Originally Posted by Series3Sub
High or even non-stop use using a bandwidth one pays for is not increase the costs to the ISP nor does it necessarily prevent other from accessing their internet tier service at the bandwidth they pay for. So, the notion that one should pay more based based on volume of traffic on the assumption that it costs the ISP more or negatively impacts other users is FALSE. Or more likely, ISP's are FALSELY labeling ISP rates based on bandwidth that they rarely provide (at full bandwidth) and throttle accordingly, like an airline overbooking a flight. Yes, the airlines can overbook, but if they bump you, there are mandated compensations the airlines must provide. Not so for ISP's who have now been studied to provide the full bandwidth of service as low as 50% of the time (Episode of Revison 3's Tekzilla this week cites a study and weblink to it). So, it seems the consumers are being ripped-off by ISP's who don't provide the bandwidth consumers pay for. It easily could be a case of false advertising or not getting what you pay for that should, one would hope, interest the FTC.
However, pricing based upon the bandwidth you prefer IS fair and does effect what is left for other users, so it is the "tier" of service, meaning what one's downstream and upstream bandwidth that may cost the ISP more and negatively effect others, NOT the volume of traffic, but that's why we pay MORE for more BANDWIDTH and ISP's, properly, charge more for bandwidth. It's why one pays more for the 2,000 Sq Ft. condo and the next guys pays less in the same complex for the 600Sq Ft. studio. How I use the space I've paid for shouldn't affect (if the ISP's are honest) the poor fellow who has only 600 Sq. Ft of space to live. As for the internet access, frequency of use or amount of "traffic" is irrelevant. But ISP's don't operate fairly or properly in this regard, hence the controversy. Also, ISP's have done a great job fooling people into believing volume of traffic (heavy users) is the culprit. This isn't opinion, but established as fact by several IT and other computer experts and consumer groups (including Consumers Union, I believe), so please don't beat me up on this, as it has been established as a well known fact in IT.
there's a lot in there- I think your point is that if you pay for x mb/s you should get that speed and so if you use that for 5 minutes a day or 24 hours it shouldn't matter?
If that's your point- you're living in lala land. NO ONE- not even regulated ma-bell builds a network big enough to cover everyone using it at the same time. It's cost prohibitive and we'd all need to pay some crazy amount each month for comcast or whomever to build a network big enough that everyone could use it at 100% at all times. Try to make a landline OR cell phone call when there is an earthquake or a tsumani or a terrorist attack in the area- guess what the lines are jammed because the network isn't built to handle everyone using it all at once. It's just not how they build the networks. Do people complain and go nutz on blogs when ATT can't provide enough landline circuits to call Japan after a tsunami?
A network engineer has to decide how big is big enough. He can decide to built it to make (made up number) 95% happy and he/she builds it that way. But if someone in the neighborhood uses "excessive" bits THEN only 80% of customers are happy. Then the handful of people using "excessive" affected the others and that in turn will cost Comcast to spend money to upgrade the network.
So a small group of users can negatively effect others AND therefore push up the cost of the network.
I think FIOS is close to being able to build such an architecture where you get a certain up/download speed and it IS all yours 100% of the time. But even then- there are bottlenecks on the verizon network where they aggregate all the connections and connect to something bigger. So even all fiber network would have issues too if a some certain amount of folks use "more that normal".
Now that said- there are some tricky issues in there about how things should be sold and/or advertised. those are some interesting discussions and that should probably be the point that is made. Sounds like maybe this is more your point that they need to be more honest and transparent with it?
Maybe they should charge in buckets of bits like the cell phone companies are moving? Maybe they should just open all the speed restrictions on the modems and then go to buckets of bits? But then it would be like cell phones and you would never know what speed you might get at any moment (not even the guess speeds we have now that aren't hard and fast).
Also real good points about moving to the cloud above. I use idrive for backup in the cloud- I've got like 130gigs on it. If my computer where to die (I have redundant drives in my file store computer and a physical backup at my house too- but could be a fire or something...) and I needed to download that whole 130gigs that month I'd probably come close to going over myself.
and to be clear i quoted "excessive" and those sorts of words because they are surely up for interpretation and grownup discussion.
(actually thinking about it I think I read that back 'in the day' ma bell built the phone network to handle a single annual event and that they and the regulators agreed that was enough- I seem to recall if might have been mothersday but i can't remember. Maybe that's the solution that the FCC should regulate they need to provide something like 95% of their advertised speeds from 5-10pm each night and if they go below they get fined- but still we wind up with probably we all need to pay by buckets of bits then)