ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes • Hacker News Board

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#11

Post by michaelbuckbee » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 6:57 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #5

I don't understand why ISPs aren't offering some benefit to their users when they introduce these transfer caps. Why not add caps to the lower plans and lower the price as well? If it's true that the vast majority of users don't get anywhere near the caps, then this would be beneficial to most users. For heavier users, offer a plan with no cap (or, say, a cap 10x larger) and higher speed, and charge more for it. I th…

This is substantially what AT&T has done for the iPhone data plans.

200MB - $15/month 2GB - $25/month

Albeit without the higher speeds.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#12

Post by MikeCapone » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 7:00 PM UTC

As a Canadian who went through the debate here, I can say that caps and rate hikes aren't the same thing. The psychological impact on the average internet user is very different, and so online behaviour will be impacted in a different way.

Paying 40$ a month instead of 30$ for an unlimited or very high amount of data means you'll grumble a bit, but you'll still do whatever you did before.

Going from a very high cap or unlimited to a very low cap + expensive additional data means you'll very probably try to restrict your data transfers and do whatever you can not to exceed your cap.

You don't have a sunken cost like with a normal rate hike..

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#13

Post by jm4 » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 7:01 PM UTC

MrVitaliy wrote: post #4

The default 2Gb wireless internet cap from Verizon is pathetic. It is even more pathetic with their 4G network advertisement. All it takes is 1(maybe 2) HD movies from Netflix to hit a monthly cap.

Just playing devil's advocate here... Is the wireless cap really a bad thing? I have a 2GB cap right now. I still stream music, surf and watch the occasional YouTube video. I haven't gotten close to the cap yet. I pay about as much as I did for "unlimited" and the biggest impact is that I now keep track of how much data I'm using. Yeah, it's annoying. It's easier to have unlimited and not have to think about it. But I also don't want a wireless internet experience that's as slow as molasses because everyone is walking around streaming Netflix day and night or some cheapskate has decided to use his smartphone as his home internet connection. I can deal with caps as long as they are reasonable and periodically adjusted to account for increasing demands of mobile apps and sites.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#14

Post by baddox » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 7:22 PM UTC

rexf wrote: post #10

baddox wrote: post #5

I don't understand why ISPs aren't offering some benefit to their users when they introduce these transfer caps. Why not add caps to the lower plans and lower the price as well? If it's true that the vast majority of users don't get anywhere near the caps, then this would be beneficial to most users. For heavier users, offer a plan with no cap (or, say, a cap 10x larger) and higher speed, and charge more for it. I th…

In the US, cable companies are often monopolies in providing broadband internet. They get away with offering mediocre product and poor service simply because there are no alternatives. I've had the backwards situation where it was cheaper to buy basic cable TV + cable internet than stand alone cable internet. It would be foolish of them to offer a cheaper, limited cable internet plan when they can make everybody pay…

From my small town of 10,000 people, to my college town with 100,000, to my current home in San Francisco, there has always been at least two broadband providers: usually the local cable company and AT&T DSL. Perhaps this isn't the norm, or perhaps two companies with completely separate local infrastructures isn't enough competition.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#15

Post by baddox » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 7:26 PM UTC

MikeCapone wrote: post #12

As a Canadian who went through the debate here, I can say that caps and rate hikes aren't the same thing. The psychological impact on the average internet user is very different, and so online behaviour will be impacted in a different way. Paying 40$ a month instead of 30$ for an unlimited or very high amount of data means you'll grumble a bit, but you'll still do whatever you did before. Going from a very high cap o…

What's surprising to me is that, at least with Comcast, there's simply no way to get the cap-free service I had before. I don't have the option to pay more to remove the cap (other than paying per gigabyte over the cap, which is silly).

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#16

Post by baddox » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 7:28 PM UTC

ronnier wrote: post #9

Ronkdar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the 2-5 GB caps are for wireless networks, aka 3G. How often do you download HD movies onto your phone? In the very next sentence it mentions 250 GB for desktop connections.

I watch HD streams using the Justin.tv app all the time, although I'm grandfathered in on a unlimited plan.

Can you watch live justin.tv streams on mobile phones?

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#17

Post by Game_Ender » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 7:33 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #14

rexf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, cable companies are often monopolies in providing broadband internet. They get away with offering mediocre product and poor service simply because there are no alternatives. I've had the backwards situation where it was cheaper to buy basic cable TV + cable internet than stand alone cable internet. It would be foolish of them to offer a cheaper, limited cable internet plan when they can make everybody pay…

From my small town of 10,000 people, to my college town with 100,000, to my current home in San Francisco, there has always been at least two broadband providers: usually the local cable company and AT&T DSL. Perhaps this isn't the norm, or perhaps two companies with completely separate local infrastructures isn't enough competition.

DSL is not good competition for any reasonable cable internet service. In Pittsburgh Comcast's $60 a month service is 5 times the speed of the $25 a month 1-3 mbps DSL service offered by Verizon DSL. The DSL connection is barely enough for reasonable quality video streaming, but it's not enough if you want to have two people use pipe at the same time. FIOS does provide decent competition but it's availability is limited.

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#18

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 7:33 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#19

Post by wmf » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 7:46 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #15

MikeCapone wrote: post #12

As a Canadian who went through the debate here, I can say that caps and rate hikes aren't the same thing. The psychological impact on the average internet user is very different, and so online behaviour will be impacted in a different way. Paying 40$ a month instead of 30$ for an unlimited or very high amount of data means you'll grumble a bit, but you'll still do whatever you did before. Going from a very high cap o…

What's surprising to me is that, at least with Comcast, there's simply no way to get the cap-free service I had before. I don't have the option to pay more to remove the cap (other than paying per gigabyte over the cap, which is silly).

Business service?

Re: ISP Bandwidth Caps are Really Rate Hikes

#20

Post by jeffool » Thu, Jul 28, 2011, 8:01 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #14

rexf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, cable companies are often monopolies in providing broadband internet. They get away with offering mediocre product and poor service simply because there are no alternatives. I've had the backwards situation where it was cheaper to buy basic cable TV + cable internet than stand alone cable internet. It would be foolish of them to offer a cheaper, limited cable internet plan when they can make everybody pay…

From my small town of 10,000 people, to my college town with 100,000, to my current home in San Francisco, there has always been at least two broadband providers: usually the local cable company and AT&T DSL. Perhaps this isn't the norm, or perhaps two companies with completely separate local infrastructures isn't enough competition.

I'm not sure if whichsituation is "the norm", but my area (southwest Georgia) and many surrounding communities only have one cable choice. In some of them there is a public option as well, but not many.