What is Digg?292 Comments
- SifuMoKung, on 11/01/2008, -4/+222That is a terrible idea. If my ISP did that to me, I would terminate my service immediately and go to a company with a fixed rate.
- ileftfark, on 11/02/2008, -4/+134Why are people always targeting the overweight?
- asaone, on 11/01/2008, -5/+83This is not good for anyone. I use Linux and download different Linux distributions a few times a month and some of them are DVD's (4.3 GB). This is the hallmark of a small minded company and if I were subscribed too it I would fire them as fast as I could and find another. If you are stuck with this twit of a company you might want to start a publicity campaign against this non-consumer friendly behavior and call your congress person to complain. This sucks and we are not going to take it anymore.
- inactive, on 11/01/2008, -2/+44Lame. This is what happens in Australia (although you can get some plans where you don't get charged more, just slower speeds) and I was hoping our internet would move the way the America has. This isn't very encouraging.
- carterx, on 11/01/2008, -4/+36Very simple, I will just stick with another provider.
- OneOfNone, on 11/02/2008, -0/+28You seem to miss a major point here. You won't be paying less, ever. It's the guy next door that will be paying more. And with time, you will have to upgrade too - say, when cable channels will be cheaper over the fiber as compared to over the cable. You'll pay more then, as well. Net result: everyone pays more for the same service that was "unlimited" for both of you before. Thus, supporting this kind of crap leads to self-ownage in the long term.
While we are on the subject of self-ownage: why don't you get slower, cheaper DSL if you use so little bandwidth? - coheedcollapse, on 11/02/2008, -4/+32I think it's funny that they penalize the people who use their service in a way that it's actually meant to be use while rewarding senior citizens who use 10 megs a month on their "internet mails".
- OneOfNone, on 11/02/2008, -2/+29If you happen to have no choice of broadband provider because your municipality has a sweet exclusivity agreement with a lousy ISP, you must know what to do. Get yourself and your friends out with the petition forms, and start explaining to everyone how this directly causes them to pay extra $$ or have ***** service. When people realize their wallet is hurt, they'll start acting.
- conversekid, on 11/02/2008, -4/+30This is some *****.
- EserVerx, on 11/02/2008, -1/+25Good, because that wasn't a pun...
- AmusedToDeath, on 11/02/2008, -1/+20But that is exactly the point. Your utility company charges you PER kWH from the first kWH used. They don't charge you a flat fee of $100 for the first 20 kWH and then per kWH above that. If they're going to go metered, then fine, meter from the first GB. But they'll never do that because half their customers would suddenly be paying $5 a month for broadband.
- AmusedToDeath, on 11/02/2008, -0/+18Just to play Devil's advocate, Amazon doesn't have to do installations in peoples homes, doesn't have to run miles of cable infrastructure, send out repair crews in the middle of the night, etc. There are a LOT more costs associated with residential internet service than hosting. But in principal, I agree with you.
- geardosdotnet, on 11/02/2008, -4/+19Rationing makes sense during wartime or in COMMUNIST societies. There is actually an unlimited amount of bandwidth available; the companies could easily string more fiber or use some of the countless amounts of dark fiber available. The telecoms, like the oil and diamond industries, want you to believe that the supply is much less than the demand.
- AaronCo, on 11/02/2008, -4/+19Yea but the problem w/ that comparison is that Australia is a freaking ISLAND. In order to connect to the vast majority of sites you either have to go via satellite or underwater cabling. Both are expensive, which means international bandwidth is expensive to run.
The US hardly fits the same comparison. The vast majority of sites we visit are within the country. Repeaters and fiber runs are far cheaper since a few hubs do most of the work.
For the most part this decision is merely an arbitrary way of milking ppl for more money. The caps will seriously limit internet development. Do you think youtube would've ever survived in a world of 5gb/mo caps? This will seriously injure the development of video and web telephony, and is essentially setting a fixed standard for bandwidth... It's a big sign that says "250 gigs per month should be enough for everyone!"
We know how well that nonsense has worked in the past. - AmusedToDeath, on 11/02/2008, -0/+14Because it's hypocritical. They're perfectly willing to charge more for the tiny fraction of users who exceed the arbitrary caps, but completely unwilling to charge less to the vast majority of their users who use only a small percentage of the cap, in many cases just a few GB. So they're making a killing off of the majority of their customers and punishing the few power users who actually use the service to its promised potential.
- caracter2, on 11/02/2008, -0/+13You would DIE in Australia (I'm studying in Sydney). All internet services are capped. The highest end plan offers around 100 GB per month at around $130 dollars. If you go over they shape your connection to 54 k (dial-up) or charge you around 3 cents per megabyte (30 bucks a gigabyte). I'm in a student home with 16 people sharing such a connection. During half of the month we have a 56k connection (shared between 16 people) meaning it takes about 3 minutes (actual minutes) to merely load Google.
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -1/+14Yeah I agree. Except I don't download linux distros, I download HD rips and games. Those too are bandwidth hogs.
- Discobassplayer, on 11/02/2008, -5/+18THATS IT! I'M GOING FISHING.
- clickwir, on 11/02/2008, -0/+13You will, but not everyone has choices. That's the problem with ISP's in areas that don't have competition. Frontier's majority of subscribers, have no other choice.
- inactive, on 11/02/2008, -2/+14Yeah, too bad government-protected ISPs in my region could pull this ***** and get away with it.
Seriously, if I lived under a mile away, in the same neighborhood, I'd have access to 10mbit upload speeds. Instead, I'm getting traffic shaped by Road Runner. :( - mattearle, on 11/02/2008, -4/+16Really, they are trying to sell copyrighted content by the gigabyte, whithout paying royalty fees to the content creators.
- chongli, on 11/02/2008, -4/+16Ultimately what I'd really like to see is all ISPs moving to a transparent, metered connection. The commercial hosting business has had something similar to this for years and it has lead to a dramatic reduction in bandwidth costs due to competition.
Just check out Amazon S3's prices and remember that they are able to make a profit on these prices (including bandwidth and the massive infrastructure they have):
Data Transfer
$0.100 per GB – all data transfer in
$0.170 per GB – first 10 TB / month data transfer out
$0.130 per GB – next 40 TB / month data transfer out
$0.110 per GB – next 100 TB / month data transfer out
$0.100 per GB – data transfer out / month over 150 TB - inactive, on 11/02/2008, -5/+15It's been happening in Canada for a long time, nothing special.
- antdude, on 11/02/2008, -0/+10Well, fishing is now charged by number of fishes caught. [grin]
- AmusedToDeath, on 11/02/2008, -1/+11You're exactly right OneOfNone - it will only drive prices higher, not lower. You'll have to pay more to get less. If they're going to charge $1 per GB, then 99% of their customers should be paying $5 or $10 a month instead of $40-$50. But we all know that will never happen.
- DivisibleByZero, on 11/02/2008, -0/+9Oh ***** dude, don't give the ISPs any ideas. The last thing I need is a separate bill for "long distance" internet.
- porplem, on 11/02/2008, -2/+11This is how it began.
- chongli, on 11/02/2008, -6/+14I think it's a great idea. Charge every user $1 per gigabyte. That way, the 98% of the users who use less than 1GB/month pay $1/month and the other 2% switch ISPs.
Bye-bye ISP. - Ymeg, on 11/02/2008, -1/+9Sugar, that it incorrect.
Maybe a few with written contracts, but the majority are not bound by it. - mackdaddy187, on 11/02/2008, -1/+9We get boned hard here in the Southern Ontario area with Rogers. 60 gig cap on Express cable (around 7mbps, which we rarely get) and 95 gig on Extreme (around 10 mbps). Its even worse with people who get lesser speed service.
- zerosum, on 11/02/2008, -3/+11There is no need for a bandwidth cap at all. These ISPs have a tremendous amount of excess bandwidth and the infrastructure is increasing more than demand is. This is just a greedy tactic to steal customer money.
- buddyw, on 11/02/2008, -1/+9In the same light you're goal is to give as little money as possible for the service that you want. It's called a free market. There are problems with corporations (mainly lack of legal accountability), but this isn't one of them. This is business. They want all of your money without doing anything, and you want all of their services without paying anything. If the customer demanded what they wanted no service providers would be in business and vice versa. Both sides have opposing goals and they compromise...everybody wins.
Seriously, everyone needs to take an economics class and chill out. - DannyDriffs, on 11/02/2008, -0/+7I live in Rochester, NY- and quite unfortunately am locked into Frontier's DSL via a ***** 2-year contract.
1) The cancellation fee is super high
2) The product sucks; why?
3) Time Warner's Road Runner is so so so much better of an internet service
4) Months ago Frontier admitted they were behind in internet service. They announced a great new plan to improve internet service and secure their market position.
4) A- Since that announcement, I can't even load a YouTube video without wait or play on xBox Live without embarrassing lag.
Listen, ***** Frontier. Voice your concerns for their policies! Comcast got flack for a proposed 250GB cap, this is 5GB.
It is wrong, and Frontier is a terrible company. Spread the information. - DigitAl56K, on 11/02/2008, -0/+7"1) The cancellation fee is super high"
Normally you have rights to cancel when the terms change, so here would be an opportunity. - TMTurtle, on 11/02/2008, -1/+8Seriously people... Saying "This will restrict my piracy" is not the best argument against this.
- ivanisavich, on 11/02/2008, -3/+10I live in New Zealand and this is already the case with all internet companies. I've already gone over my cap by about 20 gigs this month, so I get to pay an extra $30---on top of my flat $160/month for my 80 gig plan.
I imagine other countries will adopt this idea once they realize how much money can be made from heavy users........
;_; - AmusedToDeath, on 11/02/2008, -0/+6But if one does it, they'll all do it eventually. Most of us only have 2 or 3 choices for broadband if you're lucky (AT&T, Comcast for me). So there may not be "another provider" to stick with.
- Slyer, on 11/02/2008, -1/+7Yeah all the isp's here are like this.
But 80gb, seriously?
This is why all New Zealanders are stingy seeders, the cost! - bootup, on 11/02/2008, -0/+6This is relatively right. The low impact users should be charged less still. The failure of the ISP to charge fair rates is the problem. When the ISPs started taking on low-impact users and lowering rates they shouldn't have advertised lower rates to those who were high impact users. I shouldn't be paying $40 a month. I should still be paying $50 a month. However if they are going to charge me $40 a month and charge me for going over a certain number of GB it shouldn't exceed the cost of about 10 US cents. What I'm paying for is basically the connection to the big pipe. Beyond the initial cost that EVRYBODY should pay the same rate for the big pipe is cheap.
- Subcide, on 11/02/2008, -0/+6And 80GB is pretty damn high by NZ standards too. Most of my friends have about 30GB caps. *and* the speed's *****.
- bootup, on 11/02/2008, -0/+6Dude- it's "high speed". If you aren't using it for video or other downloads which take time you shouldn't be paying for it. Most people don't get any advantages with a "high speed" connection so these companies have been taking advantage of people far too long. Honestly- if they are going to sell this to people who don't utilize the connection they shouldn't be charging them much more than for dial up. It probably shouldn't cost more than about $20 for the average user (American- I realize this is Canada). Those taking advantage of the connection are probably users who should be paying in the range of $50-$60. Only the very top users of the connection should pay anywhere close to $100.
- Zalyster, on 11/02/2008, -1/+7Oh yeah sure, because moving is so easy right? I'll just throw some clothes in a box and find a new house to live in...Idiot.
- arobar, on 11/02/2008, -0/+5There is a direct relation to manufacturing cost with electricity. If I run 10 lightbulbs all day and night, the electric company has to produce that electricity. They have to generate more to keep my service going. Bandwidth isn't like that. Any smart ISP will have proper peering agreements in place to allow for unlimited transfer, or at least a large amount of bandwidth for low costs. Hell, even some cities provide free or cheap peer (like TORIX in Toronto). The ISP can do whatever they want to stop saturation of their network and keep connection quality high, but they shouldn't be charing extra for bandwidth consumption that isn't costing them any more than it was before.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 11/02/2008, -1/+65gb a month is useless in todays online media world.
It would cost billions in online loss. Google would probably offer free internet service then... - Binto, on 11/02/2008, -0/+5And here I was believing that frontier DSL couldn't suck less.
I live in the midwest of Illinois in between 2 towns that both have either comcast or a LOCAL-ONLY DSL provider..and here I am stuck with ***** frontier DSL only. They rape you on prices and they rape you on speeds and they rape you on bandwidth caps.
I am forced to pay ridiculous prices and I am also forced to pay for a telephone line I don't need. I have to pay 80+ dollars a month for a 3mb/40KBs line and 20 dollars for a telephone line on top of that. I said I dont want or need the telephone, and frontier says I *have* to have it for dsl. I say, no you don't. There is a data line and a voice line. I only want a data line. But since the government apparently gives a kickback for telephone companies with active subscriber telephone lines you can guess what that means for people.Everyone *has* to have a phone line!
***** Frontier. ***** them up their stupid asses. I welcome competition, please. As much as I hate comcast and their ways, I would gladly accept their ***** over this ***** I currently have :( - davidjunit, on 11/02/2008, -3/+8The America, the Iraq, and maybe the Africa? ;) Kidding, I had to.
- Bith8654, on 11/02/2008, -0/+5Rollover gigabytes?
- Overcyn, on 11/02/2008, -0/+5lol are you stupid?
- dreid1987, on 11/02/2008, -0/+5That'll show 'em!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 295 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is