6 ms·

This article is yet another example of how ISP data caps delay or block innovation. If caps were common in the 90s and 2000s, streaming media services that we

This article is yet another example of how ISP data caps delay or block innovation. If caps were common in the 90s and 2000s, streaming media services that we take for granted today wouldn't have been able to get off the ground. We have the same problem with LTE networks today. Want to watch a world cup game on your 720p or 1080p smartphone during your commute to the office? One match is probably half of your typical monthly LTE data cap.

kylec 12y ago
Even without data caps, a TV connected box shouldn't be pulling down hundreds of GB per month while idle. Without data caps the author of this post may not have had an issue, but that still doesn't make what Amazon's doing OK.
- aroch 12y ago
  It only has 8GB of onboard storage, what the hell is it downloading and what is is doing with all that downloaded data?
  - rgbrgb 12y ago
    It's preemptively buffering video streams.
    - johansch 12y ago
      At 80 GB/day? It would have to fill the flash memory 10x over in a day.
      - danudey 12y ago
        It could easily be a software bug. 1. Pre-cache TV show A 2. Local store full 3. Delete TV show A 4. Pre-cache TV show B etc
        adolph 12y ago
        Never ascribe to nefarious intent that which may be a software bug/feature.
        Steko 12y ago
        It probably caches the first minute of hundreds of shows since those are the pain points in streaming services.
        Touche 12y ago
        I feel like this might be it. With the Fire TV when you select to watch something it starts instantly, no matter if it is a show that you watched the previous episode or a random movie you picked out on the spot. I think it's caching everything that is visible from the homescreen, at least.
        amalag 12y ago
        Yes this has to be a bug, I don't think they planned on downloading 80Gb/day and the bandwidth cap is not relevant. Unless they have a terrabyte HD they plan on keeping full there is no reason to download that much.
      - mythealias 12y ago
        jun 7 and 8 happen to be sat & sun. so it is possible the author was browsing different shows and the tv trying to keep up with it.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Even without data caps, a TV connected box shouldn't be pulling down hundreds of GB per month while idle. Without data caps the author of this post may not have had an issue, but that still doesn't make what Amazon's doing OK. Amazon is doing exactly what they should be doing. Especially if their box is doing the right thing and downloading the shows in the middle of the night. Comcast et al should be thanking them for this because it moves a huge amount of traffic from peak to off peak and reduces the amount of capacity upgrades they'll need. This is a prime example of why data caps are stupid.
  - yoda_sl 12y ago
    I think both side can be argued. On one hand I really appreciate how quick movies start, and I was initially quite impressed, and like the OP I had to check yesterday my Comcast Internet setting for a different reason: I was quite surprise to see a big jump in my usage. I was planing to start looking at what could be using more bandwidth than usual but thank to the post I know what it is. At least Amazon should be offering a setting to disable that feature, and whenever someone want to play a movie and the setting is off, then warn the user that he can always turn it back on... At least in the USA where bandwidth is still limited Amazon should be offering the proper setting for the user to decide. [edit: fixing typo]
  - karmajunkie 12y ago
    Ahhh, no. Amazon should not be downloading tens or hundreds of gigs a month without telling me or giving me a way to shut it off. Regardless of your feelings about bandwidth caps, there's plenty of situations that might present a problem with that—shared connections, metered connections, and half a dozen other things i'd rather be doing with my internet connection in the middle of the night than having it download shows my kid watches.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    Spotify allows me to cache what I like for future playback without streaming. It does that by placing me in control.
jhonovich 12y ago
"ISP data caps delay or block innovation" So they should provide totally unlimited data for a fixed price?
- richardwhiuk 12y ago
  No they should be offering it for free, because otherwise they aren't being neutral to all data obviously!
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- thomasvarney723 12y ago
  I don't mean to sound like I know the best pricing scheme for ISPs but it has always seemed to me that the pricing model used for home internet makes the most sense. Once you have an infrastructure in place, the cost to send data over it is minimal, right? So, to me, paying for speed instead of an amount of data makes the most sense.
  - thefreeman 12y ago
    You are assuming they have the infrastructure to support 100% usage from all customers at all times. They obviously do not. So they try to discourage / limit usage to avoid having to pay for more / newer infrastructure.
    - Touche 12y ago
      Why sell bandwidth you don't have? That's dishonest advertising.
- dfox 12y ago
  They should decide whether they want to bill for X amount of data transfered or X amount of bandwidth and clearly advertise the service as one or other.
- Spittie 12y ago
  There is no such thing as "unlimited data", your speed is your cap. Anyway, it's understandable that your ISP will want to have a talk with you if you push/pull 10+ TB every month (in this case, you're probably violating their "no commercial service on consumer line" rule), but 250GB/month is just ridiculous.
randomfool 12y ago
Given a choice between unlimited data or net neutrality, I would choose net neutrality. The argument behind 'fast lanes' is that netflix et al need to pay for bandwidth while we are just paying for access. I would much rather pay a metered rate and have it clear that the ISP should not interfere.
- randomfool 12y ago
  The thing that I fear though, is that broadband monopolists would use metered service to price gouge high-end users. The lack of competition makes this too easy to exploit.
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    But then the problem is lack of competition, not metered usage. Lack of competition also make the net neutrality issue worse, so that would be the right thing to tackle.
- dublinben 12y ago
  The problem with accepting a metered rate is that it is completely divorced from the reality of the costs associated with providing your service. With utilities like gas, electricity, and water, there is a clear marginal cost for every additional unit you consume. This is not true for a unit of 'internet' from your ISP. Their operating costs are sunk and inflexible. Your next bit does not 'cost' them anything to send, so why should you pay for it as if it did?
  - Xylakant 12y ago
    How is it disconnected from the costs of providing the service? This could only be true if all connections were built to support the maximum possible bandwidth all costumers are theoretically capable of. Because otherwise, the price you're charged is a mix-calculation - it's the price that's required to deliver the promised number of bits during a given timeframe.
PhantomGremlin 12y ago
> We have the same problem with LTE networks today. Yes and no. Over the air bandwidth is a very very limited resource to what can be delivered by fiber and coax. Which means that the only way LTE could be used to send the World Cup to you is by some sort of multicast that would simultaneously send the same content to many smartphones at once. That would be of great interest to many people. But the laws of physics, as presented by Claude Shannon [1] back in 1948, and building on earlier work by people like Nyquist, say that in a "noisy" channel there is a finite limit to how much data can be sent. That precludes everyone being able to simultaneously receive different content over the "limited spectrum" allocated to LTE. I say "limited spectrum" because the FCC has been allowing more and more of the old TV spectrum to be used for wireless. But it's still insignificant compared to what can be easily pushed over glass fiber. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-channel_coding_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-channel_coding_theorem
yaeger 12y ago
Datacaps? When I started internetting the best deal that was available was 100 bucks for 100 hours. That's right, datacaps wasn't even a concern for ISPs. Mostly because they probably didn't even know how to bill this new fad called the internet. So they did like telcos do. Bill by the minute. So I literally set a watch next to me to clock how long I was online so I wouldn't go over my limit. The first time I got an unlimited flatrate, I nearly cried.

kylec 12y ago

Even without data caps, a TV connected box shouldn't be pulling down hundreds of GB per month while idle. Without data caps the author of this post may not have had an issue, but that still doesn't make what Amazon's doing OK.

aroch 12y ago
It only has 8GB of onboard storage, what the hell is it downloading and what is is doing with all that downloaded data?
- rgbrgb 12y ago
  It's preemptively buffering video streams.
  - johansch 12y ago
    At 80 GB/day? It would have to fill the flash memory 10x over in a day.
    - danudey 12y ago
      It could easily be a software bug. 1. Pre-cache TV show A 2. Local store full 3. Delete TV show A 4. Pre-cache TV show B etc
      - adolph 12y ago
        Never ascribe to nefarious intent that which may be a software bug/feature.
      - Steko 12y ago
        It probably caches the first minute of hundreds of shows since those are the pain points in streaming services.
        Touche 12y ago
        I feel like this might be it. With the Fire TV when you select to watch something it starts instantly, no matter if it is a show that you watched the previous episode or a random movie you picked out on the spot. I think it's caching everything that is visible from the homescreen, at least.
      - amalag 12y ago
        Yes this has to be a bug, I don't think they planned on downloading 80Gb/day and the bandwidth cap is not relevant. Unless they have a terrabyte HD they plan on keeping full there is no reason to download that much.
    - mythealias 12y ago
      jun 7 and 8 happen to be sat & sun. so it is possible the author was browsing different shows and the tv trying to keep up with it.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> Even without data caps, a TV connected box shouldn't be pulling down hundreds of GB per month while idle. Without data caps the author of this post may not have had an issue, but that still doesn't make what Amazon's doing OK. Amazon is doing exactly what they should be doing. Especially if their box is doing the right thing and downloading the shows in the middle of the night. Comcast et al should be thanking them for this because it moves a huge amount of traffic from peak to off peak and reduces the amount of capacity upgrades they'll need. This is a prime example of why data caps are stupid.
- yoda_sl 12y ago
  I think both side can be argued. On one hand I really appreciate how quick movies start, and I was initially quite impressed, and like the OP I had to check yesterday my Comcast Internet setting for a different reason: I was quite surprise to see a big jump in my usage. I was planing to start looking at what could be using more bandwidth than usual but thank to the post I know what it is. At least Amazon should be offering a setting to disable that feature, and whenever someone want to play a movie and the setting is off, then warn the user that he can always turn it back on... At least in the USA where bandwidth is still limited Amazon should be offering the proper setting for the user to decide. [edit: fixing typo]
- karmajunkie 12y ago
  Ahhh, no. Amazon should not be downloading tens or hundreds of gigs a month without telling me or giving me a way to shut it off. Regardless of your feelings about bandwidth caps, there's plenty of situations that might present a problem with that—shared connections, metered connections, and half a dozen other things i'd rather be doing with my internet connection in the middle of the night than having it download shows my kid watches.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Spotify allows me to cache what I like for future playback without streaming. It does that by placing me in control.

jhonovich 12y ago

"ISP data caps delay or block innovation" So they should provide totally unlimited data for a fixed price?

richardwhiuk 12y ago
No they should be offering it for free, because otherwise they aren't being neutral to all data obviously!
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
thomasvarney723 12y ago
I don't mean to sound like I know the best pricing scheme for ISPs but it has always seemed to me that the pricing model used for home internet makes the most sense. Once you have an infrastructure in place, the cost to send data over it is minimal, right? So, to me, paying for speed instead of an amount of data makes the most sense.
- thefreeman 12y ago
  You are assuming they have the infrastructure to support 100% usage from all customers at all times. They obviously do not. So they try to discourage / limit usage to avoid having to pay for more / newer infrastructure.
  - Touche 12y ago
    Why sell bandwidth you don't have? That's dishonest advertising.
dfox 12y ago
They should decide whether they want to bill for X amount of data transfered or X amount of bandwidth and clearly advertise the service as one or other.
Spittie 12y ago
There is no such thing as "unlimited data", your speed is your cap. Anyway, it's understandable that your ISP will want to have a talk with you if you push/pull 10+ TB every month (in this case, you're probably violating their "no commercial service on consumer line" rule), but 250GB/month is just ridiculous.

randomfool 12y ago

Given a choice between unlimited data or net neutrality, I would choose net neutrality. The argument behind 'fast lanes' is that netflix et al need to pay for bandwidth while we are just paying for access. I would much rather pay a metered rate and have it clear that the ISP should not interfere.

randomfool 12y ago
The thing that I fear though, is that broadband monopolists would use metered service to price gouge high-end users. The lack of competition makes this too easy to exploit.
- Xylakant 12y ago
  But then the problem is lack of competition, not metered usage. Lack of competition also make the net neutrality issue worse, so that would be the right thing to tackle.
dublinben 12y ago
The problem with accepting a metered rate is that it is completely divorced from the reality of the costs associated with providing your service. With utilities like gas, electricity, and water, there is a clear marginal cost for every additional unit you consume. This is not true for a unit of 'internet' from your ISP. Their operating costs are sunk and inflexible. Your next bit does not 'cost' them anything to send, so why should you pay for it as if it did?
- Xylakant 12y ago
  How is it disconnected from the costs of providing the service? This could only be true if all connections were built to support the maximum possible bandwidth all costumers are theoretically capable of. Because otherwise, the price you're charged is a mix-calculation - it's the price that's required to deliver the promised number of bits during a given timeframe.

PhantomGremlin 12y ago

> We have the same problem with LTE networks today. Yes and no. Over the air bandwidth is a very very limited resource to what can be delivered by fiber and coax. Which means that the only way LTE could be used to send the World Cup to you is by some sort of multicast that would simultaneously send the same content to many smartphones at once. That would be of great interest to many people. But the laws of physics, as presented by Claude Shannon [1] back in 1948, and building on earlier work by people like Nyquist, say that in a "noisy" channel there is a finite limit to how much data can be sent. That precludes everyone being able to simultaneously receive different content over the "limited spectrum" allocated to LTE. I say "limited spectrum" because the FCC has been allowing more and more of the old TV spectrum to be used for wireless. But it's still insignificant compared to what can be easily pushed over glass fiber. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-channel_coding_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-channel_coding_theorem

yaeger 12y ago

Datacaps? When I started internetting the best deal that was available was 100 bucks for 100 hours. That's right, datacaps wasn't even a concern for ISPs. Mostly because they probably didn't even know how to bill this new fad called the internet. So they did like telcos do. Bill by the minute. So I literally set a watch next to me to clock how long I was online so I wouldn't go over my limit. The first time I got an unlimited flatrate, I nearly cried.