Ramblings of an old Doc

 

 
 

On Monday, AT&T will begin restricting more than 16 million broadband users based on the amount of data they use in a month.

This means that a majority of U.S. broadband users will now be subject to limits on how much they can do online. You can do more, but it’ll cost you – and how!

“AT&T's new limits - 150 GB for DSL subscribers and 250 GB for UVerse users (a mix of fiber and DSL) - come as users are increasingly turning to online video such as Hulu and Netflix on-demand streaming service instead of paying for cable.” – Ryan Single http://www.wired.com/

AT&T joins Comcast and numerous small ISPs in putting a price on a fixed amount of internet usage.  Your “Unlimited” plans have gone the way of “dial up” which prevented the growth of the Internet to what it is today.

Now they’ve got you by the short and curlies, let’s see you give anything up. Canada just went through this. Stephen Harper (a fine man and Canada’s PM) put a stop to it there, but at a price: Netflix’s quality has dropped severely.

“Comcast's limit, put into place after it got caught secretly throttling peer-to-peer traffic, is 250 GB - which the company says less than 99 percent of users hit. AT&T plans to charge users an extra $10 per month if they cross the cap, a fee that recurs for each 50 GBs a user goes over the cap. And while 150 GB and 250 GB per month might seem like a lot, if you have a household with kids or roommates, it's not too difficult to approach those limits using today's services, even without heavy BitTorrent usage.” – Ibid

For those not accustomed to calculating their bandwidth usage, video streaming and online gaming use much more bandwidth than web browsing or e-mailing. For instance, Netflix ranges from .3 GB per hour to 1.0 for normal resolution movies and up to 2.3 GB per hour for HD content.

“It should noted that U.S. limits are far from the world's worst: Canada's recently imposed restrictions prompted Netflix to give customers there a choice of lower-quality streams to keep their usage down, because users are charged up to $5 per GB that they exceed their cap. Caps are also worse in Australia.” - Ibid

Hello! Reality check ISP’s:

“It's not about the cost of data – bandwidth costs are extremely low and keep falling. Time Warner Cable brought in $1.13 billion in revenue from broadband customers in the first three months of 2011, while spending only $36 million for bandwidth - a mere 3 percent of the revenue. Time Warner Cable doesn't currently impose bandwidth caps or metering on its customers - though they have reserved the right to do so - after the company's disastrous trial of absurdly low limits in 2009 sparked an immediate backlash from customers and from D.C. politicians.”

What’s it really about? It’s about competition. The ISP’s want to sell you movies, games and video. So do Netflix and other third parties like Hulu. The ISP’s would rather have you spending money on their video services. In other words, they want all the marbles.

So what’s the problem? Instead of laying more pipe, the ISP’s want profit for nothing and to squeeze out the competition by causing the quality of the video to drop seriously if they want to stay in the market. Once that happens, guess what the ISP’s ads will say? “Why pay more for quality like this?”.

As new users are added, the problem will only worsen, and you’ll pay more for even less.

The only solution is to lay more pipe. But that would keep things as they are and the ISP’s would get to Utility Company rates instead of reaping the HUGE profits they do from their fiefdoms. As if Utilities are cheap.

“Indeed, the question of who gets to write the rules about the internet's pipes is the major bone of contention in the net neutrality debate, both for terrestrial and mobile data networks. When the new net neutrality rules go into effect, ISPs won't be able to block their online video competition, but there's no rule against doing that with bandwidth caps or tiered usage pricing.” – Ibid

What sucks the most? It’s about meeting Wall Street’s profit growth expectations, not in making things affordable and reasonable. Screw that (and us).

This greed is also detrimental to getting to and keeping first place in economic, scientific, technological, educational and every other growth you can name.

It throttles the “natural resources” needed to build and encourage the growth. For that reason, if not for your own pocketbook you should be on your feet screaming. BTW – more pipe means more jobs locally to lay the pipe.

This just goes to show, yet again, what's good for Wall Street often doesn't translate into what's good for Main Street.

Source: http://www.wired.com/


Comments (Page 4)
8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on May 02, 2011

Alstein
It's not going to change until corporate America gets scared.    It's probably going to take a rise of militant leftism. 

I agree but this could be the start of legal corporate armed militants. Privatized soldiers that we will pay for in the form of higher rates. 

Eco terrorists have been doing this for years and sadly it has not accomplished anything. Check out 

FBI: Left Wing Green Terrorists the most active terror organization in the U.S 

on May 02, 2011

TBH it's up to the consumer to stand up if the Government won't, seeing as we're not going to get mowed down by the internet provider militia. However, seeing as internet is often considered a necessity, it's a bit more difficult. However, I'm assuming that they don't have regulating bodies for markets in America, though if you do have one for internet services, then they need to sort themselves out and investigate this.

on May 02, 2011

Reminds me of the movie The President's Analyst............

on May 02, 2011

If the consumer wasn't afraid of the government probably they would rise up and demand change but..........there are way too many wusses out there. Far too many who are comfortable with the status quo, who resist change. But I'll tell you this..............change is not something you can stop. No one can. It is inevitable. The only thing is this will change be for the better or worse? The people are the ones who should decide that and not the ones who piggy-back off the corporate do-nothings. Mr and Mrs Joe Average is larger in numbers than either one. Hint hint.   

on May 02, 2011

Similar thing is happening with electricity here in Australia... with power companies pricing many customers out of the market with huge price rises every July that add up to another $90 - $100 to the quarterly bill... WITHOUT users using any extra power to warrant it.

The power companies excuse this gouging by telling us it is to invest in renewable resources, but that is just a crock of shit in a feeble attempt to appease us... "Oh goody, we're using green power and doing good things for the planet."   Bollocks!!!  Every time we get slugged 17% or more the CEO's and top executives give themselves huge pay rises.... and we see eff all for the money.

I know people who virtually live in the dark {if not for a candle or kerosene lamp] because they cannot afford to pay these huge hikes to their power bills.  I know that we as a household are certainly using considerably less power than ever before to help make ends meet, yet the bill will be larger than ever next quarter.

Yeah, well I can see many Americans getting pissed and turning off the internet or downgrading to the cheapest package to offset the extra costs capping will bring.  We've had capping here in Oz from day dot, but I will only use a provider who slows the service rather than charge like a wounded bull for a few extra gigs. 

Stuff that  My current ISP has been pretty good, in that I am actually getting more for less these days.  Twice now they have boosted my monthly allowance by 10gb without additional charge.  Trouble is, they have to buy wholesale bandwidth off the major Telco, Telstra, which is an evil, greedy company, and recently non-contracted customers had uploads included in our download quota because Telstra upped its wholesale price and imposed restrictions on resellers.

I am not on a contract and I can go elsewhere if a better deal becomes available, and I can lower my package at any time if the household budget becomes too difficult... and that could well become the case in July when power goes up 17%.... not to mention goods, services and everything else to cover manufacturing cost increases, etc.

Soon it will get to the point that low income people/families will lose the propensity to pay these exorbitant prices!  I wonder what all these greedy bastards are going to do then... when growth is zilch and profits are down because greed-pricing took the ordinary folk out of the purchasing  equation.  A pay packet has only goes so far for the average family... and once it's gone it's gone... something these corporate parasites ignore and care nothing about.

on May 02, 2011

150 GB for ten USD it's like a dream in my country... coz even adsl on speed 256kb with 1 gb of traffic per month cost 20 USD....and it's not too much... coz if you are corporate user, 1 gb of traffic became over 500 USD per month even on low speed... So, guys, it's not an end of the world yet....

on May 02, 2011

Look on the bright side, Osama killed himself when he read about this.

on May 02, 2011

which the company says less than 99 percent of users hit.

I had to read that multiple times.  So Comcast is gigging up to 99% of its users? (up to but not including).

on May 02, 2011

On another note - I noticed that Verizon is not among the listed.  I guess it is only a matter of time, But many of us forget that it was not that long ago where the Internet was metered for all of us.  We do not need more laws - we need to break up the cable monopoly.  That is the only way we are going to get rates down.

on May 02, 2011

I wonder what all these greedy bastards are going to do then... when growth is zilch and profits are down because greed-pricing took the ordinary folk out of the purchasing equation. A pay packet has only goes so far for the average family... and once it's gone it's gone... something these corporate parasites ignore and care nothing about.

This is what I find curious the most. It's as if they were unaware of the negative affect this will eventually have. I fond it hard to believe they can't figure that they will eventually lose customers once people find themselves unable to keep up with these price changes, caps and limits. But it just seems like they are either ignorant to this posibility or confident that somehow we will find a way to keep paying for this.

To be honest, considering how the sales of iPhones, iPads, Pc and console games and other electronics that have been coming out in the past 2 years have been high while the economic situation of the country is supposedly screwed up, I won't be surprised that people will simply pay higher prices for internet and the pay for the extra GBs once they reach their limits. because our society doesn't believe it can fight against Big companies or the Gov't we may as well be rules under dictatorship. It's what everyone seems to want anyways.

on May 02, 2011

If they all collude to cap, which is happening- then they don't need to worry about losing customers.

There are laws on the books about this- but you can't win a case about it, and it's so so hard to prove.

 

 

on May 02, 2011

You'd have thought that market leaders have never tried to fuck us all over before...

on May 03, 2011

Alstein
If they all collude to cap, which is happening- then they don't need to worry about losing customers.

There are laws on the books about this- but you can't win a case about it, and it's so so hard to prove.

Given that cable is for the most part a monopoly (each area has only one provider), I do not think they need to collude.  They opened up the phone lines, I think they should do the same with the cable lines.

on May 03, 2011

Dr Guy
Quoting Alstein, reply 56If they all collude to cap, which is happening- then they don't need to worry about losing customers.

There are laws on the books about this- but you can't win a case about it, and it's so so hard to prove.

Given that cable is for the most part a monopoly (each area has only one provider), I do not think they need to collude.  They opened up the phone lines, I think they should do the same with the cable lines.

^ In absolute agreement with you, Dr Guy.

on May 03, 2011

DrJBHL

Quoting Dr Guy, reply 58Quoting Alstein, reply 56If they all collude to cap, which is happening- then they don't need to worry about losing customers.

There are laws on the books about this- but you can't win a case about it, and it's so so hard to prove.

Given that cable is for the most part a monopoly (each area has only one provider), I do not think they need to collude.  They opened up the phone lines, I think they should do the same with the cable lines.

^ In absolute agreement with you, Dr Guy.

The problem here comes from inadequate definitions of a monopoly in our federal government. Most monopoly and anti-trust laws were written in late 19th century, and require near universal monopolistic conditions. For instance, AT&T and Verizon both can be considered local monopolies in so much as they have built a system in which they do not directly compete in most markets for home services ( mobile services are a distinctly different scenario), however, these two companies are considered to be in competition. The primary reason for this consideration of competition is the lack of evidence that these organization have actually colluded to create such localized monopolies, and in general, we should consider that such collusion has not actually taken place. Opening up cable to multiple providers would most likely result in a similar situation as the phone providers where in they continue to hold de facto monopolies in particular areas while only competing to create such a monopolistic state in highly lucrative markets.

8 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last