And so it begins....
Story here.

I've often wondered how long it would be before hardwired ISP's came up with a way to put the squeeze on customers for high speed Internet.

As far as I'm concerned that's all this is, a way to do it. To me, it's as if they want to take my money for a service I want but they really don't want me to use it. But hey, if I do actually use it they feel as if I should pay more for it.
The problem is I'm already paying more for a faster downloading speed. Note: My ISP has not begun this (yet) but if it's successful with Time Warner you can bet they will!

I know, I know, they can come up with all kinds of techno bable to justify the additional fees but it all boils down to common sense. If I am willing to pay more for a faster download speed it's quite obvious I'm going to use the service more than a user that's perfectly happy with a slower speed.

I've never heard of any customer getting a refund if they don't use the service to it's full capacity. But they don't want to inject that into the usage survey data at all.

Bottom line, if I were a customer of Time Warner (and at all possible) I would be letting them know I will be changing ISP's when my contract expires and the reason for it! That's the only way this is going to stop. If the first ISP that tries this and looses a lot of it's customer base the others will know not to go there.

Bobby....

Bell Canada has already applied for this possibility with the CRTC, the Canadian version of the FCC.

I forget the figures, but it's something like 15% of the users are using 85% of the bandwidth.

Will be very interesting to watch for the outcome.

If they get away with AND the cable companies are smart enought not to try doing it, they will ultimately end up with a much larger piece of the pie.

Sadly, though, they will try.

Nickle & dime, nickel & dime... :bang:

Sorry, I thought I paid for dedicated internet access, not "oops I over-sold my bandwidth and now want you to pay for my blunder" internet access. I have it on good word that they are doing this metering "upgrade" to the time-warner cable system here in tampa, hopefully they wont apply this flawed logic to business accounts. If they do, I'll be pulling my account and going elsewhere. The clencher is that they ALREADY have multi-strand fiber laid and are just too lazy to light up some of the dark strands. For the cost of lighting up the extra strands they more then pay it off in a year, or less, and could commit to what they sold in the process.

And now all of those pop up ads and spam email are going to cost you, more than just aggravation.

Let's see, I selling a product and charging everyone the same price. Only 15% are using it as I designed it, but yet I'm making money like all 100% were using it as designed. Guess I'd better figure out how to raise my rates or I might have to upgrade my product to perform as advertised.

Do I get a discount for SLOW downloads when I KNOW the distant server is capable of FAST uploads? Oh, yeah, fair is only 'fair' when it's their $$$, I forgot. When they start that here, I guess I'll be calling Embarq. After all, TWC trenched my septic tank radials when they put in the 'upgraded' cable to provide Hi-speed and digital cable, and haven't repaired it yet. Oh yeah, they were the ones that said I needed to upgrade the cable to the digital TV jack because channels 2-13 slowly 'faded to black' from about 2P to 6p and came back sometime after midnight. Only $85! I said fine, let's do that and when that doesn't fix the problem then you give me back my $85 AND 6 months of free cable, just like the last 3 months you've given me because you haven't been able to fix the problem. OH, and how come it works well until 2P everday? "Uh, let me see what I can do with new splitters". TA-DA, now it works. OOPS, is my irritation showing? Here's the soapbox, somebody. John C. (Not Garand)

I agree that their plan to start charging more for the reasons they list is pretty lousy but none of this is new thinking.

Most hosting providers (web/email/ftp/etc) have bandwidth caps and/or surcharges for going over the limits. The benefits are you get (usually) very fast connection speeds for your site for a reasonable cost.

As for not having enough equipment to handle 100% demand for 100% of the customers, again it's nothing new. The dialup ISP's have been doing the exact same thing for YEARS. That's how they make money. Let's look at one of the few dialup providers that are left. They offer $9.95/mo unlimited access. For them to be able to provide 100% access to all of their customers, they would need a "line" for each and every one of their customers. Each "line" costs roughly double what the ISP is charging for access. That's why back when everyone was on dialup, you normally got a busy tone during peak hours. the customer to trunk ration was usually 16:1 or more. They got away with it because they knew that the majority of their users did not utilize their services to 100% of what was offered. Most people would dial in, surf for a while and/or check mail and disconnect leaving the line free for the next customer.

The high speed ISP's are only following the same business plan that the dial up ISP's used.

Overall, I'd say it's just a sneaky way to help pay the new expenses that are coming because of the overall increase of internet users and bandwidth requirements as a whole. When most of these companies setup their networks, they didn't build them for streaming video and voice, etc.

I know this is nothing new.
I also know how ISP's make money because I helped manage one for a couple of years in the past.

My point is that it's simply a cost of doing business to increase your bandwidth if you are an ISP as you increase your customer base.
An increase in bandwidth will benefit EVERY user regardless of how much or how little they surf the net.
So why not pass the cost to every customer instead of singling out your best customers?

Well the designed plan of over-selling your capacity is not new, the phone company has been doing it since the inception basically. If everyone picked up a phone line and tried to dial, you would hear a LOT of busies (yeah yeah, someone else can fill in the technical term for all circuits busy). The problem is they oversell by a HUGE ratio, like the 20-25:1. I pay for TWC Business and i'm on the phone with them every chance I get when I have an outage. If i'm paying for dedicated that's what I want, and when I have service interrupts, I want a trouble ticket created so I can get another free month's worth of service. If you hold their feet to the fire eventually they will learn it's hot.

Bobby,

If an increase in bandwidth will benefit EVERY user regardless of how much or how little they surf the net.

Why should not all users share the burden? Kind of like a regressive tax IMHO

Why should cigarette smokers, alcohol drinkers, automobile drivers and internet power users, need to pay more? All the while the insurance companies get richer.

Yes, I'm guilty of the four but I do not play the lottery. Might just win!

John

At least most of the telephone network was based on queing theory, shouldn't isp's do similar research? If they're let off the hook, we all are subject to a lesser standard of acceptibility. Then we only have ourselves to blame for the acceptance of inferior service.

Ala the cell phone industry. You got me on a rant bro, nothing personal.

John

Hmmmm, what the market will bear?

Or, take all you can get?

Basic business principles say you have to make money or it is a hobby....which is it?

And unless we, the consumer, do something it will continue....

...and then try their "Business Class" telephone service....

My ISP (cable) has implimented a download cap. Personally I'll never reach it unless I start downloading movies daily, but i think it is unfair to change the rules mid contract.

The Canadian Radio and Television Commision (CRTC), FTC in the US, has traditionally had a hands off approach to regulating the internet. However some new data and complaints from high end users has surfaced about "bandwidth throttling" because the pipe is full, so now theyre investigating the practice.


Bandwidth throttling is intentionally slowing a given connnection. The ones complaining the loudest are the resellers who are saying the major ISP's are throttling back their customers.

While we are the heaviest per capita users of internet technology in the world, carriers in this country have not invested in the backbone infrastructure for years. We were once on the top of the heap in technology, now we are way behind. Never mind last mile fiber, there's still mostly copper from node to node. As a result the pipe is full and ISP's have to intentionally slow your connection down during peak times to accomodate more users. Of course everyone is denying the practice.

Maybe I'm missing something. Is there a reason why ISPs would not change to a model where they charge a smaller monthly fee for everyone and then charge per usage? Light and heavy users would get what they are paying for, and, pay for what they are getting.

The ISP that I use (Comcast) at home offers several different rate packages, similar to DSL. Each package offers increases in capacity and additional support services. It seems to be the most logical approach to me since you get what you pay for.

Light (home) users get the $40.00 package and there are three tiers of business packages up to $100.00. I know that the truth is that they just make an adjustment to the modem. It's not like they are building out their network any differently for business users.

Richard, I re-read the article, and I see nothing about reducing the monthly fee. Just adding "usage penalties" (My description, tho I think it's accurate) to the exhisting monthly fee!
John C. (Not Garand)

This is really part of a larger issue. Google "net neutrality" and you'll find a whole host of issues related to Internet access, ranging from lack of service for small towns to ISPs wanting to give bandwidth preference for certain content/services. Pretty interesting stuff really.

Actually, if the ISP's or Governments could stop that crapola, it would make everyone happy....well all except the creeps that keep sending it.

We need a "Do Not Spam" list. I know that it's a very slippery slope, but surely something could be done...

If a local ISP would actually have the brass ones to block these on request by the users, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

I have comcast here and on a related note 6 of my cable channels stopped working yesterday. I called tech support today and was told "sorry we changed the channel numbers" so after I wrote down what the new numbers were I asked about two channels he failed to mention. One is CMT , he then informs me I won't receive those at all anymore unless I rent a digital box (extra monthly charge)

I said to him" so you just changed all these channels and discontinued service without giving any notice?" He repled "sorry"

If you send out too much email comcast will block your port 25.

If you purchase a tire you can put it on your truck, make a tire swing, turn it into a planter or whatever your heart desires.

The same can not be said for bandwidth!

It will be a sad day if there is not open access to any and all types of information online.

I say if but many say when.