KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN! :ultra:
QuoteAT&T starts capping broadband
By David Goldman, staff writerMay 3, 2011: 6:50 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The days of all-you-can-surf broadband are vanishing.
AT&T this week began capping its Internet delivery service for broadband and DSL customers. The move comes 11 months after it placed similar caps on its mobile customers.
Email Print U-Verse -- AT&T's high-speed broadband, television and telephone network -- now limits customers to 250 gigabytes of Internet usage each month. DSL users are capped at 150 GB. Customers who exceed the limits will have to pay $10 for each additional 50 GB.
AT&T moved in June to set pricing tiers for its mobile customers, offering light users a plan that maxes out at 200 megabytes. The company also sells a pricier 2 GB plan. AT&T (T, Fortune 500) remains the outlier among the three major wireless companies, though Sprint (S, Fortune 500) and Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) Wireless are expected to follow suit with caps soon.
But AT&T isn't alone in instituting restrictions on residential broadband usage.
Comcast (CMCSA, Fortune 500) -- by far the largest broadband provider in the U.S. -- also has a 250 GB cap, and Time Warner Cable (TWC, Fortune 500) experimented with a tiered billing service in some markets in 2008. Though broadband caps are a relatively new phenomenon in the United States, variations on Internet cap structures are quite common in Canada, Asia and in European countries.
AT&T's caps will affect just 2% of its customers, the company said. The restrictions are necessary, AT&T maintained, because those in the top 2% use up 20% of the network's bandwidth. The highest-traffic users download as much as 19 typical households, on average, which slows speeds for other users, AT&T said.
"Our approach is based on customers' feedback," said Mark Siegel, spokesman for AT&T. "They told us that the people who use the most should pay more, and they also told us we should make it easy for them to track their usage. We think our approach addresses these concerns."
Siegel called the caps "generous," and said that AT&T's DSL customers use just 18 GB per month on average. The company didn't provide similar statistics for its U-Verse high-speed Internet customers. Globally, broadband customers typically use 15 GB per month, according to Cisco (CSCO, Fortune 500).
The caps are fairly forgiving. DSL customers would need to watch 65 hours of high-definition videos on Netflix (NFLX) to reach the limit, and high-speed customers would need to watch 109 hours.
Analysts see the move as a strategic one. AT&T, Comcast and many other broadband providers also sell cable TV service, which a growing number of customers are dropping in favor of video on-demand services like Netflix.
"This probably isn't absolutely necessary," said Vince Vittore, broadband analyst at Yankee Group. "It's mostly a move to prevent customers from cutting off video services."
Vittore believes Comcast and AT&T's caps are indicative of what will become a larger trend in broadband services throughout the country.
Cisco recently forecast that video on-demand usage will double every 2 1/2 years. AT&T said its customers are using more broadband as data-intensive video services like Netflix become more popular. Video currently makes up 40% of all Internet traffic and will exceed 91% by 2014, according to Cisco.
Though typical broadband users don't come close to approaching the caps now, the increase in average video consumption will undoubtedly cause a greater number of users to exceed their limits in the coming years.
That could force broadband providers to raise their caps in the future if customers begin to complain.
To head off a backlash, AT&T is sending customers alerts when they reached 65%, 90% and 100% of their data allotment each month. The company is also giving customers an undefined grace period before it charges them for another 50 GB. AT&T also is allowing customers to check their data usage online.
Still, data caps likely won't sit well with those who have called for broadband providers to improve their infrastructure and service.
The Obama administration has harshly criticized the state of the country's broadband infrastructure, noting that most other countries offer broader service with far faster speeds. The president even alluded in last year's State of the Union address to a study in which the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked the United States 31st in median broadband speed.
As part of its National Broadband Plan, the FCC has set out to bring 100-megabit-per-second speeds to 100 million Americans.
Some Internet companies fed up with the state of American broadband are taking matters into their own hands. Google (GOOG, Fortune 500), for instance, is deploying a 1-gigabit-per-second network in Kansas City, Kan.
I'm capped at 60
Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2011, 09:29:22 AM
I'm capped at 60
Yes, but as an American I have a larger appetite. :mad:
Time Warner still doesn't have one :yeah: (although obviously they'll be quick to institute it now that it is becoming industry practice <_<)
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2011, 09:55:42 AM
Time Warner still doesn't have one :yeah: (although obviously they'll be quick to institute it now that it is becoming industry practice <_<)
Yep.
Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2011, 09:30:34 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2011, 09:29:22 AM
I'm capped at 60
Yes, but as an American I have a larger appetite. :mad:
"All you can consume" services are in our Bill of Rights or something.
I wouldn't want a cap even if I bought the line that it would save me money. It's worth overpaying a few $$ to avoid the annoyance and anxiety of running over my limit. So far both Sprint and Time Warner have done a good job of avoiding the temptation to cap.
Welcome to our World, America.
Stupid Regulators allowing this. The internet isn't like Electricity!
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2011, 09:58:37 AM
"All you can consume" services are in our Bill of Rights or something.
I wouldn't want a cap even if I bought the line that it would save me money. It's worth overpaying a few $$ to avoid the annoyance and anxiety of running over my limit. So far both Sprint and Time Warner have done a good job of avoiding the temptation to cap.
I may look into switching from AT&T to another provider. However, options are fairly limited in my semi-rural area. I used to have Insight cable, which isn't yet capping I don't think, but dropped them because their connectivity was horrible: I finally dropped them after one outage where internet was down for THREE FUCKING DAYS.
AT&T DSL is slower (unless you opt to pay a lot more monthly), but I've never once had a dropped signal, ever.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 09:59:38 AM
Stupid Regulators allowing this.
Dude, it's the government. Of course they're stupid and easily fooled by lobbyists.
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2011, 09:58:37 AM
Time Warner have done a good job of avoiding the temptation to cap.
Research shows that Time Warner was testing it out a few years ago but faced outrage. With Comcast and AT&T aligned on this issue though, it seems like Time Warner would jump on the bandwagon.
Capped interwebs? WTF is this the Stone Age? Oh, it's America.
The article claims this is common in Europe. No?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 04, 2011, 10:25:53 AM
The article claims this is common in Europe. No?
The article lies.
wiki:
QuoteMany broadband Internet Service Providers in North America and Europe introduced bandwidth caps in the early 21st century. The same practice has been in place in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and South Africa since the release of broadband.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 04, 2011, 10:25:53 AM
The article claims this is common in Europe. No?
Never been on capped internet in my life, and I cannot recall any friends or relatives being on one. Obviously it can still be common in Europe.
Seeing Ireland and Eastern Europe mentioned specifically in news articles.
UPC/chello is also giving me a flat rate here, fortunately.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281254873.png&hash=a7fab08954983a82f00c498d71edd2ac91f09f21)
It is pretty much the norm to have caps here. Lack of a cap is the main thing I look for in my broadband supplier.
Which at current is Rupert Murdoch.
Sure I have unlimited broadband but...at what cost. :unsure:
@Syt Your download speed is 20 times higher than mine. :blush: America = FAIL.
Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2011, 10:53:12 AM
@Syt Your download speed is 20 times higher than mine. :blush: America urban areas = FAIL.
FYP
Don't you live in Vienna Syt? :hmm:
Cybercable/Noos/Numericable was capped in Paris at the turn of the century but then I got broadband in 1998 there. Numericable (linked to Syt's UPC I believe) has not been capped in years.
Quote from: Valmy on May 04, 2011, 10:57:25 AM
Don't you live in Vienna Syt? :hmm:
Yes, the speed test connected me to a Brno/Brünn server to test the connection.
I'm not aware of any ISP in America that provides downstream speeds that high... :hmm:
There isn't.
We're lagging behind because the Telcos spend money on mobile infrastructure instead of the Wired infrastructure.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281274258.png&hash=572c9bebb9225bd9d908c2d8e8fb4af4c237ad53)
this is my work internet speed. It is 5 times faster in dl then my home dl speed. The UL speed is 100 faster then my home UL speed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281272118.png&hash=4fafbf6267ea4da14c4926be1af8edd9cba0d236)
Diaf Syt and brainiac
LOL. And here I thought mine was pretty OK, 5.3 down, 0.6 up, ping 70. Apparently.
Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2011, 11:04:37 AM
LOL. And here I thought mine was pretty OK, 5.3 down, 0.6 up, ping 70. Apparently.
That's basically what I have, though I've throttled the download speed down a hair as part of running QoS on my router.
To be fair to America the internet is still new and exciting over there. It is not yet a routine thing that people just expect to work.
Quote from: The Brain on May 04, 2011, 11:08:10 AM
To be fair to America the internet is still new and exciting over there. It is not yet a routine thing that people just expect to work.
:mad:
Oh, and I also have a second broadband in case the main one has a hiccup. :hmm:
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 11:01:41 AM
There isn't.
We're lagging behind because the Telcos spend money on mobile infrastructure instead of the Wired infrastructure.
In both areas (mobile coverage and internet infrastructure) Western Europe had one advantage vs. U.S.: short distances, high population density. It's probably more viable economically to bring mobile and high speed broadband to, say North Germany or the Vienna/Bratislava hub than to a similarly sized area in the U.S. Midwest or Alaska.
I like how I'm not even in the top 10% in Sweden.
Scandinavia though has pretty great internet speeds and it is quite equal to the US for population density.
Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2011, 10:53:01 AM
It is pretty much the norm to have caps here.
Capped interwebs? WTF is this the Stone Age? Oh, it's Europe.
Population density (/km2):
United States 32
Sweden 21
It's Wiki though so probably just lies.
Quote from: The Brain on May 04, 2011, 11:16:04 AM
Population density (/km2):
United States 32
Sweden 21
It's Wiki though so probably just lies.
The difference is Sweden has one urban area and a whole lot of nothing, while the US has many urban areas separated by whole lots of nothing.
I'm not even sure why a focus is being put on Scandinavia when discussing Europe. When has it ever been relevant? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on May 04, 2011, 11:14:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2011, 10:53:01 AM
It is pretty much the norm to have caps here.
Capped interwebs? WTF is this the Stone Age? Oh, it's Europe.
That's a little ironic given the OP.
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2011, 11:23:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 04, 2011, 11:14:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2011, 10:53:01 AM
It is pretty much the norm to have caps here.
Capped interwebs? WTF is this the Stone Age? Oh, it's Europe.
That's a little ironic given the OP.
Not really given that grumbler was mocking the poster who made a similar statement.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 04, 2011, 11:23:12 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 04, 2011, 11:16:04 AM
Population density (/km2):
United States 32
Sweden 21
It's Wiki though so probably just lies.
The difference is Sweden has one urban area and a whole lot of nothing, while the US has many urban areas separated by whole lots of nothing.
Consider your straw firmly grasped.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 09:59:38 AM
Stupid Regulators allowing this. The internet isn't like Electricity!
:huh: Does this actually mean anything? They are, in fact, trying to ration usage of a limited resource here by one of the most basic of methods--pricing. How would "Stupid Regulators" not "allowing this" be better for anyone?
My UMTS connection only gets 1 mbit downstream and 0.25 upstream. And it's capped at 10 GB when they cut your speed. But you don't get to 10 GB with just 1 mbit downstream anyway. But it's cheap and mobile.
Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2011, 10:03:25 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 09:59:38 AM
Stupid Regulators allowing this.
Dude, it's the government. Of course they're stupid and easily fooled by lobbyists.
Or perhaps it could be a tool for the company to use in order to ensure quality of service.
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2011, 11:23:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 04, 2011, 11:14:53 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2011, 10:53:01 AM
It is pretty much the norm to have caps here.
Capped interwebs? WTF is this the Stone Age? Oh, it's Europe.
That's a little ironic given the OP.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jonrb.com%2Femoticons%2Fwhoosh.gif&hash=bbd89e89f761b733c91fce1a62517e3351485b74)
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:30:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 09:59:38 AM
Stupid Regulators allowing this. The internet isn't like Electricity!
:huh: Does this actually mean anything? They are, in fact, trying to ration usage of a limited resource here by one of the most basic of methods--pricing. How would "Stupid Regulators" not "allowing this" be better for anyone?
The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.
Shit. I've been a U-Verse customer since they first laid fiber up my street in ...2007? I fucking love it. Or maybe it's just that it's so much better than the Charter cable I had before. Either way, this is a big bummer. I use a hundred hours of Netflix a month easy.
I guess I'm the problem. :P
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 11:33:07 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:30:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 09:59:38 AM
Stupid Regulators allowing this. The internet isn't like Electricity!
:huh: Does this actually mean anything? They are, in fact, trying to ration usage of a limited resource here by one of the most basic of methods--pricing. How would "Stupid Regulators" not "allowing this" be better for anyone?
The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.
:tinfoil:
Quote from: Syt on May 04, 2011, 11:11:13 AM
In both areas (mobile coverage and internet infrastructure) Western Europe had one advantage vs. U.S.: short distances, high population density. It's probably more viable economically to bring mobile and high speed broadband to, say North Germany or the Vienna/Bratislava hub than to a similarly sized area in the U.S. Midwest or Alaska.
The relevant comparison would be parts of Europe that are less densely populated, no? And living in New YOrk, I can't get a download speed like Syt's...
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:40:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 11:33:07 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:30:06 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 09:59:38 AM
Stupid Regulators allowing this. The internet isn't like Electricity!
:huh: Does this actually mean anything? They are, in fact, trying to ration usage of a limited resource here by one of the most basic of methods--pricing. How would "Stupid Regulators" not "allowing this" be better for anyone?
The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.
:tinfoil:
Okay, there's a limit of bytes per second but you consuming 200gb of data/month or 2gb/month makes no difference.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281339930.png&hash=01bc1dfeffe650080271ccc8d881a6611246ed75)
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 11:45:16 AM
Okay, there's a limit of bytes per second but you consuming 200gb of data/month or 2gb/month makes no difference.
Ah, now we're on to something. Yes, I'm aware that there's virtually no difference between consumption of relatively little data and large amounts, but what method other than pricing by usage would you suggest the company use to recoup infrastructure investments that allow for greater bandwidth in the future? At least pricing by usage would seem, on the face of it, to be a far more equitable method of doing so.
What the fuck good is a hundred megabits if you're capped at 60mb anyway?
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:49:54 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 11:45:16 AM
Okay, there's a limit of bytes per second but you consuming 200gb of data/month or 2gb/month makes no difference.
Ah, now we're on to something. Yes, I'm aware that there's virtually no difference between consumption of relatively little data and large amounts, but what method other than pricing by usage would you suggest the company use to recoup infrastructure investments that allow for greater bandwidth in the future? At least pricing by usage would seem, on the face of it, to be a far more equitable method of doing so.
I suggest a surcharge on iPhones and Macintosh computers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 04, 2011, 11:51:21 AM
I suggest a surcharge on iPhones and Macintosh computers.
i.e. a gay tax. :)
:x
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281348155.png&hash=5d470776b23b746b7ffdb4c1558ed552c299254f) (http://www.speedtest.net)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 04, 2011, 11:51:21 AM
I suggest a surcharge on iPhones and Macintosh computers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi163.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft292%2Fsmiliegirl2007%2Femot-fappery.gif&hash=136001add9b0c9148a0d6b27032cbe3c0ddf35ac)
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:52:01 AM
:x
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281348155.png&hash=5d470776b23b746b7ffdb4c1558ed552c299254f) (http://www.speedtest.net)
"Faster than 50% of US" really sells it. :lol:
Quote from: Syt on May 04, 2011, 11:53:58 AM
"Faster than 50% of US" really sells it. :lol:
"Only breaks down a few times a year!"
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:49:54 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 11:45:16 AM
Okay, there's a limit of bytes per second but you consuming 200gb of data/month or 2gb/month makes no difference.
Ah, now we're on to something. Yes, I'm aware that there's virtually no difference between consumption of relatively little data and large amounts, but what method other than pricing by usage would you suggest the company use to recoup infrastructure investments that allow for greater bandwidth in the future? At least pricing by usage would seem, on the face of it, to be a far more equitable method of doing so.
By the amount they already charge you for the service? In canada, the profit margin of big 5 is ~24%. They can afford their investments.
Around here the word "fair" is usually thrown in argument for UBB. What's fair about it? If I only use 10% of my cap. I don't get a refund.
So, you're arguing for everyone's prices to go up rather than UBB. I don't think that'll fly, for some reason.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281352508.png&hash=ac65c60c5b240794f0c5ec88ddf4c0d334614391)
I don't like the idea of a cap, but they have to pay for it somehow. I actually have no idea how much we download per month.
I guess the question I'm interested in is how do they pay for it in places like Sweden and Finland. Are there subsidies?
I really don't get the outrage at all. First of all, they're not capping it, they're just metering it, turning it from a flat price to a variable price. Second of all, isn't that an economically efficient decision? Shouldn't people who incur relatively more costs for the provider pay more? If they don't, then users who don't use Internet a lot subsidize those who do, and the whole pie is less efficiently allocated.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fiphone%2F111868912.png&hash=3b4b6bc0a8c62798a8ee9abe0489be78d5202abd)
RE : GF
Note that I'm not addressing the fact that yours (and our) telecomms are some of the worst companies in our respective countries. I think a lot of news focused on usage caps and the like distracts from the far bigger issue of the regional monopolies that the companies continue to hold. I suspect that a truly competitive market would see caps disappear, or be quite a bit higher than the one's instituted by the old telecomms.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 11:33:07 AM
The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.
:huh: It's not free to provide either.
It's not that I think it's unfair, it's just that I'm annoyed that I will have to start monitoring my internet usage now. I can afford to pay more, but I'm insufferably cheap. :(
Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2011, 12:00:25 PM
It's not that I think it's unfair, it's just that I'm annoyed that I will have to start monitoring my internet usage now. I can afford to pay more, but I'm insufferably cheap. :(
How much do you use? I use the internet quite a bit, download a goodly amount of shows, etc. (though I don't use Netflix) and my usage came nowhere near the cap that AT&T's starting this month.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:59:25 AM
Note that I'm not addressing the fact that yours (and our) telecomms are some of the worst companies in our respective countries. I think a lot of news focused on usage caps and the like distracts from the far bigger issue of the regional monopolies that the companies continue to hold. I suspect that a truly competitive market would see caps disappear, or be quite a bit higher than the one's instituted by the old telecomms.
I think the opposite will be true. In a truly competitive market, prices would be more metered than they are now. Metered pricing would make infrastructure investment more efficient, which in turn would make companies offering metered pricing more competitive.
Quote from: DGuller on May 04, 2011, 12:02:20 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:59:25 AM
Note that I'm not addressing the fact that yours (and our) telecomms are some of the worst companies in our respective countries. I think a lot of news focused on usage caps and the like distracts from the far bigger issue of the regional monopolies that the companies continue to hold. I suspect that a truly competitive market would see caps disappear, or be quite a bit higher than the one's instituted by the old telecomms.
I think the opposite will be true. In a truly competitive market, prices would be more metered than they are now. Metered pricing would make infrastructure investment more efficient, which in turn would make companies offering metered pricing more competitive.
You might be right, especially if the price indexes are fine-tuned.
I hope this only includes the internet. My television comes down the same fiber and is essentially all "downloaded". Come to think of it, I got a big letter from them yesterday with a new set of terms and whatever. I think I should actually read that...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281369398.png&hash=a7ec9f1caaedb184b2734bab9b7ae6f3295b7002)
Not at home though -_-
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 12:01:35 PM
How much do you use? I use the internet quite a bit, download a goodly amount of shows, etc. (though I don't use Netflix) and my usage came nowhere near the cap that AT&T's starting this month.
I have no idea actually, but I have a WRT350N with DD-WRT mega running, which means I can monitor my monthly bandwidth usage. I should have at least two months' worth of data on there I can check when I get home tonight.
Quote from: DGuller on May 04, 2011, 11:59:31 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 11:33:07 AM
The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.
:huh: It's not free to provide either.
The cost to provide 1 gb of data is estimated to be 1 to 3¢. The faster the pipe is, the cost becomes cheaper.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281356768.png&hash=2d0d89a79c571c4271a2d45bd9c1c900d9f75019)
:) There are advantages to being in the south.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 04, 2011, 12:06:20 PM
I hope this only includes the internet. My television comes down the same fiber and is essentially all "downloaded". Come to think of it, I got a big letter from them yesterday with a new set of terms and whatever. I think I should actually read that...
AT&T's service is only including the internet in its caps, yes, and you get "extra" bandwidth (100GBs) if you're part of their TV/internet/phone bundle service program.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 12:08:00 PM
The cost to provide 1 gb of data is estimated to be 1 to 3¢. The faster the pipe is, the cost becomes cheaper.
Are you including the cost of capital in that?
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2011, 12:08:41 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281356768.png&hash=2d0d89a79c571c4271a2d45bd9c1c900d9f75019)
:) There are advantages to being in the south.
Show us home speeds.
:contract:
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 12:01:35 PM
How much do you use? I use the internet quite a bit, download a goodly amount of shows, etc. (though I don't use Netflix) and my usage came nowhere near the cap that AT&T's starting this month.
Yep, I just found it. With 3 computers in the house and someone always on them, we've so far stayed below 34 GB.
Quote from: DGuller on May 04, 2011, 12:10:02 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 12:08:00 PM
The cost to provide 1 gb of data is estimated to be 1 to 3¢. The faster the pipe is, the cost becomes cheaper.
Are you including the cost of capital in that?
I don't think so. I'm not viper.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281378904.png&hash=76902751fd134de99a17654db70c5764cf366fdd)
Quote from: Maximus on May 04, 2011, 12:10:32 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 12:01:35 PM
How much do you use? I use the internet quite a bit, download a goodly amount of shows, etc. (though I don't use Netflix) and my usage came nowhere near the cap that AT&T's starting this month.
Yep, I just found it. With 3 computers in the house and someone always on them, we've so far stayed below 34 GB.
Careful, the usage-cap bogeyman is coming to get you.
Quote from: katmai on May 04, 2011, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2011, 12:08:41 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281356768.png&hash=2d0d89a79c571c4271a2d45bd9c1c900d9f75019)
:) There are advantages to being in the south.
Show us home speeds.
:contract:
But I'm at work. :huh:
I think the most I've used in a month was 40 gigs, and that was when I bought a DVD player, and went crazy streaming all kinds of stuff on Netflix.
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 12:13:11 PM
Careful, the usage-cap bogeyman is coming to get you.
If we used netflix streaming video more I bet that would change. I can rarely find anything on there worth watching.
I wonder what the relative costs are for on-demand TV vs streaming video over IP.
My household streams roughly 10 hours a day on average of Netflix traffic. Counting mine and my wife's. It's the primary viewing medium by a long shot. Second being the DVR. Live TV is almost an insignificance during non-NCAA football season.
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2011, 10:08:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2011, 09:58:37 AM
Time Warner have done a good job of avoiding the temptation to cap.
Research shows that Time Warner was testing it out a few years ago but faced outrage. With Comcast and AT&T aligned on this issue though, it seems like Time Warner would jump on the bandwagon.
That's what was said about Time Warner 3 years ago; hopefully it's just as wrong this time. There is some TV and ISP competition seeping into my area, so hopefully that will help things.
I get 15mbps down at home & a pitiful 500kbps up.
On my phone, from inside my work building:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_TIoZKYpM48w/TcGSm8_zr3I/AAAAAAAAAvA/2JThu99OOpQ/s400/snap20110504_135240.png)
Quote from: DGuller on May 04, 2011, 11:57:50 AM
I really don't get the outrage at all. First of all, they're not capping it, they're just metering it, turning it from a flat price to a variable price. Second of all, isn't that an economically efficient decision? Shouldn't people who incur relatively more costs for the provider pay more? If they don't, then users who don't use Internet a lot subsidize those who do, and the whole pie is less efficiently allocated.
Did I misread the article? I don't see a mention of lowering the price for people who stay under the limit...
Quote from: Faeelin on May 04, 2011, 01:03:45 PM
Did I misread the article? I don't see a mention of lowering the price for people who stay under the limit...
The people under the limit may not pay less immediately, but down the line they're less likely to get their rates increased.
:Embarrass:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281483808.png&hash=86b72a5c1f834919abdce1070ad8771ceebd6a00)
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2011, 12:48:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2011, 10:08:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2011, 09:58:37 AM
Time Warner have done a good job of avoiding the temptation to cap.
Research shows that Time Warner was testing it out a few years ago but faced outrage. With Comcast and AT&T aligned on this issue though, it seems like Time Warner would jump on the bandwagon.
That's what was said about Time Warner 3 years ago; hopefully it's just as wrong this time. There is some TV and ISP competition seeping into my area, so hopefully that will help things.
What bandwagon could they jump on 3 years ago? :unsure:
Quote from: Habbaku on May 04, 2011, 11:56:56 AM
So, you're arguing for everyone's prices to go up rather than UBB. I don't think that'll fly, for some reason.
But really, he isn't. He's arguing that nobody's prices go up. After all, you know the companies won't be lowering their prices.
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2011, 01:40:11 PM
What bandwagon could they jump on 3 years ago? :unsure:
More or less the same one as now. Thankfully it crashed & burned.
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2011, 01:49:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2011, 01:40:11 PM
What bandwagon could they jump on 3 years ago? :unsure:
More or less the same one as now. Thankfully it crashed & burned.
Can you explain that further? The bandwagon is now Comcast and AT&T, with the latter being a large player, I think.
To be fair I must of course add that my broadband is free, in the sense that I pay nothing for it personally. I haven't seen the actual cost per apartment but it's something like $15 per month.
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2011, 01:52:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2011, 01:49:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2011, 01:40:11 PM
What bandwagon could they jump on 3 years ago? :unsure:
More or less the same one as now. Thankfully it crashed & burned.
Can you explain that further? The bandwagon is now Comcast and AT&T, with the latter being a large player, I think.
I know Comcast for sure was going to start capping. AT&T has been notorious for doing so with their wireless data service.
If Time Warner caps I may be tempted to just go with Sprint 4G (WiMax) since I get decent reception at my house and I could add a WiMax access point to my Sprint plan for $10 a month.
Quote from: The Brain on May 04, 2011, 02:11:38 PM
To be fair I must of course add that my broadband is free, in the sense that I pay nothing for it personally. I haven't seen the actual cost per apartment but it's something like $15 per month.
So, who's picking up the rest of the costs?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281773160.png&hash=172726daf73a42d74ec9830cf0f24a3abff0bfdc)
:cool:
Is 100 Mb/s some sort of hard limit? It seems like a lot of mega-fast Internet connections get close to that number, but none go over.
KENTUCKY IN DA HIZZOUSE Y'ALL!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281791028.png&hash=48420c23f28ca387d3a96158a33cf76a50667ba9) (http://www.speedtest.net)
CAL'S BANDWIDTH USAGE:
April 2011 (Incoming: 52761 MB / Outgoing: 3290 MB)
March 2011 (Incoming: 24666 MB / Outgoing: 1502 MB)
for some reason my March stats only start at March 12th, though... I had reset my router to factory defaults a few months back, but I thought it was earlier than this. Oh well. :hmm:
Careful, Cal; if you had four more people using the internet on your connection just as much as you, you'd be over your limit!
Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2011, 05:17:20 PM
KENTUCKY IN DA HIZZOUSE Y'ALL!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281791028.png&hash=48420c23f28ca387d3a96158a33cf76a50667ba9) (http://www.speedtest.net)
Disgusting. :yuk:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281817796.png&hash=447c8d077ac782a294a683e64ba5cc99c61e8d01) (http://www.speedtest.net)
:hmm: Wonder what the deal is with the upload speed.
in the past five or so attempts throughout the day my download speed has fluctuated from around 1.0 to 2.8. my upload stays at around .0-.7 for a little while before upload test error. in two of my tries my internet simply died :(
:outback:
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 12:08:00 PM
The cost to provide 1 gb of data is estimated to be 1 to 3¢. The faster the pipe is, the cost becomes cheaper.
So start your own ISP, charge people 4 cents a gp and make beelions and beelions of dollars.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2011, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 12:08:00 PM
The cost to provide 1 gb of data is estimated to be 1 to 3¢. The faster the pipe is, the cost becomes cheaper.
So start your own ISP, charge people 4 cents a gp and make beelions and beelions of dollars.
I do not have the millions of dollars requires to buy & build last mile infrastructure. It's funny because neither did Bell. They did it while they were a government company.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 08:46:50 PM
I do not have the millions of dollars requires to buy & build last mile infrastructure. It's funny because neither did Bell. They did it while they were a government company.
I don't remember Ma Bell being a government company when phone lines were installed and I'm almost positive they weren't when high speed fiber optic lines were laid.
Laying the actual pipes is the easy part. Acquiring the right on the lands to do it is where it cost alot.
Quote from: Caliga on May 04, 2011, 05:24:02 PM
CAL'S BANDWIDTH USAGE:
April 2011 (Incoming: 52761 MB / Outgoing: 3290 MB)
March 2011 (Incoming: 24666 MB / Outgoing: 1502 MB)
for some reason my March stats only start at March 12th, though... I had reset my router to factory defaults a few months back, but I thought it was earlier than this. Oh well. :hmm:
Geez, I run a server from my lab and pull far less than that (http://66.253.55.117/vmstat/index.php). :P
Anyway:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1281980699.png&hash=6e561481ab887365273ac3ea06693e924a84a973) (http://www.speedtest.net)
99.99% of the time. I'm dumping it soon and coloing the server, though.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 09:00:36 PM
Laying the actual pipes is the easy part. Acquiring the right on the lands to do it is where it cost alot.
Eh, where do you get that from? Work crews spent ahelluvalongtime slicing up the pavement in DC to lay cable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 04, 2011, 09:02:49 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2011, 09:00:36 PM
Laying the actual pipes is the easy part. Acquiring the right on the lands to do it is where it cost alot.
Eh, where do you get that from? Work crews spent ahelluvalongtime slicing up the pavement in DC to lay cable.
I'm guessing it's usually a county/city thing.
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2011, 01:03:32 PM
I get 15mbps down at home & a pitiful 500kbps up.
On my phone, from inside my work building:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_TIoZKYpM48w/TcGSm8_zr3I/AAAAAAAAAvA/2JThu99OOpQ/s400/snap20110504_135240.png)
Here's what I get at home, probably degraded slightly because I'm on wifi with a laptop:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1282066737.png&hash=b32e9d7e83b178653f1cc822e6cc85bb635b80c4)
edit: I'd be perfectly content with my download speed if they'd just increase my upload speed to something respectable.
Quote from: katmai on May 04, 2011, 11:59:22 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fiphone%2F111868912.png&hash=3b4b6bc0a8c62798a8ee9abe0489be78d5202abd)
From PC vs the earlier iphone test.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1282069964.png&hash=790a86a01b55ba8d15f145240ef608556aefccdf)
And posting from home:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1282103676.png&hash=14577f1a37e48b7ddb4790dd9e4ad9be873b0f31)
Still loads better than I saw in Whitehorse.
Fatmai has an iphone? gay.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2011, 06:21:29 AM
Fatmai has an iphone? gay.
for like the last two years.
From work:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.speedtest.net%2Fresult%2F1282535895.png&hash=5af2ba103c1e14d0ef08cc8d9d894749048eba62)
Quote from: DGuller on May 04, 2011, 05:14:13 PM
Is 100 Mb/s some sort of hard limit? It seems like a lot of mega-fast Internet connections get close to that number, but none go over.
Some places in Sweden you can get 1000mb/1000mb full duplex broadband for about €58/month.
Looks like the Old Country Internet Buffet is shuttering its doors and it'll be a la carte from now on. :(
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
Quote from: citizen k on May 04, 2011, 04:57:49 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 04, 2011, 02:11:38 PM
To be fair I must of course add that my broadband is free, in the sense that I pay nothing for it personally. I haven't seen the actual cost per apartment but it's something like $15 per month.
So, who's picking up the rest of the costs?
The $15 is picked up by the condominium thingy with no increase of my "rent" necessary. Before it was installed a year ago we all paid our own individual broadbands, this one "comes with the condo". The words in the previous sentences may be way off, I don't know what terms to use in English, but I hope you get the idea.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2011, 09:39:10 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2011, 06:50:20 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2011, 06:21:29 AM
Fatmai has an iphone? gay.
for like the last two years.
:mad:
I'm in arts and entertainment biz man. I get enough dirty looks not having a Mac laptop!
:sleep:
I hope the Apple marketing person who managed to get them to be such a dominant Hollywood player is a billionaire now, since they surely deserve to be.
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2011, 10:17:19 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2011, 09:39:10 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2011, 06:50:20 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 05, 2011, 06:21:29 AM
Fatmai has an iphone? gay.
for like the last two years.
:mad:
I'm in arts and entertainment biz man. I get enough dirty looks not having a Mac laptop!
You should get a iPad like me and be a douchebag.
If I could data transfer from cf and sd cards I would!
I have to admit the iPad is pretty cool. :Embarrass: Guy I work with always brings his to meetings. When he gets bored, he starts playing Angry Birds. :)
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2011, 10:19:51 AM
:sleep:
I hope the Apple marketing person who managed to get them to be such a dominant Hollywood player is a billionaire now, since they surely deserve to be.
It's all about product placement - they just gave the laptops to everyone doing a movie or a tv series. Pretty much everyone in HBO series (such as Six Feet Under) uses an Apple.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
In Poland you are lucky if you have 4Mbit. <_<
Quote from: Caliga on May 05, 2011, 10:21:16 AM
I have to admit the iPad is pretty cool. :Embarrass: Guy I work with always brings his to meetings. When he gets bored, he starts playing Angry Birds. :)
Yeah got to check out the 2.0 version that one of presenters had on last job.
This dude doesn't have a 2.0 and he said he probably won't get one, since the one he has is totally sufficient for his needs.
I will probably get 2.0 when the Polish mobile companies start offering it with the mobile plan (they only offer 1.0 now and you can get 2.0 in iSpots and electronic equipment chains like Saturn or Media Markt). My current 1.0 is wifi only so if I am going to upgrade, I will do it only for the 3G version, and getting a 3G version without a mobile plan is too expensive.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Infrastructure investments?
Though a lot of/most of the broadband net here in the cold north was built by private companies and not the state.
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Yup exactly. We get good, cheap broadband largely because of state subsidies in the required infrastructure.
Quote from: Pat on May 05, 2011, 01:28:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Yup exactly. We get good, cheap broadband largely because of state subsidies in the required infrastructure.
How large was the overall subsidies when the net was layed?
Looked it up. Around 2000 (relevant proposition prop.
1999/2000:86) there were 1900 million SEK assigned for networks to be built connecting the main communities in all communes (290 communes in Sweden) and 1200 million for so-called access nets (presumably the nets to the consumers?). This was cheaper than expected, the original budget was 1,9 billion for commune-connecting nets and 3,2 billion for access nets. In today's exchange rate 1 billion sek = 161 million usd (though the usd was worth more at the time, if it matters). Sweden is the size of California and has 9 m. people.
(Source in Swedish: http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:20829, p. 50)
In a 2006 OECD comparison Sweden had the cheapest entry-level broadband.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6900697.stm)
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Like getting people to buy stuff they don't want?
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2011, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Like getting people to buy stuff they don't want?
People seem to want the internet, oddly enough.
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2011, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Like getting people to buy stuff they don't want?
Actually, it does
that very well, indeed. It's called "advertising." :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2011, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Like getting people to buy stuff they don't want?
More like getting people to invest in non-excludable infrastructure.
Quote from: DGuller on May 05, 2011, 05:59:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 05, 2011, 04:22:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2011, 12:40:14 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 05, 2011, 09:43:37 AM
I can't believe these freaking speeds you Euros are getting. POS RCN gave me a whopping 7 something with the ethernet. <_<
There are some things that the free market doesn't do very well.
Like getting people to buy stuff they don't want?
More like getting people to invest in non-excludable infrastructure.
Why bother when the government has proven it will do so time and again?
It's not at all wrong for the government to invest in non-excludable infrastructure, due to the positive externalities involved. Non-exludable infrastructure is one of the basic market failures, on their own companies would under-invest in infrastructure, because they don't capture all the benefits from it.