# Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic



## Polaris573 (Jun 17, 2008)

Not everyone uses the internet for the same purposes. Some simply check their e-mail and/or scan the news for the latest headlines and promptly log off, while others download gigabytes of data every day, if not every hour. For years the internet was an egalitarian service with both types of users paying an equal amount despite the amount of bandwidth they used. Now it seems the major ISPs are preparing to implement some form of bandwidth limiting for users that utilize the most. Earlier this month Time Warner cable began a trial program of "Internet metering" in one Texas city. Customer will be asked to select a monthly plan with a certain amount of allotted bandwidth. When a user exceeds the bandwidth of their plan he or she will be forced to pay a surcharge, similar to exceeding the allotted minutes of a cell phone plan. The same week Time Warner announced its plan Comcast announced that it will be expanding its plan to manage Internet traffic, which involves slowing down the connections of the heaviest bandwidth users. While, as of yet, AT&T places no restrictions on bandwidth they stated that limits on heavy use were inevitable and are considering pricing based on data volume. The three companies insist these forms of billing will insure fair access to the internet for all users. Critics of the bandwidth limits say that metering and capping network used could hold back the inevitable convergence of television, computers, and the Internet. Internet metering could have serious consequences for companies such as Blockbuster and Netflix who are providing more and more downloadable/streaming content.

When asked how many gigabytes an average customer uses, Time Warner would only reveal that 95 percent of customers use under 40 gigabytes per month. This means that 5 percent of customers use more than 50 percent of the network, and it is assumed that many of those people are sharing copyrighted video and music. Only time will tell whether these bandwidth limiting plans will provide fair internet access to everyone like the ISPs insist or whether they will stunt the growth of the internet economy. It seems that bandwidth limiting is here to stay and will most likely get worse, at least for the time being.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 17, 2008)

TBH - I see their point; but I think it's going to backfire as well.

Unless they can give the end user some application or metering software that keeps track of their bandwidth usage, there will be a lot of irrate customers when they open their monthly bill and see more than they expected to pay.

and how many users are going to claim that they didn't go over their alotment, or how many will claim that they had no way of knowing?

and will we see any type of "give-back" plan if a user comes no where near their alloted bandwidth?  Or will the companies not even inform them and just let them continue to pay their dues?

And what about tha major companies that already suck down user bandwidth during certain hours of the day?  I know around here in the evening, both Verizon and Cox cap bandwidth off at low speeds so that local busniesses can go about their massive data transfers?  I know some people around here that pay for the 15/13 from Cox, and they were irrate to find they were only running 5/3 after 8PM or 9PM.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 17, 2008)

Here in Australia pretty theres no such things as unlimited bandwidth.

With mine Internode i pay $60 a month fo 20 gig and if i go over that amount i get shaped wich means my dl speeds gets throttled from 1.5 meg a sec to 60 odd k and get charged for the extra dls.

The only good thing is i dont get charged for uls unlike Tel$tra and Optus.


----------



## Polaris573 (Jun 17, 2008)

The internet infrastructure is in sore need of updating.  When you actually stop and think of it, except for backbone connections, most of the internet is made up of 1950s technology (Coaxial cable and telephone wire).  So until the infrastructure can be improved we will just be cramming more and more people onto two lane highways when what we need is interstates.  Sure we can put up toll gates and lower the speed limit, but that's not going to fix the underlying problem.


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 17, 2008)

LOL.

We (In Australia) have never NOT had this system in place. All plans have both a speed and a download limit. It used to be when you go over you pay a certain amoint extra (like 15c / megabyte) where as now, most plans when you go over, you get capped to dial up speeds.



Triprift said:


> Here in Australia pretty theres no such things as unlimited bandwidth.
> 
> With mine Internode i pay $60 a month fo 20 gig and if i go over that amount i get shaped wich means my dl speeds gets throttled from 1.5 meg a sec to 60 odd k and get charged for the extra dls.
> 
> The only good thing is i dont get charged for uls unlike Tel$tra and Optus.



Beat me to it 

Im with Telstra, but thankfully I am on their plan that gets "capped" after 12GB of download, not pay extra, lol.


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 17, 2008)

Polaris573 said:


> The internet infrastructure is in sore need of updating.  When you actually stop and think of it, except for backbone connections, most of the internet is made up of 1950s technology (Coaxial cable and telephone wire).  So until the infrastructure can be improved we will just be cramming more and more people onto two lane highways when what we need is interstates.  Sure we can put up toll gates and lower the speed limit, but that's not going to fix the underlying problem.



agreed 100%


sucks, though, in areas where we've moved up to fiber optics and the like, the companies want to charge insane prices for petty access.


----------



## a111087 (Jun 17, 2008)

this is the end of the road for many of us...


----------



## FatForester (Jun 17, 2008)

Polaris573 said:


> The internet infrastructure is in sore need of updating.  When you actually stop and think of it, except for backbone connections, most of the internet is made up of 1950s technology (Coaxial cable and telephone wire).  So until the infrastructure can be improved we will just be cramming more and more people onto two lane highways when what we need is interstates.  Sure we can put up toll gates and lower the speed limit, but that's not going to fix the underlying problem.



I agree completely. This is really just an excuse for ISP's to make more money all while dodging the real problem. The Internet isn't going to stop because the ISP's are getting cranky. Depending on how they implement this, I could see this really backfiring. At least when it explodes in their face they might decide to actually do something rather than just dance around the issue some more.


----------



## a111087 (Jun 17, 2008)

ISP probably realized that they can't fight internet neutrality, so if many in Europe can limit internet and make money off it, then that is the next chance for them to  make more money


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

australia and many other countries have had this for years.

The major ISP in australia (telstra) has plans that only include 200MB, or 500MB of data for just those people.

And then they charge $0.17 per MB... you'd have to be stupid to go those plans, but thousands of people do.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> australia and many other countries have had this for years.
> 
> The major ISP in australia (telstra) has plans that only include 200MB, or 500MB of data for just those people.
> 
> And then they charge $0.17 per MB... you'd have to be stupid to go those plans, but thousands of people do.



If ur not a heavy user though it might be ok plans.

Like Polaris said in his first post not all user are big dlers. ps being Tel$tra would most likely charge through the roof for them plans


----------



## a111087 (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> that only include 200MB, or 500MB of data for just those people.



wow... you can't really do much with 200mb or even 500mb these days


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

Telstra 1.5Mb plan: $69.95 per month. 1500k download, 256k upload. 12,000MB per month. Thats upload and download combined. Going over that, you get shaped to 64Kb/64Kb internet.

Exetel (my ISP) 1.5Mb plan
$45 a month. 12GB on peak (daytime) 48GB off peak (night time) - shaped to 64Kb if you go over either period, or the option of $3 a GB.

Even if ISP's start doing this in america, the rest of the world already has solutions... its called choosing a new provider


----------



## Wile E (Jun 17, 2008)

Ugh. Hurry up and get to my area FiOS!!!!


----------



## Triprift (Jun 17, 2008)

Yep good old churning havnt done that in awhile.


----------



## a111087 (Jun 17, 2008)

Does anyone remember how one guy claimed that Nvidia and ATi are working together to keep the prices up?  
Isn't it obvious enough that ISP are working together to rips us all off???!!! First internet neutrality, then this!!!


----------



## btarunr (Jun 17, 2008)

Here's the scene in India.

Government alloted tons and tons of money in upgrading the infrastructure in the last five years. The agenda was to give every citizen, that's right, a 2 Mbps connection for just $6 /month. So far, they've had a fair bit of success, over 2 million towns/villages get these ADSL services, 60% of all towns/villages get it, rest are given free dial-up access till that "2 Mbps for all" scheme is implemented. 
How could India afford spread its interior internet infrastructure at such a large scale? Simply because they laid parallel backbones, all technology was bought just recently, and you get more for your cash today than 10 years ago.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

australia is more or less dominated by telstra, as they own all local phone lines (the physical lines) as well as the international links.

 Recently a group of ISP's started laying their own foundations - they're getting their own international link (larger than all telstras combind) as well as putting ADSL2+ ports in many exchanges - cutting telstra out of the profit loop.

In a way, this just makes ISP's work harder - you people get 'free' bandwidth with no limits, but i also hear tales of americans on 10Mb (or faster) cable who struggle to get 1Mb during peak times... on plans with limits, you get your full speed whenever you want it, not when its suitable for the ISP.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 17, 2008)

Comcast do it all ready.  All though it's when you go over 200\250GB they charge you extra.


----------



## indybird (Jun 17, 2008)

I don't like this at all.  That would near kill my internet experience.  I got multiple problems with this:
1) How do they know if your wireless was being ripped off by someone else
2) What about all of the users who are running servers or similar things?  Do they just get screwed over?
3) I download game demos, large game updates, digital purchases (games, Music) and cannot afford _any_ kinds of limits.  (By the way all of this is 100% legal).

If comcast switches to this, I will switch to AT&T, because they've already slowed down my internet enough (I pay $40 or whatever a month for 7mb/s not this 2mb/s crap!).

-Indybird


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

indybird said:


> I don't like this at all.  That would near kill my internet experience.  I got multiple problems with this:
> 1) How do they know if your wireless was being ripped off by someone else
> 2) What about all of the users who are running servers or similar things?  Do they just get screwed over?
> 3) I download game demos, large game updates, digital purchases (games, Music) and cannot afford _any_ kinds of limits.  (By the way all of this is 100% legal).
> ...



1. thats your fault. legally you're responsible for securing your own network.
2. in australia at least, you need a BUSINESS internet connection for those. they charge more, but offer unlimited throughput.
3. well you might have to cut back.  I download 90GB a month, and i pay for that.

finally, your net is shit (2Mb/s instead of 7) BECAUSE of this problem. some users download 200GB, and that means other users arent getting it - if the average joe uses 2GB and one person used 200GB, thats 100 people who just got shafted, and will suffer shit speeds because he's using it all up.


----------



## indybird (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> 1. thats your fault. legally you're responsible for securing your own network.
> 2. in australia at least, you need a BUSINESS internet connection for those. they charge more, but offer unlimited throughput.
> 3. well you might have to cut back.  I download 90GB a month, and i pay for that.
> 
> finally, your net is shit (2Mb/s instead of 7) BECAUSE of this problem. some users download 200GB, and that means other users arent getting it - if the average joe uses 2GB and one person used 200GB, thats 100 people who just got shafted, and will suffer shit speeds because he's using it all up.



If the speed can be affected by users and I can lower their speeds by downloading too much, then how come they advertised and charge for a specific speed? (which they cannot maintain in itself).

Also, does that business package have unlimited bandwith?  If so, how much more exactly does it cost?

-Indybird


----------



## a111087 (Jun 17, 2008)

indybird said:


> If the speed can be affected by users and I can lower their speeds by downloading too much, then how come they advertised and charge for a specific speed? (which they cannot maintain in itself).



They actually state that speed will not be guarantied and will vary.
I know, it sucks...


----------



## timta2 (Jun 17, 2008)

I love how every time this story comes up people from Australia chime in complaining about Telstra and how they have been doing this for a long time. Well, Comcast and Time Warner don't serve Austrialia and just because people in Australia are getting ripped off by corporate greed doesn't mean that the US companies should be OK to do it here in the US.

If this starts to affect me I'm cutting the cable. I'm tired of the lousy programming, commericals and poor quality audio/video for $100 that Time Warner charges me every month. Not to mention the poor speeds and ping times I get for $50 additional with my cable modem service.

I have heard every excuse in the book as to why they want to do this, but I'm no fool, it is simply to make more money and please shareholders at the expense of customers. This is nothing new from these companies.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 17, 2008)

timta2 said:


> I love how every time this story comes up people from Australia chime in complaining about Telstra and how they have been doing this for a long time. Well, Comcast and Time Warner don't serve Austrialia and just because people in Australia are getting ripped off by corporate greed doesn't mean that the US companies should be OK to do it here in the US.
> 
> If this starts to affect me I'm cutting the cable. I'm tired of the lousy programming, commericals and poor quality audio/video for $100 that Time Warner charges me every month. Not to mention the poor speeds and ping times I get for $50 additional with my cable modem service.
> 
> I have heard every excuse in the book as to why they want to do this, but I'm no fool, it is simply to make more money and please shareholders at the expense of customers. This is nothing new from these companies.



Lol i put my 2 cents in cus i cant believe all complaining from u guys it looks like its gonna be the way of the future if ur not happy churn to someone else who has a better deal.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 17, 2008)

Damn I have the VIP package in britain for virgin and thats hd cable etc etc and the 20mb internet  at times like 4am. Everyone gets throttled during the day and tbh most people here aren't computer smart and have stuff like virus' limewire and about 10 other p2p software running in the background whoring up the connection and although I download alot I make sure that its only at night when the connection is least used up to make everything faster. Also they are finally upgrading the cables to fiber optic so hopefully we won't get throttled


----------



## HTC (Jun 17, 2008)

Here in Portugal, with the ISP i use, i get a 25 Mb/s download with 1 Mb upload connection (highest this ISP offers).

I have a 60 GB download / upload (combined) monthly limit but, however, from 1 AM GMT until 9 AM GMT, i have unlimited downloads / uploads. Using this feature (called "happy hour"), i downloaded 1254.6 GB in January ...

Only once i crossed the limit: back then i had a 1 Mb connection with a 10 GB monthly max and i downloaded 13.4 GB. With each 100 MB over the top @ 1.78 euros ... do the math ...

This is why i increased my connection to the biggest available because i actually pay less with it then i would with the 1 Mb connection if i crossed the limit by just 2 GBs ...

That i know of, pretty much all of the other ISPs in Portugal work similar to this: some have their version of "happy hour" and some don't.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

its quite funny how arrogant some americans are. (emphasis on SOME, not all)

You pay for a service which cant be sustained, the terms and conditions say 'upto' X speed with no guarantees... and when other people tell you they get better you get all huffy (australia has a law, 80% of advertised speed 95% of the time, something close to that)

we bitch about telstra... but dont worry, comcast and your ISP's are turning out to be exactly the same. at least we get the speed we pay for.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 17, 2008)

I don't do alot of downloading but I am online most of the day until I go to work at night...Mostly gaming and such. Hows this going to effect me... Oh, by the way, I warned you guy's about this months ago...http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=54747


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

the infrastructure in the US is being updated, albeit slowly. most cable lines around big/medium sized cities have been upgraded. fiber is being installed around the country as demand grows for faster internet and a higher quality HD picture (comcast's HD picture outside the major cities is terrible.) so the upgrades are happening but they would happen faster if the fed/state/local govts wouldnt get in the way.


----------



## kaneda (Jun 17, 2008)

Over in the UK i pay £20 for 8mbit/s-448kbit/s with Virgin Media im cap'd  for most of the  daytime now for 'excessive use' however friends and people i know who work for both virgin media and British Telelcom(BT) have said that there's no no reason to throttle users, the companies have more than enough bandwidth on their network and are lying when they say one group of users spoil it for everyone. Virgin Media now offer Fiber Optic connection, yet they cap these also. these 20mbit lines have absolutely NO reason to be cap'd its absolutely ridiculous.

I can imagine Time Warner have a similar system/network.
time to face the facts. this isnt at all for improving the experience for certain users, its for making a profit.Charging 1 dollar a gig would set me back a good 5 dollars a day most of the time.There's one added benefit for the corporate world as this heavily hinders piracy, but sure as hell wont stop it. This is the first step before the Internet becomes limited content wise instead of just by bandwidth.



uh im glad i plan on moving to Japan when im done with education , 100mbit ¦3


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

No limiting should ever occur period. They profit enough as it is. 

They should quit squeezing all this money out of the consumers for so little cost to them.


They inforce monopolies in the telecoms through paying off politicians. FCC shouldn't be able to sell wide spectrums to companies. All of these things let corporations have free reign on overcharging consumers. If you do the same thing to a corporation, they sue you or you will simply disappear.

They are doing it with power, greed, and corruption. They are turning capitalism into slavery of the common man.

It will be like V for Vendetta one day.... only worse while using higher technology.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

my ISP actually has graphs for users, showing their network usage on each segment - you can see per state in australia, the PIPE network (PIPE is a network between ISP's for internal use, such as game servers)

Because they have small amounts during the day and large amounts starting at midnight, many users simply setup their download programs to start at midnight - and the effect was massive. within 30 seconds i'd go from 8Mb to 256Kb. The ISP added the graphs to allow people to see this.

Now they've implemented various solutions to reduce that strain on the network, but its a very serious and real problem - just because you cant understand why they shape it or want to charge more, doesnt mean its not real. Networking is more complex than most people realise, particularly in regards to the internet.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> No limiting should ever occur period. They profit enough as it is.
> 
> They should quit squeezing all this money out of the consumers for so little cost to them.
> 
> ...


I absolutely agree...


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> my ISP actually has graphs for users, showing their network usage on each segment - you can see per state in australia, the PIPE network (PIPE is a network between ISP's for internal use, such as game servers)
> 
> Because they have small amounts during the day and large amounts starting at midnight, many users simply setup their download programs to start at midnight - and the effect was massive. within 30 seconds i'd go from 8Mb to 256Kb. The ISP added the graphs to allow people to see this.
> 
> Now they've implemented various solutions to reduce that strain on the network, but its a very serious and real problem - just because you cant understand why they shape it or want to charge more, doesnt mean its not real. Networking is more complex than most people realise, particularly in regards to the internet.



You fail to grasp the profit involved. They are not doing this because they are actually limited. They are doing it because they want more money. They are following cell phone pricing schemes of consumer rape. I know a certain someone that works at a major cable company that told me about the bandwidth they are using for the new HD cable network. They will have the bandwidth to simultaneously stream 3+ hd channels (pause, play, rewind, straight from the server and not loading it all in the set top box)to every customer in there service area at all times. This network will cost them alot but its all going over the cable line. 

I know it works because he showed it to me. They won't offer it until the software is less buggy, but they already have the bandwidth and they are almost done buying all the necessary hardware.

So don't tell me that its puts a strain on there system. LOL
If it does, that means they need to upgrade it and quit being so greedy with not setting up the proper hardware just so they can save money.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 17, 2008)

Mines £30 a month for 8mb dsl with a 50gb per month fair use policy,if i go over 50gb,my connection turns into a 64k connection


----------



## kaneda (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> No limiting should ever occur period. They profit enough as it is.
> 
> They should quit squeezing all this money out of the consumers for so little cost to them.
> 
> ...



There's laws that are going to be passed in sweden which has avoided a lot of media attention, theyre going to legally allow wiretapping and the monitoring of all communication.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> You fail to grasp the profit involved. They are not doing this because they are actually limited. They are doing it because they want more money. They are following cell phone pricing schemes of consumer rape.



some companies might. i find blanket statements and conspiracy theories to be useless without facts.

In this thread alone we've already had complaints and reports of people getting less speed than they pay for... does it occur to you that the network infrastructure is not owned by the ISP, so they CANT do anything about it? the only options is to wait for whoever does own it to upgrade it, or reduce users usage.


----------



## kaneda (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> my ISP actually has graphs for users, showing their network usage on each segment - you can see per state in australia, the PIPE network (PIPE is a network between ISP's for internal use, such as game servers)
> 
> Because they have small amounts during the day and large amounts starting at midnight, many users simply setup their download programs to start at midnight - and the effect was massive. within 30 seconds i'd go from 8Mb to 256Kb. The ISP added the graphs to allow people to see this.
> 
> Now they've implemented various solutions to reduce that strain on the network, but its a very serious and real problem - just because you cant understand why they shape it or want to charge more, doesnt mean its not real. Networking is more complex than most people realise, particularly in regards to the internet.



in your country fine. in Europe and America - not so much.

they CAN support the heavy users fine they ARE just doing it for profit.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

kaneda said:


> in your country fine. in Europe and America - not so much.
> 
> they CAN support the heavy users fine they ARE just doing it for profit.



i am sorry but this statement needs to be addressed. first off, it is a companies job to make a profit. you dont get into business to give away services or break even. that is what non-profits do. second, you are saying that the bandwidth crunch ISPs are experiencing is a ruse but i dont see any evidence of that. why would they have to lie in order to increase prices? they already jack up my cable bill whenever they want and i have the right to drop them if i so choose. my point is that they probably forsee a bandwidth crunch in the not to distant future and are raising prices now to pay for their current and future infrastructure.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> some companies might. i find blanket statements and conspiracy theories to be useless without facts.
> 
> In this thread alone we've already had complaints and reports of people getting less speed than they pay for... does it occur to you that the network infrastructure is not owned by the ISP, so they CANT do anything about it? the only options is to wait for whoever does own it to upgrade it, or reduce users usage.



Nope, read my post above. I have seen it first hand. Don't give simpathy to the companies that make the most in the world. Our telecoms set up the majority of their infastructure with tax payers money with something called "subsidies". Your telecoms probably did the same thing. Rupert Murdoch makes Bill Gates look like Jesus.


----------



## kaneda (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> i am sorry but this statement needs to be addressed. first off, it is a companies job to make a profit. you dont get into business to give away services or break even. that is what non-profits do. second, you are saying that the bandwidth crunch ISPs are experiencing is a ruse but i dont see any evidence of that. why would they have to lie in order to increase prices? they already jack up my cable bill whenever they want and i have the right to drop them if i so choose. my point is that they probably forsee a bandwidth crunch in the not to distant future and are raising prices now to pay for their current and future infrastructure.



Strategy, look past what you said. Say Virgin suddenly for no reason jacked up the prices or imposed insane bandwidth limits. what would happen? they'd all leave and find another ISP. by saying its  the 'network' (which i might add is in the stages of beign swtiched over to fiber, the major sities are already nearly 100% fiber at this point in time)  cant support its users, its bs. 

by saying that its some users causing the problem, they cann limit and charge as much as they want and they stop being the bad guy.

but meh, whatever.

this is one step away from internet packages which  offer you access to certain websites and no others.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> i am sorry but this statement needs to be addressed. first off, it is a companies job to make a profit. you dont get into business to give away services or break even. that is what non-profits do. second, you are saying that the bandwidth crunch ISPs are experiencing is a ruse but i dont see any evidence of that. why would they have to lie in order to increase prices? they already jack up my cable bill whenever they want and i have the right to drop them if i so choose. my point is that they probably forsee a bandwidth crunch in the not to distant future and are raising prices now to pay for their current and future infrastructure.



The majority of it will be paid for by government subsidies and by the massive profits. You can't drop them and expect to pick up another provider in some areas. Lets say a provider wants to charge you $1 million a minute for internet access. Should he be allowed to? Is there no consumer protection? Nope, there isn't from price hikes. :shadedshu

Then you say you could sue.... right? Try winning a lawsuit with a massive corporation. Its literally impossible is you are an individual.

The only individuals that get settlements from companies are not because the corporations think they will lose the legal battle. Its because they fear the "bad press" associated with it. Unless your friend is Rupert Murdoch, and then it won't even be reported on in most media outlets.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

kaneda said:


> Strategy, look past what you said. Say Virgin suddenly for no reason jacked up the prices or imposed insane bandwidth limits. what would happen? they'd all leave and find another ISP. by saying its  the 'network' (which i might add is in the stages of beign swtiched over to fiber, the major sities are already nearly 100% fiber at this point in time)  cant support its users, its bs.
> 
> by saying that its some users causing the problem, they cann limit and charge as much as they want and they stop being the bad guy.
> 
> ...



well atleast in the US they havnt raised their internet prices dramatically. instead they would rather shape traffic and offer tiers of service to keep the bulk of their clients happy. personally i dont think any of the ISPs are lieing about reaching capacity. there have been several independent studies done in the US that illustrate the problem clearly. more than likely what we are experiencing in the US is the ISPs working to prevent any major crisis so they are testing new ways to shape traffic.


----------



## Basard (Jun 17, 2008)

wow, not only do u have to throw 15 bucks away each month for your MMO's... you have to throw even more money away for a byte.... stupidest thing ever.  all of this while they are talking about giving us faster connections up to 100mbit, so we can throw our money away faster, what a miserable world to live in these days.

I love how a handful of rich sons-of-bitches control and RUIN everything for EVERYBODY.  But don't expect to find me with a note left on my bed, pistol in my hand and bullet in my head.  Viva la revolution! The end is near, who's with me?  Ground Zero--Oshkosh, WI--were sick of high gas prices (rolls eyes), and we will NOT PAY BY THE BYTE.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> The majority of it will be paid for by government subsidies and by the massive profits. You can't drop them and expect to pick up another provider in some areas. Lets say a provider wants to charge you $1 million a minute for internet access. Should he be allowed to? Is there no consumer protection? Nope, there isn't from price hikes. :shadedshu



well, without getting into a debate over civil rights, i would say that if there is only one ISP in your area and they want to charge $1 million then they have the right to and you have the right to not use their service. atleast in the US you are not entitled to internet, nor are you entitled to tell ISPs what they should be charging.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> well, without getting into a debate over civil rights, i would say that if there is only one ISP in your area and they want to charge $1 million then they have the right to and you have the right to not use their service. atleast in the US you are not entitled to internet, nor are you entitled to tell ISPs what they should be charging.



So in your eyes, as long as a company doesn't break an official law, it can abuse the individual without any recourse? Sounds like you don't care about the people.


----------



## hat (Jun 17, 2008)

How long before they develop a system where you have to pay for the air you breathe?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

hat said:


> How long before they develop a system where you have to pay for the air you breathe?



When companies are done polluting the air to the point you cannot breath it without dying, they will come out with a filter. If they can then reach an agreement with the competition(of filter production) they will start attaching meters to the filters so they can charge you for how much you breath through that filter.  Same idea.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> So in your eyes, as long as a company doesn't break an official law, it can abuse the individual without any recourse? Sounds like you don't care about the people.



 what i am saying is that there really is no way to properly define "abuse." you are favoring the consumer over the business owner and that isnt fair. you cant use govt to enforce the price of products just like you cant use the govt to make individuals pay a set high price. these are forms of price control which are detrimental to a free society. so in my eyes, individuals do not have a right to somebody elses labor. that means that we do not have a right to legally force someone else (in this case an ISP owner) into setting a price we think is fair. in a free market two parties come together and agree on what is fair. if 1 party uses the govt as coercion then we might as well live under stalin.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

hat said:


> How long before they develop a system where you have to pay for the air you breathe?



are you comparing breathing to using the internet? will you die if you dont use the internet? (if your answer to this is yes then perhaps you should get some counciling)


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> what i am saying is that there really is no way to properly define "abuse." you are favoring the consumer over the business owner and that isnt fair. you cant use govt to enforce the price of products just like you cant use the govt to make individuals pay a set high price. these are forms of price control which are detrimental to a free society. so in my eyes, individuals do not have a right to somebody elses labor. that means that we do not have a right to legally force someone else (in this case an ISP owner) into setting a price we think is fair. in a free market two parties come together and agree on what is fair. if 1 party uses the govt as coercion then we might as well live under stalin.



Incorrect, they have reached an agreement with the government to not allow any other companies to provide the service through the lines that were put there with tax payers money. Thats just like Stalin.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Incorrect, they have reached an agreement with the government to not allow any other companies to provide the service through the lines that were put there with tax payers money. Thats just like Stalin.



then that would be unfair and against the principles of a fair and open market. but what you are saying is that it is not ok for a company to use the govt to its advantage but it is ok for an consumer to use the govt to its advantage.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Incorrect, they have reached an agreement with the government to not allow any other companies to provide the service through the lines that were put there with tax payers money. Thats just like Stalin.



nah its just corporate greed. sooner or later someone will profit and work a way around it.

This is something i mentioned earlier: telstra tried this in australia - other companies decided it was profitiable to build their own networks and work on their own rather than be smothered by them, and we're now benefiting from competition. This will happen in the USA as well... no matter how many ISP's introduce throttling and shaping, some businiess will always offer an alternative if they think they can make a profit.

This thread is getting worse than the ATI vs Nvidia ones, or AMD vs intel - some very arrogant people are complaining that they should get an even better deal than they have without any effort on their part. If you dont like it, complain to the ISP, write letters to congress and attend protests. bitching in an online forum will not get you anything.

I am done with this thread, unless something more interesting than useless flames comes up.


----------



## kaneda (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> well, without getting into a debate over civil rights, i would say that if there is only one ISP in your area and they want to charge $1 million then they have the right to and you have the right to not use their service. atleast in the US you are not entitled to internet, nor are you entitled to tell ISPs what they should be charging.



The problem with that is, during America's establishment there was NO internet. the internet will go down as on of the greatest if not THE greatest technological advancement of the past century. Everyone should be entitled to use the internet at reasonable prices, just like everyone can pick up  some free channels on TV.

I'm sorry to assume things, but you're talking like one of those people that uses  the " free market" excuse for everything.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> then that would be unfair and against the principles of a fair and open market. but what you are saying is that it is not ok for a company to use the govt to its advantage but it is ok for an consumer to use the govt to its advantage.



The government's number one duty is to serve the people. If it doesn't, you should overthrow it. ~A "founding father" said this.... I forgot which one

A corporation is given the *privilege* to operate by the government. Its a *privelege*, not a right. Thats the way it started out. Unfortunately people don't see it that way anymore. 

Corporations are given more rights than an individual thanks to the laws passed over the years by corrupt politicians. ~See The Corporation

Many corporations are good though. The ones that abuse the people should be regulated or fined, since its a privilege.



Mussels said:


> nah its just corporate greed. sooner or later someone will profit and work a way around it.
> 
> This is something i mentioned earlier: telstra tried this in australia - other companies decided it was profitiable to build their own networks and work on their own rather than be smothered by them, and we're now benefiting from competition. This will happen in the USA as well... no matter how many ISP's introduce throttling and shaping, some businiess will always offer an alternative if they think they can make a profit.
> 
> ...



Its called an exchange of ideas. Its fine with me if someone tells me something I don't agree with. I try to explain why I don't feel the same way rather than call people arrogant and insist they do nothing but bitch. Without effort would be living in the status quo and being a hive mind without questioning the ethics of those that control a good portion of your life.

I know you question policies..... atleast some of them. Don't be "hands off" with corporations and the treatment of their customers. To stand up for the individual is what governments are for. Thats what governing is.


----------



## Nick89 (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> some companies might. i find blanket statements and conspiracy theories to be useless without facts.
> 
> In this thread alone we've already had complaints and reports of people getting less speed than they pay for... does it occur to you that the network infrastructure is not owned by the ISP, so they CANT do anything about it? the only options is to wait for whoever does own it to upgrade it, or reduce users usage.



I pay for a 3mb DL / 512k UL, but I get 25mb DL. 

I'm going to raise hell with my ISP if they start this limiting usage crap. I get what I pay for, and this is just going to be another way for them to take MORE of MY money that I WORKED for, Its not right and I dont see why you say its a conspiracy theory because DaedalusHelios said the ISPs want more money,they do:shadedshu! Here in america companys try to screw over the people/customers as much as possible and theres a name for it: Capitalism I'm not saying capitalism is bad but it is abused.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Nick89 said:


> I pay for a 3mb DL / 512k UL, but I get 25mb DL.
> 
> I'm going to raise hell with my ISP if they start this limiting usage crap. I get what I pay for, and this is just going to be another way for them to take MORE of MY money that I WORKED for, Its not right and I dont see why you say its a conspiracy theory because DaedalusHelios said the ISPs want more money,they do:shadedshu! Here in america companys try to screw over the people/customers as much as possible and theres a name for it: Capitalism



Have you ever been raped by cell phone fees before?

Thats what they are trying to impose on the internet. Its not like you using your cell phone an hour longer each day costs them close to the $800 you would pay in overage. They sneak this stuff in the fine print of your contract as "fees may apply".


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

kaneda said:


> The problem with that is, during America's establishment there was NO internet. the internet will go down as on of the greatest if not THE greatest technological advancement of the past century. Everyone should be entitled to use the internet at reasonable prices, just like everyone can pick up  some free channels on TV.
> 
> I'm sorry to assume things, but you're talking like one of those people that uses  the " free market" excuse for everything.



i dont believe everyone should be entitled to the internet. i believe we are entitled to be free and live our lives as we see fit, and if that means working to purchase internet service then fine. by no means do i believe it is fair to circumvent the free market and force ISPs to lower their price for the sake of the masses. not only is it unfair to the business people who invest all that money, but it is unfair to the consumer because it will without a doubt slow progress and make it MORE expensive for everyone.


----------



## Nick89 (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Have you ever been raped by cell phone fees before?
> 
> Thats what they are trying to impose on the internet. Its not like you using your cell phone an hour longer each day costs them close to the $800 you would pay in overage. They sneak this stuff in the fine print of your contract as "fees may apply".




Exactly, the ISP companys are trying to find new ways to rip off the consumers.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

In The UK the same applies, BT own a lot of the exchanges and lines and unless u can get cable in your area your choices are limited and service within those choices differs a lot and as polaris said the old lines and such don't help, but atm there is a consistent argument about who will pay for the upgrades gov'ment, Isp's or BT neither will pay so stalemate for the moment. We should follow Japans lead but correct me if im wrong but hasnt japan got the best infrastructure or close to it ?

Gam


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> In The UK the same applies, BT own a lot of the exchanges and lines and unless u can get cable in your area your choices are limited and service within those choices differs a lot and as polaris said the old lines and such don't help, but atm there is a consistent argument about who will pay for the upgrades gov'ment, Isp's or BT neither will pay so stalemate for the moment. We should follow Japans lead but correct me if im wrong but hasnt japan got the best infrastructure or close to it ?
> 
> Gam



Yes, and they have the lowest telecom prices in the first world aswell. 

HHHHMMMMMMmmmm why don't we have better and unlimited access to the internet at those prices??? Since we pay the most for telecommunications in the world????? Greed maybe? But greed should never be regulated.... no matter what it does to the individual because its the right of corporations to do whatever they want. Or is it?

The real question is who will stand up for the individual? If the government doesn't, who will? Nobody would. And right now, nobody is.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 17, 2008)

Well, I'll tell you what...These guy's (Time/Warner A.K.A. Adelphia)already get $1160.00 a year out of me for my internet  (or internets for you Bush fans)....That's NOT including the additional charge for cable tv.... I think that's more than enough. I'm not complaining, yet.... now you raise this price closer to 1500 or 2 grand a year for internet alone and I'll get rid of my PC and go back to consoles.... F%ck 'em.


----------



## kaneda (Jun 17, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> In The UK the same applies, BT own a lot of the exchanges and lines and unless u can get cable in your area your choices are limited and service within those choices differs a lot and as polaris said the old lines and such don't help, but atm there is a consistent argument about who will pay for the upgrades gov'ment, Isp's or BT neither will pay so stalemate for the moment. We should follow Japans lead but correct me if im wrong but hasnt japan got the best infrastructure or close to it ?
> 
> Gam



hence im moving there, the average download speed is 100mbit.  glorious fiber optic lines ¦3


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

pentastar111 said:


> Well, I'll tell you what...These guy's (Time/Warner A.K.A. Adelphia)already get $1160.00 a year out of me for my internet  (or internets for you Bush fans)....That's NOT including the additional charge for cable tv.... I think that's more than enough. I'm not complaining, yet.... now you raise this price closer to 1500 or 2 grand a year for internet alone and I'll get rid of my PC and go back to consoles.... F%ck 'em.



Thats awful.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 17, 2008)

Isnt Sweden similar ive heard users there getting awesome speeds?


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

kaneda said:


> hence im moving there, the average download speed is 100mbit.  glorious fiber optic lines ¦3



My friends that have lived there say its tough socially when you live there due to their Xenophobia. But if you can deal with that I would say its a great place to live.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 17, 2008)

I personally think this is rediculous imo were going back in time...dialup days only with DSL pay by the min type of crap..i mean seriously if i have a highend connection and i already pay like $200 a month for some crazy speed..if im DL'ing a linux distro and a pop up comes up saying that i have exceeded my bandwidth limit 95% done im gonna be sooooooooooo @#%$#^$#% i mean why throttle our connection? if they only log in for 5min why do i need to buy a limit of bandwidth? why not do what they already do? here in concord i have a 10mb/5mb connection but ilive downtown....if i start downlaoding huge files like distros nothing happens but if i keep doing that around 12-2pm i start getting throttled because these 5min users are logging on cause they gont out of work w/e that doesnt bother me around 6 ill have my speeds back...thats a much more efficient system..i mean i upload drivers distros and my utility DVD to my server....me and others like me at that rate with tha amount of traffic will go over their cap quicker than shit.


----------



## kaneda (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> My friends that have lived there say its tough socially when you live there due to their Xenophobia. But if you can deal with that I would say its a great place to live.



Heard the same thing, im not really a very social person, so it's all good.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> In The UK the same applies, BT own a lot of the exchanges and lines and unless u can get cable in your area your choices are limited and service within those choices differs a lot and as polaris said the old lines and such don't help, but atm there is a consistent argument about who will pay for the upgrades gov'ment, Isp's or BT neither will pay so stalemate for the moment. We should follow Japans lead but correct me if im wrong but hasnt japan got the best infrastructure or close to it ?
> 
> Gam



south korea and japan have the fastest available consumer internet. not because their systems of govt are better, but because they are much smaller countries than the US and they are not upgrading from an infrastructure that is 30 years old.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> south korea and japan have the fastest available consumer internet. not because their systems of govt are better, but because they are much smaller countries than the US and they are not upgrading from an infrastructure that is 30 years old.



that and the fact that they are the most technologically advanced countrys in the world...i mean maybe not in some aspects but in general you cant argue with me here some places are really poor harvest your own rice subsistance farming but were their is tech its always crazy advanced so even if they had to update their infastructure i dont think it would be that hard for them.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 17, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> that and the fact that they are the most technologically advanced countrys in the world...i mean maybe not in some aspects but in general you cant argue with me here some places are really poor harvest your own rice subsistance farming but were their is tech its always crazy advanced so even if they had to update their infastructure i dont think it would be that hard for them.



they certainly have some of the most advanced gadgets out there, but nothing we wouldnt have the in the US if we didnt have all the regulations slowing down companies trying to innovate. one of the coolest things they have in s korea is high quality tv on their GPS devices. also, our mobile phones seem to be generations behind theirs. it comes down to the fact that the US is a large country which makes it expensive to run line every where and upgrade cell towers.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> they certainly have some of the most advanced gadgets out there, but nothing we wouldnt have the in the US if we didnt have all the regulations slowing down companies trying to innovate. one of the coolest things they have in s korea is high quality tv on their GPS devices. also, our mobile phones seem to be generations behind theirs. it comes down to the fact that the US is a large country which makes it expensive to run line every where and upgrade cell towers.



ya i totally get what you mean speaking of cells my cousin went to tokyo for a bit he's an IT tech for a company and he went as a kind of week long vacation he told me that the cell phones their are CRAZY!!! makes the $500 cells here look like vtech toys.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 17, 2008)

Actually my sister partner went to South Korea late last year and he tolled me they dont have 3g with there mobile phones wich stunned me as i assumed theyd be miles infront of us in that department. Ofcourse that could be all different now.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 17, 2008)

Triprift said:


> Actually my sister partner went to South Korea late last year and he tolled me they dont have 3g with there mobile phones wich stunned me as i assumed theyd be miles infront of us in that department. Ofcourse that could be all different now.



probably because they like dumping their R&D money into weapons  or japan and china charge alot for the tech korea isnt that rich of a nation if i remember but i could be wrong  id love to go though


----------



## Kreij (Jun 17, 2008)

Meh ... They can charge whatever they want. If it gets too expensive I'll just use the internet at work and drop my home account.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jun 17, 2008)

This is similar to what they do in my country .. they dont want to improve the road network, so what do they do under the pretence of collecting taxes?

Extreme duties for cars ..the money you spend ona toyota corolla could buy a high end lexus.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 17, 2008)

Kreij said:


> Meh ... They can charge whatever they want. If it gets too expensive I'll just use the internet at work and drop my home account.



if they do that ill jsut go with a smaller company ill go back to TDC they have amazing speeds real cheap but their a small company...they have down time more than most...not alot infact maybe like twice a year only for a couple hourse but sometimes their service is flakey but for 10/10 for $70 hellz ya.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> they certainly have some of the most advanced gadgets out there, but nothing we wouldnt have the in the US if we didnt have all the regulations slowing down companies trying to innovate. one of the coolest things they have in s korea is high quality tv on their GPS devices. also, our mobile phones seem to be generations behind theirs. it comes down to the fact that the US is a large country which makes it expensive to run line every where and upgrade cell towers.



We have very few regulations in place that hold back companies from innovation. Where did you hear that from.

The Japanese have much more regulation than we do.

I agree with the cell towers since they have to buy or rent the land they have the towers on.

Its still nothing compared to the amount of revenue they generate. Those expenses are tax deductable.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> some companies might. i find blanket statements and conspiracy theories to be useless without facts.
> 
> In this thread alone we've already had complaints and reports of people getting less speed than they pay for... does it occur to you that the network infrastructure is not owned by the ISP, so they CANT do anything about it? the only options is to wait for whoever does own it to upgrade it, or reduce users usage.



that would be AT&T for DSL traffic in this country, they own at last check around 95% of all phone lines, also AT&T isn't cutting traffic, i have there 3mb/s package and i get 2.5 constant all the time amazing what you get when your with the person that own's the phone lines. As for Cable those are owned by the cable company in your area, look for the biggest or oldest possibly the same one, and its there lines actully. As for my DSL im not terribly worried about any of this, we signed a contract with SBC before the buy out from AT&T that stated we have a 3mb service, with unlimited usage for as long as we stay with the company, AT&T honored our contract by law when they bought SBC so i feel quite safe, untill i get bored with DSL they can't cap me, the contract forbids it nor can they charge me for using so much. Any SBC DSL user that got switched to AT&T has this contract. So in short though, DSL is AT&T phonelines most likly.

As for the situation i agree charging users for going over a certain amount will back fire at least in America, I know if they find someway to get around this contract and then say i can have 100gb per month ill be kinda pissed. Ever seen a wow update, or watched the traffic over it, or say steam ect. Online gaming will be affected alot by this and it hurts the compaines associated with it. Blizzard can be affected by this directly actully. How many people might close there accounts because they simply can't afford the bandwith surcharge for it anymore, remember WoW was Blizzards big break, you have to think about more than the net providers think about other things as well. What compaines and bussiness are tied to the internet, what about Direct To Drive, Netflix ect that stream media to PC or for heavens sake's what about the porn industry i can say i easily download 20gb of porn a month, what about that. ITs gonna hurt alot of others, when people get laid off at compaines becuase of declining profit that are net based, they can't pay for net service, so to balance it the ISP raises rates once more, followed by more users leaving the ISP and more bussiness loosing more money, its a cycle is excatly what it is. 

If they think i wont disconnect and read a paper/watch TV and go to blockbuster to get what i need and to read there mistaken. Ill start ordering PC Mag again to keep up to date and shop at fry's. This world can survive without the Net, but the ISP can not survive without the user. In Austrilia its your own fault your situation is like it is, what would those ISP's do if you simply disconnected for even a month, just everyone over there didnt use the net for a month and cancled there plans, what message would your ISP get, that its not right, thats what message they would get, if they didn't agree to change stay off for 2 months, 3 heck a year untill they change, its not that hard, man lived for internet for thousands of years, and there is no reason we can't do it agian. So you want to stop this, make it easy disconnect.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> In Austrilia its your own fault your situation is like it is, what would those ISP's do if you simply disconnected for even a month, just everyone over there didnt use the net for a month and cancled there plans, what message would your ISP get, that its not right, thats what message they would get, if they didn't agree to change stay off for 2 months, 3 heck a year untill they change, its not that hard, man lived for internet for thousands of years, and there is no reason we can't do it agian. So you want to stop this, make it easy disconnect.



If only things were that simple :shadedshu, majority of the time you are locked into a contract and if you wanted too " disconnect for a month or two " that would cost you more than the extra GB's because you would have to pay for the reminder of your contract up front, Unless you have a substantial reason and proof of faults etc.. then you are free to cancel your contract without penalty. Also business's would suffer as the Isp's dont just offer services to " casual " consumer users and that cost would again negate the extra fees. But In the UK ISP's will soon have to sign up to a code of practice that would allow people to chop and change ISP's if they are not getting the speed the  ISP is/was advertising...that among others in 1 of many benifits that should come with this, Is there something along those line in AUS, US ? 

Gam


----------



## Triprift (Jun 17, 2008)

There aint any contract with mine Gamy basically i can churn to another isp any time i want without penelty. I have no desire to do so at this stage as my plan and speeds im getting with Adsl2+ are excellent.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

Triprift said:


> There aint any contract with mine Gamy basically i can churn to another isp any time i want without penelty. I have no desire to do so at this stage as my plan and speeds im getting with Adsl2+ are excellent.



Hehe is there a code of practice out there that lets you do that ? because that how it is in the uk atm, I had awful trouble with BT and i had to post them my phone bills to prove i had rung the technical help line to complain( to enable me to migrate to another ISP)....even though my calls are with them too. Even though candles idea would give the ISP's something to mull over it would cost me atm. 

Gam


----------



## Mussels (Jun 17, 2008)

Triprift said:


> There aint any contract with mine Gamy basically i can churn to another isp any time i want without penelty. I have no desire to do so at this stage as my plan and speeds im getting with Adsl2+ are excellent.



to add more to this: most ISP's have a flat fee if you leave before 6 months is up. The average is $99.

A few of the nasty ones (telstra, mainly) insist you pay all remaining months on the plan out first. Telstra really do suck.

edit: this is talking about australia.


----------



## HTC (Jun 17, 2008)

Mussels said:


> *to add more to this: most ISP's have a flat fee if you leave before 6 months is up. The average is $99.*
> 
> A few of the nasty ones (telstra, mainly) insist you pay all remaining months on the plan out first. Telstra really do suck.



Here in Portugal, when i signed up, i had to keep my connection for a minimum of 1 year: it was in the contract ...


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 17, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> Hehe is there a code of practice out there that lets you do that ? because that how it is in the uk atm, I had awful trouble with BT and i had to post them my phone bills to prove i had rung the technical help line to complain( to enable me to migrate to another ISP)....even though my calls are with them too. Even though candles idea would give the ISP's something to mull over it would cost me atm.
> 
> Gam



Yeah we don't have contracts yet in NC, USA but I am not sure about the rest of the country.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 17, 2008)

so don't pay it, they can't really do anything alteast here in the US they can't not sure over there, unless its over 500US here they won't even bother with the courts its not worth court costs. Id break contract, tell them where to shove it, and inform your bank to stop auto payment if thats how you do it. Want to stop it bankrupt them.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> Yeah we don't have contracts yet in NC, USA but I am not sure about the rest of the country.



I had to google NC didnt know what state that was .
Lets hope it stays that way  I cant change for another 5 months.

Gam


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 17, 2008)

we signed a one year contract to not break service with SBC but in return we got a running contract now we can break whenever but untill we do we get a flat rate of 19.99 for a 3mb/s connection with no cap.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> so don't pay it, they can't really do anything alteast here in the US they can't not sure over there, unless its over 500US here they won't even bother with the courts its not worth court costs. Id break contract, tell them where to shove it, and inform your bank to stop auto payment if thats how you do it. Want to stop it bankrupt them.



I think its £100 here for courts but for anything less it usually debt collecting call centers or call agents... pain in the ass. I know that much because i refused to pay my 3G bill from 3 due to it being shit but that was a few years ago and after a few phone calls of me telling them i'm not paying it went away eventually.

Gam


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 17, 2008)

there aint no contracts when you don't pay fopr net.... oops I've said too much. well dang myneigbors are gonna get pissed when they suddeny reach their limit and they hadn't even got on the net yet. lol


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 17, 2008)

time to DL distros off the neighbors un protected network


----------



## Pinchy (Jun 17, 2008)

Put it this way, in my area I had/have the following options for internet:

Dial up
Wireless BB
Telstra cable (no, not optus cable).

Now I cant get ADSL2+ in my area and Telstra own all the cable lines (with Optus renting them). I cant even get Optus because their cable "zone" isnt in my area.

Bit of a monopoly?

Now that being said, I am pretty happy on my 8mbit plan (other than the 128k upload speed), where I get 8mbit any time of the day, depending on the server I dl off.


----------



## niko084 (Jun 17, 2008)

Polaris573 said:


> The internet infrastructure is in sore need of updating.  When you actually stop and think of it, except for backbone connections, most of the internet is made up of 1950s technology (Coaxial cable and telephone wire).  So until the infrastructure can be improved we will just be cramming more and more people onto two lane highways when what we need is interstates.  Sure we can put up toll gates and lower the speed limit, but that's not going to fix the underlying problem.



Well funny enough companies that own those trunk lines were given hundreds of millions of dollars though the '90s to update those lines so we wouldn't have this problem today, and they pocketed the money and didn't do jack. A lot of them are under investigation currently because of this...

***Still thinks the government should control communications soley, get rid of corporate money greed in something that is this problematic, and getting severely worse fast***


----------



## niko084 (Jun 17, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> time to DL distros off the neighbors un protected network



No doubt it will give a whole new world of laws on accessing networks without permission, even if unprotected. The lawsuits on hacked wifi connections, this should be good. Everyone start locking down by mac address or your screwed by anyone with a clue.


----------



## kaneda (Jun 17, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> south korea and japan have the fastest available consumer internet. not because their systems of govt are better, but because they are much smaller countries than the US and they are not upgrading from an infrastructure that is 30 years old.



More like Japan focused more on infastructure than military tech.


----------



## Polaris573 (Jun 17, 2008)

kaneda said:


> More like Japan focused more on infastructure than military tech.



Because they have the United States 7th fleet between them and the rest of the world and a treaty barring them from creating a powerful military.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 17, 2008)

As soon as one company doesn't charge for over useage, if people had half a brain cell they will just go over to them.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic
The title reminds me so much of the UK and its fuel and road tax " to gurb road congestion " its all bollocks at the end of the day .

Gam


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 17, 2008)

Polaris573 said:


> Because they have the United States 7th fleet between them and the rest of the world and a treaty barring them from creating a powerful military.



That is very true, but look where it has got them? They don't need to create a military, they can just cripple the world with their nano bots that they have made....

But no seriously, signing that treaty is the best thing that has ever happened, the most technologically advance country in the world. Period.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 17, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic
> The title reminds me so much of the UK and its fuel and road tax " to gurb road congestion " its all bollocks at the end of the day .
> 
> Gam



yup, and there is always a loophole to exploit!


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> yup, and there is always a loophole to exploit!



Ill drink to that


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 17, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> Mines £30 a month for 8mb dsl with a 50gb per month fair use policy,if i go over 50gb,my connection turns into a 64k connection



mines a similar package cept i pay £19 for 8mb a month with the same 'fair usage' policy. twice ive had my net capped at 128k because i went over the 'limit' 

some ISPs can be pretty crafty some thing 20Gb a month is good then some others think 50gb ish is good.

I know a guy whose with the exact same ISP as me, on the exact same package & he leaves his pc on downloading day & night & they havent said sh1t to him.

-------

I agree with the whole 'system upgrade' thing especially here in the UK some of the cables & sh1t we got in the ground date back to pre-war days not to mention our underground transport system.

its the same thing - they were given a ton of money to upgrade it & what did they do? the pocket'd the money & done nothing & NOW after a few tragic fatal accidents have happend regarding all the rail tracks & signals etc etc now they decide they want to do something about it.

but how do u shut down a whole country/city while you shut down the underground rail system for repairs????

there are some people who still have V.I.P seats high up that shouldnt be there the whole system is corrupt


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 17, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> Charging by the Byte to Curb Internet Traffic
> The title reminds me so much of the UK and its fuel and road tax " to gurb road congestion " its all bollocks at the end of the day .
> 
> Gam



there is a way out of that - buy a few acres of land - grow some wheat or whatever shit they grow that they use to make biodegradable diesel

I think they done the exact same thing on the TV program Top Gear.  

or u can always pay a few hundred for a cooking oil engine mod to run your car on corn or vegetable oil


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 17, 2008)

I think they are going to put the new wiring in the sewer systems. Although the london sewer system itself is in need of updating.


----------



## HTC (Jun 17, 2008)

FreedomEclipse said:


> there is a way out of that - buy a few acres of land - grow some wheat or whatever shit they grow that they use to make biodegradable diesel
> 
> I think they done the exact same thing on the TV program Top Gear.
> 
> or u can always pay a few hundred for a cooking oil engine mod to run your car on corn *or vegetable oil*



Here in Portugal, a dude was using cooking oil (used only once for potatoes and such) and, during a "police STOP operation", they found out that he was using cooking oil instead of gas and they fined him for it.

It get's better, though (i would call it ridiculous): the police themselves didn't know what the fine value was but they still impounded the car. The car was impounded for quite a while (weeks), but i don't know the final outcome of this 

The car owner protested, and protested ... but no good. It even was in the 20H00 TV news and all ...


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 17, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> That is very true, but look where it has got them? They don't need to create a military, they can just cripple the world with their nano bots that they have made....
> 
> But no seriously, signing that treaty is the best thing that has ever happened, the most technologically advance country in the world. Period.



and they owe it to America, honestly. They are not allowed to leave there little country with military support for another 37 years unless America say's they can. They have the worlds strongest superpower making sure no one touches them. Japan's success is linked to America, if not for us they'd still be the Empire of the Rising Sun and still 20 years behind everyone else


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 17, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> and they owe it to America, honestly. They are not allowed to leave there little country with military support for another 37 years unless America say's they can. They have the worlds strongest superpower making sure no one touches them. Japan's success is linked to America, if not for us they'd still be the Empire of the Rising Sun and still 20 years behind everyone else



The world does not revolve around America Candle. Every good thing that happens is not because of you. Japan could have quiet easily become a baron wasteland after you nuked it twice but the people rallied too and rebuilt. The Japanese people is who you want to thank.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

FreedomEclipse said:


> there is a way out of that - buy a few acres of land - grow some wheat or whatever shit they grow that they use to make biodegradable diesel
> 
> I think they done the exact same thing on the TV program Top Gear.
> 
> or u can always pay a few hundred for a cooking oil engine mod to run your car on corn or vegetable oil



Top Gear  clarckson is a legend. but yeah I would need to get a diesel and i dont have any land , And i thought using cooking oil was illegal ??

Gam


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 17, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> The world does not revolve around America Candle. Every good thing that happens is not because of you. Japan could have quiet easily become a baron wasteland after you nuked it twice but the people rallied too and rebuilt. The Japanese people is who you want to thank.



they rebuit there country, your joking arn't you please tell me your joking?



> The U.S. and MacArthur, appointed the country's military governor, were about to help the shell-shocked Japanese. MacArthur had been given emperorlike powers to rebuild and reshape Japan's ancient civilization. The U.S. occupation, from 1945 to 1952, worked so well that Japan quickly re-emerged as a world economic power.





> The reformed Japanese government played a key role in the recovery, by identifying industries that could be developed domestically and investing heavily in them. The U.S. became a central market for sleek Japanese goods, such as automobiles and electronics.





http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_11_135/ai_n18615415


read it, we rebuilt japan, we wrote there constition, we installed there government, we opened there education and econmy and we made Japan excatly what is today, I understand US history isn't taught over there, but do some research first.

As for Nuking them, that was war and they deserved it, also there would have been more dead if America invaded, also don't forget that Winston Churchhill agreed with Presient Truman to drop that thing, they knew how many lives would be lost if we invaded, 5million troops from the allied forces, unknown Japanese Civilians as there military its self was almost completly gone, but they refused to surrender. After we nuked them we rebuilt them.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 17, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> they rebuit there country, your joking arn't you please tell me your joking?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




your saying that the US built every house? every road? made every new piece of technology? wow that is impressive.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 17, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> your saying that the US built every house? every road? made every new piece of technology? wow that is impressive.



we got them started and yes the occupation force was responsible for rebuilding the cities


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jun 17, 2008)

I have a 250GB HDD that is asking to be filled...


----------



## Polaris573 (Jun 17, 2008)

I'm sorry for my off hand remark about Japan.  Please get this thread back on topic, it's not for discussion of foreign policy and history.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 17, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> we got them started and yes the occupation force was responsible for rebuilding the cities



I whole heartedly agree with you there, but the US haven't been there rebuilding for the past i don't know how many years. And do you know the reason why they pumped so much money into Japan and Europe after the war? So that they can have some economical competitors. anyway i dont want to turn this into political debate.

on tpoic:

Yes the ISP's are bad for charging, quite probably through their own greed which i believe is a very wrong thing to do but then every business exists to make a profit or else what would be the point. 
If they are saying that these new costs are going to help rebuild the internet and improve it via faster speeds and increased security, and only 50% of that statement turns out to be true then at least it is a start in the right direction. I don't believe that they should charge for over usage when there seems to be no increased cost to the actual firm itself but lets all agree the whole system needs upgrading, and if some of that money is going to upgrade it then hurah for the rest of us.

also, i think that there should only be one firm responsible for doing this upgrading and what not, or else i fear a new blu-ray/HD war will ensue with each firm saying that they have the best internet support and provide the best speed when in reality there is a very small difference between them.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 17, 2008)

I think the ISP's and movie studios are working together: Limit/kill bandwidth increase blu-ray disk sales mwhahaha.

Gam


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 17, 2008)

If that is true then that is truly against some sort of anti competition law. And even so how many of these ISP's are now doing this charge per byte approach? There will always be one that doesn't follow the crowd and it will be that one that will then acquire all the customers. However then the whole contract thing may be brought into line here with a no get out clause for "x" period of time.

If this does kill downloading, which it may not if downloading overuse is less than the cost of a CD (assuming here that it will be many of the illegal downloaders that are responsible for the shear number of  downloads) then they this may stimulate the economy a little if people once again buy CD's and such

Also another thought, how much is a game demo going to cost you if these charges are brought in, same goes for beta testers, will the game developers reimburse you for the extra cost as a thanks for helping with the game?


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 17, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> that would be AT&T for DSL traffic in this country, they own at last check around 95% of all phone lines, also AT&T isn't cutting traffic, i have there 3mb/s package and i get 2.5 constant all the time amazing what you get when your with the person that own's the phone lines. As for Cable those are owned by the cable company in your area, look for the biggest or oldest possibly the same one, and its there lines actully. As for my DSL im not terribly worried about any of this, we signed a contract with SBC before the buy out from AT&T that stated we have a 3mb service, with unlimited usage for as long as we stay with the company, AT&T honored our contract by law when they bought SBC so i feel quite safe, untill i get bored with DSL they can't cap me, the contract forbids it nor can they charge me for using so much. Any SBC DSL user that got switched to AT&T has this contract. So in short though, DSL is AT&T phonelines most likly.
> 
> As for the situation i agree charging users for going over a certain amount will back fire at least in America, I know if they find someway to get around this contract and then say i can have 100gb per month ill be kinda pissed. Ever seen a wow update, or watched the traffic over it, or say steam ect. Online gaming will be affected alot by this and it hurts the compaines associated with it. Blizzard can be affected by this directly actully. How many people might close there accounts because they simply can't afford the bandwith surcharge for it anymore, remember WoW was Blizzards big break, you have to think about more than the net providers think about other things as well. What compaines and bussiness are tied to the internet, what about Direct To Drive, Netflix ect that stream media to PC or for heavens sake's what about the porn industry i can say i easily download 20gb of porn a month, what about that. ITs gonna hurt alot of others, when people get laid off at compaines becuase of declining profit that are net based, they can't pay for net service, so to balance it the ISP raises rates once more, followed by more users leaving the ISP and more bussiness loosing more money, its a cycle is excatly what it is.
> 
> If they think i wont disconnect and read a paper/watch TV and go to blockbuster to get what i need and to read there mistaken. Ill start ordering PC Mag again to keep up to date and shop at fry's. This world can survive without the Net, but the ISP can not survive without the user. In Austrilia its your own fault your situation is like it is, what would those ISP's do if you simply disconnected for even a month, just everyone over there didnt use the net for a month and cancled there plans, what message would your ISP get, that its not right, thats what message they would get, if they didn't agree to change stay off for 2 months, 3 heck a year untill they change, its not that hard, man lived for internet for thousands of years, and there is no reason we can't do it agian. So you want to stop this, make it easy disconnect.


 Fricking well said.


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 17, 2008)

WhiteLotus said:


> If that is true then that is truly against some sort of anti competition law. And even so how many of these ISP's are now doing this charge per byte approach? There will always be one that doesn't follow the crowd and it will be that one that will then acquire all the customers. However then the whole contract thing may be brought into line here with a no get out clause for "x" period of time.
> 
> If this does kill downloading, which it may not if downloading overuse is less than the cost of a CD (assuming here that it will be many of the illegal downloaders that are responsible for the shear number of  downloads) then they this may stimulate the economy a little if people once again buy CD's and such
> 
> Also another thought, how much is a game demo going to cost you if these charges are brought in, same goes for beta testers, will the game developers reimburse you for the extra cost as a thanks for helping with the game?


 That will suck for demo's...I don't do alot of torrents...I have a few times, very few. I can count the number on one hand...but 99.9% of the time I buy my games and my software...I'll play the demo's when available...I already pay a "premium" price for my internet service...If they start making this lttle "scheme" the norm, like candle 86 stated... I will just drop the "net" and go back to reading more (I already get plenty of PC related mags) watching the tube again and playing "single" player games...F^ck 'em right in their greedy necks...pricks..


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 17, 2008)

@ FreedomEclipse,If i download after midnight,my isp does'nt could it towards my fair use limit.The problem is,it forces people to download during the night,thereby choking up the system on a night.

My isp was the first place in the uk to get dsl,because the karoo(torch communications) network is so small (compared to the rest of the uk) and closed it was ideal for testing.Apparently we will also get the chance to try adsl2 first as well.

The problem is,in this area we can only get a connection from karoo and no one else,not bt or virgin etc.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jun 17, 2008)

HTC said:


> Here in Portugal, a dude was using cooking oil (used only once for potatoes and such) and, during a "police STOP operation", they found out that he was using cooking oil instead of gas and they fined him for it.
> 
> It get's better, though (i would call it ridiculous): the police themselves didn't know what the fine value was but they still impounded the car. The car was impounded for quite a while (weeks), but i don't know the final outcome of this
> 
> The car owner protested, and protested ... but no good. It even was in the 20H00 TV news and all ...



that sucks lol there is nothing illegal about it.

the only people that would possibly declare it illegal is the government because oh were not paying petrol duty to run our car & their going to go hungry for a few weeks....

seriously - here in the UK where:

-> buying a car = expensive due to European Value Added Tax (VAT) system 

-> road tax = expensive (& its gonna get more expensive soon i hear)

-> Insurance = hmmmm 50/50 can be high can be low but prices will probably go up once there are less drivers on the road to insure (they need to make money etc etc)

-> Petrol = expensive at over 1UK P.sterling per liter - its not the petrol that makes it expensive its the 65% (roughly) 'petrol duty/tax' that we have to pay the government which somehow goes to funding taxi rides from London to Scotland or ridiculously long all around the world flights just so u can pop in & say hello or goodbye to some people (Tony Blair - go figure) 

our tax's are routed to & used for something totally unnecessary & unrelated to politics & yet they have the guts to come back to the people who pay for their glamorous life styles & their 5x 1mil houses, flats or studios & demand that we pay them more money???!


its not illegal to run a car on vegetable oil - it doesn't create any emissions other then leaving your car smelling like a fish & chip shop. 

that man didn't deserve to be treated like that


errrrrrrrr rant over!!!!

::EDIT::

doing some research into the matter - using vegetable oil in engines was classed as legal in July 2007, however you have to keep the millage  roughly to 24000 or 25000miles a year (or something like that) before u are taxed  - or failing that your supposed to declare it to them & they will tax u anyway - but it is no way illegal since vegetable oil is classed as bio-fuel


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 18, 2008)

Polaris573 said:


> Because they have the United States 7th fleet between them and the rest of the world and a treaty barring them from creating a powerful military.



That was lifted.



WhiteLotus said:


> The world does not revolve around America Candle. Every good thing that happens is not because of you. Japan could have quiet easily become a baron wasteland after you nuked it twice but the people rallied too and rebuilt. The Japanese people is who you want to thank.



If it wasn't for the US and Russia your whole country would be run by Nazi's. America protected the UK, despite the large casualties we suffered defending ourselves from your countries military a couple hundred years before in the revolutionary war.

Without the usage of Nukes, many more americans and japanese would have died because the japanese were willing to fight till the death of every last one of their people because they believed their Leader was chosen by God. Even more so than the Pope. But once we lied to them by saying we had a dozen more nukes to completely destroy there whole country the Emporer decided to call it all off and surrender. His army almost successfully staged a coup to overthrow him when he was recording the message to completely surrender with documentation. The Nukes saved more lives than they had taken.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 18, 2008)

Candle, does your DSL speeds go passed 6MB DL? I cant get cable out here, and the highest AT&T goes here is 6MB DL and 768Kbps UL. Id like to get 8, 10, 15 but Im not able to  Also, Ive never got anywhere near 6mb DL or even 4 or 3 for that matter and Im not but 4 blocks from my CO. Its all infrastructure. I cant wait for this all to get updated. Ill be happy with 20MB down and be good to go. I download alot and pretty much everyday Im torrenting with either downloads or uploads. Ill be severely hampered if this takes affect :/


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 18, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> Candle, does your DSL speeds go passed 6MB DL? I cant get cable out here, and the highest AT&T goes here is 6MB DL and 768Kbps UL. Id like to get 8, 10, 15 but Im not able to  Also, Ive never got anywhere near 6mb DL or even 4 or 3 for that matter and Im not but 4 blocks from my CO. Its all infrastructure. I cant wait for this all to get updated. Ill be happy with 20MB down and be good to go. I download alot and pretty much everyday Im torrenting with either downloads or uploads. Ill be severely hampered if this takes affect :/



they offer 6mb yes but where happy with 3mb here, CSS and WoW dont lag and most servers cap bandwith anyway so im happy with my speed. The highest in Fort Worth is 6mb/s and i get a stead 2.5 all day long


----------



## Haytch (Jun 18, 2008)

Ill like to open up with;
Dial-up speed should be deemed illegal!  No government should support such a crappy speed.

I use to have ADSL 256/64 Unlimited for a while, and 65Gb a month was decent, but 25.6kb a second is disgusting in itself.  Now i have 1.5 ADSL which gives me 150kb a second with a 25.6kb upload.  <--< Still crappy.   I pay $70au a month and am allowed to download a total of 60Gb a month, with 20gb of that in peak and 40gb ( midnight to midday ) for offpeak.

Im not allowed to get ADSL2+ in my area because we dont support it, and i cant get Cable in my area because we dont support it.

I would gratefully exchange my 60Gb download limit for a decent speed like bloody 100mb!

Knowing of Kensai Electronics over in Japan ( Japans second largest Electical company ) having a true 1Tb upload and download speed between their 2 buildings gives me hope for a brighter future.

Btw, 60Gb a month isnt enough, even 200Gb a month wouldnt be enough.

I think a fair deal would be.

No peak/offpeak

True 100mb download speeds
True 100mb upload speeds

1Tb a month download / upload limit

$100au a month


Lucky im not President.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 18, 2008)

Haytch said:


> Ill like to open up with;
> Dial-up speed should be deemed illegal!  No government should support such a crappy speed.
> 
> I use to have ADSL 256/64 Unlimited for a while, and 65Gb a month was decent, but 25.6kb a second is disgusting in itself.  Now i have 1.5 ADSL which gives me 150kb



256Kb/s is 32KB/s. 1500Kb/s (0r 1536Kb as its meant to be) is 192KB/s. you divide by 8, not by 10.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 18, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> That was lifted.
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for the US and Russia your whole country would be run by Nazi's.



And we thank the US/Russia but lets not forget the men and women on both sides of the pond who died defending their country's . Lets not let this slip into an all out flame war, its a forum we like to use so lets take some responsibility in our posts and get the thread back on topic. Give the Mods a break .

Gam


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jun 18, 2008)

Just dont get me started on the americans during WWII.

Britain is taxed on everything,you dont wanna emigrate here with your life savings,believe me.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 18, 2008)

Oh please get started, Im very much interested in your opinion Tiggerrific


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 18, 2008)

tigger69 said:


> Just dont get me started on the americans during WWII.
> 
> Britain is taxed on everything,you dont wanna emigrate here with your life savings,believe me.



your right we don't im not a big fan of Europe to begin with, don't get me started on yall either, last time i did i got a 3 day ban


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 18, 2008)

I like Europe and many of its policies. But its immigration and politically correct attitude towards militant muslims is a bit spineless. I hate to see Europe go soft, and get walked on. Native Europeans should demand respect by the immigrants or you will have to deal with riots and crime rates increasing dramatically.

I like what Europe is currently and fear what it is becoming because of outside influences(foreign and domestic).


----------



## pentastar111 (Jun 19, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> I like Europe and many of its policies. But its immigration and politically correct attitude towards militant muslims is a bit spineless. I hate to see Europe go soft, and get walked on. Native Europeans should demand respect by the immigrants or you will have to deal with riots and crime rates increasing dramatically.
> 
> I like what Europe is currently and fear what it is becoming because of outside influences(foreign and domestic).


 That's the exact way I feel about the U.S.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 19, 2008)

pentastar111 said:


> That's the exact way I feel about the U.S.



Yes, unfortunately California does the same thing as Europe. But in NC and most of the country, its not tolerated.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 19, 2008)

Lol how exactly did the thread get from limiting internet traffic to Europe US ww2 stuff again.


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 19, 2008)

DaedalusHelios said:


> I like Europe and many of its policies. But its immigration and politically correct attitude towards militant muslims is a bit spineless. I hate to see Europe go soft, and get walked on. Native Europeans should demand respect by the immigrants or you will have to deal with riots and crime rates increasing dramatically.
> 
> I like what Europe is currently and fear what it is becoming because of outside influences(foreign and domestic).



Thats right on the money " politically correct human rights " bull shit, we should riot and become a republic .

But on topic, Trip ive got no idea what limiting internet traffic has to do with politics but its " human rights "  

Gam


----------



## Polaris573 (Jun 19, 2008)

If you people cannot stay on topic, I am going to have to close this thread.


----------



## PedoBearApproves (Jun 20, 2008)

Polaris573 said:


> Not everyone uses the internet for the same purposes.  Some simply check their e-mail and/or scan the news for the latest headlines and promptly log off, while others download gigabytes of data every day, if not every hour.  For years the internet was an egalitarian service with both types of users paying an equal amount despite the amount of bandwidth they used.  Now it seems the major ISPs are preparing to implement some form of bandwidth limiting for users that utilize the most.  Earlier this month Time Warner cable began a trial program of “Internet metering” in one Texas city.  Customer will be asked to select a monthly plan with a certain amount of allotted bandwidth.  When a user exceeds the bandwidth of their plan he or she will be forced to pay a surcharge, similar to exceeding the allotted minutes of a cell phone plan.  The same week Time Warner announced its plan Comcast announced that it will be expanding its plan to manage Internet traffic, which involves slowing down the connections of the heaviest bandwidth users.  While, as of yet, AT&T places no restrictions on bandwidth they stated that limits on heavy use were inevitable and are considering pricing based on data volume.  The three companies insist these forms of billing will insure fair access to the internet for all users.  Critics of the bandwidth limits say that metering and capping network used could hold back the inevitable convergence of television, computers, and the Internet.  Internet metering could have serious consequences for companies such as Blockbuster and Netflix who are providing more and more downloadable/streaming content.
> 
> When asked how many gigabytes an average customer uses, Time Warner would only reveal that 95 percent of customers use under 40 gigabytes per month.  This means that 5 percent of customers use more than 50 percent of the network, and it is assumed that many of those people are sharing copyrighted video and music.  Only time will tell whether these bandwidth limiting plans will provide fair internet access to everyone like the ISPs insist or whether they will stunt the growth of the internet economy.  It seems that bandwidth limiting is here to stay and will most likely get worse, at least for the time being.
> 
> Source: The New York Times



this is built of fail, they try this on me, well i signed an unlimmited contact for 6mbit cable, if i dont get the service, i know a few lawers who will likely be willing to pickup a class acction suit against comcast, i mean they sell you "unlimited" and set speed, then cut you off after you download to much?

i download alot of 100% leigal content, over 40gb a month easy, i also havent seen verizion saying they are gonna pull this on fios users, it would be a bad move since they are selling unlimited 15mbit connections........

we shal see how this goes, sounds like another bs scheme to stop people from getting what they signed up for.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

telstra got away with that in australia, because they only reduce the speed and dont cut it off entirely.

Their argument (what won in courts) was the following:
5% of users use 50% of the bandwidth. If we shape those users, 95% of our customer base gets a better service. Also, as the internet is NOT disconnected they can still keep downloading as much as they want at a reduced speed... which is unlimited on our end (only by the speed itself)


----------



## PedoBearApproves (Jun 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> telstra got away with that in australia, because they only reduce the speed and dont cut it off entirely.
> 
> Their argument (what won in courts) was the following:
> 5% of users use 50% of the bandwidth. If we shape those users, 95% of our customer base gets a better service. Also, as the internet is NOT disconnected they can still keep downloading as much as they want at a reduced speed... which is unlimited on our end (only by the speed itself)



wouldnt fly here with the contract comcast gives you.

also the way comcasts networks nodes are setup, at least around here theres no big drain on other peoples speed for downloading or uploading alot, the problem with cable came in back when they had huge area's on 1 node, so everybody in that area shared the limmited bandwith that one node could manage.

this is just a way for isp's to try and avoid being sued or hit by the fcc for using stuff like that sandvine p2p shaping crap, they had to dump it as did some other isp's because the govt was looking into it.

im all for net nutrality, dont penlize me because i acctualy want to use what i pay for, I dont abuse the connection, i dont download 24/7 365, but i sure as hell go over a 40gb cap each month just watching streamed media and downloading software updates!!!


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

well what will happen is that the average users price will drop.

For example if you pay $50 a month for unlimited now, they'll probably offer  $40 a month for 20GB, and $60 a month for 80GB - its not like they'll leave you no options, they'll give you a way to get more downloads if you want them.

This is to stop those troublesome users who download 200GB or more a month... my ISP reported users who were managing that, at one point.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> telstra got away with that in australia, because they only reduce the speed and dont cut it off entirely.
> 
> Their argument (what won in courts) was the following:
> 5% of users use 50% of the bandwidth. If we shape those users, 95% of our customer base gets a better service. Also, as the internet is NOT disconnected they can still keep downloading as much as they want at a reduced speed... which is unlimited on our end (only by the speed itself)



But selling a service in the first place, while promising certain speeds, should have a network ready to give it to everybody at the same time. What if your cable charged you by usage and if you watched more tv than the rest of us you would get less channels after you watched it beyond the set amount they see fit.

Its just a case of the companies to lazy to upgrade the infastructure or wanting more money with a fee based scheme to get you paying more than you thought you were going to have to.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

thats just it, its impossible for them to keep up. in the last year, internet usage has gone around 5x the usual average. With the invention of youtube and streaming HDTV online... usage skyrocketed. They cant keep up.

Thats why solutions like this are coming up, its just that its already happened in a few other countries (australia for one) due to the same thing... we had a shit network, and the government/telstra refused to fix it so we had shit net until now when competition finally arrived (independant ADSL2+)


----------



## Triprift (Jun 20, 2008)

Ummm we still have shit net compared to numerous other countries and pricing is crap too :/.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

Triprift said:


> Ummm we still have shit net compared to numerous other countries and pricing is crap too :/.



not if you look at ADSL2+... we actually beat what hte majority of the USA can get there.


----------

