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

[Frank]

That cutting down on heavy users always pisses me off. They sell you on the fact that you get x and x amount of down and x and x amount of up speeds then they bitch that their network can't handle it when everyone they've sold this usage to uses what they've been sold.

Maybe ISPs shouldn't fucking sell what they can't actually handle.

People aren't going to use less as time goes on.

 

[Vagabond]

Sounds like someone needed to upgrade to business class, no cap for that tier.

More then 250GB a month is just no longer residential use.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

We use Netflix but not very often I usually use it on my phone when I'm at work

 

[Frank]

Sounds like someone needed to upgrade to business class, no cap for that tier.

More then 250GB a month is just no longer residential use.

Not true at all.

 

[Vagabond]

Which part exactly?

Business class from Comcast is $65 a month without a cap in the US.

Could be wrong about tons of people hitting that cap though. But I'm willing to bet a majority aren't, and therefore Comcast doesn't care.

 

[Adam]

^^

Yup. Internet access is not a fucking right.

Not only that but...

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.

Power is not a fucking right either. Try not paying you power bill for two months and see if you're surprised when your light doesn't come on.

 

[Tress]

I thought that his point was that access to these utilities was a right. For example, I think having access to clean water is a basic right here in the US. Yes, you still pay for it, and that's fair, but you should have the ability to pay for it at all times.

Unless I'm wrong, and this guy is really arguing that unlimited internet access should be free to everyone everywhere. That's a bit much.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

Not only that but...



Power is not a fucking right either. Try not paying you power bill for two months and see if you're surprised when your light doesn't come on.

Actually in some states there are laws on the book to stop a power company from turning off electricity from non-payment in certain situations. Also for low income households the state will pay a portion of your light bill.

 

[Adam]

Actually in some states there are laws on the book to stop a power company from turning off electricity from non-payment in certain situations. Also for low income households the state will pay a portion of your light bill.

Same as in Canada, they don't turn your power off if the temperature outside falls below X degrees for a certain amount of time; and we have the same low-income protections here.

That said, if you started using the same amount of electricity as a lumber mill, you'd be cut off pretty fast - and the analogy holds to Mr "I use 250Gb of bandwidth per Month, it's my right to do so" Guy
Added at: 21:00

I thought that his point was that access to these utilities was a right. For example, I think having access to clean water is a basic right here in the US. Yes, you still pay for it, and that's fair, but you should have the ability to pay for it at all times.

Unless I'm wrong, and this guy is really arguing that unlimited internet access should be free to everyone everywhere. That's a bit much.

The UN has declared that access to clean water is a basic human right, but essentially that just means rich countries will be forced to send money to poor countries for their infrastructure improvements.

 

[Dave]

I currently use Cox and am uncapped. I've tried to find my usage stats but they can't provide them. Is there a way to find this out through Win7?

 

[PatrThom]

Yes, but you don't get to see the previous history. Might want to install a meter on your own computer if you're that curious.

--Patrick

 

[Kovac]

You only have that small amount of internet usage, and you come here?

Of course.

This place is great

 

[Espy]

I'm going to install a mac data tracker to see how much I use monthly on all 3 of my computers (I have to figure out how much my ps3 uses though... thats a toughie... anyone have any ideas?). We download HD movies on a regular basis on the ps3 (which are 6 or so gb) and I know they will ratchet up pretty quick.
I don't think 250gigs is an unreasonable number FYI, I'm just thinking that as more of our life goes online with cloud computing, etc, the more the average household is going to go up in their service, so I'm curious how me, as what I consider, an average high-end user (lots of cloud stuff, lots of streaming and downloading and a good amount of uploading for sharing files with band mates and work stuff, etc), uses.

 

[drifter]

Well, if you have a compatible router, you can use custom firmware (DD-WRT, Tomato, that I know of) that can track bandwidth usage.

 

[Espy]

I don't think I do...

Also I forgot to add in our iPod touches, so I gotta figure that out as well. All in all we have 6 devices using the internet at varying times. It will be interesting to see once I figure out how to track it.

 

[Shakey]

Here's another news article about our neighbors to the north. Shaw's own movie service that uses the internet won't count towards a customers data cap, while every other internet movie service will.

 

[Chad Sexington]

Here's another news article about our neighbors to the north. Shaw's own movie service that uses the internet won't count towards a customers data cap, while every other internet movie service will.

I fucking love Shaw. I have never been so happy with an internet provider. We switched from Telus and our treatment and service from Shaw has been outstanding.

 

[Chad Sexington]

yeah but talk about lack of net neutrality.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the problem with net neutrality offering preferential services to other companies/sites? This would then make it harder on the consumer. But in this case, they're making an exception for themselves and it's beneficial to the consumer. Nothing has changed if they use the other services: they pay the fee and it counts towards their limit, just as it always has. But, if they choose Shaw's movie service, they get the perk of not counting toward their data limit. Net neutrality (and antitrust, etc) is designed to protect the consumer, and I don't see how this hurts the consumer. Honestly though, my understanding of this issue is weak, so correct any misconceptions I have.

 

[Frank]

I think this may go against the competition act but I really don't know enough about it.

 

[strawman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the problem with net neutrality offering preferential services to other companies/sites?

That's part of it.

I don't know the details with this particular case, but let me show you how this behavior can still penalize other sites:

If your monthly cap is pretty low, you might only be able to watch a dozen hours of another provider's HD programming, whereas you can watch unlimited HD from your cable provider.

In other words, it hurts your choice unless you get a higher level of service with a bigger cap - essentially making you pay more so you can access someone else's service over the same pipe where you get unlimited local service.

It wouldn't be a problem if the company providing the internet service was not also trying to deliver entertainment.

It's quite possible that the cap is high enough on every plan that it has no real effect, but that won't necessarily always be true, and allowing them to do this now may lead to problems later.

 

[Espy]

The author wrote a follow up that, I think, is much better than his original post. He tries to answer a lot of questions that were emailed him (and asked here). It's long but worth the read, he brings up some things that are really relevant to our current digital world:

WHY DIDN'T YOU USE COMCAST BUSINESS SERVICE? THEY DON'T HAVE DATA CAPS!!!!
I didn’t use Comcast Business service in the past because it was significantly more expensive, and I didn’t believe I needed their advertised features. I used a standard $60/month 15 Mb down/3 Mb up plan for 9+ years without the slightest issue. Only in the last several months as I began to use cloud-based services such as Carbonite’s online backup and Amazon’s unlimited cloud music storage did I have a problem.
Looking forward, I’ll first say that I’d be hesitant to use Comcast for anything ever again for obvious reasons. However, the marketplace really isn’t competitive in Seattle for what I define as highspeed (>10 Mbps) broadband – Comcast is the only real gig in town. So I decided to look into what a Business plan would cost me if I were to choose that option.
Comcast Business has four plans:

• Deluxe 100/50 – 100 Mb down/50 Mb up for $395 a month
• Deluxe 50/10 – 50 Mb down/10 Mb up for $195 a month
• Premium 22/5 – 22 Mb down/5 Mb up for $105 a month
• Starter 12/2 – 12 Mb down/2 Mb up for $65 a month

The only plan that’s even close to my $60/month 15 Mb up consumer plan is the Starter 12/2 plan for $65 a month. So at first blush I’d be paying slightly more for slightly less speed, but no data caps.
But wait – it’s “new service” with “specialized hardware”, so they can’t just turn on the plan. Instead I have to choose from a plan commitment tier. If I commit for the shortest period of time (one year), my install/setup fee is $199. If I go and commit to three years with Comcast Business, they’ll reduce that fee down to $49.
All right – so let’s discuss what the hardware is. The sales rep suggested that no matter what tier I really want I start with the Deluxe 100/50 plan so I get the “higher-end hardware” – which I can keep even if I call and downgrade to a different tier the day after the install. That set my spideysense off, and so I pushed a little bit on what exactly this “higher-end” hardware is. Turns out it’s a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. Ok… but I already own my own modem, a Motorola SURFboard eXtreme Broadband Cable Modem-SB6120, and I don’t want to lease another.
Sorry, that’s not an option. You cannot self-install, and cannot use anything but the Comcast supplied endpoints. Now I’ll grant there might be good reasons around manageability and the higher quality of service Comcast is promising to use their hardware. But I’m pretty darn sure that if I were to swap out their modem with mine and somehow able to activate it on the network it would work perfectly. (And in fact, a Broadband Reports forum poster claims that “Some have been able to beg/negotiate using a standard cable modem with a dynamic IP Business Class service, but that is a rare exception to the rule.”)
Now, let’s say all this hasn’t put me off from coming on board, and I want to sign up for the Starter plan and pay more for less service, all to remove an arbitrary data cap. Can I?
Nope! Turns out that once Comcast has cut your broadband account for violating their data cap policy you are verboten from being a Comcast customer for 1 year. That’s right:
After being cut off from Comcast’s consumer internet plan due to using too much data, I’m told I’m ineligible to use Comcast’s recommended solution, their business internet plan that allows the unlimited use of data — solely because I made the mistake of actually using “too much” data in the first place.
As the sales rep said in my Google Voicemail message, “what’s interesting is that if you would have started off on the business side of the house, since we don’t have a cap limitations [sic] you would’ve been fine.”
Fascinating.
But wait… it keeps going. Just this afternoon in discussions with a TV reporter I found that Comcast’s Business service requires you to have a Taxpayer Identification Number (or TIN) to prove that you’re a “real” business. And Stacey Higginbotham’s Gigaom articleincluded this nice snippet:

Residential service isn’t clear-cut anymore: When looking at this guy’s usage, it’s possible that he was using his connection for work, which prompted Douglas to point out that he had signed up for a residential connection. This is a common ISP response when people bemoan their limited caps in the context of uploading files or sharing videos as part of their jobs. But when I asked if Vrignaud would even be eligible for a business connection, Douglas didn’t know. He said that the business people would want to make sure the connection was for a legitimate business which means they would ask for a Tax ID number or some other verification. While a freelancer might have that, a remote worker wouldn’t and would then have to get their employer involved in getting a connection. In some cases, although not necessarily in this one, folks in residential areas cannot even get a business connection.​

Problem 1 — the work I am doing is currently supporting other consultants, and I have not actually created my own, personal business and applied for a TIN. Remember, until a few months ago I worked at Amazon. I see conflicting reports on the net about whether or not I could get a business class account from Comcast using my name and Social Security Number, and it doesn’t even seem as though Comcast knows for sure.
Problem 2 — how exactly does Comcast believe that a Business class internet account is an option for their consumer internet subscribers who use more than the allotted data cap? I’m an edge case, and might actually go off and get a TIN; 99 out of 100 of Comcast’s average consumers never will. And that’s completely ignoring the fact that Comcast won’t even allow past data cap offenders to migrate over once they’ve been cut off.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN INTERNET SHOULD BE DEFINED AS A LIFELINE UTILITY, AND A RIGHT?!? COMPANIES AREN'T REQUIRED TO OFFER YOU THEIR SERVICE IF THEY DON'T WANT YOUR BUSINESS!
This is the actually the crux of my “internet should be a right” point.
Many utilities are considered to be protected, and have laws in place to protect consumers:

Typically, “protected utility services” are the essential utilities needed for everyday life: Water, gas and electric (for power and heat), and a telephone line (usually land-based or “land-lines” only – cell phones usually aren’t protected). The rules vary from state to state, so make sure you check the laws in your area to see if and when your utilities may be turned off.
In general, though, most states that protect essential utilities follow some basic rules:

• Essential utilities can’t be shut off, even for unpaid bills, during the “winter months,” which usually is measured from a specific day in November to a specific day in March, April, or even May
• Elderly customers, and those who are seriously ill or suffering from a “life-threatening illness,” and customers who care for young children (usually less than one year old) mostly qualify for protection from shutoffs. Also, in some states, if you care for someone who’s elderly or seriously ill in your home, you’re also protected
• In some cases, you have to make arrangements to repay any outstanding utility bills, as well as the new charges for services during the winter months
• You typically need verification from a doctor that you or someone you’re caring for is seriously ill
• In some states, you have to be suffering a financial hardship, such as the loss of a job, and be elderly or seriously ill, or caring for someone who is, or caring for an infant. In these states you’ll likely have to fill out forms proving your financial condition and inability to pay

- Lawyers.com: Consumer Contracts/What Are Protected Utility Services?​

Today the internet is effectively a requirement to do a job search, find information, and stay connected. Commenters on my original post highlighted that there are food stamp programs completely managed via the internet – in other words, no internet access, no food. Some colleges require online access to register or do administrative functions – and to be clear, these aren’t internet-only/online schools. Even the United Nations believes internet access is a fundamental human right.
Libraries and other public facilities can only go so far toward satisfying this need, and as such I do strongly believe that all human beings have the right to access the internet, and that that right should be protected as an essential utility service.

YOU ARE A BITTORRENTING BASTARD WHO REFUSES TO PAY FOR CONTENT!!! ADMIT IT!!!
Not really. I happily pay for content when it’s available, including a three disc Netflix/streaming subscription, a two disc Gamefly subscription, DirecTV, Pandora One (higher quality audio streams), downloadable game purchases from Steam, Xbox LIVE, and PlayStation Network, iDevice apps for my iPhone and iPad, as well as one-off streaming movie rentals from Xbox LIVE and PSN. However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m a Doctor Who fan and due to BBC America’s inability to release current episodes in a timely manner in the US (to either DirecTV or Netflix), I did grab the first two episodes of the current season from bittorrent earlier this month. However, that accounts for about about 1 gigabyte of data total – doesn’t explain the other missing 249 gigabytes. This is why it’s frustrating that Comcast either can’t or won’t share with me what applications were using the data they claim was used. I can’t trace the source back, and hence have to assume the issue is the uploading I was doing to the cloud.

YOU READ COMCASTS TERMS OF SERVICE AND AGREED TO THEM. YOU WERE WARNED AND THEN YOU GOT CANCELLED. YOU DESERVE WHAT YOU GOT!
I don’t remember the Terms of Service I assume I viewed eight or more years ago when I first signed up for Comcast. It’s reasonable to believe Comcast had some clause somewhere that I agreed to that allowed them to change those terms at will, and I’ll admit I missed the change. I’ll also admit that even if the new data cap policy had been explicitly called out to me, I would have likely accepted it as A) I wouldn’t have thought it would affect me, and B) I had no other competitive options available to me. I’ll even go so far as to say that I should have connected the dots sooner and realized my uploading data to Carbonite’s backup service and Amazon’s Cloud Drive would count against the data cap. However, I didn’t.
I suspect I didn’t make the connection because I believe most people think of broadband bandwidth in terms of “download,” and have not really internalized the new requirement of “upload” to really be able to use the new wave of cloud services.
This is understandable since, until recently, doing almost anything on the broadband internet required having a fat download pipe to you. And so logically, broadband companies have focused on that aspect in their marketing — here’s a screenshot I took off Comcast.comthis morning as an example:

​

This “download speed is the only thing that matters” perception problem is further aggravated because Comcast misses many opportunities to disclose their data cap (and educate customers as to the combined effects of uploading and downloading data on that cap) in their order flow.
Ok, let me be a bit blunter. I can’t find Comcast’s data cap policy disclosed anywhere up to the final “Review and Submit” option in the order flow. Don’t take my word for it – try it for yourself, starting here.
The closest I get is a “Call for restrictions and complete details” sentence at the bottom of the “Details and Restrictions” pop-up:

​

You can also find similar “Call your local Comcast office for restrictions and complete details about service, prices, and equipment in your area” language on the bottom of the “Review and Submit” page. But that’s all I can find in the order flow up to this page.
Now, I’m sure Comcast discloses the data cap in some fashion after this point. Perhaps it’s on click-through agreement page they send you later, or on the installer paperwork you sign. My main point is that the entire online ordering process appears to be designed to highlight and promote download speeds while obfuscating disadvantages such as a data cap policy. And that lack of data cap policy disclosure during this process does nothing to raise awareness in consumers that both upload and download data consumption is measured and capped, and could affect your use of the new wave of cloud services.

WOULD YOU EVER USE COMCAST AGAIN?
Maybe.
While I am not happy with the decisions Comcast’s executive team makes, I have been surprised by how polite and helpful different individuals at Comcast try to be. They’re often hampered by Comcast’s backend systems and policy decisions, and rarely have the power to make any significant decisions on their own, but they do try. And I appreciate those I’ve spoken to who have expressed sympathy and sly agreement with my irritation at Comcast’s policies.
I’ve also always been happy with the overall stability and performance of my broadband service from Comcast. I may not like the company, the obtuse billing, limited promotions, and general aggravation to get things set up, but once it’s running it just works. And that counts for a lot in my book.
To sum up, I’d prefer to have truly competitive broadband offerings here in Seattle so I could pick and choose based on price and performance. And if Comcast won in a fair fight, I’d use them. But the sad reality is that today Comcast is the only game in down for >10 Mbps broadband service to the home. So depending on my experience with other competitors, there’s a reasonable chance I’d come back to them – irritated and grumpy – if only to just not worry about having fast and stable internet access. And hey, with no data cap I might even go into business and stream HD cat juggling videos to the world 24/7… you know. If that’s what you’re into.

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO COME FROM ALL THIS? WHAT'S NEXT? WHAT CAN I DO?
My hope is that this discussion is one more feather of awareness added to the “broadband is an essential utility” side of the scale. And that over time, a combination of experiences such as mine, your comments, and public opinion help change Comcast’s policies and/or the laws in this country and protect what I believe is a right to connect to the internet.
I also hope that companies like Comcast change their data cap policies in particular. Comcast doesn’t need to completely cut off people who are (in theory) stressing the network. Just to toss out some ideas:

• Throttle data speed after reaching whatever a reasonable, transparent data cap is. Note that this is different than Comcast’s pre-2008 policy of arbitrarily throttling data speed at any time; I’m specifically saying the ISP would only throttle data after the customer has in theory impacted the network, if needed to protect other users’ experiences.
• Double or triple the data cap, or justify why 250 GB is the “right” number. This 250 GB data cap was set in 2008 without customer, FCC, or government input, and has not changed since. This is in spite of dropping costs and ever expanding bandwidth.
• Charge for blocks of add-on data for any data use exceeding a previously disclosed and discussed-with-the-community data cap. But whatever you do, don’t cut people off from the lifeline of the internet.
• Adjust your policies to incorporate the new reality of large-scale upload-required cloud services. Many of these services require a one-time large burst of data to get the initial backup done; data use afterward will be relatively small to update changed files and upload new content. Consider “looking away” at data destined for services such as Amazon’s Music Cloud Drive, or backup services such as Carbonite.

In short, I don’t understand Comcast’s argument that they need to cut people off from broadband service for overuse when the cost and availability of that service continues to drop and expand respectively. Nor do I understand why they don’t use alternative solutions such as those suggested above.
Comcast has other, more customer-friendly solutions available that they seem to shy away from. And Occam’s Razor seems to suggest the path they have chosen is to protect their existing TV business and hinder the growth of competitive streaming solutions such as Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and others. I actually think being blocked from using data-heavy cloud services such as Carbonite or Amazon’s Cloud Drive is a side-effect of their goal of protecting their existing business, and not an explicit goal in itself. But it impacts consumers all the same.
So what’s next?
Well, first off, I’ve got to go do some real consulting work, and so won’t be able to spend quite as much time as I have on this for a few days. I have existing projects to land, and interestingly, several other opportunities have popped up thanks to this whole discussion. So if you want some consulting done around your games, platforms, or entertainment and technology products (including media positioning and messaging), drop me a line! Might as well turn the time I’ve spent on this into something that feeds the dogs. (And believe it or not, that includes you Comcast. We may disagree on a lot, but I’m willing to help you with your customer perception problems if you’re sincerely looking to make changes in the right direction.)
Beyond that, in the long run I’m not worried. The public (you!) know what’s right and what’s wrong, and you elect the politicians that will eventually see the light. The majority of people who have read this blog, sent me mail, and commented agree that internet access is a critical aspect of life today. Intuitively we all know this, and the more that situations like mine occur, the more light is cast upon anti-competitive practices such as Comcast’s current data cap policy.
It’s already happening. Just look at the Wired article that was just published on this topic. Comcast has moved from ignoring the subject to bringing out their spokespeople. It’s theStreisand effect, and the more you keep the issue alive, the more Comcast has to react, which perpetuates the PR flywheel. They’ll change their policy in time – we can just hope it’s not too long a wait. And I mean this sincerely: I hope we can all work with them to land on reasonable solutions that work for everyone

 

[strawman]

He doesn't address the fact that this was his third time being cut off, and he had two explicit opportunities to measure his own traffic and usage, and failed to do so. Color me unsurprised that he's still trying to defend himself and blame comcast.

 

[PatrThom]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the problem with net neutrality offering preferential services to other companies/sites? This would then make it harder on the consumer. But in this case, they're making an exception for themselves and it's beneficial to the consumer.

Actually, it isn't. Whenever choice is restricted, customers suffer...one way or another. I could probably put together dozens of examples, but here are a few:

-In the USA, government subsidies to certain key agriculture lobbies ensure that specific types of food (corn, potatoes, soy, beef) are cheap and plentiful. The result? You can buy about 525 calories worth of Big Mac for $5, but that same $5 will only buy you about 210 calories worth of apricots or cashews.*

-Wal-mart has a lot of customers. Wal-mart therefore does a lot of business with vendors. Before Kodak closed down its overnight photo labs (and while I was still working there), Wal-mart contracted with them to do their film processing. At first, they were just a customer. Within a year, they demanded (and got!) preferential treatment that mandated we process all the Wal-mart film ahead of everyone else. How did they get this? They probably accounted for 15-20% of the facility's business and threatened to pull out if they didn't get their way. But this means cheaper services for Wal-mart's customers, right?

...I suppose a really good analogy would be as follows. Let's assume I am the owner/operator of a toll bridge into town. There are others, but they're all really too far away from where you live for you to really consider using them. All vehicles pay toll based on their net weight, and once you reach a certain cargo total I cut you off until next month. Right next to this bridge, I also have a sort of duty-free strip mall set up where I have a bunch of stores. The prices are reasonable, but you are limited to stock on hand. Anything I don't carry, you will have to go into town to purchase. This is in addition to the trips you make into town for work, visiting friends and relatives, etc. Plus since I charge by weight, these trips for things I don't (or won't) have in stock make you reach your cargo total faster, and once you hit it I will deny you passage to your job, your family, etc. until the following month (if ever!). This means that you either have to give up anything in town that is not essential in order to make sure you stay under the limit, or else you have to make do with only the stuff I have available. Additionally, every year I take my profits and upgrade the bridge to be bigger, wider, and stronger, and the town grows exponentially as well, but I still maintain my original arbitrary limit even though my bridge could obviously handle more traffic now and there is so much more to do in town than before. Plus your family is larger now, so you need more food, more clothing, more services, etc. but my selection hasn't really changed that much.

I think it would be better if the service rates were advertised based on what the company was willing to actually deliver rather than what they could theoretically deliver. If you're going to put a 250GB/month cap on your service, then don't advertise your service as 6Mb down/1Mb up, advertise it as 50kb down/50kb up like it really is. Yes, I said kilobits/sec. Why that amount? Because 50k/50k (or 75k/25k, or however you want to split it up) is the fastest/most data you can stream per second constantly over 30 days and still stay below the 250GB cap. Actually, that's not true, since the two numbers have to add up to 96.4, not an even 100.

Don't treat us like idiots, TelComs. We know why you're doing it.

--Patrick

*EDIT These numbers are nowhere near exact and are for illustration only, I couldn't find the website where I first saw the breakdown per dollar before I finished composing the post.

 

[Shakey]

I'd say another good analogy would be power companies alowing unlimited use of electronics manufactured by them, but limiting the use of other companies electronics. Why would you not buy from the power company.

We already went through this with the telephone companies telling us what phones we could plug into our jacks. Was it really that long ago that we've forgotten already?

 

[PatrThom]

Don't forget that the power company used to give you free light bulbs if you turned in your old ones. I'm sure that was a fight between Westinghouse and Edison, or something.

--Patrick

 

[fade]

This guy rubs me the wrong way.

Someone said that the idea that Comcast's infrastructure was being stressed was bull. On what grounds? It seems likely to be true.

 

[SpecialKO]

It seems likely to be true.

I would say that the burden of proof for that one is on Comcast, but here's a decent summary with links from folks who disagree with the "exaflood" idea.

EDIT: More links.