digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Heaviest Users Of Web Face Limits On 'Unlimited'

chicagotribune.com — For as long as consumers have had high-speed Internet at home, they have surfed the Web as much as they wanted, downloading any content while paying their service provider a flat monthly fee. Those days may be ending.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • alapoet, on 07/12/2008, -0/+48This sucks. I want my bandwidth.
    • overridemymind, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6"Companies such as Comcast and Time Warner also fear becoming a "dumb pipe"—providing the conduit for data-intensive Internet activity but not managing the flow or making any money from it."

      ***** 'em both, Comcast and Time Warner. I run packet-sniffing software on all my systems, and these two bastards ping my network on average once or twice every two seconds -- and I'm not even in their "service area"

      I think we should all take up a collection, and create our own ISP service that's actually got FAIR rules and regulations (prices, too.). After that, we'll see all these communications megacorps lose profits like wildfire. Silly, I know, but if one (or more) company (or companies) say "***** this trend, we're not going to do this" -- I think the bigger dogs in the game might get knocked off their high horses. Profit this Profit that, the consumer that got us where we are be damned.

      C'mon, people -- isn't there ANYONE out there that can run a company right?
      • mikelieman, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4They *ARE* "dumb pipes"

      • mysql101, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4There is NO need to do what the ISPs are talking about. The solution is simple - if 5% are using up 50% of the bandwidth, offer pricing plans that make sense for the bandwidth allotted. Giving someone 20 mbps for $40/mo then complaining when the user makes use of it is idiotic.

        What they fear is doing what I said and losing customers since the competition isn't doing it too. So they are going the route of underhanded tactics to make it appear that you're getting a high speed connection then using subterfuge to prevent it.
      • nogami, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Sorry, but they ARE dumb pipes.

        They provide data the same way that an electric company supplies power or a water company supplies water. If they're not thrilled with that, maybe they should develop some of their own projects that people WANT to pay for.
      • kd1s, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3What the cable carriers are realizing is that the online video and phone services steal revenue from them. So now they'll cap bandwidth usage and make it economically infeasible to use say Joost, Vonage, Skype, etc. But their package will include all that for say an additional $50 a month.

        Sorry but they asked for this. Let them economize.

        I also note I've seen no mention of what Cox is doing in this regard.
      • brokensystem, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't call it stealing from them, they could very easily compete with Joost, Vonage, Skype, or whoever but they're too damn greedy. Instead of true competition to keep them vying for customers they would rather stoop to this type of crap, "poor us, we can't compete so we need to change our pay plans to compensate". Where are all the pro business bone heads with all their competition mindsets and beliefs? If the cable companies are hurting financially maybe they should complain about what the brainwashing channels (MTV, Spike, A&E, History channel, Discovery channel, etc.) are charging them for their horse crap programing. Considering some of the crap being shown on the last two mentioned channels I believe the same MTV a$$holes are running all of them. Instead of educational programming it's becoming more and more fluff and ***** all for ratings. Then again when organizations like the WWE (professional wrestling), or whatever they're called, are making the fortunes they are what does that say about our society. Sad.
  • lucy22, on 07/12/2008, -2/+14Well, I figured this would happen eventually. It sucks, though.
  • RoshanK, on 07/12/2008, -1/+20I remember it sucked when I was visiting cousins in India. The limit is 1GB per month (upload and download) and each GB after costs 1024 rupees (about 20 dollars)
    • nakile, on 07/13/2008, -1/+31Just run through some grass. You come across enough rupees in no time. But you'll need the large wallet, of course...
  • burninlover, on 07/12/2008, -2/+9I really hope that doesn't happen up here in Canada. I'm on Sasktel and we have unlimited bandwidth. Was with Shaw before but I did not care for their download/upload limits.
    • unleashedlive, on 07/13/2008, -2/+2Rogers already has it.
    • jjones20, on 07/13/2008, -2/+2Bell does too.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately it doesn't matter what country you live in because the tier 1 providers control nearly all internet traffic. We are all beholden to these corporations and it is imperative to hit them in the pocket book for their abuses or it's going to get worse.
    • baralo, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Burninlover, what was your limit with Shaw? I beleive we're currently getting 60GB of transfer monthly. We haven't hit that limit yet but we're definitely not ultra-heavy users.
      • burninlover, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I believe it was 60gb. I did go passed it.
    • jjones20, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Cogeco has different tiers of their service, right now i get 60 gb combined down and up, ive been over plenty of times, had them cut me off for 24 hours, and then for the rest of the month, but have never paid overage fees.

      Bell and Rogers both have overage fees, i dont know if Rogers is enforcing them yet, but Bell sure is.
    • SniperSlap, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1SaskTel is a crown teleco, but they operate like a bunch of bastards anyway. MTS in Manitoba follows in step with Bell.

      Eventually Internet will be destroyed in Canada unless people actually stand up to it.

      When unlimited access is gone, so too will I be from the internet.
  • diemunkiesdie, on 07/13/2008, -4/+20Bastards! In my opinion, Internet access is a right, not a privilege! I don't mind paying for access, but I don't like it when companies are well aware of imminent problems, and instead of fixing them, they put on a bandage! Instead of investing in more bandwidth, they simply force me to use less!
    • DavidYeah, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5It's a lot cheaper to send out a few million letters saying "You can now only use XGBs every month" than it is to be responsible and installing upgrades.
    • Gutterpunk, on 07/13/2008, -3/+4Not to be trollish or anything, but I am curious. But why would it be a right? How high in the "right" ladder does "having the net" rate? Life, liberty, equality in the eyes of the law, freedom of expression, internet access?
      • facelesscoward, on 07/13/2008, -1/+5I don't know that it's a right, but uncensored access to information is vital to a free society.
      • ghostrunnerdig, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2There's no 'censorship' going on here. They're not blocking access to any specific sites. The pricing is just shifting from buffet style to a la carte.
      • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -1/+4Freedom of information is one of the most important things a civilization has. At the core this is about limiting freedom of information.

        The internet is essentially owned by 14 "Tier 1" providers which came into power when the internet was privatized around 1995. This is a very complicated issue but basically they are a cartel which gives them the power to artificially control access pricing and limit competition. The sole purpose is to extract as much money as possible out of all internet users in a top down fashion starting with owners of smaller communication networks, data centers, businesses, and ISPs. This is nothing new and has been going on for years.

        What is new is the push for even further control to make even more money by selling out preferential communications to the highest bidder. This is a gross oversimplification in layman's terms but everyone should educate themselves on these issues.

        Unless you believe that the internet should be manipulated like Enron did to the California power grids for maximum profits then you should educate yourself on net neutrality. Like a power grid the internet is a vital resource for the economy, security, and freedom of nations everywhere in the world.
  • BrentyD, on 07/13/2008, -0/+21already happens in australia..
    • equinoxChild, on 07/13/2008, -0/+9in australia telstra has the "unlimited" plan, which has a note at the bottom mentioning that your speeds will be shaped to 64k after 10GB :P

      It is amusing how many telstra users don't actually know of this limit.
      • BrentyD, on 07/13/2008, -0/+5it's actually 12GB but its all the same ***** really
      • xandox, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7I know this but have to use telstra because I can't get ADSL and can't go anywhere else because of it.

        Telstra is an absolute Monopoly!
      • DestroyFascism, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4***** Telstra!
      • furto, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Exetel
        TPG

        two reasons to boycott telstra
    • skimitar, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah. Sucks. My plan is 36Gb which I confess is more than ample for the both of us but I can imagine that that is a bit limiting for others. That being said, even in Canberra, I wasn't even able to *get* Broadband until 3 years ago (ISDN anyone), so I shouldn't complain.
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3The city I am in has had its exchange "confiscated" by Telstra so I have a choice of Telsta or Poxtus cable. No ADSL other than Telstra. The other companies can't use it as Hellstra have managed to the Government to block all others from using ADSL 2+ so its 1.5MB max or 10GB max on cable. Bastards!
      • spyders, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Confiscated Exchange? Competition law in AUS says that Telstra have to wholesale access to their ADSL1 DSLAMs. How can they legally block access? If this is true, you have an option - start complaining to the ACCC.

        1.5Mb max? Considering Telstra are wholesaling 8Mb ADSL1 around the country, I'd be suprised that there isn't another ISP who could supply a higher speed.
  • Kitchenfire, on 07/13/2008, -8/+23Their claim that 5% of the users of their "unlimited" service uses 50% of the bandwidth is absolute *****.
    • pavelmah, on 07/13/2008, -0/+10I am not saying it is not *****, but how do you know it is *****? Is there something you know that most of us don't?

      I don like the idea of bandwidth limits. But I wouldn't be surprised if a small percentage of users use most of the bandwidth available. Not everyone sits in front of the computer 12hours a days, has torrent downloads queued up and host a web server on his home computer, which get on the digg front page.

      But if they limit bandwidth, this will seriously break a lot of business model. Like you tube - Netflix and most internet depended web business. Good luck with backing up your system online.
      • AngelBunny, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4it use to be true in 2000 but now youtube takes up over half of the nets bandwidth which is spread out between most users pretty evenly.
      • pavelmah, on 07/13/2008, -1/+1eh?

        Youtube doesn't doesn't take half the nets bandwidth. Now that's a *****.
      • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4It doesn't matter. Bandwidth that goes unused at any one time is wasted bandwidth. You can't save it up for use at a later time, that not how communication lines work. The important thing is to prevent saturation so that the quality of other peoples communication is not disrupted. The thing is that this NEVER occurs on major backbones. The links are so incredibly fast that it's considered a major crisis if availability drops below 90%.
  • Louis11, on 07/13/2008, -3/+11Honestly I don't think it will work out. If I am not mistaken AOL tried to implement this type of business model, and look what happened to them (as if their service was any good to begin with). If a few of them do try and implement this, it only opens the doors to smaller ISPs, who are offering unlimited access, to sneak in and take some of the market share.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3The problem is that all ISP's need to purchase bandwidth from higher tier providers which ultimately influence wholesale bandwidth prices. In the future it's conceivable that they will be able to price nearly any provider out of the market with the elimination of network neutrality. When you have a cartel there is NO competition.
    • erictheninja, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The U.S. went through what you're describing in the mid-90s with DSL. The lines were deregulated and customers got awesome service and speed. Then, the line owners, Verizon, et al., ran the DSL guys into the ground w/their size.

      My DSL provider encouraged me to run servers, gave me a static ip, left all my ports open, 24/7 support, and gave me completely unlimited (768k both ways) for $40/mon. This was compared to Verizon, who offered 348k down and 128k up, blocked a bunch of ports, support during business hours, and gave me an ip that changed every few weeks.
  • acrodev, on 07/13/2008, -1/+14"For as long as consumers have had high-speed Internet at home, they have surfed the Web as much as they wanted, downloading any content while paying their service provider a flat monthly fee. "
    Tell that to the thousands of people who have had their internet service suspended for excessive or suspicious activity.
    • dsmx, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6You mean having the cheek to use the bandwidth that the isp said they could have?
  • jabiggs3, on 07/13/2008, -2/+15I can't help but feel that the providers' arguments are a little lame. Nobody is going to debate the fact that the hardware and infrastructure ISPs put in place don't come free... of course not. But come on ISP execs! Are you telling us that anyone can go out and start an ISP? Could an aspiring ISP simply go out and jackhammer the sidewalks or dig trenches across people's yards in order to sink fiber? No! Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the ability to deploy a great deal of the current Internet infrastructure required government consent - and that isn't a privilege available to all.

    Perhaps most damning for their argument is the fact that the telecommunications industry is highly regulated. Hell, cable operators in this country enjoy a government mandated monopoly/oligopoly model in each of their regions. Isn't that an "exorbitant" privilege that permits the providers unfettered access to the consumers in their regions?

    If the operators want to lobby for a tiered-bandwidth model, then fine... so long as they lobby to end the restrictive rules surrounding the industry, and permit competitors to enter the space. The only thing that will ensure that the new pricing models are fair is the opportunity for consumers to seek wider alternatives, an opportunity presently denied them - courtesy our government.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2It doesn't matter. Even if you could afford to lay thousands of miles of fiber around the world and install millions of dollars worth of equipment it doesn't so any good unless you can peer with a tier 1 provider in order to become a "part" of the internet. The Tier 1's dictate what you will pay for access and what the terms will be and they are owned by the big players like Time Warner and AT&T. There are many providers which have done exactly this and have networks that are technically better than the Tier 1's but they are still beholden to them or else they are NOTHING. The Tier 1's know this and they are quite comfortable with their cartel arrangement. This is essentially what makes their whole argument laughable and infuriates so many.
  • welliwonder, on 07/13/2008, -2/+19"The lowest tier is $29.95 a month for 5 gigabytes and the highest is $54.90 for 40 gigabytes."

    LOL, I prob dl 5gb a day or two.

    Firebomb them if they do this.
    • reformation, on 07/13/2008, -8/+25 gigabytes of what?

      50 albums a day? Stop stealing.
      • Tanktunker, on 07/13/2008, -1/+10Pornography.
        Free pornography.
        Stop jumping to the worst conclusion.
      • itsontheway, on 07/13/2008, -1/+9You are moron. Not everybody who uses bandwidth does it for that. As a developer, I blow through that in a day. Linux users would. Software updates would. Heck, windows service packs are pretty hefty.
      • welliwonder, on 07/13/2008, -1/+8Video presentations, FTP'ing assets up and down, daily... VoIP... Video/Audio conferencing... it adds up quickly.

        In fact it says here I've gone through 160mb since rebooting a few hours ago, and that wasn't work, that was just browsing around funny videos and movie trailers.
      • Coolkid11, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2I suck up 5GB evertytime I go to rev3. I have to transfer important work files to multiple people, seed linux, host a Neverwinter Nights server for my friends to play on and many other stuff. All of the stuff I do are legal and I use well over 5GB a day.
    • giskard88, on 07/13/2008, -4/+4yes, and you are a much greater load on you isp's network than the guy that just surfs a little and checks his email. why should he pay for your downloads. data costs money, and it's simply unfair to lump all users into one price. IMO this is true net neutrality. your given an agnostic pipe and then charged for what comes out of it. look at your water bill. are you charged for how much water pressure is available? no. your charged for how much water you use. same for your power, gas and phone bills. the speed of your line does not represent the total cost and value of your internet connection, your data usage must be taken into account. I
      • stoph009, on 07/13/2008, -1/+6The problem is the way that the ISPs are representing the service. If the service isn't UNLIMITED they should not advertise it as such!
      • s0nicfreak, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Except when I signed up I was told I would get unlimited bandwidth for one price and now they want to charge me more for limited bandwidth.
      • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1You have no idea what your talking about. Bandwidth isn't water and it can't be saved up, it can only be used to transfer data. Data costs nothing. It's infrastructure that costs money and as soon as it's installed it doesn't matter if you transfer 1mb or 1000tb. It's rented out monthly like a piece of real estate.

        Even 5gb a day per customer is very little traffic and if their network can't handle this then they don't deserve to be in business. Why do you think they advertise unlimited traffic? This isn't costing them extra or hurting their business, they just want to make more money.
  • gibler, on 07/13/2008, -0/+13Welcome to New Zealand. From time to time "unlimited" plans have appeared and then disappeared as they claim to be hit by "heavy" users. They are also now cancelling accounts if the ISP has had complaints from RIAA or others. They also admit to shaping the hell out of P2P traffic. One of the biggest jokes are the 200 MB plans with an excess of 2c/ MB.
    • quoick, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Ahh yes, but the good news is is that once you are on that plan they can't take you off. I am still on Xtra's unlimited paying $39.95 a month and if anything, it seems to be getting faster.
      • gibler, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2haha yes I've heard that they ring you up to get you to "upgrade".. eventually they'll get nasty though ... throttling etc.
      • DestroyFascism, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Xtra = Telstra?
      • quoick, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1No Xtra=Telecom. The totally creative name of our largest telecommunications company.
  • Theipolicy, on 07/13/2008, -1/+24This is horrible. How am I supposed to use my Netflix Unlimited online if my ISP limits my bandwidth? :|
    • itsontheway, on 07/13/2008, -0/+20Thats the plan; instead of using Netflix, you get to use time Warner and Comcastic´s video services.

      They want an unlevel playing field.
      • frazw, on 07/13/2008, -0/+10Either that or make a ***** load of money charging you for breaking through your cap.
    • secrity, on 07/13/2008, -0/+10They don't want to support Netflix's business model, they want to support their own business model.
  • Rndm_Tngnt, on 07/13/2008, -1/+27Translation: We squandered the government appropriations that were given to us to expand our capacity, so we're passing the buck onto you, the customer.
    • carpespasm, on 07/13/2008, -4/+1Squandered? maybe from your point of view, but the goal of a corporation (in fact the legal mandate) is to make money for share holders. I'd say their 12 billion dollar check paid for out of our taxes made their share holders very happy.
    • dreamersbrow, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1I wish I could give this comment the thumbs up twice!
  • Cuchanu, on 07/13/2008, -0/+12These are the types of things that make people hate corporations. If it's not unlimited don't f-ing call it unlimited. Verizon has been doing this for years on their cell phones.

    Hey I've got an idea let's go back to hours like in the AOL days.
  • DopplerDuck, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Where I live, those days got over a month after getting one's internet connection! I have a 500 bucks "unlimited" package. I was asked to upgrade to a 1000 bucks "unlimited" package or subscribe to a different operator. Lol!
  • cfuse, on 07/13/2008, -2/+7Ha, ha, welcome to broadband in Australia!
  • artfuldodga, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6Great, back to the days of dial-up... thats progress for you
  • itsfunny, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Nothing new. Here in the UK it's almost impossible to get true uncapped internet as a home user. My internet costs £25/m and I have a limit of 30gb. Sucks, but some other ISP have limits of as little as 5gb.
    • wideawakewesley, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2It's nowhere near impossible. I'm with Tiscali, have 4MB download speeds and completely unlimited downloads. They do have a fair usage policy though, which prevents you using P2P during peak hours (6pm till 11pm).
      • itsfunny, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Maybe at the end of my contract with Pipex a switch is in order.....
  • outofbeta, on 07/13/2008, -1/+15I still don't get it? So how are Japan and Korea managing this? They have faster internet, bigger networks and they have the convenience of using it everywhere(trains, parks) and they can still give them unlimited access?
    • Orchid64, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Japan does have fast unlimited access, but you can't get it just anywhere (not in most parks or even in many coffee shops or restaurants). In fact, wireless access is pretty limited. I'm not complaining as I'm happy with my ADSL in Tokyo. I'm just offering a correction on one particular point.
      • blankoboy, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Yeah, instead we have full 3G coverage in the metropolitan areas here in Japan along with slower PHS access. Japan kicks the snot out of fat, corrupt, inept, ol' America (and Canada!) in terms of Internet access. You North American consumers are getting ass raped by the telcos in more ways than you can imagine.
    • orangedude, on 07/13/2008, -2/+2Small concentrated geographical area = less expensive to lay cable
      • blankoboy, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Major North American cities (ie: New York, Los Angeles, etc) = Small concentrated geographical area.

        There is no REAL reason why they can't do the same for the major city hubs and then connect them all. Oh yeah, I forgot....the US telcos are busy spying on your asses while raping your wallets for substandard service.....and you all just bend over and take it. Get up and rip the telcos balls off already America.
      • mlavergn, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0No, that has nothing to do with it. One the cable is layed, and you're a user, then there's no additional cost to service your house. I could understand bandwidth costs, but that doesn't explain how Asian countries don't succumb to the same problem.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Can you imagine the chaos here if we had speeds like that? All the pedos being able to access kiddie porn in New York at those speeds? Why the NY AG would have to have that shut down immediately.
      /s
  • Zlorp, on 07/13/2008, -0/+8they arent doing this because they have to, they're doing this so they can make more money, watch cable providers profits quadrupole in a few years and we'll get the same ***** spiel as the oil companies about how some companies totally unrelated to their size or market make some arbitrary percentage in profit and how they should too. noooo ithey arent monopolies, no sir, they just happen to be the only providers in areas where other providers could potentially in some completely unrealistic way also provide comparable service.

    or some *****
  • hollyminkowski, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7My bandwidth usage has been creeping up.... last month it hit 70GB for the first time.
    $42/mo for 8mbps down and about 1.5mbps up...sure hope my service stays as it is.
    The guy was here a week ago installing new digital cable boxes, he said "Hey, you are one of our heaviest users on the internet" I kind of grinned at him...he said no more, I wonder if it was a shot across the bow :-(
    • Ryan0617, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7Probs installing some NSA special digital cable box.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3He has no right to even be looking at your bandwidth usage and it may even be in violation of their privacy policy. Companies get sued all the time for release of proprietary customer usage data and I may have been tempted to point this out to him.
  • MosaicM, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6What about MMO's which are insanely popular especially WOW, with MILLIONS of subscribbers? What will they do if they can't play. The ISP's will in effect probably put MMO's out of business. And also what about digital distrubtion programs like Steam or Gametap. They are going to hurt them too.

    This just sounds like the ISP's are whining to me. ("Oh, we can't handle the load because we haven't upgraded out equipment" Wahhh!") You ISP's should have been working on your equipment because as the net grows so does usage.
    • Zlorp, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3online games dont typically use much bandwidth, latency is generally the biggest issue. games like WoW can be played over dialup in most cases
      • chokeaduck, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Please tell me how WoW works for you on dial-up.
      • Zlorp, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1its not flawless, and you cant really use vent at the same time, but i use to run ZG on a dialup connection.
  • adhiza, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7Be Unlimited in the UK has true unlimited internet, a few of my mates have download over 600GB in a month without even being cautioned.
    • Ryan0617, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4I download over 100GB a month easily, no caution at all. Whilst we in the UK may not have the fastest connection speeds in Europe, strong regulations means that ISP's cannot falsely advertise their products, so they get punished if they tried anything dodgey.
    • carpespasm, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Which is as it should be. ISPs should be liable for false advertising suits if they use the word "unlimited" to describe an internet connection then apply any sort of caps, limits, extra fees, throttling or shaping to the line. If it's unlimited then hook me up and leave me alone. If it's not then call it what it is.
    • Duncan3, on 07/13/2008, -1/+0How do you find the time to watch 1000 movies in a month?
      • MajorCrazy, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3We're not downloading ***** 700mb movies? Usually I opt for full 10-12gb Blu-ray rips.
  • dturnbull, on 07/13/2008, -1/+5Tough. We've been limited in Australia forever, and then it's like 50c for every MB you go over. $50 a month will get you about 5-10GB, and I'm paying $120 for 60GB a month, which is the most you can get at high speed.
    • aenegeling, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3Who is your ISP mate? I am paying $89.95 for 100GB (40 peak, 60 off-peak). IINET Naked DSL in Sydney. It comes with free VOIP (unlimited free local calls, good rates to mobiles, excellent overseas rates). One downside with the plan is that the uploads are counted. But with 100GB it isn't reallly an issue. =)
      • dturnbull, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I'm with Telstra. And I know Telstra sucks, but they provide the fastest connection you can get I believe, and I guess that's the trade off I'm making, but it's still annoying.
    • noirhawk, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Yeah when I read the this article I scoffed at the fact that who ever wrote it is most likely American and only knows about American internet. I hate to sound like an American hater but you gotta hand it to them, the majority is pretty good at not knowing a whole lot about other countries; if it weren't for the internet would they call Earth America?
      • PopcornDave, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Well it was the Chicago Tribune. The articles I've seen on Digg from them seem to be a bit of old news being presented as new news.
  • waydee, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7I always knew when Internet access changed from the pay-per-minute dialup model to the flat-rate dialup model and finally to the 'unlimited' broadband model that we'd go full circle and end up paying out the ass again.
  • calenerd, on 07/13/2008, -0/+7***** the ISPs! They might as well make us go back in time to the past where we are paying for every minute we use.
    • CRasH180, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4That was the statement I was looking for. I knew there was something about this business model that gave me the feeling of Deja Vu. F'ing ISPs cannot offer "unlimited" and then say, "oh, you must not have seen the little star in the upper left corner on the commercial that tells you that there are restrictions to the unlimited plan. I you see your service agreement you will notice that unlimited means we get to choose how unlimited you are."
  • xandox, on 07/13/2008, -0/+6In Australia the "Unlimited plan is shaped after 12 GB. It's ridiculous! It means I have to "request large files" just so I can watch Diggnation!

    Apparently The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes...

    I DON'T BUY THAT EXCUSE!
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3I love how Telstra have a video service, that mails the physical DVD 2 days later....retarded.
  • Kinsbane, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4In other news, workers' productivity has severely gone down as more and more employees use their work's connection for free, thanks to tiered and limited pricing.
  • AngelBunny, on 07/13/2008, -2/+3this article is full of *****. the author has no sources to go off of and is writing this article just for the attention. this is BS. sure, companies talk about doing this, but fios keeps then from doing it. something tells me that if they charge $40 a month for a 40 gig plan in place A and $40 for an unlimited plan in place B just cuz place B competes with fios then it would lead to a world of trouble for comcast or time warner.
    • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Don't believe for a minute that verizon isn't going to milk their fios fiber network for all it's worth at the earliest opportunity. They know where the smart money is and it's owning the infrastructure for unlimited IP data communications.
  • JSBigman, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4So does this mean these providers are going to give back the billions that they have been given over the years to build networks. I mean they got the money to expand and ensure that the networks could reach every home and really have done very little with it. Now they are saying they are going to have to charge us more to use what already exists. What did they do with what amounts to our tax dollars anyways?
  • meshman, on 07/13/2008, -0/+4The CRTC in Canada has been investigating Bell's bandwidth thrrottling. Bell claims power users and killing the experience for everyone else and they (Bell) were ordered to produce the statistics proving it. They did and so far, the data doesn't back up their claims. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
  • Ebonsteel, on 07/13/2008, -1/+2It's not a big truck ... it's a series of TUBES!!!

    /sarcasm
  • Voltagensis, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Let's see ... I just got a speed upgrade myself. I'm using a large ISP in a metropolitan area. I download music and the occasional movie, streaming video, etc. But mostly I just download TONS of music.

    I don't personally find a problem with the network accomodating my needs. I don't need to pay a special fee or get a special plan for my uses. My current plan works just fine, and I am completely satisfied. The next biggest jump will be something like fiber. Obviously that will bring a different array of needs and challenges, but we're not there yet. Stop trying to dig in my pocket, *****!

    This == corporate greed
  • alphadog, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2This is just another way for these corporations to bleed the public of money. These companies see and understand what is happening. More people are getting online and are streaming videos and downloading larger files. They are setting the bar very low today, so that in a year or two they can jack up the price. Instead of improving the infrastructure, charge through the nose now and then whine to the government later for help when things start to go wrong. High speed access is becoming controlled by cell phone carriers. Charge a lot for truly basic service and then nickel and dime for everything else. I don not mind paying for a good service, but give me a good service at a fair price. Soon only the more affluent will be able to afford high speed access.
    What do you thing would happen if the government decided not to placate the these companies and actually mandated laws for the people it represented (ie: relaxed the regulations and allow all companies to be represented in all of the markets). What if there were no more monopolies and people were free to choose what provider they wanted to?
  • BillDoE, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Comcast - The new AOL. Remember when AOL got sued for overselling nodes? Comcast keeps giving us more speed only to complain about more usage. Shouldn't they be laying some fiber to homes instead of running off customers and throttling users?
  • jjones20, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2I love seeing commercials for DSL where they always say "Its not like cable, where you share internet with your neighbor, your speeds will always be consistent no matter what theyre doing" and now theyre crying "people downloading too much is affecting other peoples service!"

    well which is it? cause it sure as hell cant be both.

    Its all just a money grab.
  • Harlem, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2time for another revolt!
  • case42tlc, on 07/13/2008, -1/+3Broadband providers "fear becoming a dumb pipe." I've got news for you, assholes. Anything other than a "dumb pipe" violates net neutrality, which violates my rights...
    • Waterrat, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I see them as just that...A dumb pipe...And that is as it should be.
  • bipolarruledout, on 07/13/2008, -1/+335% a year? Cry me a ***** river! The worst thing that could happen is for people to actually believe this *****. People need to start dropping their service in mass if these telcoms start pulling this crap. Just how much of an oligarchy will are people willing to put up with? Time Warner actually expects people to pay over $1.00 a gigabyte? ***** YOU! And what is with the media giving these ***** suckers a forum to freely advertise their planned ass raping? With as many things ***** up in the world the internet is the LAST THING that the people have that is free and open. We can't afford to surrender control of information and I guarantee you that is what is coming next as these telcoms squeeze harder and harder. DO NOT PUT UP WITH THIS UNDER ANY CIRCIMSTANCES!
    • Yage2006, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3That's so easy to say but sad thing is in north america you have no where else to go other then dialup.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2"Just how much of an oligarchy will are people willing to put up with?"

      You're watching it right now. Are you surprised?

      Verizon started hooking people on this ***** when they started offering video on cell phones. I mean who the hell wants to watch a 2 minute clip of a tv show on their cell phone? But you get people used to watching things on other mediums besides television. First it's the phone, then the computer. All of a sudden Verizon gets to complain that their users are using up too much of their available resources and they're going to have to raise prices to accommodate all the new traffic.

      The media companies are the cause of all this problem. They can't be happy with the one area of media they have, they must have it all.

      I'm sorry, but I'm sick of this *****. Bell, Verizon, AT&T and all you other phone companies - stick to ***** phones. I don't need television from you, I've got cable. And Comcast, I don't ***** need internet services or phone services from a television company. Stick to what you ***** do and improve it.
  • gemmakicn, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2The thing is stateside in many places its not like in the uk where there are 20 different broadband providers to choose from, often you have only one choice, which makes for an illegal monopoly.

    If someone said a limit of say 300 gb a month (10gb a day) i'd say that would be a fairer cap for higher level usage. I don't use that much, but i'd like a comfortable buffer in case for whatever reason i needed to use it.

    If the cable companies start using their effective monopoly they should be broken up again.
    • quickname, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1i had to reply. I totally agree with what your saying. Having such an unfair limit of only 5GB for a whole month is ridiculous. This isn't a cap for heavy users, its a cap for everyone.
      • gemmakicn, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2In the past "heavy users" were infrequent, then comes on demand programming and itunes video, suddenly half the western internet world is a "heavy user".

        They have had a decade to see this coming, and they did nothing, they deserve no sympathy
  • Niteryder, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1Increasingly these companies have stifled competition and monopolized the backbone, to the point they did on their telephony legacy business until they drove it into the ground. I am seriously
    looking for offshore relief, from bad purchasing decision models of 18 months from these dead weight organizations. I want the latest cheapest fastest technology and no ***** about bandwidth to stream stuff I want to see with no extra charges. Tired of being manipulated and lied to by unscrupulous marketing types and stupid congress people who go along with this *****.
  • Gosroth, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2eh, i haven't read all the posts, digg me down for ignorance or whatever but ... why the hell do companies advertise awesome upload speeds and awesome download speeds when they want to chastise you for using it? why else would fast up/down be useful unless downloading large files or streaming video?
    • Yage2006, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2To sucker you into subscribing.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Why do beer ads feature half naked women? Why do automobile ads feature attractive people?

      Yage200t is right. You're getting suckered. It's advertising 101.
  • Yage2006, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2These kind of tiers like AT&T's 40gb a month would effectively kill services like xboxlive netflix's watch now, apple tv and many others. I can understand a higher tier for power users but at least put realistic limits like 100gb 200gb 300gb
    Maybe charge 80$ for 300gb which should be more then enough for even power users.
  • newsboys, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3The companies charge you if you go over your monthly bandwidth, and hefty fees at that - but if you have GB left over at the end of the month, do they roll-over to your next month? Of course not.
    Double friggin standard.
  • SniperSlap, on 07/13/2008, -0/+3I'm sick of all this ***** persuasive ***** going into the story.

    These corporations are ***** liars and it's about time the governments got on their case and forced them to make unlimited access standard.

    There is no strain, this is just an army of marketing whores trying to get raises by ***** up the product to be more expensive.

    Write letters -- NOW!
  • ryanspahn, on 07/13/2008, -0/+2Yup - obviously going to happen. Sucks but if you have taken economics then this progression is a no brainer.

    Now gimmie Skype access on my iPhone.... Flash too!
    • PopcornDave, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I'm waiting for Skype in my new Chrysler with it's built in wi-fi. Screw the cell phone laws, I'll be calling all over the world for pennies a month from my car - hands free.
      /dreaming
  • ravenswing2, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Maybe the ISPs should be put into the classification of public utilities, and regulated regarding service levels and pricing. It kind of sucks that some brain dead drooler can spend 24/7 downloading music and movies and playing mindless games, and cause people who use the internet for business, information gathering, research and communication (yes, digg is communication) to give up the unlimited access they have enjoyed. Perhaps a premium system could be set up. Sort of like the music and video industry already have, where a downloaded song or movie results in a certain amount of revenue being funneled to the owner of same. This could work similarly, except that the downloader would be charged a small amount per download after a certain point, and that charge would go to the ISP to help defray the cost of new system capacity.
  • exaakax, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1are you kidding? the monthly comcast bill for triple play in California is four times the price of what it is in Paris, and you don't hear Orange complaining about it.

    This article is a piece of Telcos' anxiety marketing, none other.
  • Alienpruts, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Here in Belgium we have no 'unlimited' bandwith, on the contrary!

    We have one of the most expensive internet service providers in the whole of Europe. We pay 'on average' 45 EUR for 12 GB/month with a rate of 1EUR/extra GB ordered if your limit is exceeded. So those plans of implementing higher prices / restricted bandwith do not worry me because we ALREADY have those.... :(
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.