Is the Internet a right? AKA datacaps, control and you.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting article on data caps, broadband companies and their level of control. I'm not sure I like his designation of broadband as a "right" but I understand his point even if I might phrase it differently.
The thing that hit me most is that this could happen to any of us who use broadband heavily and thats why it's really an important discussion to have.
Here's the article from Kotaku, It's long but worth the read:
The Day Comcast’s Data Cap Policy Killed My Internet for One Year


andre vrignaudToday I came home to find my 15 MB down/3 MB up Comcast broadband service had been shut off due to exceeding their 250 GB/month data cap policy.
This had happened the month before, and I called and had a polite but irritated conversation with Comcast's "Customer Security" department (since the regular customer service folks could not help.) According to them I had exceeded their 250 GB monthly cap, and they asked how that might have happened.
I told them the simple truth-–no idea, other than regular people were probably using it a lot for reasonable things. I have roommates, we stream Netflix HD movies and Pandora music incessantly to multiple devices in the home, and I also have an open access point (in addition to a secured AP that I use to access internal network resources) for guests. I asked if they could share what was using the majority of the data so I could go address it directly, but Comcast refused to share any information there (which is probably appropriate).
I made very clear to the gentleman I spoke with that I thought Comcast's data cap policy was arbitrary, unfair, and extremely irritating… and that if I had any decent competitive options in the neighborhood I'd dump Comcast in a heartbeat. Since I don't, I listened to him read his canned warning that if I exceeded their cap again I'd be cut off again. I do not recall details on how long the cut off would be, likely because I spent the next few minutes working with the service agent to add notes to my record about my detailed displeasure with Comcast's policy here. I specifically noted (and asked that it be recorded) that if this happened again I would contact the FCC, various news organizations, and otherwise make a stink. The CS agent was polite and reactivated my broadband. After hanging up I chatted with my roommates, asked them to keep an eye on bandwidth use, and also deactivated the open AP I had maintained for visitors (with regret, but this was the only area I could think of that I couldn't completely account for bandwidth use.) Then I forgot about the whole thing until today when I found I'd been cut off again.
I called up Comcast and went through customer service hell – a Comcast special, I might note. First their regular customer service agent couldn't help me, and sent me to their "Customer Security" group again. The Customer Security agent was polite, and after the standard identification questions notified me I was cut off for a year due to exceeding Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy limits on their bandwidth cap. I asked for details on what had been using bandwidth, and again, Comcast would not share. In a sudden brainstorm, I then asked whether the 250 GB bandwidth cap applied to just downloads (which I had assumed, as the majority of most bandwidth used in households is downstream bandwidth), or download and upload bandwidth. Surprise, surprise! Comcast measures both upstream and downstream bandwidth – and it suddenly clicked for me.
I'm a photographer and audiophile. I shoot all of my pictures in RAW format, and I store the many hundreds and hundreds of CDs I've purchased over the last 20 years or so in a variety of lossless and lossy music formats. In the case of music I rip my CDs to WMA Lossless (for ease of streaming to Windows), FLAC (another lossless format, so I can stream losslessly to my Sonos system), and M4A (also known as Apple's iTunes AAC format, so I can import my music from the media server to iTunes). I'm a big believer in storing the original, lossless digital content so that I can access it in full fidelity in the future no matter how technology evolves. In some ways that makes me a bit archaic as I still buy (used) CDs from Amazon for all of my music so I can rip it losslessly – I'm not a fan of the compressed music formats you buy and download. But the ramification is that I have terabytes of storage in my basement RAID server – each music track is duplicated three times, I have all of my original RAW photos, plus processed JPEG versions of those RAW photos, as well as a variety of other miscellaneous content – documents, spreadsheets, that sort of thing.
This stuff is valuable to me, and I recently purchased a three-year subscription to Carboniteso I could back all of this content up to the cloud. I also recently saw Amazon's announcement of being able to upload unlimited M4A/AAC tracks to their Cloud Drive service, and decided to upload my library there so I could access it when on the road. And it turns out uploading all of this content to the cloud triggered Comcast's bandwidth cap and caused me to be cut off from the internet-–again. It was never clear to me that Comcast measures both upload and download bandwidth, and I suspect many people are going to be surprised by this in the coming years, especially as the cloud continues to become more and more a part of our lives.
Anyway, to close out the Comcast call, I asked to be reinstated and he said it was final-–no appeal. I asked to escalate to a manager so I could explain my situation, and he stated there was no escalation, and repeated there was no appeal. I then asked for customer service email or other contact information so I could CC the company on a blog post (which you are reading now) and letter I would be sending to the FCC, Public Knowledge organization, New Media Foundation, the city of Seattle's Mayor's Office, and my Seattle City Council representative. He said he could connect me to the customer escalation line, but also stated it would not help – they wouldn't consider removing the cap. At that point I said I wouldn't bother wasting my time with the customer escalation line, and that I'd like to cancel my broadband. He politely said he understood, and that he'd transfer me to the appropriate department.
Time to return to Comcast customer service hell! After a few minutes I spoke with another gentlemen in the Technical Support and Billing division I'd been transferred to who, surprise, couldn't help me since I was cancelling my (now defunct) service. He then transferred me to (wait for it!) the Retention department, since they're apparently the only ones who can cancel a Comcast cable account. Yes, after Comcast applied their ridiculous policy and told me they didn't want me as a customer, I was transferred to the Retention department where they insisted on driving through their spiel until I could finally interrupt, say it wasn't going to work, and explain my situation. At which point the agent said: "Oh. I'll take care of it, thank you for calling Comcast ." As of this moment I have no idea if I've been cancelled or not.
My Opinion:

My opinion on all this is simple. The ability to access broadband internet is a right, and should be defined as an essential utility. Just as you're surprised when you flick a light switch and the light doesn't come on so are you surprised when the internet goes away in your house. The internet is used for communication, entertainment, business - an entire panopoly of humor endevours. Just as there are protections to keep water and electricity flowing to your house, so should the internet be protected.
Now the broadband companies would strongly disagree with me here. They're terrified of being turned into dumb pipes that only deliver data. This is why you see such vicious fights over the definition of internet neutrality, and cable companies fighting to be able to restrict services that flow over their pipes, inspect packets, or have the right to charge more for differing levels of service. They try to spin this as protecting the integrity of the network for other customers, and not having to charge more to offer service that some small percentage of their users overuse. However, these same companies are also strangely quiet when you ask them why (as in Comcast's case) they're able to keep boosting my broadband speed tier year after year for no additional charge. Or why their quarterly filings show their cost of providing broadband service continues to drop year after year, while rates keep going up. It doesn't add up.
Ramifications:

Here's what's frightening about all this: today Comcast blocked me from using a potentially competitive music service from Amazon. Even worse, today Comcast disconnected me from the ever-evolving cloud services I use each and every day for life and work.
Amazon deserves a lot of credit for pushing the bounds on what we can do on the internet. Their recent announcement of storing unlimited music in their Cloud Drive service is a compelling alternative to Apple's iCloud solution, and one that many might choose to use-–if Comcast allows it. Are you listening Amazon?
And it gets worse-–I work as a entertainment industry consultant, and depend on cloud services such as Dropbox, Simplenote, Google Apps, and Google Docs for day to day work. I use streaming online services such as Netflix, Xbox Live, Playstation Network, and Pandora every day for both work and play. I send and receive data all the time and have never had a problem with my $60/month broadband plan until A) Comcast added their data caps, and B) I really started engaging in using new cloud-based services (meaning uploading data to those services so I could get value from them).
Comcast will try to spin this, and say 250 GB is plenty for anyone – and in fact, a large percentage of their network users today probably really don't hit this cap right now. What they don't want to say is that streaming services such as Netflix now consume a quarter of network traffic monthly, and is projected to rise – all of which impacts the cable TV services they sell.

The last report in October suggested it made up around twenty percent of internet traffic during prime time, but this time around the stats say it accounts for 30% of traffic during prime time, and 22.2% of daily internet traffic. Sandvine gets the data from ISPs using its broadband technology and now foresees "Real-Time Entertainment" (which includes Netflix) shooting up over 55% of peak internet traffic by the end of this year.
- Engadget: Study finds Netflix is the largest source of internet traffic in North America
And in the Netflix case, 99% of that data is downstream data. Comcast doesn't broadly advertise the fact that their cap also counts upload data – and I strongly believe as more and more people begin to "get" the cloud they're going to want to upload their valued data to services where they can engage with it in new and interesting ways. And until broadband is deemed an essential utility, and broadband providers like Comcast can't set an arbitrary limit and cut people off, our shared cloud-enabled future is at risk. To this end, I will be contacting various political entities in Seattle in the hope of trying to encourage either greater competition and choice in the broadband market (break Comcast's cable monopoly, and allow fiber to the home!), as well as greater investment in a citywide, city-run broadband network.
What am I Doing:

Well, first off, I'm writing this post to lay out the facts, as well as my opinion, as to the ramifications of broadband companies like Comcast being allowed to enforce data caps and cut people off from the internet. As I mentioned earlier, I will be sending a copy of this blog post to the following people and agencies:
I've also tweeted out a summary of what happened, will tweet a link to this blog post, and will also reach out to a few media folks I know in case they're interested in writing this up. I'll also be exploring what other broadband options I might have in Seattle – but thanks to Comcast's monopoly, my choices aren't great.
That said, if Qwest/CenturyLink (or any other broadband provider) wants to run fiber to my house on the top of the hill in Montlake, Seattle, and put up a broadcast antenna to serve the neighborhood – I'm in. Contact me at the links on this blog, or at andre at ozymandias.com. Seriously.
Andre Vrignaud has worked in the interactive entertainment industry for over 20 years at companies such as Intel, Microsoft Xbox, and Amazon. He currently works as an independent game industry consultant doing game, platform strategy, and media/PR consulting for a variety of firms.

Thoughts?

 
C

Chibibar

It is a paid service. If a company impose a restriction on that service (i.e. 250GB), you have a choice to subscribe that service or find something else.

Do I agree? not really, cause such policy wasn't in place when I first sign up, but due to high level of usage, companies need to find a way to cap it cause their network is overloaded.
 
The basic backbone of the internet in the states was paid for by the taxpayers too. I think Qwest did some work on their own later, but most of the infrastructure is tax payer funded here too.
 
If the government is going to give these companies money to build out their networks and force monopolies in certain areas, they need to be forced to provide a reasonable service also. The idea that their networks are overloaded is bull shit. They just don't like the idea of other companies making money while using their "pipes".
 
Man, you guys in the states have it fucking easy compared to the horseshit we are currently dealing with here with our ISPs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/01/31/technology-internet-usage-based-billing.html

Our version of the FCC, the CRTC forced independent ISPs to match the larger companies policies. So, 20 GB caps for everyone. All the while Canadian taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill for the entire fiberoptic network in the first place.
They backed off on that, actually. It could very well come back around and happen again, but it's not in place right now.
 
That guy is off his rocker. He's quite obviously intelligent enough to measure his own bandwidth usage, but after being cut off twice he still refused to figure out why.

Then he goes online and pretends that it's his right to use a disproportionate amount of service from a utility that clearly states the limits of the service.

250 GB per month combined upload and download is a LOT. It equivalent to watching two low quality netflix streams solid for the entire month - 24/7/30. It's enough to download two brand new operating systems a day. It's enough to download or upload over 12 thousand raw photographs per month, or one every 3 minutes, 24/7/30.

Less than one percent of home internet users even come close to the limit.
 
It is not so much Comcast worrying about you downloading tons of stuff... they are worried about streaming content. They make much more ad revenue through their ads on cable.
 
I don't buy it. Yes, they sell a competing service, but they aren't cutting this guy off because he's using amazon, they're cutting him off for pushing more data through their pipe than the service is intended for. If he needs that much bandwidth guaranteed, he should spend the $600/mo on a T3, and not settle for dinky home cable internet service.

Yes, they have a business reason to play dirty, but they were caught last time, burned really badly (thus net neutrality, which has turned into something far worse than what it was intended to fix) and they aren't abusing him - he's abusing them.

If he didn't like the terms of the service, then he shouldn't have signed the contract. Now he's breaking the contract and terms of service, and saying it's all comcast's fault.

They've done a lot wrong, but they shouldn't be impeached for this so-called crime.
 
The us has miles upon miles of fiber optic lines laid out underground that are completely unused. These optic lines are from when Internet companies were promising the FCC the world if they would remain unregulated.
 
Yes, they have a business reason to play dirty, but they were caught last time, burned really badly (thus net neutrality, which has turned into something far worse than what it was intended to fix) and they aren't abusing him - he's abusing them.

If he didn't like the terms of the service, then he shouldn't have signed the contract. Now he's breaking the contract and terms of service, and saying it's all comcast's fault.
The terms of service change when these companies feel like it. Nothing is ever signed, they just implement them and tell customers to leave if they don't like them. In areas with little to no competition, that's a problem.

For you Canadians you might be interested in this: http://arstechnica.com
CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein asked why—if Bell was facing network congestion—sister company Bell Aliant has not implemented UBB(Usage Based Billing). Bell argued that Bell Aliant "supported" UBB, but acknowledged that competitive forces and marketplace conditions in Atlantic Canada were such that UBB is currently not needed. Of course, von Finckenstein didn't need to look at Bell Aliant as his example—Bell itself employs different caps in Ontario and Quebec given the different competition from Videotron and Rogers. Their approach isn't a function of congestion, but rather competition. In fact, when Bell was asked whether it planned to keep data caps for its retail customers, it responded that it did, subject to "competitive dynamics." The effects of competition were further confirmed when Telus noted that it doesn't use UBB, it isn't a pressing issue, and that competition with Shaw has led to far more generous plans than those found in other parts of the country.
 
Just checked the Rogers site. The cap is 15 gigs right now. That is ABSURD.

They backed off on that, actually. It could very well come back around and happen again, but it's not in place right now.
Added at: 14:58
The terms of service change when these companies feel like it. Nothing is ever signed, they just implement them and tell customers to leave if they don't like them. In areas with little to no competition, that's a problem.

For you Canadians you might be interested in this: http://arstechnica.com
Yeah, us west side Canadians have it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than our eastern brethren. We have caps that the companies don't really enforce at all (and our caps are like 200 gbs too). Unless you're doubling your cap 6 months in a row here they don't give a shit. Rogers and Bell on the eastern side though. Holy fucking shit I could not put up with that crap.

Best part is, the CRTC, the agency that regulates and mandates all this nonsense, is made up of former (and future) big 5 telecom executives. Of course, there's no way there's a conflict of interests there.
 
That I agree with, although in most areas you have a choice for reasonable speeds - even DSL at 6mbits/sec meets most people's needs.
Reasonable for now, you know as well as anyone how quickly technology can change. The problem is the companies supplying the internet connections are also media companies who directly compete with online companies. It's in there best interest to hold back those companies as much as they can through data caps.

250 gig may seem like a lot now, and it is, but if we don't make sure they don't abuse their ability to put caps on usage they will be able to kill off innovation and competitors. What happens when HD video and having your music collection streamed over the internet becomes the norm? What about when someone wants to upload their home movie collection to a new video streaming site?

These caps aren't needed, and like I said before the idea that their networks are somehow stressed is a flat out lie. They do it because there is little to no competition, and it serves the interests of other areas of their company.
 
Reasonable for now, you know as well as anyone how quickly technology can change. The problem is the companies supplying the internet connections are also media companies who directly compete with online companies. It's in there best interest to hold back those companies as much as they can through data caps.

250 gig may seem like a lot now, and it is, but if we don't make sure they don't abuse their ability to put caps on usage they will be able to kill off innovation and competitors. What happens when HD video and having your music collection streamed over the internet becomes the norm? What about when someone wants to upload their home movie collection to a new video streaming site?

These caps aren't needed, and like I said before the idea that their networks are somehow stressed is a flat out lie. They do it because there is little to no competition, and it serves the interests of other areas of their company.
This sums up my main concerns about the future of digital life and the companies we get our service from.
 
It is a paid service. If a company impose a restriction on that service (i.e. 250GB), you have a choice to subscribe that service or find something else.

Do I agree? not really, cause such policy wasn't in place when I first sign up, but due to high level of usage, companies need to find a way to cap it cause their network is overloaded.
^^

Yup. Internet access is not a fucking right.
 
C

Chibibar

http://www.att.com/esupport/internet/usage.jsp

That is U-verse cap.

250GB is ONLY
10k email
5000 one minute youtube
200 TV shows (high quality) a month
25SD or 13 HD full length movies (plus above items which if you think about it. it is not that much)

So lets say you watch a lot of HD movies (say 20 a month) you could hit the cap pretty easily. Or even better yet, people with roommates watch 40HD movies (each person does 10 with 4 roommates) you can hit the cap VERY easily.
 
http://www.att.com/esupport/internet/usage.jsp

That is U-verse cap.

250GB is ONLY
10k email
5000 one minute youtube
200 TV shows (high quality) a month
25SD or 13 HD full length movies (plus above items which if you think about it. it is not that much)

So lets say you watch a lot of HD movies (say 20 a month) you could hit the cap pretty easily. Or even better yet, people with roommates watch 40HD movies (each person does 10 with 4 roommates) you can hit the cap VERY easily.
If you watch 40 HD movies streamed a month and you hit the cap, then it's time to order up the next tier service.
 
C

Chibibar

If you watch 40 HD movies streamed a month and you hit the cap, then it's time to order up the next tier service.
Can't Any tier (I check) I am mid tier service with the SAME cap as top tier service.

U-Verse gets 250GB while DSL get 150GB
 
^^

Yup. Internet access is not a fucking right.
I hate when people say it's a right. It's about ensuring companies don't abuse their control over a market. These companies were once again allowed to have either monopolies or oligopolies. These are huge companies that can use their market position as internet providers to stifle competition for their media companies. If you don't think they will, you haven't paid much attention to their track record.

I'm sure I sound crazy rambling, but you can see what happened in Canada. The data caps aren't there because they don't have the bandwidth to provide. They're there because there is no other competition. When data caps were forced on the few companies without them, data caps suddenly dropped from 250gb to 25gb or less.
 
I remember days when internet was on a cost-per-minute basis. I understand the frustration in unknown data caps, but this was a known data cap, and perfectly reasonable for home use. The entire reason they have a cap is to prevent exploiting the home network rates for heavy data upstream/downstream.
 
While I loathe data caps, would much prefer unlimited, and hate the monopoly many isps have in areas that keep you from switching to a competitor, I still have to say GODDAMN 250 GB HOLY SHIT MAN.

That's a lot of goddamn bandwidth. Was he running a professional grade server in his basement?
 
Just checked the Rogers site. The cap is 15 gigs right now. That is ABSURD.
Bell and Rogers have stupid caps. A lot of smaller companies have none, or much, much higher caps. The CRTC isn't forcing them to use the same structures/pricings. That's what they backed off on.
 
While I loathe data caps, would much prefer unlimited, and hate the monopoly many isps have in areas that keep you from switching to a competitor, I still have to say GODDAMN 250 GB HOLY SHIT MAN.

That's a lot of goddamn bandwidth. Was he running a professional grade server in his basement?
He was Pirate Bay.
 
250gb really isn't that much, particularly in a situation where you're sharing a house and connection with 3 or 4 other high-bandwidth users. A single movie through Netflix can be 1gb, streaming content is about the same usage per time, downloading a game from Steam can be 7-10 gigs pretty easily...it adds up fast, and I know that if I'm not watching my usage I can go well over 100gb/month without even thinking about it. If I was trying to keep up with 4 or 5 tv shows, watching movies, gaming, I could probably push close to that 200 on my own.

If I lived with a couple other people who use the internet as much, there wouldn't be a whole lot of options for an ISP, at least in Canada.
 
250gb really isn't that much, particularly in a situation where you're sharing a house and connection with 3 or 4 other high-bandwidth users. A single movie through Netflix can be 1gb, streaming content is about the same usage per time, downloading a game from Steam can be 7-10 gigs pretty easily...it adds up fast, and I know that if I'm not watching my usage I can go well over 100gb/month without even thinking about it. If I was trying to keep up with 4 or 5 tv shows, watching movies, gaming, I could probably push close to that 200 on my own.

If I lived with a couple other people who use the internet as much, there wouldn't be a whole lot of options for an ISP, at least in Canada.
250 gigs is 1/5 of my hard drive. It's a lot to use in a month.

Normal people don't use 250 gigs in a month. 4 or 5 TV shows? Someone mentioned 40 movies, earlier. Where the hell do people get the time to watch all this shit? Read a book for Christ's sake!
 
Normal people don't use 250 gigs in a month.
No, absolutely. I'm definitely not trying to say that what I use is the average by any stretch. At the same time, there are people who use that much, without breaking any laws in the process. And as more things are available online, and as more people start to realize the amount of content available to them, the caps are going to start to be an issue for average users, too. To me, that's what the discussion is about here - currently 250gb seems like a lot, sure. But 5 years from now? 10? What are the odds that these companies are going to say 'hey, we're being unreasonable here, let's just increase those caps to 1000gb at no extra cost, so that our users can get as much out of the internet as they want to'?
 
Over here in New Zealand the top data plans have caps of around 30GB

This is the result of a monopoly over the main/only international data line
 
I consistently (my wife consistently) use for than the comcast 250gb limit and they haven't called me yet which is suprising! He'll last month I used 569gb (read: my wife used like 500 and I used like 69)
 
That's very interesting, and if you're not using the services the article discusses (Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, etc) then it actually lends a little credence to the theory that Comcast is targeting services which compete with their services.

But most of those contracts are written with a provision that they can cut service back if anyone's particular usage affects their ability to serve their other customers. In your case, your local lines are probably not overflowing with traffic, so they probably don't care.

I suspect the author is in a highly technical area with a lot of people using the bandwidth heavily, so they have to crack down on heavy users.

But these are mere guesses...
Added at: 13:55
That is a loooooot of porn she's watching.
She only reads watches it for the articles music.

:ninja:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top