That only makes sense in a world where they have trouble meeting demand. I don't think that is currently the case and don't see it for awhile. In the Electric world there are two things you pay for: Actual Usage (kWh) and Demand (kW)...one is actual use and the other is how much demand you might need that the Power Company needs to have on hand...that's,,,Power Internet "Utility Companies" strive for that world of billing versus use blunt force throttling. It is bad for business to throttle usage, unless you have no other way to meet demand or have no other way to create price points.
i'm not up on my Fiber. But it would likely fall into what I'm saying about Speed isn't the measure, Demand is. Once Demand is not an issue (ie Fiber thoroughfares) then utility companies historically allow as much usage as desired, and release the flood gates/usage throttles. We all still remember dialup modems. We have to think way earlier than that to imagine what it was like before electric companies could meet demand, too. Then it makes sense what I'm saying about where data utilities are going.
No, I'm not mistaken. Never, ever have I been shown pricing based on usage nor had anyone discuss usage with me. Never. Not once in the what, nearly 10 years I've had UVerse. I don't care what they do behind the scenes. If they present prices to me based on speed then it's a bait and switch to then charge me based on usage. It's false advertising. The internet would be a completely different place if customers were charged per gig of usage. It would be drastically different.
If you don't think you are mistaken; then all I can tell you is you want to change your opinion, because what I'm describing is better for you and most all consumers I mean; you can listen to a 19yr old OP with 3-4 roommates with selfish interest in never getting billed on usage, but his OP has several major errors in it. And what I'm explaining is what the utilities are actually hoping to do, which is good for us. Everyone needs to relax. You want to be build on usage just like your electric bill. You do NOT want to be throttled on speed. They are not charging you by speed and usage at the same time. That's not what a cap is. That's where this entire thread is mistaken. Colorado has had this 300gb cap for several years. So, I don't understand this mistaken idea that you are now being faced with a bait and switch. i doubt you will ever hit this 300gb cap anywhere close ... like me. I'm like at 150 gb at best months. Relax dude. A 300gb Cap is perfectly fine. It will keep your price down.
Colorado just voted to have some of its local communities provide municipal broadband. That data cap isn't as popular as you think. If ISPs sat here and tried to reason with consumers and show them how much money they can save instead of making themselves look like the epitome of corruption and capitalism gone bad then maybe consumer response wouldn't be as volatile. Usage based without speed tiers would be tolerable. My fears are usage based with speed tiers with data caps and subsequent throttling.
I have no clue how to check usage so I don't know what I use. I stream a lot of Netflix and some ESPN/TNT. I do know I'm paying for 17mbs and I'm getting like 5mbs so I'm ticked about that. Ha.
Do you know the two logical fallacies you just made in that statement? RedRedemption...I know it's your thread, but your OP title sucks and is flat out wrong...and your logic is embarrassing...and all your facts aren't facts. It's obvious you misunderstand the article you posted and you are selfishly wanting utilities companies to never use usage/demand pricing that ALL OTHER UTILITY COMPANIES use...Electric, Natural Gas, Water. And I actually sense you believe your are justified in abusing this pricing structure. You just want to abuse a system that can't bill on normal business pricing this early in its infancy. It's all going to end. And it will eventually favor 99% of consumers, just not you and your 3-4 roommate downloading more than 300gb per person.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml http://www.wired.com/2014/08/save-the-net-reed-hastings/ http://www.pcworld.com/article/2840...-business-deals-for-broadband-congestion.html How will that 300GB fare with 4k streaming? What do you think of these articles and their claim? I've bolded the relevant parts to make the read easier. Also, my brother-in-law is a telecoms consultant so he's my first source info to counter you. He alleges that his clients who may or may not be mentioned in this thread say wireline congestion/overloaded pipes are a myth. He further adds open discussions are made of preventing people from cord cutting: data caps/speed throttling/etc are indirect ways to preserve their legacy businesses from online streaming such as Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, Amazon, etc. Finally, various PR campaigns are coordinated with his firm to spread the myths above.
I can check every day, since I am currently under a cap. I stopped checking because I get nowhere close to my 300gb. What is a lot? As I showed earlier...you'd have to d/l 150 hours of HD in one month to hit your cap.
Yet later in your post you claim there is no fear of congestion or demand. So obviously, it will get increased once it's an issue. I never defended a cap; I just pointed out it is nothing new as the OP proclaimed You might be surprised that I agree with your brother-in-law, and you are just not seeing the connection in what we are saying. That is exactly what I said....the need to throttle speed is a myth. Didn't I say that? However, there is a real peak Demand issue just like Electric companies. They fear it; hence your 4K comment above that potentially outdates your brother-in-laws comment here. Point is: They make most money billing exact bandwidth usage. They don't because they can't yet...for more technological reasons than the conspiracy theories your brother-in-law believes Billing actual usage is better than arbitrarily billing based on average usage. There might have been a time in the wild west where billing Electricity on an average was better, too, but not anymore. Data Utility Companies are not trying to break that Electric company financial model; they are trying to incorporate it. btw: your brother in law and I aren't first source. Our clients are. So don't know what you mean by, " he's my first source info to counter you. " Maybe if you get him to post in this thread then he is. Until he does, you are speaking for him, no?
Perhaps the solution is separating the content from the delivery system. Comcast is throttling so as to slow down competing content providers. If Comcast was the only content provider they would be encouraging the increased MBP/s flow to sell more content. So if you separate out contnt from the Comcast delivery system, its a level playing field. yea Comcast... that's intended to be a big F U.
If we are paying for "speed", then that speed has to be available anytime, all the time. Why would it matter how much total data you use? If you have the speed capacity you advertise and sell then it's just a matter of how much time the user is utilizing that capacity. The "speed' infrastructure is still the same, it just runs longer. The costs to Comcast are fixed; it's not like they need to generate more capacity like generating more electricity.
To give ya'll an idea of how this effects movie streaming. We are cord cutters at our house. We only use streaming services and do not have any traditional cable television plan. Comcast says the average user uses 20-25 gigs a month. Of note I do not use torrents. Just regular internet activity plus a streaming only household with only 2 tvs in the house and then of course phones and tablets. My last 3 months were 645 GB, 426 GB, and 362 GB. The 300 GB cap will hit any cord cutters hard.
It's not abuse if that's how they created their pricing structure Jesus Christ. We're not downloading more than 300gb per person. We are averaging 450gb per month for three people.
Internet access should be a public utility, content providers can charge whatever they want and I will choose. You can have real competition or you can have regulated monopolies. But you can't have monopolies charging whatever they want for necessities, it's un-American.
This was a good PSA, but isn't the very foundation of capitalism to 'screw' the buyer by making the most profit? The dominant company pushes until competition and innovation comes in and then they're 'screwed' due to an old infrastructure, business practices and a poor reputation. Then it all goes around again; we'll be b****ing about Google Fiber in 20 years. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
Does the OP feel that we should all have high speed unlimited data? Is unlimited data some kind of right that we should all possess. Do we have unlimited electricity, Unlimited water, unlimited gas? Why should we have unlimited data? Comcast can do as they please, and consumers can decide if they want to keep the service.
