Charging by the byte

[fredr123]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/te...783&ei=5087%0A

Some people use the Internet simply to check e-mail and look up phone numbers. Others are online all day, downloading big video and music files.
For years, both kinds of Web surfers have paid the same price for access.


But now three of the [USA’s] largest Internet service providers are threatening to clamp down on their most active subscribers by placing monthly limits on their online activity.

Fun story about internet metering from our friends in the US of A. Time Warner Cable is running a trial in Texas where new internet subscribers have three different internet plans to choose from with different bandwidth caps: 5, 20, 40GB. Anything over that is $1/GB. The program is only in the trial phase right now (though I can recall something like this was tried 5 or 6 years ago with poor results... I think).

I can imagine there are plenty of users here who would be up in arms if their ISP tried something like this. I don't use nearly as much bandwidth as I used to but with the rise in internet gaming (XBox, PS, Wii, WoW, etc.) and online video services (iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc.) not to mention "illegal" downloading, you can see how the network infrastructure might be in for a bumpy ride.

However, if I'm going to be paying by the GB then there needs better be some changes in the way content shows up on websites. I don't want my bandwidth used up by stupid autoplay videos, popup/popunders, interstital ads, flashy banners and the like.

[BlackEleven]

It actually sounds pretty fair to me, as long as the caps are set at reasonable levels. Who uses over 40GB/month without a massive amount of downloading anyway? Why not have the people that use the infrastructure the most pay for it the most? And I say that has a medium to heavy user. I'd way rather have that than getting certain traffic throttled. If they give people a few months of continued unlimited usage and a way to track the amount they downloaded each month, they'll know which plan it the right one for them.

Even on the miniumum plan they propose (5GB per mont) you're not going to hit the limit from popups or ads alone. I'd suggest you install adblock anyway, so you don't have to be annoyed by them in the first place, bandwidth concerns aside.

[FanIn80]

Why do we even need metered internet? Is there some kind of shortage on bandwidth?

It's not water...



(and yes, I understand network infrastructure... I run one for a living)

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

It actually sounds pretty fair to me, as long as the caps are set at reasonable levels. Who uses over 40GB/month without a massive amount of downloading anyway? Why not have the people that use the infrastructure the most pay for it the most? And I say that has a medium to heavy user. I'd way rather have that than getting certain traffic throttled. If they give people a few months of continued unlimited usage and a way to track the amount they downloaded each month, they'll know which plan it the right one for them.

Even on the miniumum plan they propose (5GB per mont) you're not going to hit the limit from popups or ads alone. I'd suggest you install adblock anyway, so you don't have to be annoyed by them in the first place, bandwidth concerns aside.

It does sound kind of fair in theory. However, consider this:

Supposedly an hour long episode of a high definition television show offered by CBS, for example, could eat up to one 1 GB. Downloading a Netflix DVD-quality movie can be up to 5GB. There are a lot of services out there whose business model depends on the availability of a lot of bandwidth. Think Skype, Vonage, iTunes movies rentals, youtube, etc.

As time goes on, the things you do online are only going to use more bandwidth and there will be companies offering online services. Metering your internet use would be okay in my books iff (<-- notice the extra f) the ISPs offer reasonable caps and fair prices, just as you said. I'm afraid this could become an easy cash grab with bandwidth prices approaching the stupid rates we pay for mobile internet service from cell phone providers.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by fredr123

However, if I'm going to be paying by the GB then there needs better be some changes in the way content shows up on websites. I don't want my bandwidth used up by stupid autoplay videos, popup/popunders, interstital ads, flashy banners and the like.

I initially read this last part wrong, and was about to agree. But here's where I see this as a positive.

I don't do a whole lot of downloading or file sharing. What I do want is to be reasonably sure that when I want to surf I am able to at a decent speed, and not having my speed hampered because my 8 neighbours are downloading 8 different copies of the same movie; trying to see what quality each one is and deleting the rest.

And FI80, I have to disagree. It is very much like water. Both are renewable resources (once we use either more becomes available), but with bandwidth being like water pressure, I want to be able to have the pressure available when I need it, and not have to settle for a drip while my neighbour has the taps on full blast in case he happens to feel like washing his hands.

Also, make people accountable for their bandwidth. I'm sure those of us geeky enough that we fix friends' computers have seen it before- they have Limewire running 24/7 because they didn't know that clicking the X to close still leaves it running in the background. Once again, why should my surfing suffer because another user doesn't know that he has his connection wide open?

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by fredr123

It does sound kind of fair in theory. However, consider this:

Supposedly an hour long episode of a high definition television show offered by CBS, for example, could eat up to one 1 GB. Downloading a Netflix DVD-quality movie can be up to 5GB. There are a lot of services out there whose business model depends on the availability of a lot of bandwidth. Think Skype, Vonage, iTunes movies rentals, youtube, etc.

As time goes on, the things you do online are only going to use more bandwidth and there will be companies offering online services. Metering your internet use would be okay in my books iff (<-- notice the extra f) the ISPs offer reasonable caps and fair prices, just as you said. I'm afraid this could become an easy cash grab with bandwidth prices approaching the stupid rates we pay for mobile internet service from cell phone providers.

Right, I understand that and agree with you. To futher my point on the limits, they would certainly have to be flexible as technology improves, infrastructure expands, and new services emerge on the net. Today 40GB/month is a pretty reasonable limit (that's still a download of 2 uncompressed DVD movies per week and $5 for each additional one past that). A year or two from now that may not be such a reasonable limit, and the ISPs should then raise it. The profit they've made over the last two years from the heaviest users should be able to pay for the necessary infrastructure.

I certainly hope it does not become a cash grab like mobile phone companies. In theory if one ISP raised their monthly allotments the others would have to follow to stay competitive, but when we're talking about megacorporations like most ISPs you can never really be sure that normal logic is going to apply. Of course, the alternative some ISPs have chosen to employ now in lieu of download limits is bandwidth throttling which I think is far worse.

[FanIn80]

I guess I just don't see this slowdown that others are experiencing.

I can download a large file at a steady 1.2MB/s while watching youtube clips and streaming the hockey game from 960. I can't remember ever having my internet slowed down.... it's either on or off, but never slowed down.

Is "hampered speed" an ongoing problem for people?

Oh and yeah, seeing that Limewire icon in someone's system tray drives me completely bonkers.


(with fiber optics, available bandwidth is a non-issue... maybe DSL users have a complaint, but not cable/fiber)

[llama64]

Yeah, sounds like a good idea.

If Telus/Shaw/etc figure out a way to NOT charge me for advertising that is...

[Resolute 14]

Next thing you know, the old joke of the post office requiring a stamp on all email won't be a joke anymore...

[mykalberta]

Its a way for ISP to cash in on the Google success. Also those limits exist for Shaw and Telus different speed offerings but they arent enforced as of yet except the occasional email.

Also BW is "limited like water" in a sense. With the expense of routers/switches etc. I know what you mean but to me BW isnt truly unlimited IMO.

[Flamescupbound!]

It's already like this in the less urban areas. Im living in Northern BC right now and the cable company here limits you to 10GB/month with the basic plan. Each GB past that is $10, not cheap.

10GB is really plenty though as long as you're not downloading tons of movies/music, or streaming videos. I watched a hockey game on the NHL Center Ice preview once and it sucked up 3GB of my monthly BW, next time I guess Ill shut it off for intermission and commercials.

[photon]

I don't mind being able to buy bandwidth in buckets, but the sizes have to be reasonable. As was pointed out, as more companies put their content online and multiple GB downloads become the norm for a single movie, show or whatever, even 20GB and 40GB limits come up pretty fast. Heck even demos of console games can be multiple GB's.

[Azure]

As long as they offer reasonable prices.

Some people may want 200GB per month, and they need to offer them such a rate with a 'reasonable' price.

I don't think this will ever happen though. How many of our ISP advertise a certain amount of bandwidth that you're allowed each month? And how many actually enforce it?

[Barnes]

I can't believe people are for this. It's a complete cash grab. The bandwidth is there and there's a whole lot more dark fibre waiting for increase in bandwidth demads and costs f-all. Like Fanin80 said, bits aren't a scarce resource.

Maybe they should meter your TV. I don't use my TV as much as my neighbor why should I pay the same?

Everyone is begging for flat rate mobile data but a tiered Internet is okay?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Maybe they should meter your TV. I don't use my TV as much as my neighbor why should I pay the same?

I would love this for the amount i watch TV.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I can't believe people are for this. It's a complete cash grab. The bandwidth is there and there's a whole lot more dark fibre waiting for increase in bandwidth demads and costs f-all. Like Fanin80 said, bits aren't a scarce resource.

Maybe they should meter your TV. I don't use my TV as much as my neighbor why should I pay the same?

Everyone is begging for flat rate mobile data but a tiered Internet is okay?

You have to look at it from an ISP perspective. ISP are getting the short end of the money stick compared to some web startups who do nothing more than offer a website. They do nothing to subsizides the back end infrastructure which obviously some peopel should be unlimited BW for pittance.

I dont have a problem with BW buckets, say 50-80Gb a month for 35$ which is what we essentially pay now with most people using far far less and the small minority using more.

Here is my modem useage for the last year, only once went over 50Gb and average around 20-25 I guarantee that 80%+ are using far far less than that average. Those people shouldnt have to subsidize the ones that grossly exceed that, ie 150Gb+/month.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Barnes

I can't believe people are for this. It's a complete cash grab. The bandwidth is there and there's a whole lot more dark fibre waiting for increase in bandwidth demads and costs f-all. Like Fanin80 said, bits aren't a scarce resource.

Maybe they should meter your TV. I don't use my TV as much as my neighbor why should I pay the same?

Everyone is begging for flat rate mobile data but a tiered Internet is okay?

You seem to be forgettting a few things. Everyone that's posted in this thread in supported of a metered internet has done so by specifying the caveat that the rates must be reasonable, so that it does not become just a cash grab. No one is in favourite of increasing ISPs profits at the expense of the users. If light users pay less, medium users pay the same, and heavy users pay more than they do now, the ISP still makes the same profit, but those who use the bandwidth are the ones that pay for it. And it will likely keep people that download obscene amount of material (like in photon's example of people downloading multiple copies of the same movie simultaneously) from abusing their connection.

The televsion analogy is inaccurate. If my neighbour leaves his bit torrent open 24/7 downloading it can adversely affect my ability to surf the net. If he leaves his television playing all day, it doesn't really affect my ability to watch tv.

[Azure]

Aren't most Alberta ISPs on the SuperNet backbone? I know my ISP is, which is why they don't care how much we download. But we only get 2Mbps(gotta love rural internet)...so my speed is hampered in the first place, and its not like I'm affecting anyone by downloading torrents all day long.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

The televsion analogy is inaccurate. If my neighbour leaves his bit torrent open 24/7 downloading it can adversely affect my ability to surf the net. If he leaves his television playing all day, it doesn't really affect my ability to watch tv.

I'm about to reveal my ignorance here, but why is internet usage and tv usage different? Aren't they both just bits flowing from Shaw through the tubes to my house? Is it that internet usage requires a lot more of these bits than television usage? Is it that Shaw has sold so many internet connections in my area that the infrastructure can't support the simultaneous use of the service?

[llama64]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I'm about to reveal my ignorance here, but why is internet usage and tv usage different? Aren't they both just bits flowing from Shaw through the tubes to my house? Is it that internet usage requires a lot more of these bits than television usage? Is it that Shaw has sold so many internet connections in my area that the infrastructure can't support the simultaneous use of the service?

TV has constant bandwidth because it's being pushed down the cable 100% of the time. Every subscriber just feeds of that bandwidth so adding more people to the network doesn't result in more bandwidth required. (I could be wrong here, if so, correct me please!)

With data, everyone has their own traffic on the the network which all adds up. If it starts consuming all available bandwidth (as bittorrent tends to do), it leaves everyone else fighting to get their data across.

Personally, ISP's should sell their service based on unlimited access up to a transfer cap. Once that cap is hit, the service is shut off. Otherwise there will always be jerks consuming all of the networks service to the detriment of the rest of it's users. I'd rather have the service be capped then have specific traffic be singled out and de-prioritized though.