Comments:U.S. ISPs to test restricting heavy Internet users

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

It may be interesting so see what effects this has. What initially comes to mind is that this may make mesh technology look more appealing for a variety of reasons. That is mostly speculation, though. --Remi (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So Ends The Internet

This is fucking bullshit. The whole point of the internet is that it is unrationed. It is the last free place left on this fucking planet, and now these cable companies are going to fucking destroy it. I will not purchase internet from one of these companies if they continue to do this. I have seen the birth of the internet, and now it seems, i will see its demise. ! Rekov (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds familiar

So, people who download lots either get charged extra, or have their speed restricted? Sounds like Australian ISPs to me. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Has it always been that way in Australia? How do the rates and what you get compare to these plans? rootology (T) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's highly variable depending on your provider, and our broadband network currently sucks (we've got ADSL and ADSL2+ in urban centres close to telephone exchanges, cable where the cable TV is available, and if you're out in rural/regional Australia better be prepared to pay for satellite). For a bit of comparison: Telstra Bigpond, provided by a partially government-owned telecom, and one of the most complained-about ISPs, offers ADSL2+ for $160/60GB with 15c/MB (yes, MB) excess download costs or $110/25GB shaped (that's our term for "rate limited") at the top end. Looking at some of the most popular ISPs listed by http://www.whirlpool.net.au, you can get $150/100GB with Internode, $130/100GB with TPG. Besides Telstra, it looks like most of them don't do "excess charge" plans except at their very bottom end, and 15c/MB is common. I'm sure I've seen a plan somewhere (might have been a cable plan) that had more reasonable /MB charges (on the order of fractions of cents per MB). You will also notice that some ISPs like OptusNet and AAPT actually include uploads in the limits, presumably in some sort of effort to stop you running a server on your home plan (like BitTorrent). For reference, the current exchange rate is about $AU1 = $US0.90. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 04:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. $100 or more USD for metered on those limits is crazy. I pay $45USD for unlimited now, and average about 8mbps down/1.5 up!! Wow. rootology (T) 05:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is right, Australia sucks :( - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We created it

The goodthing about internet is that we created it, so why cant we increase the bandwidth anyways...its not like a public utility where we are consuming excessive human resources. The extra power can come from clean energy sources also —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.104.228 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres only the problem that the Internet for these providers is privately owned, here in the US. Unless the government intervenes its technically all fair game for the companies. rootology (T) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

ary they trying too

monopolize the internet? cuz i think that kinda illegal to be a monopoly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.25.248 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a monopoly, since the US does not control the Internet. People from countries without stupid or greedy ISPs can still get unfettered access, the way it should be. b2xiao ^talk 04:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FOURTY gigabytes per MONTH?

That's simply bollocks. At the speeds that the $54.90 package gives, 15 Mbps = 1.875 MB/s = 6750 MB/hr = 6.6 GB/hr = 40 GB in only 6 hours. In six hours of intensive downloading, which is what someone might do by streaming HD video or hard-core torrenting, they could use up an entire month's worth of bandwidth. Theoretically, they could suck back 4 TB of bandwidth in a month, putting them 4000 dollars in debt. That's just insane. I am glad that such metering hasn't occurred (yet) in Canada, and I sincerely hope it stays that way. b2xiao ^talk 04:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the point, to discourage high volume usage, unfortunately. I don't even download big stuff often--itunes here and there, every couple of months; we watch maybe 1-6 hours per month of Netflix streaming; youtube a lot; lots of browsing; and some work stuff, and some MMOs. We'd be over the limits without even trying in 2-3 weeks. rootology (T) 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize that this is the reason behind the restrictions, but even out here, we've got a $90 "no strings attached" 25 Mbps service -- my friend has this as he is a really heavy user, and has downloaded hundreds of gigabytes per week without any trouble from the ISP. It's a lot more expensive, sure, but at least the company knows it's going to expect heavy usage for that fee. Time-Warner, on the other hand, seems to seriously underestimate what a 15 Mbps line can pull down. They should remove the limit, and if needed, increase the price (hell, if I had money for a few more HDDs, I'd probably go for a $90 unlimited plan). b2xiao ^talk 04:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. A guy I know (on the same ISP as me, same plan, virtually the same speeds) is a download fiend. He's in some private IRC arrangement with people "overseas" as he describes it. Or as I call it, his 24x7 video store--its absurd how much he pulls down on such a light plan. But yes, they need to adjust the base pricing, not meter it. rootology (T) 05:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of some plans, I'm pretty sure here in Canada, b2xiao, that call themselves "unlimited" but that's only in name, and there actually is a limit. I can't say I know too much more than that, I know I go over my limit monthly, but I've never actually been charged over it, just warned a ton of times, so... plans are screwed up here, that's for sure. -24.141.144.157 09:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even moderate and unquestionably-legal users can burn through 40 GB in a month rather quickly. A one-hour TV show on iTunes (45 minutes nonstop time), legally purchased, is over half a gigabyte. And that's just using iTunes, PlayStation Store or Xbox Live. Gamers would never be able to function in this kind of ration. If you're going to give people speed, you better be able to handle the data. --Kitch (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

capitalism at it's best

It's all about money. The internet is quickly becoming the new 'oil'. Where I am, Comcast is it. Oh, there's dial-up.. uh.. sure. Yes, I have Netflix and watch a movie every night on the streaming service. So what ?? My bandwidth is often fantastic. I often do a speed test and I've seen speeds that exceed the service I have. Hmmmm.... I don't like the 'charge as you go' scheme at all.. how will that implement when urban areas finally have fiber optic to the computer capacity. Unreal bandwidth offering HD movies in real time. Will I end up paying as much as a theater ?? What would be the point then ? All types of video are fast becoming the media of choice for communications between folks worldwide. It's finally cheap enough for everyone to utilize. So, of course, the powers that be (Time Warner, Comcast, etc.) want to get a precedent in place, now, to meter and profit from this. Go figure. Lastly... is there a choice (in the long run) ?? Probably not. Once the infrastructure is privately owned, then there will be no way that an average user can avoid high costs. How would you do it ? Any wire, cable, or fiber optic coming to your home will belong to someone. Even wireless eventually will go into that system. Of course our government (USA) will play the game and prevent competition so there will be only a select few companies in the game. Think oil, again. Not a monopoly.. but very cooperative with one another to totally control the market place. The internet as we know it is doomed... -67.181.192.146 —Preceding comment was added at 17:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Of course our government (USA) will play the game and prevent competition so there will be only a select few companies in the game." So that makes it the fault of the market? Trust me, if you want your Freedoms to be curtailed a thousand times more, let the government handle it (think phone tapping on a much grander and easier-to-do scale). Fephisto (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WTF

People PAY for a service. They PAY for the internet. The companies IMO have no right to restrict access to the internet unless they expect to incredibly lower their fees. This is almost censorship in a way. Lets see if we can target anyone we want, even though they might be using the internet for legit purposes...i.e. not downloading/trading music/movies, illegal stuff etc. "Instead of raising prices across the board, consumers who are excessive users would pay," according to Time Warner. That will lead to higher prices. You cannot single out a crowd. If the FCC or the government had any sense left in them, they would stop this from happening. Don't restrict information. What ever happened to our 'Bill of Rights'? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a failure of Capitalism Guys

When I saw this article, I almost immediately thought, "SCHWEAT BUZINESS OPPORTUNITY". What's the cost for running cable? Even if it's millions, it shouldn't be hard to undercut these tards. Fephisto (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You get what you pay for???

Here in the UK where I live many ISPs have been doing this for a while now. It's almost expected and we consider ourselves lucky if we're only bandwidth throttled lightly. Some ISPs have become notorious for slowing 8mbit connections right down to modem-esque speeds for little reason other than it being 'peak hours'.

I feel that you guys are missing the point here though: You are paying for a connection of speed X. If you use the connection to check your email, etc, which doesn't require the full potential of your connection then the ISP has no problem. If you then do some heavy downloading then they cut your speed down to a slower rate. You're effectively not getting what you are paying them for. If you bought a sandwich would you accept it if they told you that it'd cost $10.... providing that you don't eat it? Would you be ok if you had to pay an extra $1 for every bite you took from your own sandwich? IMHO it is criminal to take something away from someone that they have bought legally just because they are trying to use it. Here in the UK it is too late already. Most ISPs write the use of bandwidth throttling in to their EULAs and it has become normal. I wouldn't stand for it though if I had signed a contract for unlimited bandwidth and they suddenly spring this on me. My advice: Petition! And vote with your subscription fees. Shane.Bell (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they're doing the right thing

As a side note -- this news story came across to me as expressing a POV...the POV that what is being done isn't right/good. Just like Wikipedia, Wikinews should strive for neutrality...that's the basis of quality journalism. Moving on...

We've all gotten used to the Internet being something where we pay a set monthly fee, and that's it...we can take as much as we want. But it hasn't always been this way. WAY back in the early days of American Online (AOL) dial-up, you paid by-the-hour...which is essentially what they're testing out now, you pay for how much you use. That's how phone service, water service, electric service, gas service, food, clothing, and everything else works...the more you take, the more you pay. It's the same way with earning money...the more you work, the more you earn. It seems fair to me that folks who get more, pay more for it. If some little old lady only uses the Internet to check her email, why should she pay as much as someone who sits on BitTorrent or LimeWire pirating tons of videos? She shouldn't. She ought to be paying less than the guy sucking up a few hundred times more bandwidth.

We've all gotten used to the freely-take-as-much-as-you-want setup...but just because it's convenient and cool, doesn't mean that we're entitled to have it that way. We're not entitled to have the Internet any more than we're entitled to have water or food or heat in the winter or air conditioning in the summer...if you want those things, you have to pay for them, and just as the city who provides me water is entitled to set the cost, so is my ISP entitled to set the cost of the Internet service they provide me. If I'm a business selling a product or service, it's mine to sell, and mine to decide how much I'm going to charge. If someone doesn't want to pay it, that's their decision. The Internet is a luxury, not a necessity.

That said, it would be cool if there was an "unlimited plan"...like some phone companies have, where you can pay a set fee and have unlimited monthly long distance. If I want, I can buy that luxury...but the folks who don't want it, don't have to pay as much as I do. That's only fair. 24.163.43.112 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)