Since I now have the option available, I figured I may as well use it: Site comments have been opened to the public, and by the public I mean BYOND Members since I don't want the hassle of dealing with more spam than I must.
It's not the only spring cleaning change I've made around here. (You'll note my idea of spring cleaning does not involve actual cleaning. It doesn't, as such, even involve actual spring; it's been snowing for the past two days.) I've added a link box to some favorite sites and blogs, which I'll probably expand on soon enough, and I've prettied up the site with some better link colors that stand out better and improve readability.
What prompted the change was that one of my favorite blogs, Dubious Quality, has been posting updates on the ongoing atrocity of broadband bandwidth caps. Comcast, a company which to my knowledge is universally hated (and not just for their awful new monotone commercials), at least capped bandwidth at a quarter terabyte a month which isn't all that bad. Time-Warner on the other hand is planning several different caps which are charitably described as Draconian, and uncharitably as an all-star dick move revue. Their highest cap, a pitiful 100 GB per month, has no pricing info as yet, which means they're trying to figure out how much they can get away with charging for it. The next-highest (40 GB, which is a YouTube sneeze) comes with an uptick in price. Overages will be $1 per gigabyte. Their "test" plan is expanding into several markets including Rochester, NY, which isn't too far from me. Naturally this naked money-grab at my expense pisses me off, but fortunately Dubious Quality came to the rescue again with a link to a site dedicated to stopping these bozos in their tracks.
That website: stopthecap.com, which is posting regular news updates and Congressional contact info, offering people a real plan of action instead of just getting mad. If you're at all concerned about the future of the Internet, I suggest you get involved on this post haste, even if you're not a Time-Warner customer or (yet) in the affected areas. Broadband ISPs tend to operate by monopoly, and when they can't do that they operate by cartel. It's only a matter of time before all ISPs do this if we don't bring the hammer down now.
On a related subject, the deeply unpopular spending spree Congress is on is being protested all over the country, and on Tax Day (that's April 15) there are widespread protests scheduled all over the place. Even if you can't attend, if you're against the idea that spending recklessly is a magical cure to massive debt, you can get involved and show your support. This movement crosses party lines and it's bringing together people from all kinds of ideologies. It's the American Revolution all over again!
Apr 8 2009, 7:36 pm
|
|
ACWraith
 |
Time Warner is handling my internet service, local cable, and phone. I gave up Dish Network thinking that I could watch most of what I missed online, but it won't mix well with a bandwidth cap. =(
|
Bill Harris of Dubious Quality has the theory that Time-Warner will use its ultra-low caps as a way of bargaining into exclusive agreements with content providers whose streaming content wouldn't count against the cap. I suspect this is likely, but it still screws with gamers, and with people like me who rely on their Internet connection for work.
| |
I hope you know that this is essentially trolling for crazy laize-faire-ists with silly hair to come along, aye?
| |
Popisfizzy wrote:
I hope you know that this is essentially trolling for crazy laize-faire-ists with silly hair to come along, aye? Also, Australians who literally are unable to get uncapped internet and never have been (Generally if you go over the limit you get shaped back to dialup speeds, though, rather than charged extra.). Of course, internet is much cheaper to provide in the US compared to Australia, what with most of it being internal. One of the reasons our 'net is so expensive relative to yours is that ISPs need to pay for all the international bandwidth. (The other reason is a botched privatisation of Telstra, the telco that owns basically the entire comms network. They got to keep ownership of the comms network when they were privatised, so it was basically a free monopoly. One of the new government's policies is a public-private partnership to build more internet infrastructure. Hopefully this will break Telstra's stranglehold). Anyway, by way of comparison, we get 256 kbps download, 64 kpbs upload, and a 12 GB/month cap. Uploads count against the cap, and if we go ever we're throttled back to 64/64 kbps. For this privilege, my parents pay $59.95/month (~$42.6 USD at time of posting). To be fair, we could get ADSL2+ with a 10GB cap for less than that from a different ISP, but my parents don't find this a compelling argument. I've even offered to pay for it myself. Sigh. | |
Speak for yourself (and consequently... everyone else in Australia with exception to one other person I know) JP. You're looking at one of the very few people in Australia (so far, me and some other guy) with uncapped broadband. My connection is identical to yours in every way (minus $10.00 on price) only without caps. Booyah baby.
| |
Also, Australians who literally are unable to get uncapped internet and never have been I don't think I've ever had capped internet, but I think I can recall some time limited 56k way back when I was in the early years of primary school. And my current ADSL plan is unlimited with a speed of 512/128kb/s. I can't think of any ISP's with unlimited ADSL now except for maybe Dodo at 256kb/s down and I'm not sure what up but there were some doing it a few years ago when I first got ADSL access a few years ago. | |
Smoko wrote:
I don't think I've ever had capped internet, but I think I can recall some time limited 56k way back when I was in the early years of primary school. And my current ADSL plan is unlimited with a speed of 512/128kb/s. Hooray for lock-in contracts! Back in the early 90s dialup was capped IIRC. But definitely not now. | |
Hooray for lock-in contracts! What lock in contract? We had the option of no contract or one month of free internet and a 24 month contract. | |
Smoko wrote:
Hooray for lock-in contracts! I was referring to the point your ISP can't up and say "we're no longer offering this service, please pick from one of our other services or bugger off". | |
Tiberath wrote:
I was referring to the point your ISP can't up and say "we're no longer offering this service, please pick from one of our other services or bugger off". Oh, right. But on the other hand they could turn shit and you'd be stuck or hit with a fee for leaving before the contract was out. Don't forget the possibility of something better coming along or just plain old not being able to afford it anymore. | |
Tiberath wrote:
Smoko wrote: Mostly it wasn't, as it was provided at 14.4Kbps or 28.8Kbps by ISPs hooked up with POTS providers who had been massively over provisioning by policy since about 1985, so even without lifting a finger to provide new cable for this service, the new influx didn't result in the chronic backbone shortage we have today. So they'd sell 1000 lines where people use 14.4Kbps modems and provision a T2 line out of the town. If they were all on at once, they'd just fight for it, however as most people were paying phone rates for access, I wouldn't imagine people were sitting round the clock downloading/uploading stuff. | |
I'm aware most of the rest of the world has already adopted this bandwidth cap stupidity, but the reasons tend to stem from the ills of socialism in general--where in the US these companies are mere barely-tolerated monopolies, in other parts of the world they've made their monopolies even stronger. In Australia this doesn't surprise me as the cost of infrastructure would be much higher; and Australia has really had sucky Internet service since forever. Heck, I used to know people who paid per minute for dialup there.
In the US however the economics are different, and there's no reason that cable companies couldn't, for instance, upgrade their connections and even make improvements to the backbone. The cost of adding additional bandwidth is minimal to cable companies (far less so than for fiber-optic) and it's something that by all rights they should have been doing all along. What's funny is if you read some of the stuff at stopthecap.com, some service reps are claiming that this move is just a way to give people cheaper Internet access--which is only true if your access is pretty much limited to reading email and a couple of blogs. Many of their reps are apparently not even fully aware of the nature of the new plans, and they're saying that the current roll-out is merely "testing" and that in the summer people will be able to choose a new plan. Apparently they don't get that means the company is going to force people onto capped plans. | |
http://consumerist.com/5205296/ new-york-representative-goes-after-time-warners-metered-broa dband
It's crazy how they can monopolize areas, especially the more rural. The first comment on that post is very true all over New York: "Rochester is really getting screwed over. Verizon has no presence in that city, so Fios is not an option. The only other choice is Frontier for VERY low end DSL, I believe. Really no other choice there." | |
Lummox JR wrote:
I'm aware most of the rest of the world has already adopted this bandwidth cap stupidity, but the reasons tend to stem from the ills of socialism in general Not sure if I should "lol" or "headslap". Something tells me I won't be using that nugget any time soon. | |
Bootyboy wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: Especially given that the thing that made Telstra such a powerful monopoly was a botched privatisation - back when it was public, it had no reason to lock others out of the market. | |
Airjoe wrote:
http://consumerist.com/5205296/ new-york-representative-goes-after-time-warners-metered-broa dband Even if you don't want Fios, you could get Verizon's ADSL plan! I'm relatively sure my grandma's ISP is Frontier, and it sucks compared to my family's Verizon. | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
Even if you don't want Fios, you could get Verizon's ADSL plan! I'm relatively sure my grandma's ISP is Frontier, and it sucks compared to my family's Verizon. "Verizon has no presence in that city, so Fios is not an option." | |
Airjoe wrote:
Jeff8500 wrote: I should have elaborated there, I meant that Verizon DSL is better than Frontier DSL no matter how you put it, and thus, if Verizon was present, you could get better access for a lower price. | |
Jp wrote:
Also, Australians who literally are unable to get uncapped internet and never have been (Generally if you go over the limit you get shaped back to dialup speeds, though, rather than charged extra.). I believe TPG does uncapped ADSL2+. That said, ever since they introduced their 500GB plans the service has completely fallen apart. Back in the old days they used to have great internet with pathetic support, so as long as you knew what you were doing it was a great ISP. Now the thing is stuck together with day old gum and it's almost impossible to get any word on what's broken. Anyway, by way of comparison, we get 256 kbps download, 64 kpbs upload, and a 12 GB/month cap. 25,000kbps down, 10,000kbps up, and 150GB per month. I think I pay $79.95 per month (60m from the exchange =D ). It's more than I need but it means I don't have to worry about usage. As for capped plans I like them. They let me pay for the usage I want. My sister doesn't need more than 4GB, so why should she split the bill with the guy who spends all day every day seeding torrents at full speed? My only issue is that the capped speed is only 128kbps. If they bumped it up a bit then it'd be fine. | |