not opposed to business.  I'm opposed to monopolistic practices and anti-consumer price-gouging.

It took congressional action, from out-of-state, to stop my community from being placed under a 5GB/month cap in 2009.   If you don't see what I'm seeing, then obviously you don't want to see it.  

I respect your reasoning and experience and appreciate the compliment, Kaisoku...thanks. As I can't argue with your experience, mine tells me that the opposite will probably happen, if only by virtue of the ISP fiefdoms and consumer apathy,

The TV Impulse-type app might change that, if someone enterprising gets behind it.

Thank you for providing some input.

Netflix gives movies and tv series if they've been out on DVD. Cable gives you the latest episode of that show you wanted to watch, as it airs. Or onDemand or pay-per-view movies before they are out on DVD. Check out the "recently added" section of Netflix, it's almost entirely 2009 content.

It's rare to see people cancel cable because they have Netflix. They have to be willing to wait over a year to see content.

When there is direct competition for cable content (someone creating what Doc is talking about), then things will get interesting. Either cable providers will have to wake up and smell the new freaking century already (or whatever's holding them back needs to give way), or there's going to have to be new laws written.
I might have a completely different opinion of cable providers at that point if things go "squid shaped".

Interesting fact: we have laws already (that have been around for years) that prevent the monopoly you talk of (at least in Canada). Large ISPs are prohibited from denying a reseller their service in areas where they are the only backbone. This means a reseller can come in, demand a portion of the ISPs service, and sell that very service to customers against the ISP. And the ISP has laws preventing them from doing anything untoward about it (such as reducing/inhibiting that traffic, etc). Yeah, the ISP gets some cash for selling to the reseller, but not nearly as much as if he had those customers directly.
This goes against the concepts of Capitalism (I think? Maybe it depends), but it makes sure there's no monopoly of service in a particular area, so an ISP can't just hike prices or let service degrade.
This is also where the legality of current bill is in question: Should a reseller be able to make money off charging bandwidth overages to customers, as this isn't even their service originally and none of that money goes to the original ISP, since the limits are in place by the reseller. The legality in question is about fair trade, it's not even about the consumer being limited, on the face it.

Ultimately, it's because "internet" isn't an essential service. Unlike the price of bread and milk, or basic phone service, the internet is not something that is close to a "right", so a company can pretty much do what they want. (Sadly.. I wish it was something the government considered important enough).

Monopolies are where it gets bad, and I agree with you completely there: no company should have a monopoly, or be allowed to buy their way into a monopoly. That's not happening anywhere I can see in Canada (and I have a much better visual than most on that).

You want to know how competitive it is here? Recent promo that was being tossed around like candy to nab customers: 10$ for internet per month (at 10 mbit down, 1/2 mbit up, 50+ gigs a month cap) for a year. Oh, and you want to double the speed/cap? Just add 10$ more.
Considering how much it costs to send a guy to install the service, give the customer a free modem, and just paying/maintaining the infrastructure involved... I can't see how that's anything more than a loss, just in the hopes that this guy won't jump ship the second his year is up and the price bumps back up to closer to 35$.
This is the kind of competition a consumer has at his disposal across Canada right now.

Okay, that would make me sick. I'm looking at normal service having between 50-100 Gigs of bandwidth per month as a cap. On the high end, that's something around over 3 hours of standard def (at Netflix best quality setting) per day.

At 5 gigs a month, you'd be looking at like half an hour a day at the lowest possible quality setting. If that were my only option, I'd revolt too. That's pathetic.

I think I see where we disconnect.. The reason I'm not seeing it, is because it's literally not happening here. My statement from before stands, I'm glad I live in Canada. If that happened here.. I'd seriously consider moving.

Currently, the situation here is we have two  providers.  Time Warner, who is trying to get the state to ban municipal broadband, as two cities got so fed up with Time Warner's lack of service they started their own, and have been kicking Time Warner's butt in those cities.

Then there's AT&T, who is implementing a 150GB cap.  Low, but not criminal.  There's nothing to keep them from colluding with Time Warner to keep degrading service, especially since communities will no longer be able to do it themselves here thanks to teabaggers.  (Yeah, another reason to hate the Tea Party).

The rural communities really have it rough, as they're now banned from doing it themseleves, and the megamarket telecoms won't come there, so they're stuck with dialup.

BTW people  are cancelling because of it, but it's mostly younger folks who aren't tied into cable, I think it's now 10% of people under 30 have broadband but no cable TV.   Also monopoly laws in the US are largely unenforced, we have good laws on the books, but the anti-monopoly lobby has been defanged in the US, just like unions.  This is why I push so hard for labor and consumer rights, I feel like to have a functioning free market, you need a balanced of power between labor, indsutry, and consumers.  Market inequality leads to monopolies, which is just as much of a market failure as communism.

The most important role of a government in the economy is to try and prevent market failures.   The broadband industry in the US due to deregulation is a market failure.

Bravo. Deregulation might be beneficial, but it should have been done like increasing children's privileges: a bit at a time, and 'prove you're handling it well at each step'.

Correct. Again, competition and collective bargaining are needed to keep things in check, along with regulation.

All will be solved by Google's newest TiSP:

Sadly, that's not entirely accurate.  What they did was veto a plan that would have effectively mandated extremely restrictly caps and standardized overage charges on downstream providers.  The CRTC is free to revise the plan and resubmit it.  We still have some of the most restrictive caps anywhere in the world, and the government didn't lift a finger on the issue until there was a massive grassroots outcry.  We're seeing no initiative from any party on the issue of internet caps or the broader issue of telecommunications (which is in dire need of reform here in Canada), which makes me afraid that a reworded version of the plan that just got vetoed will slip through shortly after the election

It's called a "cartel"

Look at the options we have in pricing models and services, and compare them with what's available in other countries.  We do not have adequate competition.  At all.

I hope it will, but suspect it won't.  None of the parties cared about the issue before the grassroots movement, they made a little bit of rhetoric during the height of the firestorm to show they were listening, and once the issue was no longer in the spotlight they moved on.

We really need an overhaul of our entire telecommunications sector, but there's no indication we're going to get it. 

We also have the same problem with the ones that offer phone services and Skype.  They are terrified that television and telephone are going to go the way of the radio; rendered mostly irrelevant by the new medium.  This is about shackling the internet to prevent it from competing with these services, plain and simple.

Even worse is the "video on demand" services, which use the same network resources as Netflix does, but are not subject to any bandwidth caps.  This is blatantly anti-competitive, and these guys should be taken to task for their current policies, much less the abomination they're trying to impose.

Now this, I disagree with.  A corporation's purpose is to maximize shareholder value.  Telling them "we trust you, don't abuse it" puts them at a conflict of interest between their commitment to shareholders and commitment to society that you've just thrust upon them.  The people charged with enforcing the rules and ensuring fair practices are followed should be independent from the corporations who must follow those rules.  Anything less is a conflict of interest, and just asking for trouble.

If the regulations/regulators are redundant, outdated, or just ill-conceived to begin with, then by all means do away with them.  If they fulfill a necessary role, don't get rid of them at all.  It's like firing all the referees from a sports league and telling the coaches that they're in charge of calling penalties against their own teams.  That's just plain silly, no matter how mature you think the coaches are. 

Deregulation can work in Europe due to its population density, but not here in the US.  Not  enough competition for the free market to work.

See Time Warner's solution to dealing with the competition- it's easier and cheaper to buy politicians then it iis to actually improve service.

I'm not sure about every company, but the ones I've had any experience with have had data caps since before 2000, and have only been increasing them this entire time.

For what you are saying to be true, data caps would have to have been introduced when Netflix came out, and had been going in the direction of lowering service.

This is not what is happening. At least (once again) not in my experience.

From my knowledge on this, it's because North America has ISP backbones that were developed as the technology was being invented. Many, many other countries in the world have only just now started getting an economy to handle installing an internet infrastructure, so they are implementing an infrastructure that is made entirely out of the latest technology.

In an environment where older tech backbones (copper) are privately owned by people who can't afford to upgrade to the latest technology, you end up having a rich, 1st world country that has a poor, hodge podge infrastructure compared to even 3rd world countries that have just caught up with internet service.

This would be a major reason why service levels can handle much better bandwidth and speeds compared to North America.

I mean, to compare, South Korea has 1% of the land mass of Canada, but 10 million more population. They don't need to string out their lines as far to reach all the population (less cost overall for all the new tech).  Going by pop density, not as many people don't live in "hard to reach" areas, compared to Canada. They don't have areas of "mostly copper infrastructure". They built from scratch, instead of building on top of an older weaker base.

They can get more fiber for cheaper, and don't have to deal with old systems that refuse/can't upgrade. I'm not sure how this isn't the main factor here.