I agree to Idea Bandwidth caps should be illegal
Voting Disabled

157 votes

I disagree to Idea Bandwidth caps should be illegal

Rank20

Idea#42

This idea is active.
Reasonable Network Management »

Bandwidth caps should be illegal

No bandwidth caps and no unreasonable price increases. ISP's cap bandwidth not to save money, but to increase profits by charging people more for additional bandwidth. My friend works for an ISP and it cost the ISP next to nothing to provide you with service especially if the network is well used. The money you pay is almost entirely profits for the ISP.

When an ISP caps bandwidth, it is a way to cause people to use their service much ,less for fear of going over the bandwidth cap. it also stops most users from using online media services which makes them more likely to use the TV services provided by the ISP, for example, comcast put a bandwidth cap and since areas that they serve, there often the only broadband provider as well as cable tv provider, A user may be forced to give up netflix and hulu and many other forms of online content in favor of paying more for cable tv.

Other ISP's also secretly throttle bandwidth to reduce service quality for content that competes with their own services, so you think your 20mbit fiber connection is giving you a good connection but it turns out that you get good network performance for most content except content that competes with the company like voip (if you do a benchmark using apps like ixchariot to simulate certain types of network traffic between 2 systems with the same internet connection, for example 2 fios customers both with a 5mbit upload and you see that transferring dummy data gives around 4.8mbit/s but voip is being throttled to like 4KB/s until you encrypt it through a VPN then it is a problem.

ISP's need to treat content fairly and also not cap bandwidth . many ISP's are threatening bandwidth caps and this will destroy the internet is if it done on a large scale.

Submitted by inuyasha6332 4 years ago

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)

Comments (33)

  1. If an ISP dropped their marketing garbage of "up to speed X" and charged you the rate it actually took to carry your traffic, would you still say this? Would you still agree if that rate was a monthly moving target? Oversubscription *is* the fundamental traffic model for packet-based networks, and it costs real money to pump in more capacity...

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  2. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    ISP's have no reason to do bandwidth caps because their own network bandwidth is not capped.

    A isp pays for 1 super fast internet connection which is shared to millions of consumers.

    If you research which ISP, your ISP uses, the prices are often very high for a connection capable of handling supplying bandwidth to consumers, often prices ranging up to $100 thousand dollars + to even a million dollars depending on how many pairs of connections you add to handle the consumers.

    but if you have a few hundred thousand to a few million subscribers to your service and you charge each of them like $60 to $100 each month, you can easily cover your bandwidth cost.

    When I checked the companies that provide bandwidth to verizon and comcast and other companies like this none of them cap your bandwidth. they simply offer you a set network speed eg, OC-48 - OC-255 connection with unlimited bandwidth

    the problem with these ISP's is that they oversell their service. If you take this to a small scale, for example suppose you are starting your own ISP and you buy your self a 100mbit connection for about $300 a month, then you get 20 people to sign up for your service and you offer each 5mbit/s upload and download for $ 30 per month. you will now be getting $600 a month from your customers

    but suppose 20 more people wanted to sign up. you can add an extra 100mbit line and charge them $30 a month but no because you are a evil ISP ceo and your solution is to add them to the current 100mbit line and you are now selling bandwidth you don't have. the good thing for you about this is when you sell bandwidth that you don't have, you get 100% profit from it.

    so now you have 40 people on your 100mbit connection and each of them are paying $30 a month for a 5mbit connection

    but then they notice something, in the afternoon, their internet is very slow because there is not enough bandwidth to go around. A not so evil isp will fix this by adding a extra line or at least a extra 50mbit connection but this will cost them more money

    the evil current ISP's will simply throttle traffic so your customers are paying for a 5mbit connection but there only able to use 1mbit of it for web browsing and downloading but can use all 5mbit/s of the bandwidth when sending unencrypted PDF files directly to another IP address.

    (this is what ISP's today do, they throttle bandwidth intensive traffic and leave low bandwidth traffic alone. this allows them to sell you a high speed connection but offer you like 10% of the speed you are paying for all of the things you normally do on line and only allow your full bandwidth when doing something like sending a email or something else that doesn't need that speed)

    So now you are throttling and because this now freed up some bandwidth, you add 40 more customers to your service. Now customers are again complaining about having dialup speeds on their 5mbit connection. so your solution now because you are a evil ISP ceo, you start bandwidth caps now all customers are limited to 5GB of bandwidth per month and this us upload and download combined and since a TCP connection is a 3 way handshake connection, you cant send or recieve data with out sending, TCP connections must send ACK SYN FIN RST packets to maintain a connection

    you download a 100MB file and you use about 120MB of bandwidth

    because of this bandwidth cap, your subscribers will be too scared to stream tv shows and movies online so they now use their connection for checking email and reading news articles and stuff for school work.

    this has now freed up more bandwidth and you can add more customers.

    This is what ISP's do just on a larger scale in order to maximize profits.

    if they design their network around not overselling then they will only make like 40-50% profit (when googling, on a very large scale like with comcast or verizon, it only cost them about 2-3 dollars a month to provide you with a 50mbit connection because of how large their network is and the bandwidth packages that take out)

    ISP's love to oversell because it is more profitable.

    think of it like owning a pizza shop that charges $10 for a large pizza, but you only have 1 large pizza available in your shot and 5 people order the large pizza. so what you do, you take $10 from each of them and offer them a thin slice of pizza instead of the entire pizza. so for the production cost of 1 pizza, you get 5 purchases, the first initial purchase of the pizza gives you a 60% profit and the 4 additional purchases are 100% profit

    this is what a ISP does to increase profit.

    they do this because there is generally little to no competition, in most parts of the country, it is like this you either get comcast or dialup or you move somewhere else and it is either verizon or dialup or you move somewhere else and it is either time warner or dialup

    for almost everyone, dialup is not enough so it is not a option, so the ISP in your area has nothing to compete with so they have no reason to offer you good service.

    Where I live, I have verizon DSL, I had the 3mbit package and I used to get about 300-500kbit/s down and 90kbit/s up until time warner became available and a week later I got 2.75mbit/s down and 720kbit/s up (time warner was offering 5mbit/s but cost more than twice as much)

    Poor government control has allowed ISP's for the most part to be very anti-competitive and this hurts the consumers.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  3. If an ISP did not cap bandwidth it could not guarantee to a customer a minimum bandwidth. Why harm those consumers?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  4. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    If a ISP is in a position where they can oversell then they will, when you sell bandwidth that you do have. you only make a *under* 100% profit

    but if you sell bandwidth that you don't have (oversell and compensate by throttling and capping) you get 100% profit because you are selling something that that you don't have.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  5. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    @Dwight

    suppose you live in an apartment building where each apartment is identical and rend is $1600 a month. and suppose you stay in the apartment 20 hours a day while your neighbor stays in the house 1 hour a day, should your neighbor pay less rent?

    Suppose your rent is $1600 a month and then the owner of the building comes up to you and says that you have to pay $2400 a month because you are using your apartment 20 hours a day while other people in the building only use their apartment for 1 hour a day. would you find that fair?

    if they promise unlimited bandwidth then thats what it is unlimited.

    it shouldn't matter how much you use.

    I bet you would be pissed if if you rented a apartment and you got a rent increase and also a cap on how many hours you can be in your apartment each day because you are using your apartment "too much"

    how would you feel if you bought windows 7 ultimate for $300 and a month later microsoft sent you a bill for $100 and also did something to make windows only run for 5 hours a day because the average user of the software is only using their computer 5 hours a day and you are suing your PC 12 hours a day?

    if they offer you a 5mbit connection then that is your 5 mbit/s and what you do with it or how much you use it is up to you. The only valid reason a ISP can possible claim you are sing your internet too much is if you buy a mbit connection from them and you do something to get 20mbit/s out of your ISP while paying for the 5mbit package.

    If you buy a 2000 square foot house you can use as much of the 2000 square foot as you want, the person or company that you bought the house from cant complain that you are using the house too much.

    you buy a connection speed and thats your bandwidth, you use it as much as you want.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  6. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    @Joe Provo

    the 100mbit thing was a example, I was taking this to a small scale to better explain

    for example in a economics textbook, when explaining a banks balance sheet, they always use $100

    what bank do you know that only has $100

    they just use it because it is small scale and easier to grasp

    I was explaining how a ISP oversells their service.

    they can oversell because theres no government regulation that prevents them from doing it, a ISP is a business of making money and if overselling is profitable then they will do it.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  7. @inuyasha6332

    You are still wildly incorrect in your simplification. In all but the single-point networks, there is not single link [and that would be a very badly run network]. The costs come in at the complexity. There are many links of different distances and costs, all loaded to different desgrees as the traffic ebbs and flows. You cannot provision 1:1 end user bandwidth to all possible points. IP doesn't expect that - TCP windowing and backoff exists to manage congestion. That is the environment in which large amounts of money were sunk into infrastructure.

    When greedy-algorithm applications come along to unfairly just try and use every bit they could, folks pancicked and reacted, with unfortunately short-sighted approaches. The ones with money also planned to build for more.

    I have been there, designing and building ISP networks from 1994-2007. No *Internet* company (maybe old bell-heads in NJ) seriously *wants* to spend very expensive staff time messing around with throttling and capping, more accountants and lawyers. That *eats* profits. The all-you-can-eat providers will have to give it up, offer a few tiers they can manage and get over it.

    You and a lot of other folks will be disappointed when your demands for legislation bring about

    - more middleboxes [to ensure 'fairness']

    - a telco-like, pricey and non-elastic point-to-point last mile [to ensure your bandwidth demands]

    - tiered service more expensive than you pay now for less [to cover the cost of existing service and overbuild of capacity just in case Dwight moves in where his mother used to live]

    - if you're lucky, you'll have a burstable service available [but with monthly variation in costs reflecting the variation in delivering service, much as you get with gasoline or oil]

    For the most part, people here want to vent and that's ok. Just be careful what you wish for...

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  8. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    For me I just don't want a loophole filled law to be used, it needs to cover beyond a doubt that it wants to protect the consumer from, if they stop ISP's from throttling, then many would cap bandwidth because both will get the desired result.

    While I understand how complex a ISP's network is, it still doesn't add up to their prices and the service they provide.

    Network management needs to be transparent which means, if I am paying for a 5mbit connection, then no matter what I do on the connection, I will have the full 5mbits of my connection to use on the task that I want to do.

    they can manage all they want the customer just wants to get what they paid for. if they get a certain connection speed then they want that speed available for everything (with respect to some endpoints may not have enough connection speed t supply you with the speed you want. if I have a 5mbit connection then I want to be able to hit that speed with anything. I don't want to have to use a VPN to get better speeds because a ISP decided that bandwidth intensive tasks should not be allowed to reach the speeds I am paying for.

    I mainly manage networks for small businesses and it is generally simple for me to setup QOS. While it can be much more complex for a ISP, at the end of the day all it takes is the order from a higher up and the networking team will do the QOS and other necessary bandwidth management needed to meet the demand of their boss.

    The purpose of all of the dirty tricks the ISP's are doing is to avoid upgrading their equipment and getting a faster connection to share because like you said, it cost money.

    you can make more money selling a 1 tv to 50 people than selling 1 TV to 1 person. (i know it is impossible to do this because it is a physical item and would be illegal but it is done all the time with ISP's and internet traffic)

    there many cost to running a network and it is cheaper to do bandwidth management and throttling especially if your current equipment already allows for bandwidth management and your staff is on a salary which means you pay them a fixed price a year even if you only work them 1 day a year or 365 days.

    If the FCC is not detailed enough in their rules, ISP's will just find ways around the rules in order to screw the customer and increase profits.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  9. I have mixed feelings about making bandwidth caps illegal. I support it for the potential anti-competitive motives, and feel that caps must be more than sufficient to support use that is within all but the top statistical outliers. However, if reasonable caps were illegal, there would be people transferring three to four terabytes of data per month on my tier. That is like streaming 45 good quality HD (7mbps at 45 minutes) TV shows per day if my math is right.

    I am a moderate to heavy user who also replaces TV with streaming NetFlix, VPN into my network when not at home both to surf and transfer large files back and forth. I think the most I have ever used is 70GB in a month. While I must admit I was pretty upset when Comcast went to a 250GB cap, I cannot argue that if there is fair overage charging it is in anti-competitive territory, yet. At a certain usage, I do agree people should be paying more to support the infrastructure.

    I don't know about other people, but I have no illusion that my ISP has capacity on their end to support everyone using their advertised speeds at the same time. If I can reasonably expect to achieve my advertised speeds when I make requests of the network, regardless of the application and communication endpoints, I have no problem with that fact.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  10. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    the problem with that is you are comparing other peoples usage based on your own usage.

    when this is done from a social standpoint it is called ethnocentrism.

    If they provide you with a 10mbit connection then you should be able to use the full 10mbit/s as much as you want.

    if someone is using a few TB a month (which can be impossible for most ISP's since the speeds they offer would not allow you to download or upload that much within a month and if a ISP provides a connection with offers a speed that allows it then they should design their network to allow large transfers. It is like moving from a 1000 square foot home to a 2000 square foot home and getting kicked out because you decided to use 2000 square foot of space, it will be seen as wrong, same as with internet. if a company sells you some space (eg 5mbit/s) then you should be able to use all 5mbit/s for the month. PS why don't these companies charge you extra or cap you when you watch too much HDTV, HDTV uses 20mbit/s constantly thats because it is a service that they are providing, but suppose a site like hulu or even better stage6 (sadly shut down) which offered 720p and 1080p video streaming of many tv shows, well the companies like comcast wont be very happy because customers may stop their tv service or go for a cheaper package of channels because the media site is offering the content at a good quality and little to no commercials. 2 simple solutions to this is to 1, throttle the connection so even though the user has a fast connection, the streaming media will run too slowly to be useful to the consumer so they will go back to watching cable tv, another solution for after the FCC fines you for throttling like crazy is to put a bandwidth cap so now that theres a set cap you will be less likely to more freely use the internet.)

    if there is a group of people using like 3TB a month and you feel there using too much and should pay more, whell theres a group or people out there that only use 100-200MB a month and feel your 70GB is too much.

    You cant sell something and then take it away if it is used "too much". how would you feel if you bought a samsung LCD tv and the company came and took your tv away because you were using it 18 hours a day while most other people only used it 6 hours a day. (I bet you would bring your case to the media to express the outrage)

    there is no such thing as too much when you are being sold something everyone on earth has a different meaning of too much, also if you are being sold something theres no way to use too much, the most you can use is all of what you were sold. if you but a 2000 square foot house you expect to be able to use as much or as little of it as you want.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  11. While I definitely want to preserve net neutrality in the sense of the internet being content neutral, I recognize that providing bandwidth is the major cost an ISP has, and therefore it may be necessary to bill proportional to bandwidth useage. I live in a rural location where satellite service is the only high-speed internet option available, and it costs me $60/month to get 200MB bandwidth per day. If my ISP couldn't cap my daily bandwidth, they'd have to put up a dozen more satellites to handle unlimited bandwidth for their existing customers, so the cost of an account would have to go up at least tenfold, so most of us would have to drop our high-speed service and go back to dial-up.

    I get very annoyed with the internet culture that is assuming unlimited bandwidth is available to everyone - the number of webpages that automatically stream high-resolution content to you the moment you stray onto them w/ no opt out option is wasting my precious bandwidth, and is the height of rudeness.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  12. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    Your ISP is more than able to provide you with unlimited, keep in mind that a bandwidth cap has nothing do do with network load.

    200MB just means that you can only use 200MB per day but it doesn't change the fact that everyone can be online at the same time using their 200MB share. You will still get network congestion. the main purpose of the cap is to stop you from using anything that will actually benefit from a broadband connection. It is basically another form of censorship. because they give you a 200MB cap the odds or you steaming media or playing a online game are much lower because you only have 200MB of bandwidth which is upload+ download which means about 160-170MB of pure downloading (which rarely ever happens unless you only use your connection to check your email)

    It is like when a car company comes out with a new car that can go 160MPH, (horse power sells) but when are you ever going to be able to go at that speed. caps put out by the government on the roads will prevent you from ever doing anything that will allow you to use the full speed of your car. same with the internet. a bandwidth cap allows a ISP to effectively censor your internet by keeping you from doing things like streaming media or anything else bandwidth intensive. They use the bandwidth cap because if they outright blocked you from every media streaming website and also wrote up a L7 filter to block all flash content, the ISP would be sued by all of their customers, so their solution is to do it indirectly.

    this allows a ISP to advertise to you a speed that you will not get to properly use, because it will push you over your cap extremely quickly.

    Just like in cars (horse power sells) with internet (speed sells). If you want to oversell your internet connection a bandwidth cap will prevent almost all customers from using anything that the modern internet has to offer which means they will mostly use their internet connection for basic use, which means intermittent burst of low bandwidth usage instead of a constant use of high speed bandwidth that would happen from streaming media.

    When a ISP oversells their service, they count on not everyone using the internet at the same time, but there is 1 problem, during peak hours, the connection will still slow (my friend on optimum online gets about 15mbit/s in the early morning and under 1mbit in the afternoon) thats because even though not everyone is using the connection, there is still enough to slow the network to a crawl.

    A way to fix a network congestion problem like this is to put a bandwidth cap so even though it will be peak hours, people will be too scared to use the Internet the way they want and will be forced to use it for basic stuff.

    (PS modern cars for example a nissan 350z can hit 150MPH which is it's advertised top speed (speed sells) but it you drive the car even at 130-140MPH for more than a few minutes, the engine will overheat. which means it is not designed to run at that speed)

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  13. Inuyasha, though I agree with your net neutrality stance, I disagree with your mis-statement of facts.

    ISPs are subject to the peering agreements with other service providers and backbone networks. They do not have unlimited bandwidth, and networking equipment of any kind has a finite amount of resources available to handle the calculation of routes and packet-switching. Though this does not excuse ISPs from limiting network traffic based on the source of the content. I agree with a limited amount of management to prevent high usage users from overwhelming the network, but I do not agree in applying that same limitation on users who do not create that problem on the network.

    ISPs have every right to defend their network from external attacks, and to do very limited regulation of traffic flow entering and exiting their network. But to selectively pick and choose what can travel where because it competes with one of their products, or because the content isn't sourced from a preferred network, that is not acceptible.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  14. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    I am not against a ISP protecting their network but I am against them doing dirty tricks to increase profits by degrading everyone's service instead of upgrading their network.

    all ISP's generally have some legit network management for example if your PS is actively doing a non stop DOS attack on someone else, the ISP can contact you and tell you to stop or risk getting the service stopped to throttled

    I know that theres a finite amount of resources and thats the reason behind my post, the resources are finite and instead of using a small fraction of their profits once in a while to upgrade and increase the available resources, they choose to pocket it instead and screw the customer over to compensate for the companies greed.

    I am not against reasonable network management. I am against network management thats designed to compensate for a companies greed. Often, a ISP's solution to network congestion is to throttle and cap because they decided to add more users than the network could properly handle (and refusing to use the extra money to upgrade the network)

    ISP's seem to expect to make 1 initial investment in equipment and expect it to handle anything thats thrown at it 15 years later.

    Upgrading a network is expensive, every dollar you spend upgrading it is a dollar less you make in profits this year.

    throttling and capping is the same as stealing (especially throttling)it is a way to give customers less than what they are paying for and also indirectly censor the internet by making many things that the company wants to prevent use of, unfeasible for the customer

    for example suppose the government was a FSP (made it up for flight service provider :) ) for the US and the government didn't want people flying airplanes, if they wanted to indirectly stop airplane usage they will just put a flight cap "you are not allowed to fly any higher than 100FT from ground level (try flying a 747 across the US while under 100FT from the ground)

    this is what most of the network management of ISP's are, while there is some legitimate network management, most of it is to indirectly control content by doing network management practices that make many things unfeasible for the customer. Net neutrality can stop a them from discriminating traffic but the current net neutrality wont stop ISP's from indirectly controlling selected traffic through the use of bandwidth caps and other practices (which is what many of them are planning )

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  15. "Your ISP is more than able to provide you with unlimited, keep in mind that a bandwidth cap has nothing do do with network load."

    This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what the service is. No doubt thanks to the marketing-lies -- most all the "problems" are IMNSHO really the arena of the FTC not the FCC. Get more honest advertising and less BS new-user trial deals that old-users in the know or who scream a lot can kite for continual reduced rates.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  16. "I am not against a ISP protecting their network but I am against them doing dirty tricks to increase profits by degrading everyone's service instead of upgrading their network."

    Then you must be happy with tha large cable company rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 all over their network? Or does that somehow not count?

    "I know that theres a finite amount of resources and thats the reason behind my post, the resources are finite and instead of using a small fraction of their profits once in a while to upgrade and increase the available resources, they choose to pocket it instead and screw the customer over to compensate for the companies greed."

    Data?

    "I am not against reasonable network management. I am against network management thats designed to compensate for a companies greed. Often, a ISP's solution to network congestion is to throttle and cap because they decided to add more users than the network could properly handle (and refusing to use the extra money to upgrade the network)"

    Data?

    "ISP's seem to expect to make 1 initial investment in equipment and expect it to handle anything thats thrown at it 15 years later."

    Actually, the "long" window used in some old-think networks is 5 years for capital investment lifetime. More flexible networks operate at about 3 years refresh cycle. Not even the classical bellheads at att operate on a 15 year cycle, so once again I say "Data"? Mine comes form bing actually involved in building networks, not making up junk.

    "Upgrading a network is expensive, every dollar you spend upgrading it is a dollar less you make in profits this year."

    Operations & maintenance are huge costs; ongoing support, maintenance, install move/add/change are all continual pains in the budget. Upgrades are annual spikes in the ongoing burn.

    "Indirectly censor" is a load of hooey.

    "this is what most of the network management of ISP's are, while there is some legitimate network management, most of it is to indirectly control content by doing network management practices that make many things unfeasible for the customer."

    Data?

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  17. Bandwidth can be managed in a fair and reasonable way. The Internet must be free of cell phone style "overage".

    Instead there should be two speeds, there should be a bandwidth bucket, with a reasonable limit: Comcast set it at 250GB, and if in the last month (rolling--or other time period) the consumer has used that much total bandwidth the customer speed should can be slowed to a lower speed until that customer is below the rolling soft cap.

    If the the provider only has bandwidth problems then the provider can give "free" bandwidth during non-peak hours even when the user is above the rolling limit.

    This is fair, this respects both sides, and it does not create the $1000 bills that dominate cell phone company profits.

    I strongly support Congress's Broadband Facts (like Nutrition Facts) labeling for Internet access.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  18. Indirectly censor is not any load of hooey when it comes to the ISPs' capability to control internet content flow over their networks.

    They have control over what protocols can leave the edge of their network like protocols such as DNS. For the general public who might not know what this is, summarized it is essentially the phone book to the internet provided by an ISP, or third party. It translates names like "yahoo.com" to 123.123.123.123 (IP address, not a valid one for yahoo I might add). If they can intercept DNS traffic (which Charter, Comcast, and Time Warner Cable all do now) then they can control what name resolves to what IP, and conceivably redirect traffic to sites they wish you to see. Also they could intentionally "poison" some names in their systems, preventing you from seeing what you want at all, this can easily be done, and is commonly done in business networks (changing your DNS server in your TCP/IP settings won't necessarily bypass this interception depending on how it is implemented).

    4chan.org was victim to this on ATT's network a few months back, ATT actively blocked all connections to one server that 4chan.org used due to perceived attacks against their network. Even though there were extenuating circumstances because of which ATT did it, it proves without a doubt that Internet Service Providers have FULL capability to block any site they choose, redirect it to a "more favorable" content provider, or slow a site to their users until it is completely unusable (packet shaping, which is another commonly implemented traffic manipulation method).

    Before you start calling hooey on censorship on the internet, you need to understand how it can be done first.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  19. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    @ Joe Provo

    much of the data is from experience with different isp's

    there also many articles

    1 of pretty much thousands of articles covering the event

    http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/

    comcast throttled P2P traffic.

    you were still able to download torrents and seed and do anything else, but through dirty networking tricks (aka throttling) they were able to make most torrenting and other P2P tasks unfeasible.

    like in my example of limiting frying to 100 feet from ground level. if you own a airport you can fly 747's all you want but you wont because it would be unfeasible to fly one at 100ft

    a isp can throttle your connection in a way where things that are bandwidth intensive and need the connection speed that you are paying for, get a almost unusable speed (and also delay packets and cause a higher ping so it is not only slow, it is laggy and prone to dropped connections) while things that don't need all of the bandwidth have full access to it

    example if I owned a ISP and was evil like the people who run comcast, at&t, verizon, time warner and many others

    and I am overselling my service (since selling bandwidth that I don't have means 100% profit. and everything is going great for me, the money is rolling in but then a site like hulu comes along and so many customers use it that since the service is oversold, theres not enough bandwidth to go around and things are slow. the fcc wont let me block hulu so the next best thing, I will write L7 filter for flash content then throttle it to around 128kbit/s, problem solved, the customers can access hulu all they want but streaming will be unfeasible for them. indirect censorship.

    when you indirectly censor the internet, you are basically finding something you don't like then degrading the quality of the thing you don't like to a point where it us useless or almost useless.

    one of my friends has satellite internet (one of the lowest raged ISP's but it is either that or dialup (i'm sure you can find it on broadband reports :)) it is nearly impossible to stream media because of a 300MB bandwidth cap per day, streaming is also throttled to make sure you don't even try. during afternoon he gets dialup speeds due to network congestion and at late night he gets close to the 2mbit speed

    when watching a video on hulu, it only uses 1-1.3Mbit/s of bandwidth, but for him it is unwatchable because the connection only makes it's way up to around 200-300kbit/s and doesn't want to go higher, it will buffer but a few seconds of video+ a few minutes of buffering after every few seconds is not watchable, he can run a speed test while it is going and the speed test will still be good. (torrents also don't work properly. even if I do a private torrent when my system is both the seeder and tracker, and I send directly to him, it is like sending to someone on a dialup connection. he doesn't stream tv shows online and can only use services like rapid share or megaupload for p2p needs. the ISP was successfully able to indirectly censor the internet

    PS windows xp and vista and windows 7 have a built in VPN server that allows 1 client at a time. if my friend connects to me through a VPN, he gets the full speed of his connection for streaming and anything else (my upload is a little faster than his download)

    indirect censorship is common for ISP's because there isn't enough government control to stop it.

    a ISP can control what you do online simply by adding a bandwidth cap, but other than that there countless ways they can indirectly censor your internet with out actually blocking the content.

    net neutrality must keep all data treated equally and it must also prevent ISP's from capping bandwidth as an alternative to their traffic discrimination.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  20. Bandwidth is finite. Certainly different pipes carry different volumes, but overloading is possible. Two options exist throttling and overage charges (like extra minute charges). People pay for bandwidth and throughput that they can afford, or need for their business. If they use more throughput than they've paid for, they're detracting from that which others have paid for. FAPs address throughput overuse. And if customers pay for overage, they quickly find out if on their own team someone is overusing, or if a virus has taken over.

    Bandwidth management, just like management of other resources, is a way of life. If you think about it, not even the air we breathe is free -- we pay lots of taxes to ensure it's clean and those who foul it pay in various ways. Bandwidth will grow, and its management will evolve, but get used to living green -- manage your own bandwidth usage.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  21. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    legal bandwidth capping would be speed like how it normally is

    you pay for a 10mbit internet connection and you get 10mbit/s

    thats how it should be

    bandwidth caps in terms of transfer per month wont (in basis science) to stop a network from being overloaded

    if your network can only handle 100mbit/s of traffic and you have 20 customers and each are being offered 10mbit/s connections, then there wont be enough bandwidth to give each customer 10mbit/s, adding a 5GB/s month bandwidth transfer cap wont fix that as if all of them try to use their connection, the network will be overloaded, the only true solution is to upgrade the network to handle all 20

    (and yes i know a ISP is larger than the network I am describing but the statement stays the same, capping a users total bandwidth usage per month wont fix network congestion)

    a total bandwidth cap controls how much data you can send/ receive per month, but it doesn't control when you can use that bandwidth

    (simplified) if a ISP only had 100mbit of network speed to offer and it offered 20 customers with a 10mbit connection, even if they put a 5GB per month bandwidth cap, it wouldn't change the fact that the network would become overloaded if more than 10 of the 20 customers tried to use their connection at the same time.

    in non scientific, the bandwidth cap can work because with a low transfer cap, users will not do things that will make use of their connection speed because doing it will push them to or over their cap insanely quickly.

    (referring back to my old argument of indirectly censoring the use of airplanes) if a law was passed that made it illegal to ban the use of airplanes, then someone who has control over these matters will not be able to pass a law that says no one is allowed to fly a airplane, but a loophole in the system will be a altitude cap, "airplanes are not allowed to fly higher than 100FT off the ground"

    they never said you cant fly one, you just cant go higher than 100ft. In tern this makes it unfeasible to fly a plane because you wouldn't get very far before crashing, thus you wont see airports flying people around in 747's even though theres no law that said they couldn't

    this is what many ISP's are planning to do.

    there too greedy to upgrade their network to handle their customers (they have no problem adding more customers but when it comes to upgrading the network to provide the additional customers with what they are paying for, then it is a problem because there greedy and the law currently allows them to get away with this kind of greed)

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  22. We do need better labeling.

    Law suits, fraud criminal charges, and benchmarks by consumer groups will bring these about. But the strongest force will be competition, if we can get government at all level to allow it.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  23. The conversation here is based on consumer plans. Business plans that have a committed information rate (CIR), where a *minimum speed* is guaranteed, and the up-to is permitted, are doable because the ISP manages the network to permit only as many customers as can fit within the overall pipe given their various CIRs.

    Consumers at first don't know CIRs exist, but when they find out how much it costs to provide, they grumble about their consumer plan, but feel any speed should be free, and so won't pay to get a guaranteed speed.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  24. IF YOU ARE DISABLED THEN YOU MAY NEED TO DO THIS!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  25. On top of that ..

    - I need my water to be 'all I can consume' at one price.

    - My gas service needs to be unmetered.

    - My power needs to be unmetered.

    The meterd billing of resources in our economy is destroying productivity!

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  26. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    things like water and gas and power cant really be unlimited because they are a limited resource that will run out.

    while with internet it is more like a bridge, the bridge is a unlimited resource but it can only handle so many people or cars on it at any one time. (ignoring toll bridges) should you pay more taxes because compared to everyone in your neighborhood, you drive across the bridge more than they do?

    while data can be measured, it is hard to qualtify. a bandwidth cap of like 250GB in comcast case will do nothing to prevent network congestion because it does nothing about the problem of there being too many people on at the same time

    think of it this way. suppose you have to cross a bridge to get to work, and there constantly too many cars on the road because like you, there many other people also looking to get to work. the only way to fix this traffic congestion is to either; 1, build more bridges so theres enough bridges to handle all of the people getting to work, or ; 2, restrict which times people are allowed to use the bridge (eg, your neighborhood gets use of the bridge on the weekends and the next neighborhood gets use on monday and so on)

    the ISP method to this bridge analogy would be in comcast situation, you cant be on the bridge longer than 250 hours

    well most people don't spend that much time on it anyway and it wont stop the traffic problem because they will still be using the bridge at the same time when the bridge cant handle all of them using it at the same time.

    bandwidth caps do nothing to prevent congestion because the cause of congestion is too many people on at the same time.

    ISP's already deal with congestion by offering speed caps, where you can but a 10mbit connection or a 20mbit connection and so on, the problem is that when more people sign up for the service and there isn't enough speed to provide them all with the connection speed they pay for, that cant just tell everyone that we are downgrading you from a 10mbit package, to a 5mbit because your neighbor decided to sign up for internet service.

    ISP's simply want to be greedy and increase profits by not upgrading their hardware to handle all of the customers that are paying them for internet

    and at the moment, another use of the bandwidth cap is to prevent future use.

    imagine if ISP's capped bandwidth back in the early days of internet, they could say that you are only allowed 10MB per month, on those days, people would be like, who would need to transfer 10MB of data.

    today we are like, why if this song smaller than 10MB?

    what we see as a lot now will be too small im probably the next 1-3 years and if ISP's already oversold their service because and and put bandwidth caps so people will not be able to use future equipment that will make use of their connection.

    in a few years all those people who were suckered into buying a 20 or 30mbit connection so to check their email, will be using their connections to stream HD video and other bandwidth intensive content.

    what the ISP's were doing was overselling because not everyone was using their full speed, when they sat that many people only use a little bit of bandwidth thats because many people only use the computers once in a while and most of their bandwidth usage is checking email or downloading windows updates. Imagine if this happened to you, you bought a house and the company that sold you the house sat that you are not using all of the space in the house, so now they decided to take advantage of that by secretly using like half of the space in your house to sell space to another family, it is 1 2000 square foot home and both families were sold a 2000 square foot home in the same place. 2 objects cant occupy the same space so when the families are ready to use their full 2000 square foot space, guess what, there wont be enough space for them to sue the space that they paid for. real estate companies cant get away with this is real life because if is too physical and easy to see, but they get away with it on the internet because it is harder to visualize data.

    4 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  27. You cannot make caps on bandwidth illegal. This has nothing to do with net neutrality. The principle of neutrality is that all data is treated the same without regard to its type, source or destination.

    Bandwidth limits are inherent in the physical capabilities of the technology and it is impossible to place a legal requirement of "unlimited" on something that is technically impossible of providing "unlimited"

    This would be akin to a law demanding your electric utility must provide you as much power as you want even if the current would melt the wires to your house and blow up the transformer on the pole and leave your neighbors in the dark as well.

    You can only push so much data through a pipe until it has reached its capacity and a law cannot suddenly make more data flow through.

    Your dial up cannot suddenly be required to equal broadband because the system is limited in bandwidth by technology. All systems have limits and they are all shared by others at the same time.

    It is a necessity of network management to allocate resources to avoid collapse of all data and part of that management includes controls on bandwidth.

    As long as what bandwidth you are entitled to is not controlling what you access then it is still neutral.

    3 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  28. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    you misunderstood the use of bandwidth is this posting. While there is a limit in speed (I am not questioning the speed, I am questioning the bandwidth in terms of how much you are allowed to transfer before they decide that you have transferred enough. A bandwidth limit in those terms are purely artificial. The current network hardware has a limit if speed that it can provide but it does not have a true limit in how much it can transfer.

    The controlling of how much can be transfered allows ISP's to indirectly go against net nutrality. For example, for new AT&T customers getting a iphone, the bandwidth cap makes it unfeasible to do certain tasks for fear of you going over your bandwidth limit within a few moments.

    For example, the government cant ban the current forms of transportation, but they can control the airspace. If the government wanted to stop you from flying planes, they could simply put a airspace limit of you can only travel 250 miles per month (kinda like comcast 250GB bandwidth limit)

    and if that was not enough, they could limit all planes to a altitude of 30 feet (they can fly no higher)(try getting a plane form point A to point B if you cant fly higher than 30 feet). They can still fly so so nothing is being blocked but with the limits, it has become unfeasible to fly. and this is the loophole that ISP's use to get around net nutrality.

    If they only want you to email friends and family and going on a few small websites then they can simply lower your bandwidth cap to like 100MB a month. You can still do anything you want but nearly all other forms of traffic will put you over that limit within minutes and even then it wont be enough bandwidth to get anything done even if you decide to do the bandwidth intensive task.

    With the internet, speed is a limitation but Traffic transferred is not.

    3 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  29. Bandwidth usage/caps are related but I am not speaking about caps on speed. That is a variable based on line quality, network traffic etc. and can vary from day to day and even hour to hour.

    Total bandwidth is impacted by the total traffic. A given path is finite. True the faster the network the more data in a given period of time it can handle but any network can only transmit "x" number of bits per second which does place a finite limit on the total capacity in terms of how much that pipe can transfer over any given period of time.

    While it is also true that a "large file" can take more time than smaller files they are still broken unto the same packet sizes for transmission.

    Any broadband connection is by its nature sharing the total capacity of that connection such as in cable internet distribution, the total of everyone's data can reach the saturation point that is the maximum capability of that branch of the network. You can't push more into a full pipe. Speed gets slower to accommodate the additional burden and it is slower for everyone who shares that network.

    This is particular true with both satellite and cell based Internet access due to the finite limitations of the radio spectrum. Fiber and copper also have finite limits in their capacity to carry data separate from the actual speed. ( pressure vs volume if you compare it to a water line )

    Most ISP's employ a written "fair use" doctrine into their contracts to preserve the right to limit your "volume" of data in order to maintain equal access to all users at the same time and to try to prevent "bottle necks" in the networks. This has been standard for a decade at least but I don't know of anyone using a land based network who has ever been impacted.

    I work and manage web sites and a remote server and use a standard cable broadband from Comcast. There is a "bandwidth" limit but even with my main computer plus four others including one used to watch Netflix over the Internet I still have not come close to the limit.

    I am a firm supporter of Net Neutrality but realize that the technical limits can require some limits on individual consumption just to prevent "brown outs" from over loads. The key is to prevent any such limits based on the nature of the content.

    3 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  30. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    That limit is network congestion and has nothing to do with how much data can be transferred.

    For example, even with a 100MB bandwidth cap, if everyone was to use their 100MB at the same time, the network will either collapse or slow to a crawl.

    Also giving the current trend of the internet, bandwidth requirements increase as time goes on A 250GB bandwidth cam may be usable now for many people but in 5 years it may be a real problem even for basic users.

    If the ISP network in your area can handle 200gbit/s then it can handle it all the time. If you were to offer 1gbit connections to 300 users and give them a 100MB bandwidth cap, the network will slow to a crawl or not function at all if all 300 users were to download at 1gbit/s for 100MB at the same time. In this situation the most it will do is prevent users from doing things that will actually take advantage of a 1gbit/s connection because anything that will really benefit from it will most likely require more than 100MB to be useful.

    3 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  31. If you use more data it should be illegal to charge you more for it? This isn't the way electricity or gas is sold, this is not how my long distance bill works.

    Even ISPs often have to pay for bandwidth used to other companies based on actual usage.

    I mean, I don't want bandwidth caps on my service, but should it actually be illegal?? I don't think so.

    ISP are still public, for profit companies. If people do not want traffic management or bandwidth caps, then they can just include it in their expensive monthly bill as costs rise but I think having a choice should be legal.

    If I had the choice between an unlimited data plan for $300 a month, and a 2TB plan for $45 a month, I'd pick the $45 plan and so would almost everyone else, but you would seek to make it illegal to even entertain the idea?

    I'm going to call my gas company and demand an unlimited usage plan with them and see how much money they quote me for it.

    3 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  32. inuyasha6332 Idea Submitter

    things like gas are limited supplies and they are tangible. Data does not apply to this.

    Write 1TB of data to your drive and tell me if the drive becomes heavier. If you set a computer to do it, it can produce data indefinitely.

    Based on the physical properties of a network, they are not limited by how much data can be sent or received, they are more limited by how fast they can send and receive.

    You can start an ISP and limit everyone to a bandwidth of 1KB of data. you will still get network congestion if everyone tried to download 1KB of data at the same time, the network may even hang or fail to transfer any data at all.

    3 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed
  33. Problem is with caps set at 5G. I live in a community that has old copper, ATT country. Here we can no longer use dialup. ATT broadband runs at speed of dialup. What I used to get unlimited for 9.95 now costs $60 for 5G data.

    There are 2 adults & 2 kids in family 5G not enough and is very expensive for low income community. Unless there is a lower cost alternative I must say that this is a good idea. ATT has profited all these years on their old lines which were most likely run with public funds. Not long ago major carriers all had unlimited plans. They sold these products now they got you time to set hook. If nothing else lower cost or raise the cap. We are not creating a neutral web if price is out of reach for low income families. Verizon has a 10G plan for $199 this is outrageous! yes I do believe we need to look at price for data delivered especially since stimulus is paying for end of line and rural towers.

    3 years ago
    0 Agreed
    0 Disagreed