Home » Issues » Recent Articles:

Internet provider’s usage cap raises questions

Phillip Dampier August 22, 2008 Broadband "Shortage", Frontier 4 Comments

AP

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
Fri Aug 22, 10:36 AM ET

NEW YORK – Three months ago, Guy Distaffen switched Internet providers, lured from his cable company to his phone company by a year of free service on a two-year contract. But soon the company quietly updated its policies to say it would limit his Internet activity each month.

“We felt that were suckered,” said Distaffen, who lives in the small village of Silver Springs in upstate New York.

The phone company, Frontier Communications Corp., is one of several Internet service providers that are moving to curb the growth of traffic on their networks, or at least make the subscribers who download the most pay more.

This could have consequences not just for consumers, who would have to learn to watch how much data their Internet use entails, but also for companies that hope to make the Internet a conduit for movies and other content that comes in huge files.

Cable companies have been at the forefront of imposing and talking about usage caps, because their lines are shared between households. Frontier’s announcement is noteworthy because it is a phone company and it is matching a seemingly low ceiling set by a main cable rival: just 5 gigabytes per month, the equivalent of about 3 DVD-quality movies.

“We go through that in a week,” Distaffen said. “If they start enforcing the caps we’re going to have to change service.” Other subscribers on Broadbandreports.com, where the cap was first reported, echoed his feelings.

But since the other option for wired broadband in the village is Time Warner Cable Inc., switching providers isn’t necessarily going to get Distaffen away from a bandwidth cap. The cable company is trying out a 5-gigabyte traffic cap for new users in Beaumont, Texas. Every gigabyte above that costs $1. More expensive plans have higher caps at $54.90 per month, the allowance is 40 gigabytes. Depending on the results of the trial, Time Warner Cable may apply the same pricing structure elsewhere.

Frontier’s biggest market is in Rochester, N.Y., where it competes with Time Warner Cable.

“This isn’t really an issue that’s just going to be about Frontier,” said Philip Dampier, a Rochester-based technology writer who is campaigning to get Frontier to back off its plans. “Virtually every broadband provider has been suddenly discovering that there’s this so-called ‘bandwidth crisis’ going on in the United States.”

In a sense, caps on Internet use are no stranger than the limited number of minutes a cell phone subscriber gets each month. Internet use varies hugely from person to person, and service providers argue that the people who use it the most should pay the most. But the industry hasn’t worked out where to set the limits, or how much to charge users who exceed them. Fearing a customer backlash, most providers are setting the limits at levels where very few would bump into them. Comcast Corp. has floated the idea of a 250-gigabyte monthly cap.

Frontier says it plans to start enforcing its 5-gigabyte cap next year. First, it will let customers know how much data they use each month, a figure that most people don’t know how to track on their own (the tech-savvy Distaffen gets it from his Internet router). Then it will offer premium plans with higher caps to those who use more data.

Frontier says most of its 559,300 broadband subscribers consume less than 1.5 gigabytes per month. But in an e-mail to Frontier employees, Chief Executive Maggie Wilderotter said traffic is doubling every year, which means that by the time the caps would be put in place, a lot more users will exceed them. In two years, the average user could be consuming 6 gigabytes of traffic per month if the current growth rate holds up.

The growth of traffic means the company has to invest millions in its network and infrastructure, threatening its profitability, according to the e-mail.

Dampier disagrees, saying the costs of network equipment and connecting to the wider Internet are falling.

“If they continue to make the necessary investments … there’s no reason they can’t keep up” with increasing customer traffic, he said.

Our “Take Action” Plans

Phillip Dampier August 20, 2008 Editorial & Site News 2 Comments

It has been quiet here the last few days as work continues on our expanded Resources section.   Some sample Letters to the Editor are online already, but additional writing is underway to help people do more than just read about usage caps, but also fight them.   Keep an eye out for developments.

I am also contacting many of those who have written in who want to get more actively involved in fighting the cap issue, in addition to joining a team of writers to post articles, news, and links to other stories on this issue.   We welcome anyone who wants to help join the fight.   Just use the Contact form or reply with a Comment and I’ll be in touch.

Some important articles are in the works on the issue of usage caps, including at least one major wire service report which should land in newspapers around the country which should appear in the next few days.

Stop the Cap.com vs. Stop the Cap.org

Phillip Dampier August 17, 2008 Editorial & Site News Comments Off on Stop the Cap.com vs. Stop the Cap.org

It was a good thing we launched when we did.   The Working Families Party and the Alliance for Quality Education were stuck with Stopthecap.org for their new website to protest New York Governor David Patterson’s plan to cap property taxes in New York State.   They launched a high price advertising campaign across the state to get people to contact their elected officials and get them to say no:

Property Taxes are a real problem. But the tax cap gimmick will hurt our schools, and won’t even reduce property taxes.  

If you arrived here looking for that website, it’s because you reflexively typed stopthecap.com  into your web browser.   But before you go, take a moment and read up on an issue New Yorkers are likely to face in the next twelve months –  unjustified usage caps on your Internet access, now proposed or being  tested  by two major Internet providers in the state – Frontier Communications and  Time-Warner’s Road Runner service.

We’re devoted to protecting consumer interests, and as a fellow New Yorker that is already paying too much for everything in the Empire State,  the last thing we all need is to cough up $40 a month (or more) for Internet access that limits you to watching two movies a month, or  charges you outrageous overage fees for anything you use above the limit.

Let’s Dialogue: Coping With Peer-2-Peer & Video Usage On Broadband Networks

Phillip Dampier August 14, 2008 Issues 2 Comments

One of the usual excuses given to promote the need  for  usage caps on residential broadband accounts is the person on the network who has fired up their peer-to-peer sharing application (usually torrent software) and has left the thing running 24/7 for the entire month.   This person is inevitably  held up as an example  in the pro-cap community as someone who is “abusing the network” by downloading terabytes worth of data “that no person could reasonably use in a month.”

There have been some interesting reports on the impact of peer-to-peer applications on broadband in the last  two weeks  (“20% Drop in p2p on AT&T Backbone Other video, like YouTube and Hulu, twice as high” – DSL Prime, 8/1/2008).   Ask a torrent fan what they enjoy getting the most from using such applications and it usually turns out to be television shows.   With the advent of more… authorized methods of accessing  favorite programs, including Hulu, Joost, iTunes, and the network websites themselves, people can  get  near instant gratification  without waiting hours, if not days, for a coveted episode to finally arrive over some BitTorrent site.

Is there something missing from the usual equation offered by cap advocates that “excessive/abusive use” + “limited bandwidth” = a usage cap to “better manage network traffic?”

Also, is there a place in the discussion for bandwidth providers to better dialogue with their customers, educating them about the impact of running certain file sharing peer-to-peer software on a continuous basis, not only on network traffic, but also potentially slowing down the connection for everyone else in the house?   How many parents have only the most limited knowledge about the software their kids are running?   And if it’s the head of the household running the software, do they even know how much bandwidth such tools could consume if left running continuously.

Do you think people would respond to a voluntary request by providers to not run such software  unattended for hour after hour, day after day?    Would  a customer  be more inclined to reduce usage  knowing that a voluntary reduction  could mean not having to  place caps on every customer?   What are your feelings about such a proposal?   Would it be effective?   Or do you dismiss the peer to peer traffic argument entirely?

Part of the purpose of Stop the Cap! is to offer some potential new ideas with providers genuinely interested in traffic management and not simply imposing caps as a way to increase revenue.   Your comments and advocacy for or against this idea are welcome.   Just hit the Comments button under the article headline and share your views.   Providers do read Stop the Cap! and many are genuinely interested in reading your views.

37 Megabytes From Microsoft Update In One Day Eat Into Usage Caps

Phillip Dampier August 13, 2008 Public Policy & Gov't 3 Comments

On August 13th, Microsoft’s motherload of bug fixes, updates, and upgrades landed on the desktop in my office, which still runs Microsoft XP.   From ActiveX Killbits to the Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool – August edition, some 14 patches adding up to 37 megabytes of data were delivered over my broadband connection.   Considering the fact we maintain three desktops and three laptops here, that 37 megabytes just became 222 megabytes, just for whatever problems Microsoft uncovered this month.

In a usage cap environment, even routine software updates count against your monthly bandwidth allotment.   And don’t forget to include the frequent updates to anti-virus, anti-spyware and other related applications that will bring  updates sometimes more than once per day.

While no single application  of this type will consume  an enormous amount of bandwidth, the impact is cumulative.   A little here, a little there, and suddenly you find yourself over the limit.

It’s just one more talking point to consider mentioning in a broadband world hampered by usage caps and limits.

[Update: A great comment from rreay reminds me of these updates in the last week or two as well.   Anyone have any more to add to the list?]

  • The recent iPhone/iPod touch update was 250 MB.
  • 60 MB for the last iTunes/Quicktime update.

Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

Your Account:

Stop the Cap!