fire_storm Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 That's fine unless you're in the 1%. To be honest, I think I would end up in that 1%. Well ISP's are there to serve the majority not the minority. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathmineral Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 Well ISP's are there to serve the majority not the minority. Yep, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation for them to bend over some of their customers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 Yep, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation for them to bend over some of their customers. If you're using a dis-proportionally large amount of bandwidth why wouldn't you expect to pay a little more than someone who uses next to nothing? It's pretty hard to hit that limit unless you're downloading stuff constantly. I still don't agree with them - but at least they are reasonable limits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedCrazy Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 Now, I would have a problem if ISPs with effective monopolies (which I understand happens in some places in the US?) Like here, we have one provider, they charge premium and we still have 'loss of connection' about 3 days out of a good month. If they put on caps i think we will have a miniature war. Problem is, they provide internet, tv (both satellite and cable) landlines the only decent cell plans and employ about a third of the people in the county. What could we do? Already dirt poor slums, albeit slums with satellite and broadband, amazing what people round here put up with to get sitcoms and facebook. That cap would get eaten very quickly at our house, 5 different computers, netflix, etc. THAT BETTER NOT HAPPEN HERE. </end rant> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flareback Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 Should ISPs be allowed to implement caps: Yes, of course. Would I personally use an ISP that implemented caps: No With some stipulations: Now, I would have a problem if ISPs with effective monopolies (which I understand happens in some places in the US?) implemented caps without offering packages without caps. Caps should also be reasonable given the bandwidth provided (e.g. not so small that you could exceed them in a few hours of full bandwidth usage). Basically I think you should be given a choice. Paying a bit more for an uncapped service seems entirely reasonable to me. Regulation is required considering the importance of connectivity in general. They should be allowed to. There should also be enough competition that if I don't like a service I can go to a competitor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griever2003 Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 Now, I would have a problem if ISPs with effective monopolies (which I understand happens in some places in the US?) implemented caps without offering packages without caps. Like here, we have one provider, they charge premium and we still have 'loss of connection' about 3 days out of a good month. If they put on caps i think we will have a miniature war. Problem is, they provide internet, tv (both satellite and cable) landlines the only decent cell plans and employ about a third of the people in the county. What could we do? Already dirt poor slums, albeit slums with satellite and broadband, amazing what people round here put up with to get sitcoms and facebook. That cap would get eaten very quickly at our house, 5 different computers, netflix, etc. THAT BETTER NOT HAPPEN HERE. </end rant> that doesn't just happen in the po-dunk country areas either. when i lived in Virginia near DC the only cable provider in my area was Comcast. and up until like 6 months ago the same thing where i live at in San Diego, the only internet provider was Time Warner. Some big city areas don't support competitive cable infrastructure, and at this point sometimes it is too expansive for the other companies to extend their services. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathmineral Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 They should be allowed to. There should also be enough competition that if I don't like a service I can go to a competitor. Sure, one of the Dial-Up competitors, I doubt they feel the need to put a cap on your internet. That's what I think will happen, all of these DSL and Broadband ISPs will put caps and the only ISPs without caps will be Dial-Up. Not to mention how impractical it is for them to make this change now of all times, with service such as OnLive just coming around... just think about the kind of impact these caps could have on that, especially if they increased your speeds enough to make OnLive able to compete with everything else. If OnLive could give you the kind of graphics top end gaming PCs do, I think you wouldn't have as much trouble hitting the cap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griever2003 Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 They should be allowed to. There should also be enough competition that if I don't like a service I can go to a competitor. and if there is not a competitor.. what would you do then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedCrazy Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 and if there is not a competitor.. what would you do then? Exactly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
feetfats Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) the internet company where I live has a complete monopoly. We have always had a terrible cap. A few years ago it was 10gb a month. Now you can pay more for 20-75gb a month and there are no options for anything more than 75. Get this, If you go over your plan they charge $10.00 a GB 2 times now I've lost track and got hit with a crazy bill,,, one was over $200 and one was $150. I have contacted another internet company that services the next closest city but they have no plans to come here as of yet. ( I assume its not financially viable for them, but it may be due to the government controlled monopoly northwestel has because they made the investment many decades ago to put lines up here) Edited March 15, 2011 by feetfats Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrewr05 Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 The problem is that a lot people are hitting the existing caps (or would hit the desired caps) on their by world standards SLOW internet by using legitimate services. Some people may want to have 5 people in their home watching HD netflix (etc) content pretty much all the time. Until the US starts offering comparable internet speeds to some of the other leading countries then with bandwidth caps that is pretty much impossible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 15, 2011 Posted March 15, 2011 Some people may want to have 5 people in their home watching HD netflix (etc) content pretty much all the time. While it'd still be pretty hard to hit 250 GB I can see where that'd be a problem in a big house. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now