SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A company that tracks ISPs and data caps in the US has identified 196 home Internet providers that impose monthly caps on Internet users. Not all of them are enforced, but customers of many ISPs must pay overage fees when they use too much data.
BroadbandNow, a broadband provider search site that gets referral fees from some ISPs, has more than 2,500 home Internet providers in its database. This list includes telecommunications providers that are registered to provide service under the government's Lifeline program, which subsidizes access for poor people. BroadbandNow's team looked through the ISPs' websites to generate a list of those with data caps.
BroadbandNow excluded mobile providers from its list of ISPs with data caps, since caps are nearly universal among cellular companies. The list of 196 providers with caps includes 89 offering fixed wireless service, 45 fiber ISPs, 35 DSL ISPs, 63 cable ISPs, and two satellite providers. Some offer Internet service using more than one technology. Some of the providers are tiny, with territories covering just 100 or a few hundred people.
Data cap analysis found almost 200 ISPs imposing data limits in the US
(Score: 3, Interesting) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday August 08 2017, @12:33PM (4 children)
My cable internet provider RCN has a "cap" but its quite high; I've never actually come close to reaching it despite using Netflix for an hour a day on average. I suspect it's just targeted at people using file sharing services or the like. It helps that they do not count traffic between 9 AM and 5 PM on weekdays towards the cap. If I were serious about downloading a lot, I'd just schedule things to run then.
I do notice, I get better internet service later in the month. Maybe from people shutting theirs off after reaching the cap, not wanting to pay the overage fees?
(Score: 3, Informative) by RamiK on Tuesday August 08 2017, @12:54PM (3 children)
Which is many times below the national average:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption [wikipedia.org]
compiling...
(Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Tuesday August 08 2017, @03:18PM (2 children)
Wow!!! What are they even watching?? I can't imagine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday August 08 2017, @04:02PM
The word "binge-watching" has not only become mainstream, but the practice has become un-stigmatized among certain demographics.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 08 2017, @04:18PM
On regular TV? Ads. Lots and lots and lots of ads.
On streaming services, they're actually more likely to be watching content, rather than just leave the TV on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @01:14PM (1 child)
Possibly because I have their business plan
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @04:28AM
Check the small print. There's probably a mite.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by technoid_ on Tuesday August 08 2017, @03:23PM (1 child)
I have Suddenlink at the office and at home. Since the office is a business account, no cap, but at home I have a limit of 250gb, which I haven't hit, but I used 99.1% of it last month. If I want to bump up from 50/5 to 200/20, I can get unlimited at home too, but have been trying to keep the budget low.
My issue lately has been TimeMachine backups when I VPN into the office. The server for the backups is at the office, so when I VPN in for something else, I my rMBP sees that the TimeMachine server is available and starts uploading. Since TimeMachine has saved me before, I don't mind too much.
At least when I upgrade to the 200/20 unlimited plan my backups will go faster.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @06:36PM
Different ISP, but my cap is also 250 GB (base 10 no less). I never get the actual advertised download rate, but if I did, I would hit my data cap in 9 hours, 15 minutes and 34 seconds. Put that way, sounds like a lot less. Whenever one of my friends says their data is fine, I do the math. For instance, my friend has their max tier and was complaining how much data he was using. I pointed out that his cap is 13.5 hours worth of downloads at full blast and that each additional "unit" of data is less than a minute at full speed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Tuesday August 08 2017, @03:55PM (25 children)
There's nothing inherently malicious about imposing some kind of data cap. I don't understand why some people think that bandwidth should always be free.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 08 2017, @04:16PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by iwoloschin on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:01PM
Are you paying for bandwidth or for bits? Right now internet access is generally sold as instantaneous bandwidth, with bit caps kind of tacked on in an haphazard matter. Make it clear about what you're selling and then maybe that's a bit more ok, provided there are different plans to match your usage (pay less for less bits, more for more, etc).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @05:08PM (5 children)
I agree in principle. It should be metered like my water/sewer and electricity.
The fact that it isn't means there something else going on, probably involving the marketing department at the ISP. Of course, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense because what does a duopoly need with marketing when they have captive customers?
My internet connection isn't capped, but if it were, I'd make sure to come within 99% of it every month. After all, they're charging me $50 or however much for 250 GB of however much, right? So it's rightfully mine to use according to the contract, right? Even if I'm just pissing it away transmitting zeros somewhere, I bought it, so it's mine to piss away, right?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Tuesday August 08 2017, @06:19PM (4 children)
Sure, but why spend your time being so petty? What your beef?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @06:25PM (1 child)
For me, it would be because US ISPs are piece of shit monopolies/duopolies that do as much to screw you over as they possibly can.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:11AM
That may be true, yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 08 2017, @07:41PM (1 child)
You have a strange definition of petty. I bought 250 GB per month of data, so I intend to use 250 GB per month of data. Is there something wrong with that?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:05AM
Yes - obviously - because you aren't actually getting anything out of that data usage.
A rational consumer would use whatever amount of data they wanted, just being careful to keep it below the cap. But you seem to want to burn all that data allowance out of some misplaced sense of spite.
If a train trip to your destination is the same price a train trip that overshoots your destination, which do you do?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday August 08 2017, @06:56PM (8 children)
I don't understand why some people think that bandwidth should always be free.
Because it always has been! Libraries never balked at my checking out half a dozen books per day when I was young, there was no limit on how long you could watch TV or listen to the radio, or how long you talked on the phone. It was free back when bandwidth was expensive for the providers, so much so that Slashdot often took down large sites.
You're going to start paying for air and rain now? WTF?
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday August 08 2017, @09:46PM
And guess what sparky, TV and radio are still unlimited and unless you are a totally cheap bastard (like me) phone service is unlimited these days as well. Care to guess why? If you are posting here you should have a clue but since it is apparent that not only do you not have one, half the people posting in these threads about Internet service are equally ignorant I shall explain.
When your cable company sends TNT down your cable wire it is a broadcast so it doesn't matter how many people watch it, the bandwidth cost is the same. Same for the radio. So few people actually talk on phones now that it isn't worth metering on most plans.
Streaming is not like these things, it sucks large amounts of bandwidth that directly varies depending on how much you watch and there is zero benefits of scale as more people watch, in fact it is the reverse as the available bandwidth gets maxed out and "BUFFERING" begins to appear. In a sane world Netflix would simply up the demands for a set top box a bit and buy a channel to broadcast their signal on. The vast majority of their viewing is now of a small number of shows with a long tail of everything else. So lease out a block of dedicated bandwidth on each cable system and broadcast all of that programming to be cached in the box or since Netflix in increasingly partnering with the cable company to be on their box, just cache it in the DVR. Better still admit that they have become a cable channel and just broadcast their original programming on a schedule and let the DVRs do their usual thing. Viewers would get a full HD picture, bandwidth consumption would drop, everybody would be happy. But we do not live in that sane world yet. Bandcaps are the Internet's way of nudging our way to that world. Without the demands of streaming video services there would be little need to cap bandwidth for anyone but the pirates.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:09AM (6 children)
Look at the pricing model for mobile data. You essentially pay per megabyte, but they don't really charge you for the speed of the connection you want. Everyone gets essentially the best speed on offer from the provider. I see nothing wrong with this model, and I see no reason to feel outraged over change.
If your problem is that you think the ISPs are charging unfair prices, that's a completely different question.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @01:23PM (5 children)
Speed would seem to be more directly related to their costs than data caps. If they've got a cable that can carry 1 gbps, it can do that all day and all night with no problem. It's not going to last any longer by running it at half speed.
Today, most non-mobile ISPs claim to be selling you a particular speed...but that speed varies based on how many others are using the same service. At the start of the month everyone uses heavily, and your service gets worse. Towards the end of the month, some people have hit their caps so there's less usage and your quality improves. Meanwhile some of their lines are now sitting idle and the service quality (the thing they advertised) is variable while the total bandwidth (the thing they often don't even discuss) is fixed!
What would make more sense IMO would be to sell a guaranteed minimum speed, rather than selling a maximum ("up to..."). So they might guarantee 10mbps, and during peak times you will get 10mbps. But off-peak you might get 50. There's no technical reason not to max out that infrastructure all the time.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 09 2017, @01:41PM (4 children)
Unless of course the contention over the airwaves causes slowdown for other users.
You just explained the reason: it's slower for everyone. Most customers care about the performance they can generally expect in real usage, not the performance they are totally guaranteed to get. Running the networks at full saturation all the time necessarily means everyone gets worse performance. It's not unreasonable that the pricing model discourage heavy usage.
On top of this, who'd want to be the first telco to advertise the pitiful bandwidth they can totally guarantee?
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @02:03PM (3 children)
Right...I was mostly talking about fixed line infrastructure, same as TFA...mobile is a bit different since you can't know the number of users to expect on a particular tower at any given time.
But their current model encourages usage patterns that degrade that service. They'll sell you a better speed than they can actually deliver, and they'll *try* to give you that speed all the time. So at peak times instead of a guaranteed minimum service quality you get massively degraded service compared to what you signed up for and might even lose service entirely. Peak times are, by definition, when most people are trying to use the service. So it doesn't do anyone any good if you're advertising speeds that they can only achieve when they aren't using it. On the other hand, more flexible speed limits would encourage people to move heavy loads into off-peak hours, providing better service for everyone else.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 09 2017, @02:47PM (2 children)
If you'll forgive a digression: I wonder how much of the 'peak times' problem comes from Netflix refusing to embrace offline viewing.
Apparently [netflix.com] it's now possible on Windows 10. If they allowed it on the major games consoles, I imagine that would moves things forward considerably.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:57PM (1 child)
Oh god, yeah I can talk about that for a bit... :)
Don't care much personally, but it'd be great for my parents. They were just starting to cut the cord and switch to streaming services when they moved and had to go from cable internet to satellite. Now they pretty much can't stream anything at all because of data caps...though they just got a better plan with a 20 gig cap, so they'll watch a show here and there, but they had to mostly switch back to network programming when they moved. But the satellite provider gives a second, higher cap for data between 2am and 5am (something close to that anyway). So if they could queue up Netflix downloads at night, they could keep streaming. Doesn't even need to be a PC -- I'm sure a Raspberry Pi would have about enough power to handle that as a set-top-box, and it'd easily be worth a hundred bucks or more if it lets them cut back that satellite package. And then Netflix can add all the DRM they want to keep the studios happy, as I assume that's part of the roadblock here.
Of course, Netflix probably has only a small handful of customers on satellite connections, so what do they care? But if more ISPs promoted off-peak usage, there would be more incentive for them to build such systems. Maybe we could even do something like the "smart grid" proposals, by having your PC contact your ISP to negotiate a preferred download time to keep the load more even...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:47AM
Set-top boxes are a good point. Here in the UK, Sky's boxes can download content from iPlayer for offline viewing (which isn't generally possible). Clearly the BBC trust Sky's boxes, DRM-wise.
Of course, it would take a set-top box not run by a company in competition with Netflix. I think games consoles would be a good start.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday August 08 2017, @07:12PM (3 children)
There's nothing inherently malicious about imposing some kind of data cap. I don't understand why some people think that bandwidth should always be free.
Well, ISPs used to advertise them as "unlimited." A bandwidth cap in that scenario is false advertising.
So long as they don't advertise them as unlimited (which they don't really do anymore) and the caps are spelled out in your service agreement then it seems like fair game to me.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday August 08 2017, @08:12PM (2 children)
Until you read the fine print, see a 10 GB/mo cap for a $50/mo plan, and discover that you're paying $5 per GB. With Windows 10 feature updates using 3 GB per computer in the household, how is that price reasonable?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:14AM (1 child)
It's obviously not, but that's not what we're talking about.
The question at hand is whether it's unfair to impose data caps. You are talking about the questions of false advertising and Windows' inefficiency.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:34PM
It's unfair for an ISP to impose a data cap without making the cap conspicuous in all advertising. And in areas where the best available Internet access has a harsh cap, it's also unfair for a government to mandate citizens' use of data-inefficient software, such as making tax return preparation and filing software exclusive to Windows OS.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by https on Tuesday August 08 2017, @10:41PM (3 children)
...because a router consumes power no matter if you keep your pipe saturated or empty.
The problem, if it is one, is that more than a few ISPs have their ROI predicated on oversubscription, and are unwilling to admit that unused bandwidth is lost forever. They're quite happy to have their customers not knowing the reality of network economics and don't care if they're misinformed in a particular way.
The fact that they're getting people to believe the bullshit speaks to an impressive marketing campaign.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:18AM (2 children)
But network contention is a real thing.
On top of that, it's not always unfair for a company to charge for something it can do 'for free', if that service depends on expensive infrastructure.
It doesn't cost a telco any real resources to process an SMS, or connect a phone call, or route an IP packet, but the infrastructure must be paid for somehow.
Whether they charge per month, or per megabyte, doesn't instantly make them exploitative. Whether their pricepoint is unfair depends on, well, the pricepoint. (And of course misleading advertising is also bad, and rather pervasive.)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 09 2017, @02:28PM (1 child)
That's the same excuse pharma uses. They're for-profit businesses; they paid off the R&D costs of Epipens years ago. I'm sure the ISPs are making plenty of money.
No, the exploitative part comes from overselling, lack of competition, and maybe lying about the definition of "unlimited."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 09 2017, @02:45PM
Then the question is whether they're reinvesting in a way that's good for society. My point - that the money must come from somewhere - remains. Particularly considering that maintenance isn't free, and that technology constantly evolves.
Agreed. Things aren't as bad here in the UK, but shady practices appear now and then.