4 ms·

Congressman: there should be a law against Internet caps

19 points by vaksel 18y ago

quoderat 18y ago
Internet access should become a public utility, since we've so badly screwed the pooch by creating monopolies by government fiat.
- anthonyrubin 18y ago
  So the solution to these supposed monopolies created by government intervention is a monopoly created by the government?
  - lanaer 18y ago
    The government might actually want to do something to improve our broadband standing in the world (in terms of the quality & adoption of our broadband). The current monopolies have no such motivation. Not that I’d want to depend on the government to do so. But hey, can’t be any worse than the current situation, right?
    - Radix 18y ago
      The government ought to put telcos and cable companies on the same level as data carriers then go away. I can download movies, and play games. Broadband is currently fast enough for me to be happy. Why should we look at the rest of the world and complain. It's like the rich comparing themselves to the uber rich then complaining.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > But hey, can’t be any worse than the current situation, right? Sure it can - it can impose censorship. It can be even friendlier to the RIAA/MPAA.
    - jacoblyles 18y ago
      If you thought the customer service at Time Warner was bad, have you ever tried replacing your Social Security card?
anthonyrubin 18y ago
Ridiculous. Should providers be able to advertise unlimited access and then limit access? No. Should limited access be illegal? No.
sjsivak 18y ago
The switch to internet cable/video is on the horizon. With services like Hulu and technologies like Boxee it is just a matter of time. Hopefully the cable companies will find a new way to make money, probably through on-demand content, and not have to actually start using this sort of bandwidth capping.
frisco 18y ago
When I first saw the title I thought congress was trying to ban CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL! A little confused for a second when I realized what they were actually talking about, but then it made much more sense. Would have been funny to have a "YouTube Reform Act of 2009" or such though.
scott_s 18y ago
We have been operating with the illusion for a long time now that bandwidth is an infinite resource. We could get away with this because most people didn't have computers that could handle large amounts of data, and they didn't have a reason to handle large amounts of data. That's changed. Computers are faster, hard drives are bigger, and people want to stream movies. Most people didn't want to use all of the bandwidth available to them, so we could pretend it was infinite. But it's not. It's finite. It seems obvious to me we need to move to the same model we use for electricity and water: pay for what you use. What's strange to me is many of the people who I know are technically knowledgeable decry bandwidth capping, but don't propose a simple pay-for-what-you-use model. I agree that advertising infinite bandwidth and then charging for "overusage" is wrong. But I also recognize that a flat-fee for widely variable usage isn't sustainable for ISPs.
- Goronmon 18y ago
  But I also recognize that a flat-fee for widely variable usage isn't sustainable for ISPs. What information do you have that makes you recognize this?
  - scott_s 18y ago
    That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage.
    - Goronmon 18y ago
      That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage. Which doesn't address why you think it's unsustainable. The business model for ISPs has always been been that the lower end user subsidizes the use of bigger consumers. I interpreted that you believe this model is losing it's viability and I am wondering what information you have that shows this. Or did I misinterpret your original post? Edit: Not to mention that I've never understood how bandwidth caps actually address any problem that an ISP faces.
      - 18y ago
ilitirit 18y ago
Personally, I'd kill for a 40GB cap. I live in South Africa and I've been paying around $30 per month for a 2GB international cap. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the average user in the US used less than 40GB per month. That said, the idea of a law banning Internet caps is ridiculous, and could possibly do more harm than good.
acgourley 18y ago
I'm amazed how comfortable people are with low usage customers subsidizing high usage customers. It strikes me as profoundly unfair. ISP's are no angels, I know, but I'm not talking about any specific case, just the notion of caps in general. As long as the pricing is fair I think tiered/capped traffic agnostic pricing is fine. I think some people are caught up in their general disgust with what they see as regional monopolies, and directing it at this general issue.
- chadgeidel 18y ago
  I completely agree. They can either have (publicly advertised!) caps OR they can do traffic shaping. Not both. Honestly ISP's need to move their entire offering to a "business-class" level of service (tiered, published data prices, some level of uptime guarantees), without the price gouging. I don't mean more data/more uptime, just more visibility. Let me pick my "tier" and then provide me that service.
- javanix 18y ago
  Caps are perfectly fine as long as they are sufficient - but what happens when the ISPs want to better utilize their bandwidth, and decide to lower their limits, rather than increasing their capabilities? There's no regional competition to worry about, so there would be no incentive to add capabilities when the alternative is basically free.
ShabbyDoo 18y ago
For a moment, let's consider a local coffee shop (or, for that matter, Starbucks). As a libertarian, I believe the pricing model for a cup of coffee is the owner's decision, not the government's. Pay for each cup, pay less for subsequent cups, free refills...none of my business. If I don't like it, I can go to another coffee shop or open up my own. Pipes and wires to my house are a different manner. Unlike with the coffee shop, my local government gave a company an exclusive right to serve my house. No competing companies can run redundant pipes or wires if the original companies aren't offering up good deals. While its debatable whether or not government should offer such exclusivity, it has. So, without government intervention, the companies granted these rights will raise prices to the point of profit maximization -- a level of profit that would lead a rational bidder to pay tons for the exclusive license to serve my town. Think cellular frequency auctions. Instead of auctioning off rights as a means of indirect tax collection, most towns (or states) granted basically free exclusive licenses with the caveat of pricing and service oversight. The natural gas monopoly has to petition the state (at least in Ohio) to raise rates. And, I think the cable companies have to petition the local municipalities. So, I don't blame these companies as they're just doing what their contracts (might?) allow. Instead, I find fault with the local governments for selling their citizens short with bad contracts or oversight boards. Who's watching these government-imposed monopolies?

19 points by vaksel 18y ago

Internet access should become a public utility, since we've so badly screwed the pooch by creating monopolies by government fiat.

anthonyrubin 18y ago
So the solution to these supposed monopolies created by government intervention is a monopoly created by the government?
- lanaer 18y ago
  The government might actually want to do something to improve our broadband standing in the world (in terms of the quality & adoption of our broadband). The current monopolies have no such motivation. Not that I’d want to depend on the government to do so. But hey, can’t be any worse than the current situation, right?
  - Radix 18y ago
    The government ought to put telcos and cable companies on the same level as data carriers then go away. I can download movies, and play games. Broadband is currently fast enough for me to be happy. Why should we look at the rest of the world and complain. It's like the rich comparing themselves to the uber rich then complaining.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > But hey, can’t be any worse than the current situation, right? Sure it can - it can impose censorship. It can be even friendlier to the RIAA/MPAA.
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    If you thought the customer service at Time Warner was bad, have you ever tried replacing your Social Security card?

anthonyrubin 18y ago

Ridiculous. Should providers be able to advertise unlimited access and then limit access? No. Should limited access be illegal? No.

sjsivak 18y ago

The switch to internet cable/video is on the horizon. With services like Hulu and technologies like Boxee it is just a matter of time. Hopefully the cable companies will find a new way to make money, probably through on-demand content, and not have to actually start using this sort of bandwidth capping.

frisco 18y ago

When I first saw the title I thought congress was trying to ban CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL! A little confused for a second when I realized what they were actually talking about, but then it made much more sense. Would have been funny to have a "YouTube Reform Act of 2009" or such though.

scott_s 18y ago

We have been operating with the illusion for a long time now that bandwidth is an infinite resource. We could get away with this because most people didn't have computers that could handle large amounts of data, and they didn't have a reason to handle large amounts of data. That's changed. Computers are faster, hard drives are bigger, and people want to stream movies. Most people didn't want to use all of the bandwidth available to them, so we could pretend it was infinite. But it's not. It's finite. It seems obvious to me we need to move to the same model we use for electricity and water: pay for what you use. What's strange to me is many of the people who I know are technically knowledgeable decry bandwidth capping, but don't propose a simple pay-for-what-you-use model. I agree that advertising infinite bandwidth and then charging for "overusage" is wrong. But I also recognize that a flat-fee for widely variable usage isn't sustainable for ISPs.

Goronmon 18y ago
But I also recognize that a flat-fee for widely variable usage isn't sustainable for ISPs. What information do you have that makes you recognize this?
- scott_s 18y ago
  That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage.
  - Goronmon 18y ago
    That it takes more expense to handle customers with higher bandwidth usage. Which doesn't address why you think it's unsustainable. The business model for ISPs has always been been that the lower end user subsidizes the use of bigger consumers. I interpreted that you believe this model is losing it's viability and I am wondering what information you have that shows this. Or did I misinterpret your original post? Edit: Not to mention that I've never understood how bandwidth caps actually address any problem that an ISP faces.
    - 18y ago

ilitirit 18y ago

Personally, I'd kill for a 40GB cap. I live in South Africa and I've been paying around $30 per month for a 2GB international cap. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the average user in the US used less than 40GB per month. That said, the idea of a law banning Internet caps is ridiculous, and could possibly do more harm than good.

acgourley 18y ago

I'm amazed how comfortable people are with low usage customers subsidizing high usage customers. It strikes me as profoundly unfair. ISP's are no angels, I know, but I'm not talking about any specific case, just the notion of caps in general. As long as the pricing is fair I think tiered/capped traffic agnostic pricing is fine. I think some people are caught up in their general disgust with what they see as regional monopolies, and directing it at this general issue.

chadgeidel 18y ago
I completely agree. They can either have (publicly advertised!) caps OR they can do traffic shaping. Not both. Honestly ISP's need to move their entire offering to a "business-class" level of service (tiered, published data prices, some level of uptime guarantees), without the price gouging. I don't mean more data/more uptime, just more visibility. Let me pick my "tier" and then provide me that service.
javanix 18y ago
Caps are perfectly fine as long as they are sufficient - but what happens when the ISPs want to better utilize their bandwidth, and decide to lower their limits, rather than increasing their capabilities? There's no regional competition to worry about, so there would be no incentive to add capabilities when the alternative is basically free.

ShabbyDoo 18y ago

For a moment, let's consider a local coffee shop (or, for that matter, Starbucks). As a libertarian, I believe the pricing model for a cup of coffee is the owner's decision, not the government's. Pay for each cup, pay less for subsequent cups, free refills...none of my business. If I don't like it, I can go to another coffee shop or open up my own. Pipes and wires to my house are a different manner. Unlike with the coffee shop, my local government gave a company an exclusive right to serve my house. No competing companies can run redundant pipes or wires if the original companies aren't offering up good deals. While its debatable whether or not government should offer such exclusivity, it has. So, without government intervention, the companies granted these rights will raise prices to the point of profit maximization -- a level of profit that would lead a rational bidder to pay tons for the exclusive license to serve my town. Think cellular frequency auctions. Instead of auctioning off rights as a means of indirect tax collection, most towns (or states) granted basically free exclusive licenses with the caveat of pricing and service oversight. The natural gas monopoly has to petition the state (at least in Ohio) to raise rates. And, I think the cable companies have to petition the local municipalities. So, I don't blame these companies as they're just doing what their contracts (might?) allow. Instead, I find fault with the local governments for selling their citizens short with bad contracts or oversight boards. Who's watching these government-imposed monopolies?