What is Digg?127 Comments
- RGSPro, on 07/04/2008, -7/+91Or users just switching to non-capped ISPs...
- Borgcube636, on 07/05/2008, -1/+63Except... capping bandwidth would also make downloading legitimately purchased games from Steam or the like virtually impossible. Nice job, IPS's, for ***** 20 women while you're so drunk you think its just one.
- xXShadowstormXx, on 07/05/2008, -0/+39It's not that easy. MANY, many cities (especially more pronounced in heavily populated ones) have only one or two major ISPs, leaving you stuck with ***** service as competition stagnates.
- umbrellainabin, on 07/05/2008, -2/+41***** BUSH
***** THE RIAA
***** THE MPAA
***** THE IFPI
***** THE BFI
***** VIACOM
***** COMCAST
***** MEDIADEFENDER
***** AT&T
***** BREIN - inactive, on 07/05/2008, -2/+39Dugg for making no ***** sense at all......keep it up!!!!!!!!
- andreusboy, on 07/05/2008, -0/+36I would like to know where is this magical dreamworld people keep speaking about where they can switch ISPs when they don't like their service.
- Nev9, on 07/05/2008, -2/+34***** the RIAA!
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+31This bandwidth capping ***** needs to be nipped in the bud now before it gets out of hand. The internet is the only unrestricted thing left in the country........these companies shouldn't be allowed to get away with any of these practices.
- vsujohn2, on 07/04/2008, -0/+29Thats the same ***** that cell phone companies do. Go over just a few minutes on your plan and poof you've got a huge ass cell phone bill!
- a1cd, on 07/05/2008, -0/+18I ***** hate Bandwidth caps, last month i got a "You have used 75% of your bandwidth" message from rogers about halfway through the month.. never mind downloading ***** I had to worry about each click pushing me over the top.
I have been with the same internet company for years, and they just change a big part of your service without lowering rates.. like would it be fair if TV companies took out 1/4 of the channels and didnt lower their price?.... oh wait.. they do.
seriously... this should be some kind of law to stop companies from doing this type of stuff - lamiaconfitor, on 07/05/2008, -1/+18or, the possibility of ISPs benefiting from Piracy leads to internet bandwith caps. Seriously, I work at nights and watch all my TV online (through legal sites like Hulu) and download games off of steam instead of buying disks. I hate these people so much.
- smurf22, on 07/05/2008, -0/+15If we pay for 256k per second we should get that year round, not just for as long as we use it.
- sylvok, on 07/05/2008, -1/+13***** this *****, this was the last straw. I'm moving to Sweden!
- moomeep, on 07/05/2008, -3/+14anywhere but the US i guess... ?
- Slash0, on 07/05/2008, -0/+10So how long will it be before Viacom accuses ISPs of profiting from piracy?
- blueracer122, on 07/05/2008, -0/+10Yeah my ISP shut me down for a day just last week because I used up too much bandwidth. They said it looked like I had a virus or some crap like that. It ended with them putting a throttle limit on me and ruining all my fun lol.
- macmichael01, on 07/05/2008, -0/+9yah but when there is only one ISP in your area your are pretty much stuck so what is the alternate solution. I wished satellite internet was more mainstream and affordable . I bet there would be a huge market for it. Why invest in laying all of these lines on earth when transferring through the air is cheaper and you only need to maintain a satellite.
- Risingashes, on 07/05/2008, -2/+10We have caps down here in Australia.
As soon as one company put them in everyone had them within 2 months. There is no 'switching'. Once they were put in the only time that they are upgraded is when one of the major companies becomes financially threatened. As soon as they can they put up more restrictions under the guise of 'improvements to service'. Our new plans count uploads as well as downloads- only 1 company is left that only counts downloads.
Many people have no idea what a megabyte is, others only use email, many households have their main bandwidth users as children, others simply can't choose another company due to infrastructure.
The people who know why restrictions are bad for them are in the minority and companies are happy to lose them- it's the end times for American internet.
Looks like Europe and Asia will move even further ahead, this is what happens when politicians are able to be openly corrupt- in Australia we have the excuse of being a sparsely populated island 1/3 of the globe away from civilisation. - Emachine, on 07/05/2008, -0/+8Thankfully I have a reasonable 8down/1up mega-bit-per-second unlimited connection.
The way I see it, every second I'm not maxing it out, I'm not getting my money's worth. - JamesBrown, on 07/05/2008, -0/+7yeah great. Instead of AT&T or Verizon DSL, we can use AT&T or Verizon wireless broadband. Thank god for competition
- chrisvc86, on 07/05/2008, -2/+8The wireless revolution couldn't come fast enough. When wireless techs like WiMAX and LTD become widely available hopefully we won't be held hostage by the few companies that own the lines in the ground.
But really these are the early attempts for the big media companies to start enacting their non neutral internet, as only the companies that have enough money will allow their content to be in certain free zones, that dont count towards your monthly cap. - shawnanigans, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6Sweden: the land of ridiculously hot women and fast internet. And 81% of the population speaks English so let's charter a flight and save some money.
- ThatEvilGuy, on 07/05/2008, -2/+8As always the corporations find one way or the other to ***** over the consumer.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -2/+8...
You know, I come to digg aware that every other article i will have to say this.
*****! ***** ***** ***** *****, *****! - Drizzit, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5Countdown until an Artist sues an ISP for profiting on piracy begins now.
- leoofborg, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5@thegreypilgrimthegreypilgrim :: It's already happening here in the 'states. Thanks for the post, I thought the USA was the -only- 1st world country with crap for broadband. I've lived in Japan and Germany... and if it was only on the basis of connectivity I'd be back in either place in an instant.
-Leo, coming in from a satlink out in the US countryside, 7 GB quota/mo, 1.25M down 128K up, 'courtesy' of ATT WB. You may say yuck at any time.
PS While the cities in Calif have anywhere from 6-9M down, out in the rural townships the average for DSL is more like 1.5 - 3M down due to 'not having proper infrastructure'.. and no I do not live near a Wicker Man. The state of US ISPs is deplorable. - thegreypilgrim, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5You guys need to fight the looming caps as long and hard as you can. Here in NZ we have some seriously ***** caps and outrageous fees. I currently pay $70 for 30GB on a "max/128" plan which in reality is about 3.5mbps down and 128k up - and that's one of the better plans around. I've watched our unlimited data plans get chopped to decent sized caps to either smaller caps or more expensive data progressively over the last 3-4 years. Overage on most ISP's here is around $2/GB. Previously, unused data expired each month, but some ISP's are now carrying data over to the next month (as they bloody well should!) and a couple are offering free "off peak" data (between 1am - 7am). A taste of things to come if your ISP's head down the same rocky road as here...
- supermanly, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4Well that one I'll let go. Think about it Viacom (we ***** hate 'em) vs. Comcast (we ***** hate 'em), Let 'em butt heads and waste money
- tlacroix, on 07/04/2008, -5/+9Well, empirically, capped ISP's will have an edge on non-capped ISP's, as they will make more profit, and have less P2P using customers, as they will migrate to non-capped ISP's. Thus, I see the non-capped prices rising, the non P2P users switching to capped, the P2P users switching to non-capped. But that's just the Michael Moore in me talking ;-)
- arunforce, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5***** ME
***** YOU - fatas, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4***** HOTCHICKS
- sirloin, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5BS way to screw you out of money.. they could simply charge for teirs of bandwidth like many do, a low speed limits the amount you could possible download in a month.
every where on the planet with caps cost more.
we have no health compitition in the us as we don't force them to share infrastructure like other countries do.
Free markets don't exist in the us, only protectionists ones. - lamiaconfitor, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3No, it isn't.
- triont, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3***** THE FAA
***** THE AFA
***** FRED PHELPS - inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3About 3 minutes from the time you hit submit.
- chrisvc86, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Like people already said, they don't really have a choice when it comes to internet and have to rely on the big nationwide companies, and those companies are going to offer similar services to their competitors. It's in all the companies' interests to offer reduced services to the consumer, as long as all the companies go along with it, which it seems they are.
Until the new internet technologies come around, these companies are going to ***** us with caps, shaping and other things because we have no choice. It's not technically a monopoly because it's not one single company, but really it's a monopoly on the technology because usually one or two companies own the lines in a single area.
This is one area where the Free Market has failed America. - episodic, on 07/05/2008, -2/+5The problem isn't caps. It is really low caps. Like my family has embraced the internet as entertainment. Legal and all. We stream movies from netflix, watch tv shows on the media's websites, and are big fans of some user made materiel. The three of us probably pull down about 70-80 gigs. It really isn't that much. Add in my son gaming onling, steam, etc. . . In return we canceled our cable connection, and almost all of our calls are voip. . . Cap, sure - just make it make sense. Below 100 gigs isn't really fair.
- hobophobe, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Many people will be way under the caps and the ISPs will be forced to offer lower plans to them. That will hurt their revenues, so they'll then start pushing their customers to use MORE bandwidth. That's the thing. If they weren't being stupid to begin with they'd realize more bandwidth is in their best interests. After all, they sell... bandwidth.
- Murdats, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3there is only 1 company that doesnt count downloads? are you sure you live in australia, I can count the number of ISP's on one hand that count uploads, its almost non existent because implementing it will sink most ISP's
- MvTCracker, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2we will be downloading more and more video and virtual hard drives and iso files 250-500GB drives are so damn cheap now and windows seven will have built in support for its virtual drive format VHD and windows server 2008 has already done that with Hyper V
so with bigger downloads more streams of higher and higher quality they have no choice but to increase bandwidth or die - inactive, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Those guys "down there" DO love internet stuff as much as we do. They also enjoy their obnoxiously large paychecks, too.
- WallyAnti, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2I'll drop my carrier like a hot potato if they cap me. This is completely anti-consumer.
- chrisvc86, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2The current wireless companies might have the head start on other companies, but at least with wireless a local company can build their own antenna stations and offer equal or better service at reasonable prices. That might not ever actually occur, but with wireless the infrastructure prices reduce considerably, and increases the chance of other companies becoming viable information solutions.
- inactive, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3I'd like to agree with you on this one, but you have to realize that once some ISP begins making a profit from it, others will immediately follow suit. The ones that don't are too to afford to risk it, and their service will not be worth it.
In the end, most people would rather pay more, for a capped bandwidth, so long as they have better service. - RoshanK, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2like houston for example, were comcrap is the only option for cable, at&t for dsl, and verizon FiOS seems so far away.
- ajsween, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Its called latencies... minimum latency even for a highly streamlined satellite system will always be higher than acceptable. Satellite is great for downloading, but any time you want to play a game, talk on the phone, or quickly retrieve website after website you end up with serious latency issues considering that each direction on a link introduces a minimum of 300ms on top of normal latency involved with land lines.
- MacParrot, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2Bluto: Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? HELL NO!
Boone: Germans?
Otter: Forget it, he's on a roll - moonasha, on 07/05/2008, -0/+2***** TIME WARNER
- umbrellainabin, on 07/05/2008, -1/+3***** YEAH
-
Show 51 - 100 of 127 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is