Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bowdon]

Should Broadband ISPs Kill Data Capped Packages? Like Netflix Wants

Internet video streaming giant Netflix has once again rubbed broadband ISPs up the wrong way after it effectively called for providers to scrap packages that impose data caps (usage allowances) on their subscribers. But not every house needs an “unlimited” service and not every ISP can afford to run one.

Hopefully by now most consumers should be aware that home broadband connections are “Best Efforts” services that share their local network capacity between many users, which is one reason why your service speeds may slow during Peak Times when most people are online (i.e. 6pm onwards, as people return home from work and go online); experiences do vary.

[Chrysalis]

I would say the answer is no.

The alternative would be "fake" unlimited packages, especially in the mobile broadband area.

I prefer a capped service to one of hidden traps and congestion.

[kitz]

^ this.

[Weaver]

Currently, the customer has the choice. That's the way it should stay.

[ejs]

I don't think usage quotas really make much difference to the peak time capacity required though, there will still be a lot of people who will be using their home broadband connections the most during the evenings, when they're at home.

I don't think self imposed rationing is a good solution either. There doesn't seem much point in having all this bandwidth only to then have to keep checking your usage and deciding not to use it.

With a usage quota, it would be a case of either never getting anywhere near the limit, in which case the limit wouldn't really matter.
Or having to restrict what you do on the Internet to avoid going over the quota.

[Bowdon]

I'd prefer for there to be so much more capacity that putting restrictions on packages wouldn't be needed. It seems spare bandwidth always seems to be only just ahead of whats needed.

I think the current system is ok for what limitations there is in the network.

[Chrysalis]

Sadly bowden it seems to be the trend from a fair few isps now days, to run their links hot :(meaning either to have them at saturation or just below saturation), as accountants tend to see unutilised capacity as poor use of money.

The best solution is yes that isp's avoid congestion in the first place by having sufficiant capacity, but some isp's simply refuse to do this so then the question is which is better, unlimited bandwidth with congestion, FUP's limits on type of traffic etc. e.g. the Three network where one cannot tether, they throttle certian protocols and various areas are heavily congested including my area, or tight usage limits but very good speeds, with no  usage type restrictions, the only restriction been the amount of traffic.  e.g. EE.  I prefer EE's system hence I am with them.

[kitz]

Don't forget the important thing is that bandwidth costs money.

The average person is always looking for cheap broadband.  In today's mass market the biggest seller will be cheap.  Even though bandwidth is now cheaper than it was 10 years ago, the vast majority of ISPs offer broadband for less than it costs them.   Therefore costs have to be cut - usually bandwidth and CS, and some cross subsidisation of line rental.

I strongly disagree with cross-subsidisation, as it makes it hard for the consumer to see the true price of DSL.  - although I'm not averse to joint discounts (ie 50p off if you take LR & BB).

When we live in a country where the majority want free broadband.. what else do you expect.  iirc Talktalk started this trend - therefore its now what joe public expects.
If you want an ISP that isnt as contended, then we must be prepared to pay for it.  This is why the likes of Zen & AAISP have a market, but tbh they dont have a very big share, which speaks volumes for what the majority want. 
 

[Chrysalis]

the consumer needs educating, most people think every isp is just adding a label to the same product.