A representative from New York to propose legal ban against bandwidth caps!

[zexmarquies01]

http://stopthecap.com/2009/04/07/br...ternet-cap-will-take-lead-role-in-opposition/

not to get too deep into politics or anything, but I thought this information would be quite relevant to many of us here.

appears that a representative from NY also hates the idea of bandwidth caps, and is pursuing legal actions to have this practice banned.

As the article mentions though, we don't know what the language of the bill actually is.

hopefully, this goes somewhere and gets more publicity. these bandwidth caps serve ZERO purpose to the general consumer, and only serve the ISP's in making even MORE money while they refuse to spend money to upgrade their networks.

again, Don't want to get too political here, but I thought many of you would be interested in this.

 

[Old Thrashbarg]

While it seems like a good thing, I wonder about the side effects of such a law. What you could end up with is the large ISPs just eliminating the capped plans from the price lineup and only offering the super-expensive unlimited plans they already have, giving consumers even less choice than they have now.

Considering the entities involved here, both commercial and political, I'm skeptical about this being good for the consumer. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[mbentley]

i'd settle for them passing laws to make it illegal to call a plan "unlimited" when it isn't.

 

[Springbok]

I saw yesterday that Time Warner is imposing caps in the upcoming months, what a bunch of useless jerks. If you're in a country like Australia where you've got one pipeline going in, sure it might make sense to throttle high-traffic users, but there's no way that a measly 1-4Mbps line with a lousy 250k upload is really damaging internet throughput.

 

[ratbuddy]

I like the caps. To me, it just means my neighbors can't go nuts torrenting stuff and mess up the quality of my connection.

Put another way, bandwidth is a finite resource. Some people feel they are entitled to a bigger piece of the pie than others. The caps put them in their place.

 

[Old Thrashbarg]

Some people feel they are entitled to a bigger piece of the pie than others.

What you're encouraging is a cop-out that does not serve anyone's best interests but the ISP. The problem is that ISPs oversell their networks, so they put on caps to compensate rather than upgrading their networks (or limiting the number of customers) like they should. If I'm paying for a certain kind of connection, I expect to be able to make full use of that connection. Flaws in an ISPs network that prevent that are their problem, not mine.

 

[dejo]

likely to come with unlimited price too.

 

[ratbuddy]

What you're encouraging is a cop-out that does not serve anyone's best interests but the ISP. The problem is that ISPs oversell their networks, so they put on caps to compensate rather than upgrading their networks (or limiting the number of customers) like they should. If I'm paying for a certain kind of connection, I expect to be able to make full use of that connection. Flaws in an ISPs network that prevent that are their problem, not mine.

Oversell? Do you believe that an ISP should be required to have enough bandwidth that every single customer can use their 100% maximum possible rated speeds 24 hours a day? Welcome to a world of internet service that costs 1000% more than it does today. If you want that kind of bandwidth, you could always lease your own line..

 

[Springbok]

Of course they're not expecting 100% use all the time from every customer, they work out these things statistically and charge an average. Now they're talking about switching to brackets like a phone company because they've seen how much money they can make off Joe Sixpack by charging for stuff like VOIP.

They're just corporate fat-cats after a bigger slice of profit, open your eyes! the "logic" explained to the end user came about after the decision was made. Do you really think that it's going to speed up the internet? Give me a break.

 

[u1tra]

That's not bad. I hate limits, they annoy the hell out of anyone. There you are, downloading your stuff (whatever it might be), next thing you get a letter though the door saying "you download too much, we are capping you sucka!".

 

[Mr.DLucey]

I have Comcast and have a 250 gigabyte-a-month cap. I never exceeded it as far as I know. Theirs usually, on average two computers on running games like WoW and CS, and X Box live with a game running. Hey were gamers at my house and we haven't been affected by it. Having said that I feel that it might shunt some emerging technology. I really think it's to protect their cable TV. More and more TV is showing up on the net. I wouldn't have Cable TV if I could get what ever off the net. I don't watch that much TV any way.

 

[jaymz9350]

I like the caps. To me, it just means my neighbors can't go nuts torrenting stuff and mess up the quality of my connection.

Put another way, bandwidth is a finite resource. Some people feel they are entitled to a bigger piece of the pie than others. The caps put them in their place.

Sorry but I pay (too much) for my 7 Mb connection and can use it as much as I like. I'm not taking a bigger piece of the pie as others, just using what I pay for.

 

[ratbuddy]

I have Comcast and have a 250 gigabyte-a-month cap. I never exceeded it as far as I know. Theirs usually, on average two computers on running games like WoW and CS, and X Box live with a game running. Hey were gamers at my house and we haven't been affected by it. Having said that I feel that it might shunt some emerging technology. I really think it's to protect their cable TV. More and more TV is showing up on the net. I wouldn't have Cable TV if I could get what ever off the net. I don't watch that much TV any way.

We've got Comcast and have never hit a cap either. Both me and the missus are online many hours a day, her mostly on Youtube, me mostly gaming, and many Netflix 'watch now' movies for both of us. I'm fairly certain to come close to hitting that cap, you have to be running torrent software and up/downloading everything you see.

 

[TempliNocturnus]

I would assume that there is a difference between straight up bandwidth caps and traffic shaping practices. At times, it is necessary to shape traffic, in order to ensure every one has a quality connection. If the law is classifying this as capping, it would be a bad thing. However, if ISP's are sending customers letters, telling them that their bandwidth is going to be capped, or if they have a blanket policy bandwidth throttle for certain customers and protocols, then a law should be made to prevent that.

 

[juane414]

Good and bad can come from this. Capping basically means that cable companies don't have to expand or improve their services... Twenty years from now we could still all be paying $50 a month for a 8mb connection. If people are using more bandwidth, and there is no cap, then the cable companies have to meet the needs of the consumers and offer more value for your dollar. If they have a cap and are not required to improve their services then we all get screwed and we have to hemorrhage money. Here in Korea I pay about $20 US for 80mb/sec down and 100+ channels. Why? Because people play computer games in swarms and PC gaming places are all over the place. Also, there is no enforcement of piracy laws so people download like it's going out of style. More demand = more supply. That's basic economics. Cable companies don't want to spend money to increase supply so they cap the demand.

 

[Ach3r0n]

i'd settle for them passing laws to make it illegal to call a plan "unlimited" when it isn't.

Ditto. My old ISP had "reasonable use" listed in the terms of my contract and suspended me more than once for exceeding it. However, despite multiple requests, they could never tell me what reasonable use was - just that I had exceeded it by being connected most of the day. I was even accused of running a server ... on 56k.

 

[bLack0ut]

Oversell? Do you believe that an ISP should be required to have enough bandwidth that every single customer can use their 100% maximum possible rated speeds 24 hours a day? Welcome to a world of internet service that costs 1000% more than it does today. If you want that kind of bandwidth, you could always lease your own line..

That's some solid logic, but how about enormous amount of money the ISPs were given by the govt to upgrade their lines? If they actually used that money for that purpose, instead of giving their execs huge bonuses, this problem would have been done and over with.

Also, either ISPs should not be a monopoly, or there should be severe govt regulation similar to other utilities. The current state provides no reason for ISPs to improve their technology, which is bad for the nation as a whole.

 

[ratbuddy]

Good and bad can come from this. Capping basically means that cable companies don't have to expand or improve their services... Twenty years from now we could still all be paying $50 a month for a 8mb connection. If people are using more bandwidth, and there is no cap, then the cable companies have to meet the needs of the consumers and offer more value for your dollar. If they have a cap and are not required to improve their services then we all get screwed and we have to hemorrhage money. Here in Korea I pay about $20 US for 80mb/sec down and 100+ channels. Why? Because people play computer games in swarms and PC gaming places are all over the place. Also, there is no enforcement of piracy laws so people download like it's going out of style. More demand = more supply. That's basic economics. Cable companies don't want to spend money to increase supply so they cap the demand.

There's also a population density of (wiki says) 1274/square mile in South Korea, compared to 80/square mile here in USA. Slight difference in overhead as far as stringing up the actual cable and equipment that goes along with it

edit: Just checked, wow. 50 million people in a country that's roughly the size of Wyoming.

 

[Omsion]

There's also a population density of (wiki says) 1274/square mile in South Korea, compared to 80/square mile here in USA. Slight difference in overhead as far as stringing up the actual cable and equipment that goes along with it

edit: Just checked, wow. 50 million people in a country that's roughly the size of Wyoming.

Well, NJ has a population density of around 1200/m^2 as well.

The most densely populated parts of the country still don't have ISP lines that match up.
Pop density is certainly a fine excuse for the majority of the country. But too bad ISP lines still suck comparatively in the densest parts too.

 

[bLack0ut]

There's also a population density of (wiki says) 1274/square mile in South Korea, compared to 80/square mile here in USA. Slight difference in overhead as far as stringing up the actual cable and equipment that goes along with it

edit: Just checked, wow. 50 million people in a country that's roughly the size of Wyoming.

This argument has been beaten to death over and over. Why not string up only New York, or some other huge city?

Density: 27,147/sq mi

That excuse won't work.

Also, in S. Korea, even in the boonies way out by the rice paddies, you can get seriously fast internet (54 Mbps ADSL2). And this is like 10 miles from the nearest town.