There is nothing reasonable about this. You pay Comcast for bandwidth. It shouldn't matter how much data you're using as long as you're not exceeding that bandwidth. If I pay for 250mbps, I should be able to download 24/7 (assuming I did the math right, that's 83.7 TB). Comcast isn't storing the bits, they're just moving them. This is simply their way of avoiding having to upgrade their peering arrangements (which are already abysmal). Level3 has a great blog post explaining a similar issue (http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/observations-internet-m...).
Well aware of contention ratios. That's the gamble the ISP makes. Now they're trying to pass the risk onto the consumer. That shouldn't be the consumer's problem. That problem also doesn't quite relate to a data cap. Contention ratios are entirely dependent on bandwidth. If everyone in my neighborhood had a 250mbps connection and we all downloaded at full blast at the exact same time, sure we'd face an issue with contention ratios. The amount of data transferred doesn't matter though.
How can you possibly not see these concepts as fundamentally related?
Yes, you're paying for a 250Mbps max connection speed, if your limit is 1000GB then you can only max out your connection for 9 hours a month, meaning other users have a chance to use the backhaul bandwidth, not just you!
Applying quota limits means less usage and allows for higher contention ratios to be used throughout the network. Which is absolutely the only way ISPs can afford to deliver you an Internet connection without charging thousands of dollars a month.
Infrastructure costs money, absolutely. But infrastructure is largely a fixed cost (plus some maintenance cost). After that, it's all peering arrangements. ISPs here in the US can have some pretty ridiculous profit margins (probably exaggerated, but http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/time-warner-cab...).
With gigabit internet slowly becoming standard, ISPs do have to invest quite a bit in upgrading their infrastructure. However, that investment is easily amortized over time.
All that being said, the amount of data is never in play. Only the rate at which you can push data through that infrastructure matters.
Yes, data quotas help ISPs have higher contention ratios, but that's simply cost cutting and it hurts the consumer. Effectively, the same money you're paying now is buying you less.
Last-mile ISPs have a very nasty way of trying to lie to consumers about how the internet works. I highly recommend you read the Level3 blog posts from around the time of the net neutrality discussions. They're very insightful into how the internet actually works. Last-mile ISPs can be and are effectively bullies because they own that last mile.
I don't understand the people who argue that 1TB is a lot of data. Sure, yes it is right now. What about 5 years from now? 4K TVs and streaming are already starting to become mainstream. Many online VR experiences are going to be resource heavy. 1TB isn't even the size of a decent consumer HDD, for people that do online backups. This seems like a preemptive strike against online media consumption. I can't wait to have any viable alternative to Comcast.
This is the argument I use again people using the "it's fine for now" argument for Australia having replaced the gigabit fibre-to-the-home plan with an equally expensive 25Mbit Fibre-to-the-node plan to save a whopping one year on construction time.
Sure, most people can live with 25Mbit now, but what about in five years? Ten? Twenty?
> I don't understand the people who argue that 1TB is a lot of data. Sure, yes it is right now.
We don't need to argue. You just agreed with us.
Comcast haven't said they'll never change this policy or offer greater plans. They're offering plans that reflect the current marketplace, not doing so is bad business.
In addition to that, if you read the article you'll see you can still get 100% unlimited Internet for $200/mo. They're simply asking their high-demand customers to pay in such a way that reflects what it costs to provide for those customers.
I don't walk into a restaurant and expect a flat price for my meal that's the same as every one else... err, unless it's an all-you-can-eat... and they charge for drinks!
That's not what's going on. You're not paying a flat price. If you want more bandwidth, you pay for it. The currency for an ISP is bandwidth. The amount of data that's transferred does not matter. This is basically pure profit for Comcast and comes from an artificial excuse that last-mile ISPs have effectively made up.
But it does matter. ISPs simply don't have the means to provide capacity for every user to simultaneously max out their connection at once. That is not, and never has been how Internet infrastructure works. That'd be like building a 100 lane highway because on Christmas it gets congested.
You're paying for peak performance, not 24/7 performance.
You're paying for a rate, not an absolute amount. The internet infrastructure works on that rate (bandwidth). You don't buy a 10GB switch or router, you buy a 1gbps switch or router. ISPs peer based on bandwidth.
I do understand, though, that by having a data cap they're encouraging users to use less of that bandwidth. However, again, they're just passing on costs to the consumer instead of paying a fixed cost to upgrade their peering arrangements.
This is an anticompetitive act. Anyone using >1TB is more than likely using Netflix, Youtube, etc. Comcast are using their broadband service to push people back to using Comcast cable and digital services!
I use about 2 to 3 TB every month, and I have a 200Mbps plan for 1 year. The data cap is not part of the plan when I sign it, is it legal to set a cap without get acknowledgement from it's customer?
I've been wondering the same thing. At the very least you should be able to argue that they've changed the contract and you should no longer be held liable for early termination.
I agree completely. My bet is this is Comcast's way of fighting back against net neutrality. With 4K streaming coming fast, it seems like they want to further pad those profit margins under the guise of fairness.
AT&T pulled fiber in San Jose and Sunnyvale about a month ago. Supposed to be lit up around the end of the year. Other cities are possible as well, those are just the two where I've actually seen the fiber.
Because rolling out a fibre network is very very very expensive. People who think they are entitled to certain speeds, data caps, or prices, don't understand this. That's why Google Fiber is reconsidering their investment. It simply is too expensive.
If you have a problem, you can ask your government to force Comcast to rent the network, as it happens in civilised countries like mine, but that makes it harder to compete in price.
I have to say it actually seems very reasonable. I don't quite get where the entitlement to unlimited data comes from. 1TB is a lot, and it has renewable "grace" months so a fluke doesn't turn into a giant bill - that's not rent-seeking behavior. $50 fixed tax on very heavy users is entirely appropriate. If real time vr becomes a thing and it becomes normal to use more than 1TB then I imagine the number will increase.
I'm not entitled to unlimited bandwidth -- but it is what I expect. I'm one of the customers affected by this and it's quite irritating for one simple reason: The cost of my internet connection is going up by 62% (or up to 253%) with no change in service whatsoever.
I pay $80/mo for a 250Mbit connection, which would (at full usage) allow me to download up to 82TB/mo. So my $79 now covers 1.2% of what it previously did, and I'm forced to pay $129 to get the same thing.
Of course, that's assuming that I actually opt into the $50/mo for unlimited data. My general monthly usage is only about 750GB, so I probably won't do that. If I need to download a few TB of data (which I do every couple months), I'll be paying $10 per 50GB block over 1TB -- up to $200. So that $79 I was paying before? Woops, that's $279 for the month.
The fact that this is screwing few users doesn't change that they're screwing us.
To put this in perspective, I'm in Japan. I have 2gb net, and I use more than 1tb regularly.
My wife watches a lot of Netflix, YouTube etc, I play a lot of gaming. Running at 60+GB a pop for some of these games, plus mods.
I also stream TV and movies while I code(I work from home most of the time), invariably I'm on a Skype call with video to two or three people while coding too(it's fine as long as I keep the iPad volume down for movie/TV).
That's with only two of us. I'd hate to imagine how much data we would use if we had two teenage children.
When I was in Australia, 1tb was very difficult to use, now that I have this much speed available and we're use to so much on demand, it would be mind numbing to have to micro manage it.
Oh for the record, that costs me approx USD $50 too. (Maybe 60, I'll have to ask my wife).
I'm not sure where to place your comment. You use a lot of bandwidth, all the time. Are you proud of that? I'm not judging; I just want to understand what you are claiming.
I don't quite get where the entitlement to unlimited data comes from.
It's not "unlimited" or some undeserved "entitlement."
Until the last mile providers like comcast started overselling, paying an ISP for an X bits/sec connection meant getting to use X bits/sec all day and all night. You got (line_bps * billing_period_sec) bits and ISPs didn't stick their nosy nose into your business.
Years ago Comcast started overselling internet access. Some users called their bluff and tried to use that X up/Y down they thought they bought. Comcast couldn't be arsed to continue delivering what they sold, so they instituted data caps.
The cable providers with honest marketing - of which I don't know if any are left - would sell you X/Y guaranteed, and if your neighbors weren't using their capacity, you'd get to exceed the rate you bought.
There normal charge per GB for me is ~$0.073, their new fees charge $0.20 per GB over 1TB.
Charging $10 per 50GB above 1TB is clearly punishment for anyone that doesn't subscribe to Comcast cable or digital products. This is an attack on the competition, Netflix, Youtube, et al.
1TB is not a lot. I download around 300GB a month on my 10/1 ADSL line, and I don't even watch HD video or stuff like that--it's mostly torrenting of software/movies. I'd probably go over 1TB if I had fibre.
That said I find data caps reasonable, but 1TB is not reasonable.
1TB is very generous as far as data caps go. Atleast it's better than Canada where the big three seem to weaponize data caps to slightly lower than reasonable for the average household to shock you with a +50$ bill and then upsell you to a more expensive plan.
Only comes off as generous based on their statistic that 99% of their users won't exceed it. If they started with something 'less generous' it would be met with more backlash. However, this is just preparing customers to be used to a data cap.
Oh look they are offering a new plan to customers ... what a bunch of crap... it should just say we need to make money this is what's its going to be from now on.
New plan for our customers ...lol. Not your customers more like your prisoners!!!
This is irrelevant. Three years ago every couple hundred gigabytes Comcast would simple kill my uplink without warning. The light was simply off on my modem. Fuck Comcast.
In Australia data caps are the norm, but you can get unlimited plans with certain ISPs. However, 1TB is a lot of data. To my knowledge there's not a single 1TB plan available in Australia, it's assumed that even on the unlimited plans you're not going to be using that much.
I don't have cable and generally don't watch free-to-air TV. I pretty much stream exclusively, using the highest bitrates available on my 85Mbps connection. I'm not sure how I'd ever use 1TB of data simply streaming.
Oh, I also work full-time from home as a software developer. Part of my work involves downloading and uploading large 3D models. I also have regular video conferences (screen sharing and what not). I've still never exceeded 300GB.
The only reason I've reached close to 300GB before is because I have a fairly considerable Steam library (500+ games) and decided to download about 50 in one month.
What is it that people are doing that gets them over 1TB?
> In Australia data caps are the norm, but you can get unlimited plans with certain ISPs. However, 1TB is a lot of data. To my knowledge there's not a single 1TB plan available in Australia, it's assumed that even on the unlimited plans you're not going to be using that much.
You can easily see by comparison that data caps affect what people do on the internet. I'm consistently above 1TB of traffic a month with only two people in the household that also work from there. (That's on my mobile connection, I also have cable but that's used less and I only have around 100GB there).
Why so much data? I'm not even sure. A bunch of devices updating, streaming, large data files to transfer. Adds up quickly.
You can see this especially with mobile data where people see the caps regularly. In Germany the average mobile SIM uses 300MB a month. In Austria that number is multiple GB.
Take an average family with 3 teenagers. Give them 4k streaming and you're looking at at least half of that a month in streaming alone.
4k might not be widely available now, but it's just a matter of time before it is.
That said, I do believe that 1tb is enough for a while, but I would just fear that they lower that bit by bit because "99% of our customers don't use that much".
Three people in a household + Netflix + 4K. I am in Australia on an internode nbn plan. Used to be a 1TB limit but now unlimited. I regularly go over 1TB.
When I'm programming outside of work hours, my wife streams crappy TV shows... so a LOT!
Haha, but yes, I see your point. I guess if you had a few heavy Internet users, who all worked from home (or didn't have jobs) then I guess you could reach 1TB. I imagine that's the exception though.
Is asking people to pay for what they use really that uncommon of an idea in the States?
> Is asking people to pay for what they use really that uncommon of an idea in the States?
Not from the states but from a country without data caps on either mobile data or home: we do pay what we use, but not by the traffic. The pricing is done here by the speed you want to get your data or upload.
I literally pay to raise my Internet connection from a measly 5Mbps to 100Mbps (theoretical max) then I pay extra to increase my data allowance. I guess it comes down to how much access costs. I'm presently on unlimited data, max speed available and I'm looking at about $75USD/month.
EDIT: I should note that I'm with a budget ISP. Most charge more than what I'm paying.
So no, it wouldn't. Well, okay, on a 31 day month it would ;)
But what streaming service allows you to stream that long without prompting you? That's 720 hours of footage. Not even Star Gate has enough footage for you to do that (most which was pre-HD).
I feel like you really have to clutch at straws to come up with how one could legitimately use 1TB of data on a home Internet connection.
> I feel like you really have to clutch at straws to come up with how one could legitimately use 1TB of data on a home Internet connection.
It just depends on what you do. Steam's and my PS4 auto updates for me alone plow through hundreds of gigabytes a month. Sure, I also work from home so that adds significant amounts of data to my plan but it's already not hard to utilize your internet above 1TB. However data usage is only going to go up and if you add a cap now, you will regret having them in a year.
There is more and more 4K content on small youtube channels and that alone has added significant amounts of data usage for me. I notice it every time I tether from my limited phone plan.
I'm talking about actual TV channels. They go 24/7 without running out of footage. Leaving one TV on is not an unreasonable thing.
I happen to have the weather channel open right now. It's quite possible that later I'll have this plus another stream open, using over 7Mbps total. And I'm only one user in this household.
Well that's one TV. What about a pc dling games, an iPad streaming a different show, a data retrieval after a format etc. It can go faster than you would imagine when your not micro managing.
I mean, if you leave your kitchen faucet running for a month, you will get a huge utility bill.
Or it could be a failed toilet flapper (yeah, my water bill was like $500 that time ;])
Anyways, your network connectivity is quite similar to your water/power/natural gas connections - there is a 'pipe' of finite capacity that is shared with your neighbours and so on.
iiNet and AmNet both did however recently-ish (last year or two) switched to offering unlimited instead in the battle for the market as the number of competitors continues to shrink.
I tell you though... 1TB really is a lot. I work from home, stream a lot of video content and also constantly download large swaths of ubuntu packages spinning my test clouds up and down.
I frequently use 2-300GB+ but I've never really come close to clipping the limit. And Telstra offer 3 full additional 1TB packs per year if you do (for free)
It's not that cheap though :) about $145/mo on velocity fibre.
Even if you had multiple children streaming 1080p I think you'd be OK. Limits might have to go up as 4K hits.
What? Im Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany there have been caps for years. I don't pay much attention nowadays but it was only, what, 6? years ago whem the limits on a Belgian connection with the main provider were 10 gb.
Interesting that they rolled this out first mostly in red states (except IL and ME). Was it a coincidence? The Nov 1 rollout is also heavy on red states.
Hmm. So - Comparing ISPs to utilities is interesting. Ignoring stuff like double-dipping, net neutrality, the absurd rate hike for the first tera of bytes versus the second, that if they sneak it in now they can say "well you knew about it" when everyone is streaming 360 VR video and blow past a TB...
For internet, I have:
- A throughput (overall speed)
- Fluctuation in speed
- Data caps and overages
- Use-or-lose-it data (from the caps)
- Installed equipment I "rent"
For utilities, like water, power, and gas:
- I have all that I need [for home use]
- (extremely rarely) Rolling blackouts
- Tiered pricing by usage
- Only pay for what you use
- Installed equipment I own (house?), or am not responsible for (apartment)
The really interesting one here is the data cap + use-or-lose vs tiered + pay as you go, but the only real difference (that my uneducated ass can see) is whether I pay for what I don't use.
But here's what's interesting: I turn off my AC to conserve power and save me money, except when I really want it. I really don't do that with the internet. I don't think - Oh, this'll cost me X in dollars-per-byte; maybe I won't. And the internet isn't really built to support that! I can't preview how much a site will cost to load; I don't have browser tools to "turn of lights in rooms I'm not using".
The closest thing I can liken it to is economy travel versus business travel.
In economy, I pay for everything a la carte. Aside from sheer discomfort - there's friction to every action, everything is at least a little aggravating, and I think about whether I actually want to do any given thing.
In business, I don't. I just ask for what I want and if it's available I get it. Zero friction (baring load time, I mean, wait time for service), everything is a little bit soothing, and I don't really think that much about whether I actually want something.
The second situation is more utopian, although it does occur more environment cost, since I'm more wasteful.
I think I'd rather have data caps than pay-per-byte [at the consumer level], and it doesn't really seem reasonable to expect no data caps. I want my super fast pipe that I use in bursts, rather than a reasonably fast pipe I use continuously. I want this because I like having an internet where people aren't thinking about what a page will cost them.
...except some people are, because they're under low data caps (mostly mobile?).
...but then there's still the edge effect when average internet usage approaches the caps.
...and maybe it IS a good idea to put pressure on the Web to reduce page sizes.
Worrying about page weight is kind of a red herring and micro-optimization. You've really got to get into binary data streams before it's possible to blow through a data cap like this. For example, you could download the full text of English Wikipedia twice a day, every day, and not come close to hitting 1 TB[1]. Text is cheap.
This is part of why I chuckle about people tearing their hair out to minify and obfuscate JS or CSS files to reduce them by a handful of kbs - when their pages load a dozen uncompressed full-resolution images and a 1080p auto-playing video.
Comcast has had 300GB data caps for a while now, but they weren't enforced. My guess is they determined it was too low, and measured that 1TB would be a reasonable cap based on common usage.
Usually anything higher is the result of a virus infecting a customer's computer, or some other problem.
