leakman7 wrote:

Right now my ISP, Charter Communications, has no cap. If they start one, my only other choice is slower DSL.

Don't know about Charter, but Comcast and many other ISPs offer "business class" services in addition to their residential services.

Residential Internet service is usually under provisioned. That is the carriers assume that most people will not be using it very heavily. The other way of looking at it is they advertise more than they can deliver for the price. Business class service is provisioned assuming the customer will actually be using all of the advertised bandwidth. So if you are a "heavy user" you might want to look at the business class offerings rather than switching to a slower technology. It may also come with some other nice things (terms of service that allow you to host servers, a different tech help phone number with native English speakers that can do something, etc.).

AT&T just capped their unlimited data plan, to 150gb, that is 1/2 of what comcast caps at, and I have used about 250 gb every month this year. I just go a notice that I hit 60% of the cap and next month will be charged $10 for every 50gb that I exceed the cap. So my Internet bill will double.

I filed complaints with FTC and FCC about this, but all I got was a letter from AT&T acknowledging the complaints. Next stop DOJ. This is bait and switch plain and simple.

Go to Stopthecap.com and call your congressperson, file complaints, maybe we can turn this around.

Joel

jbrave wrote:

I filed complaints with FTC and FCC about this, but all I got was a letter from AT&T acknowledging the complaints. Next stop DOJ. This is bait and switch plain and simple.

Are you doing the same for the netflix increase? No because companies have the right to change business models. Are you going to DOJ because you do not have socialized medicine yet?

Why does many americans think they are grandfathered into everything? And they are exempt from inflation and/or other cost increases?

SandboxManager wrote:

jbrave wrote:

I filed complaints with FTC and FCC about this, but all I got was a letter from AT&T acknowledging the complaints. Next stop DOJ. This is bait and switch plain and simple.

Are you doing the same for the netflix increase? No because companies have the right to change business models. Are you going to DOJ because you do not have socialized medicine yet?

Why does many americans think they are grandfathered into everything? And they are exempt from inflation and/or other cost increases?

If they were increasing the price of the current plan, that would be valid, but in this case they're adding a cap to a previously unlimited plan. That's more equivalent to Netflix saying your 3 DVD plan is now limited to 1 DVD than it is to the Netflix increasing their prices.

What AT&T should be doing is increasing the price of the current plan and adding a capped plan at the lower/current price, not changing the terms of the plan you already have.

SandboxManager wrote:

Why does many americans think they are grandfathered into everything? And they are exempt from inflation and/or other cost increases?

First of all, I signed up for "unlimited" Internet from AT&T. If I rent you a house and then 5 years later I tell you that if you use the kitchen I'll charge you extra, is that right?

Data caps will do what they are intended to do, sabotage the connected tv revolution. At&t is doing this for one reason: they have a cable tv product called U-verse and they are losing customers to people who are using Rokus and other devices to consume video content.
I'm guessing that you are probably a European, and used to being overcharged for your Internet connection. Sure, I would love to have socialized medicine, and I bet you would scream to high heaven if they took it away from you tomorrow and didn't grandfather you in. Speaking of which, will grandpa really understand why his $30/month internet suddenly doubled in price? That isn't inflation, inflation would be an incremental price increase.

How about if we double your water bill or double your taxes next month, is that ok? I think not.

As to the Netflix price increase, that is a small increase, some people are upset about it, but Netflix is still a bargain.

Joel

BoloMKXXVIII wrote:

The myth of scarce resources for ISPs continues. I bet they will be happy to sell you some movies/sport events on a pay per view basis. Funny how their bits don't clog up the pipe like your bits do.

PPV movies don't stream over IP, but go over their cable system, and therefore don't use data.

BoloMKXXVIII wrote:

senorgregster wrote:

My 2c. If at all possible, talk with your $ and change ISP. Let them know why you changed. I realize many can't change because they have a single ISP to chose from. I was stuck with Comcast for years and finally got access to FiOS. I had many issues with Comcast but I told them the primary reason for the switch was their cap.

In many places it is a monopoly. The ISPs spend millions in Washington to ensure they stay that way. In a fair free market Comcast would be out of business. Most of the rest of the developed world laughs at us for how much we pay and how little we get from our ISPs. Changing ISPs and telling them why is a good idea, but the rest of the problem is in Washington. I will not debate which party is worse but I will say if you vote for ANY incumbent you are part of the problem. National, state or local, it makes no difference.

No monopoly. There is cable, dsl, and satellite. As for other countries, do a little checking and see what they pay and what their constraints/limits are. You'll suddenly love Comcast.

And fwiw, I really don't have a problem with caps. If I use more electricity this month than last, I pay for it. Same with water, gas, gasoline, and every other utility/commodity.

I get really puzzled at the sense of entitlement some seem to have. Are any of us owed unlimited anything? Is it reasonable to expect to pay so much for a certain level of service, and more if we choose to use more? I don't think it is.

pianotech wrote:

And fwiw, I really don't have a problem with caps. If I use more electricity this month than last, I pay for it. Same with water, gas, gasoline, and every other utility/commodity.

I get really puzzled at the sense of entitlement some seem to have. Are any of us owed unlimited anything? Is it reasonable to expect to pay so much for a certain level of service, and more if we choose to use more? I don't think it is.

those analogies really aren't the same thing. You pay per kilowatt hour for your electricity so obviously the more you use the more you pay for. If it had always been that way but then your electric company said "we now will only allow you 250 kw/hr, and if you go over that the rate doubles", would you be very happy about it?

Even that analogy isn't accurate because the power company is generating electricity (or buying it and selling it to you) and ISP's are simply giving you access to their pipelines. Other than the maintaining of the pipelines, they have nothing to do with the information sent through them. It is clearly an anti-competitive move and just a means to profit more from the people that are using alternative to other entertainment mediums. If it was even a question of isp congestion, then as someone mentioned earlier (if they really cared that that was really the problem) they would do peak and off-peak rates and allotments like cell phone plans.

It's not a sense of "entitlement", it is of people not liking getting screwed because big businesses are bound and determined to take as much as they possibly can from you for the least amount of product or service they can and thwart any possible attempts by consumers to stop that cycle. This is exactly why a true free market system doesn't work and why there is *supposed* to be regulation on this stuff.

If I use more, I pay more. I don't see that as being screwed. I see that as paying more for what I want. Building and maintaining the pipes does indeed cost money. More usage requires bigger pipes.

As for caps, my provider (Comcast) offers business class service that has no caps. Probably other providers do too. If the cap ever gets to be a problem for me, I'll upgrade, pay a little more, and that solve the problem for me.

As they say in the Staples commercials..."that was easy!"

pianotech wrote:

If I use more, I pay more. I don't see that as being screwed. I see that as paying more for what I want. Building and maintaining the pipes does indeed cost money. More usage requires bigger pipes.

As for caps, my provider (Comcast) offers business class service that has no caps. Probably other providers do too. If the cap ever gets to be a problem for me, I'll upgrade, pay a little more, and that solve the problem for me.

As they say in the Staples commercials..."that was easy!"

that's great, but you still see that because of data caps you are paying more... Either because of going over them or paying more for a business class plan to avoid them. They got you either way. So then, if caps were imposed because of congestion and nothing else, then why are there no caps on business class? If amounts of data transfer is a legitimate concern, why should someone who's not much a streamer have to pay the same amount as someone who gets right up to their 250gb cap? What if everybody just jumps up to business class so they start capping that? When is "enough enough" ? Going to a business class plan is not a solution, its a work-around for the problem. Work-arounds are only temporary and sooner or later the problem you were working around catches up. Just like the "work around" of IP TV because of costly and costlier cable television.

I don't have any caps from my ISP, but certainly if you look at the big picture, not just internet service, all you see is the consumer backed in the corner and forced to pay more for everything as their bank accounts whither away as is. The consumer is not being protected one bit.

pianotech wrote:

If I use more, I pay more. I don't see that as being screwed. I see that as paying more for what I want. Building and maintaining the pipes does indeed cost money. More usage requires bigger pipes.

As for caps, my provider (Comcast) offers business class service that has no caps. Probably other providers do too. If the cap ever gets to be a problem for me, I'll upgrade, pay a little more, and that solve the problem for me.

As they say in the Staples commercials..."that was easy!"

More usage does NOT require bigger pipes, in general terms. Imagine bandwidth like a swimming pool you pay to use. Caps/throttling are the equivalent of charging you more for swimming 10 laps just because most people swim 4. You paid for unlimited use, you're not getting in anyone's way (the pool is mostly empty, most of the time), but you still get charged more just because you use more.

mikebdoss wrote:

pianotech wrote:

If I use more, I pay more. I don't see that as being screwed. I see that as paying more for what I want. Building and maintaining the pipes does indeed cost money. More usage requires bigger pipes.

As for caps, my provider (Comcast) offers business class service that has no caps. Probably other providers do too. If the cap ever gets to be a problem for me, I'll upgrade, pay a little more, and that solve the problem for me.

As they say in the Staples commercials..."that was easy!"

More usage does NOT require bigger pipes, in general terms. Imagine bandwidth like a swimming pool you pay to use. Caps/throttling are the equivalent of charging you more for swimming 10 laps just because most people swim 4. You paid for unlimited use, you're not getting in anyone's way (the pool is mostly empty, most of the time), but you still get charged more just because you use more.

Are you saying that the infrastructure that was in place back when everyone was using dial-up would be sufficient to carry today's load? If not, why not? Is it because more and more people are using more and more data now than then?

And the swimming pool analogy fails because the pool doesn't require more water to be delivered to it the more laps people swim. Once it's full, it's full. Streaming data requires a steady of stream of bits being delivered. More people using more data necessarily requires more infrastructure, servers, etc.

Look, as a consumer, I'm not saying I'm happy to pay more for things than I have to, because that's not the case. I do understand though that services we use cost money, and if I expect to use significantly more than someone else does, it follows that I'm going to be paying more than someone else does. I put 40K miles/year on my car in the course of my business. It follows that I spend more on gas/maintenance/tires/upkeep than someone putting 12K miles/year. I don't begrudge that. It's a circumstance of my choosing and I pay for it.

janel wrote:

leakman7 wrote:

Right now my ISP, Charter Communications, has no cap.

Yes, they do - they just don't enforce it stringently so far.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Char ... aps-111347

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-fo ... sage-caps/

Thanks for that information. I've gone beyond those limits several times in the last year and so far they haven't said a thing. It's not just streaming I'm doing; I also download Linux distros to test and review them.