Streaming Is on a Collision Course with ISP Data Caps

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Cisco’s latest study is showing that internet usage continues to rise, the majority of which comprises video: “75 percent of global internet traffic was video last year, up from 63 percent just two years earlier.” Those figures are expected to grow with the increasing adoption of data-heavy services such as 4K Netflix streaming, but there’s a problem: ISPs will be unlikely to grow their caps in response, as UHD video could be a lucrative opportunity for overage fees.

Comcast didn’t respond to Motherboard’s request for comment on whether the company plans to relax usage limits to accommodate this growth. As it stands, Comcast imposes a terabyte usage cap on all of its service areas except the Northeast, where broadband competition is slightly more intense. Users can avoid such limits entirely if they pay an additional $50 per month.
 
It’s really weird to think of myself as lucky to have Charter Spectrum. No caps or throttling for me in my area. But 10 miles west, DSL or Comcast, 30 miles south Buckeye with datacaps.

We as a people straight up just need to figure a way to force these ISPs into no more data caps. Legislature against it seems the most sensible but lots of luck doing that.
 
It’s really weird to think of myself as lucky to have Charter Spectrum. No caps or throttling for me in my area. But 10 miles west, DSL or Comcast, 30 miles south Buckeye with datacaps.

We as a people straight up just need to figure a way to force these ISPs into no more data caps. Legislature against it seems the most sensible but lots of luck doing that.

If enough people decided to say screw it and get rid of their home internet for a a while that may do it as well.
 
the problem some people have is they don't understand the *cost* of data transfer has not decreased in proportion to our appetites--i.e. HD video consumption.

once the "casual" understands that our increased consumption is not commensurate to the decreased cost over the same time period, i think we'll see some shift.

i think the more the "internet" is used for tv as a consequence of "cord cutting", the less it satisfies the real definition.

i think the costs will be the same for both eventually, and they should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
my mediacom is very generous, gigabit speeds and a 6TB data limit a month, iv never used more then 3 tb a month
 
We as a people straight up just need to figure a way to force these ISPs into no more data caps. Legislature against it seems the most sensible but lots of luck doing that.

As it stands, Comcast imposes a terabyte usage cap on all of its service areas except the Northeast, where broadband competition is slightly more intense.

Actual competition is the real solution. Where there's a choice in broadband providers, the costs are lower, speeds are higher, and they have no/high caps.

What we need is a law regulating broadband in locations where there's no competition.
They should not be allowed to use caps if there are no other broadband competitors available. (384kb DSL and cell phone data does not count as competition)

If they don't like the additional regulation, then allow competition in the area, and when a competitor is available to 90% of the local homes, then they would be spared the regulation.
 
Bits are a limited resource. Millions of years ago Bytes ruled the Earth but was wiped out by a gamma ray burst. Now we harvest the bytes by tearing them apart, 8 at a time while sending them across wires (some even commit heresy by sending them through the air). Once they are gone, the internet will stop.

However some companies have figured out a magical way of creating more for just $50 more a month.
 
I think its messed up that I upgraded from 100Mbit to 250Mbit not for the speed increase but because the upgrade got me an extra 100GB of data usage per month.
 
the problem some people have is they don't understand the *cost* of data transfer has not decreased in proportion to our appetites--i.e. HD video consumption.

once the "casual" understands that our increased consumption is not commensurate to the decreased cost over the same time period, i think we'll see some shift.

i think the more the "internet" is used for tv as a consequence of "cord cutting", the less it satisfies the real definition.

i think the costs will be the same for both eventually, and they should be.

Cable TV is way overpriced as is. If it weren't for exclusive sports channels, cable TV would be essentially dead at their current pricing.
 
We in North Europe laugh to these limits.. and in the other hand we are sad about those limits.. we have almost unlimited everything... dsl.. cables.. fibers.. 3g.. 4g.. all can be abused much as we like.. still those murican data caps are from somewhere early 2000 and those caps are so sad :(
 
Cable TV is way overpriced as is. If it weren't for exclusive sports channels, cable TV would be essentially dead at their current pricing.

probably true.

i think with the degraded quality of sports, that we are closer to the scenario you speak of (no content worth subscribing for).

how cable/streaming eventually equilibrate/complement eachother will be interesting.

right now we're talking about the caps because these services are offering catalogues of intellectual property, whose abundance can trigger the cap easily.
  • when we start "a la carte"ing (if you will) old content, i think the telecoms/corps will need to find numbers that work.
  • syndication cannot carry them any longer. it has worked for some time, but people are getting to "that point".
 
We in North Europe laugh to these limits.. and in the other hand we are sad about those limits.. we have almost unlimited everything... dsl.. cables.. fibers.. 3g.. 4g.. all can be abused much as we like.. still those murican data caps are from somewhere early 2000 and those caps are so sad :(

In early 2000, one terabyte a month data caps? I think you might be misremember some things as that does not scale quite right.
 
the problem some people have is they don't understand the *cost* of data transfer has not decreased in proportion to our appetites--i.e. HD video consumption.

I don't know if it has "decreased in proportion", but the cost has dropped significantly over the years.

Years ago we switch the office from a T1 line to a 10mb connection. (business line, same up/down speeds, fiber into the building)
Every couple years we have at least doubled the connection speed for about the same price.
We are now at 200mb up/down.
This is on a dedication line. If I was willing to "Share" bandwidth with others in the building, I could get 500mb for about the same price.

That's same price, 20x increase in speed, no caps.

At the same time, my home line (same provider COX), has had "free speed increases", but then they raise the price a few months later.
Prices have almost doubled, while the speed has increase only 4x.

That's double the price, 4x increase in speed, and caps (it was uncapped years ago).

Main difference is that at home I have no other options, not even DSL. (i.e. a monopoly)
At work I now have 2 providers that have fiber in the building, and can get up to a 1gb connection (i.e. competition)

 
Bits are a limited resource. Millions of years ago Bytes ruled the Earth but was wiped out by a gamma ray burst. Now we harvest the bytes by tearing them apart, 8 at a time while sending them across wires (some even commit heresy by sending them through the air). Once they are gone, the internet will stop.

However some companies have figured out a magical way of creating more for just $50 more a month.

Make sure you leave your cables plugged in, you don't want to waste those bytes by having them leak all over the floor. :p
 
We muricans in North America understand that entire northern europe's population is smaller than that of California alone. That incudes Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, so there is that..:D
Comcast is doing what it does best...grabbing cash wherever they can.
 
In early 2000, one terabyte a month data caps? I think you might be misremember some things as that does not scale quite right.

Prolly do.. Never had such caps so dunno.. just know what muricans has always have somekind of stupid datacaps.. :p
 
Make sure you leave your cables plugged in, you don't want to waste those bytes by having them leak all over the floor. :p

That's why Microsoft so generously invented Win10 telemetry - so those bits can be scooped up when you're not looking and returned to the Mothership for 're-purposing'.
:smug:
 
Anyone who can get Comcast/xfinity could potentially get a Comcast Business connection instead at that same location. A little more expensive but no caps and better service overall.
 
As it stands, Comcast imposes a terabyte usage cap on all of its service areas except the Northeast, where broadband competition is slightly more intense.

Actual competition is the real solution. Where there's a choice in broadband providers, the costs are lower, speeds are higher, and they have no/high caps.

What we need is a law regulating broadband in locations where there's no competition.
They should not be allowed to use caps if there are no other broadband competitors available. (384kb DSL and cell phone data does not count as competition)

If they don't like the additional regulation, then allow competition in the area, and when a competitor is available to 90% of the local homes, then they would be spared the regulation.


The problem with this scenario is that even in my area we have Comcast and att. However they don't compete at all. They both impose a 1TB cap and the prices are very similar for certain speeds. Att usually can't reach the max speeds that Comcast offers so they end up including there uverse TV service. They say at a discounted nted rate yet charge enough for the tv service that it doesn't make any difference between the two.

It would have to be real competition. Not just implied competition. And you can't get real competition when the services are so close to each other in price and caps that it just plainly looks like they are colluding with each other.
 
The problem with this scenario is that even in my area we have Comcast and att. However they don't compete at all. They both impose a 1TB cap and the prices are very similar for certain speeds. Att usually can't reach the max speeds that Comcast offers so they end up including there uverse TV service. They say at a discounted nted rate yet charge enough for the tv service that it doesn't make any difference between the two.

It would have to be real competition. Not just implied competition. And you can't get real competition when the services are so close to each other in price and caps that it just plainly looks like they are colluding with each other.

They are, that much has been clear for ages.
 
Thankfully you can buy unlimited data with most ISPs but it still sucks.
 
Sorry folks, but I'm very skeptical of data caps, especially when said data caps are coming from the same providers who also provide television service. Yeah, the same folks who state, "In an effort to increase your cable and satellite bills beyond the point of affordability and to further pad the pockets of our executives...".... and this applies not only to cable providers, but also the content providers as well. Since streaming video content is very bandwidth heavy, yet undercuts the core business, why not provide a big disincentive...

All those who think residential Internet, especially in the United State and Canada, sucks, please raise yer hands.
 
The problem with this scenario is that even in my area we have Comcast and att. However they don't compete at all. They both impose a 1TB cap and the prices are very similar for certain speeds. Att usually can't reach the max speeds that Comcast offers so they end up including there uverse TV service. They say at a discounted nted rate yet charge enough for the tv service that it doesn't make any difference between the two.

It would have to be real competition. Not just implied competition. And you can't get real competition when the services are so close to each other in price and caps that it just plainly looks like they are colluding with each other.

what they do is illegal but the cities/state's just look past it because they want the tax dollars and the politicians want their re-election funds. if you really want to see just how bad it can get, check out Seattle and the way all the ISP's are laid out, they have 5 or 6 different ISP's yet none of them directly compete with each other.
 
Thats just insane.
I am not aware of any ISP here having any form of data cap on any connection, don't even think it is legal to do that.
I can DL 125 megabytes every second all day if i could find a host that could give me that, and HDD storage to put in my computer cuz i have a feeling my 4 Tb slow storage drive would fill up pretty fast.

Mobile data,,,, sure we have caps or data limitations, if you have a unlimited mobile data plan, well thats a few Tb / mo in the eye of your provider.

Maybe when facetwitt / google / amazon have stolen 90% of the with of our data backbone with their data centers we will get data caps, or be forced to pay to widen it so those guys can get their data for free.
 
Found a local ISP that uses fixed wireless. 60$ flat per month for 40/10. No caps, fees, or taxes Comcast eventually ran fiber through my neighborhood but they couldn't compete on any level besides top speed. Small trade off to not spend month, harassing family for every tablet left streaming, or game that had to be redownload etc.

I'm willing to pay about 100$ a month for unlimited. But comcast equivalent offering was even less speed for more money.

To say nothing re customer service. Previously, after talling bv to one of the owners of the company while he was upgrading my hardware, we negotiated a special price/speed just for me. Small town + small business is just vastly superior to my comcast past in big cities. Strip away those layers of corporate think and lowest common denominators, things get a lot better!
 
Last edited:
Bandwidth is just electrons. I'd rather just pay a minimal access fee of like 5$ mon and then pay for each .12 cent kwh.
 
what they do is illegal but the cities/state's just look past it because they want the tax dollars and the politicians want their re-election funds. if you really want to see just how bad it can get, check out Seattle and the way all the ISP's are laid out, they have 5 or 6 different ISP's yet none of them directly compete with each other.

Term for that is, Oligopoly. But yes when government protects the Oligopoly it becomes a whole other thing called "peasantry cornhole." Its the stuff that violent revolutions are made of.
 
my mediacom is very generous, gigabit speeds and a 6TB data limit a month, iv never used more then 3 tb a month
I agree data caps are bullshit but how the hell do you use 3TB a month for home use. Granted I live alone but I even have a hard time hitting 1TB. I consider myself a extremely high user.
 
Prolly do.. Never had such caps so dunno.. just know what muricans has always have somekind of stupid datacaps.. :p

I've never had a cap technically. We used to pay per time block for access but that would the closest I have ever had from my ISPs in the US.
 
It seems to me we should open up our coastlines for internet exploration. If we are unable to find new internet deposits to mine inland we should drill for it underwater. Internet is so abundant there that it literally seeps from the ocean floor.
 
the problem some people have is they don't understand the *cost* of data transfer has not decreased in proportion to our appetites--i.e. HD video consumption.

once the "casual" understands that our increased consumption is not commensurate to the decreased cost over the same time period, i think we'll see some shift.

i think the more the "internet" is used for tv as a consequence of "cord cutting", the less it satisfies the real definition.

i think the costs will be the same for both eventually, and they should be.

Except you are wrong. Bandwidth is significantly cheaper today than it was 5 years ago. 5 years ago putting in a 10 gig network was expensive now its cheap and standard. Moving towards 100 gig connections now which is driving prices further down.

International links have dropped on average about 40% per year over the past few years if I recall correctly. Just 4 years ago it was $15k/month for a 10 gig link between NY and Tokyo, today its $5k/month.
 
Back
Top