3 edits | Suddenlink IS Bandwidth Capping I wanted to start a new thread because it's no longer fiction. I just got my notice of the 8Mbps 150GB per month bandwidth cap.
I was on my computer last night and without downloading any programs I used 450MB in just over seven hours.
Youtube, approximately one hour.
Online gaming (Mortal Online) 2 hours
Email
Light browsing/research
Streaming 128kbps mp3 (3 hours).
Downloading Mortal Online is a 15GB download. If you need to redownload for whatever reasons, you can see how that sort of thing could eat your monthly "allowance" really fast, especially if your family uses the net.
-----------------
This next part is my position on capping in general, so it's an opinion piece. I don't pretend it's the truth.
I find Suddenlink's bandwidth to water and electricity analogically incompetent. Bandwidth isn't a natural resource and thus not limited the way natural resources are limited. In other words, bandwidth is virtually unlimited, and in the near future, it is going to be unlimited. Why is it that bandwidth is becoming more available, yet our prices per GB are going up?
A better analogy would be that when supply is up, prices go down. And supply is up. However, major ISPs prices are getting more expensive. So a better analogy would be that capping is analogous to price fixing, when there is little or no competition for bandwidth.
I'm also confounded by corporate reasoning related to bandwidth and what 99% of people use. If only 1% go over 12GBs a month on the 8Mbps plan, why the cap at all? Surely 1% cannot make a difference.
But let's get down to business here. Let me offer another analogy rather than corporate disanalogiess. If ISPs are allowed to cap usage whenever they like, or at whatever level they want, that's analogous to breaking anti-trust laws in that your ability to patronize other competing organizations is controlled by the ISP (movies, news, shopping).
Now if you could simply switch ISPs and use whatever information outfit you wanted, capping would be a non-issue. The reality is that there are very few choices in most municipalities, which means very little competition for bandwidth. For instance, AT&T is capping also, and guess what their cap is for their 8Mbps plan? Well, that would be 150GB a month. Imagine that. So if you have a choice between Suddenlink and AT&T, there is no bandwidth competition.
Another problems is that in most municipalities competition is limited and in many cases nonexistent. Your options are either a slow connection or a capped connection. This isn't competition folks. It's the manipulation of markets to insure back-end collusion that skirt anti-trust laws. In other words, instead of monopoly, we have oligopoly, which is the same thing, just spread over a few instead of one. The result is the same: higher prices from a lack of real competition.
What is even more odious about limiting your ability to retrieve information is that ISPs can use capping as a way to shape information. If you watch news casts over the net, then you understand how this can have a detrimental affect on what information you watch.
What really sets me off is the patriarchal position Suddenlink, and other corporations, have taken: They know what is adequate for us and our lives, and since there isn't any real competition, you have no voice in their decisions. Note the (paraphrased) print in the Suddenlink bandwidth cap letter: "We feel that this allowance will be adequate for you."
There are only two ways to prevent corporate totalitarianism: government regulation or real, raw, back-stabbing, jungle-like competition, where going out of business is the rule, not the exception. Both have their undesirable affects. However, currently we have neither, and having neither is going to prove much less desirable than either of those two options. |
|
 The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2
1 edit | said by without downloading any programs I used 450GB in just over seven hours :
You might want to get this checked out.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda |
|
| Do you think something is eating my bandwidth? I'm using bitmeter to monitor and have it set to ignore local.
Note though that Youtube is in HD too.
Netfilx HD will eat up 150GBs a month watching approximately 2 hours of HD movies a night (3.0GBs for a full featured HD movie). 3.0GB (one movie)*30=90GB
Mortal uses a good bit also.
Any suggestions? |
|
 tcgPremium
join:2003-09-12
Lubbock, TX | reply to dwdallam
The math doesn't work out. 8 Mb/s is (at best) 1 MB/s. 1 MB/s * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 7 (for a total of 7 hours) is 25.2 GB. |
|
| That's because I mistyped. See above. Should have been 450MB not GB. |
|
tcgPremium
join:2003-09-12
Lubbock, TX | That's a big difference. I have the 107 Mb/s plan and I have used 12 GB in about 30 minutes downloading BF3. But, I don't do that all the time.
There are at least two other threads active right now that corroborate the fact that Suddenlink is bandwidth capping/measuring.
And, I agree that it's reprehensible. It's just an end run around net neutrality since it's really designed primarily to target video streaming usage from a source other than the ISP. I would love to see the companies that claim it's necessary investigated by some federal agency that would have the power to sanction them when the truth was revealed. But I'm not going to hold my breath. It would also be wonderful if there was some real competition in the ISP business.  Because then, there would be no capping. |
|
|
|
| The government isn't going to regulate much of anything anymore. We've given up our rights to do that in the faith that market economies will save the day. The problem is that we never have had and still don't have true market economies. I'm afraid we're in a mode where we'll just have to repeat our mistakes once again to the detriment of most people. I mean those who support those in the Supreme Court who voted that corporations are people without the same responsibility and consequences as people might want to take a look at what they are supporting. Of course, that won't happen either. That sort of analytical thinking has been replaced with 7th grade mentality name calling. |
|
 redxiiPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
Broadband Tweaks
/dev/null
| Those old farts in Congress don't understand technology and depend on the entertainment industry to tell them it's scary. That they won't regulate is a blessing.
If anything, the studios are usually the greedy ones it's any wonder cable tv is as cheap as it is.
--
Moe, I need your advice… See I've got this friend named Joey Joe-Joe... Junior... Shabadoo.. |
|
| Yes lack of good regulation is a blessing. How's that working out for us? |
|
redxiiPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI Host:
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
Broadband Tweaks
/dev/null
| Interesting article »gizmodo.com/5830956/why-the-gove···-company
If the telcos want to compete they will have to get rid of copper. Their choices are slow (or no) DSL which still has a cap, and even if you can get LTE caps are very low and overages very high.
--
Moe, I need your advice… See I've got this friend named Joey Joe-Joe... Junior... Shabadoo.. |
|
| reply to dwdallam
That's pretty much what I said in my OP.
Another aspect of capital and how it fails without government intervention is Sports Stadiums. They're too expensive for private enterprise to finance. So, the government finances them. |
|
The LimitPremium
join:2007-09-25
Greensboro, NC
kudos:2 | reply to redxii
In other word, build out fiber and rent out to third party ISPs? Sounds like something Karl has been saying on this site for quite a while.
No offense, just pointing that particular detail out.
--
Do or do not, there is no try! - Yoda |
|
redxiiPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI Host:
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
Broadband Tweaks
/dev/null
1 edit | Not any different from the telco owning the existing phone lines, and there being 3rd-party wholesale/resellers. But they'd have something to compete with.
Karl has also posted many an article about breakthrough in DSL technology.. at much less than a mile and nowhere near how far cable can go.
--
Moe, I need your advice… See I've got this friend named Joey Joe-Joe... Junior... Shabadoo.. |
|
redxiiPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI Host:
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
Broadband Tweaks
/dev/null
| reply to dwdallam
Do you use Steam? I use Steam and can see how the caps can suck but I don't need to do a re-download of my games very often. Valve frequently patches their games during the week, and it could be 200-300MB in size.
I'm more concerned of being disconnected because I went a few bytes over the cap, that it doesn't matter how far I went over even if was a few bytes, that I deserve to be disconnected indefinitely or permanently. I would be behind anything that would prevent that, if I weren't intentionally trying to hinder network performance or pirate every work ever made. Or, SHOCK, there is more than one person in the household, and, SHOCK again, having more than one PC is NOT uncommon.
But that would go into whether internet should be a right or not, or to exempt certain services, net neutrality.
--
Moe, I need your advice… See I've got this friend named Joey Joe-Joe... Junior... Shabadoo.. |
|
| reply to dwdallam
Well, congratulations. They've created a disgruntled customer who has downgraded his Netflix stream (Netflix allows you to downgrade picture quality to address bandwidth caps), rather than pay arbitrary additional fees to his ISP.
I originally dropped cable TV (but kept Internet) due to the lousy DVR they were using. In the same mailing touting the additional fees, they also included promo material mentioning they're using a new DVR now. Well, maybe if you hadn't pissed me off for life, I'd resubscribe to cable TV. I've joined the group of customers who are waiting for any, just any, competition that treats its customers better. I hate how backward America is with regard to technology. |
|
redxiiPremium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Sherwood, MI Host:
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
Broadband Tweaks
/dev/null
| Netflix originally gave Canadian users a way to cap the bandwidth used, then later gave it an option to U.S. users.
Due to regulation, you can use any STB you want and you can self-install any CableCARD capable tuner/DVR you wish. You are responsible, though, for CableCARD rental (few bucks) and the equipment you bought. If you go with TiVo by yourself there are ongoing costs.
This is a good example of regulation. Previously only those with an OEM built computer & tuner could use CableCARD.
You can't own the DVR your cable co gives, but you can replace it if it malfunctions or upgrade it, and I'm sure some of their DVRs don't get returned at all for whatever reason.
--
Moe, I need your advice… See I've got this friend named Joey Joe-Joe... Junior... Shabadoo.. |
|
| reply to dwdallam
Awesome, now not only do I get to have an internet service that goes out every other week, but it's limited too. There goes the only plus point they had. |
|
| reply to dwdallam
250GB (Gigabytes) = 2000Gb (Gigabits)
2000Gb (Gigabits) = 2,048,000 Mb (Megabits)
1 Hour = 60 Minutes = 3600 Seconds
1 Hour @ 10Mbps (Megabits per Second) = 36,000 Mb/Hour
2,048,000 Mb / 36,000 seconds = 56.89 Hours (lets round it UP to 60 hours to make it easy)
60 hours / 24 hours per day = 2.5 Days
(This is based on DOWNload only, we’re going to leave upload out of it to make it easy)
Assuming that you max out your bandwidth for 24 hours a day, you are capped off at 2.5 days. Yes you pay a MONTHLY service fee for 2.5 days of actual useable service.
Now, its unrealistic that someone would use that amount of bandwidth, of course. But you are paying for internet in terms of SPEED and NOT volume.
So I’ll leave the rest up to you. Pay your MONTHLY service for your LIMITED CAPACITY OF 2.5 Days.
Enjoy. |
|
| reply to dwdallam
said by dwdallam:The government isn't going to regulate much of anything anymore. We've given up our rights to do that in the faith that market economies will save the day. The problem is that we never have had and still don't have true market economies. No one, not even a politician, would argue that cable/internet providers are part of a free market. That acknowledgement is the key reason why no politician suggests seriously eliminating the FCC.
The FCC has on more than one occasion expressed their interest in passing regulations that favor "net neutrality". FCC director has also expressed that data caps are a "concern". The FCC has also stopped a couple of proposed mergers.
A quick Google search shows that the FCC has been battling ATT and other internet providers over data caps and anti-net neutrality policies. |
|
| reply to dwdallam
Very well PUT! And, quite correct on all counts... I smell a "Class Action Lawsuit" in their future... |
|
