Set a max of, say, 300Gig, and everything beyond that costs a certain amount per gig. If people over- or under-use, raise or lower the rate accordingly. Let the customer decide where they want to be. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be just fine with a limit of 10GB or so, while others wouldn't be happy with a 2TB limit.

I like all the bandwidth I get, but if the company wants to change it's contract in the future, there's not much I can do except maybe go elsewhere.

Lastly, though, if I'm going to start paying more, they damn well ought to use the extra to upgrade their routers, since that's where the problem seems to be. If I pay more and they simply increase their advertising, I'm going to be quite a bit pissed off.

In any business, the winner who is making money is not simply because of luck. It requires strategic business planning and management to become successful in any business. Overselling something that you don't have is a strategy. Nothing wrong with that until that you can't fulfill your commitment to your subscribers. The subscribers pay the company because of the service, good planning and management of infrastructures etc, nothing else. Any company should reduce the cost of the goods/services based on economy of scale and make money from what they can save, versus the cost if individual does similar thing on their own. If they can't then let others to do the job.

In any business, if the ROI is high enough, e.g. profit margin 50%, it will attract more players until an equilibrium point is reached, e.g. lower profit margin or technical hurdles to overcome etc. Everything is fair and square in this world.

If you don't like MS, go and get Linux.

"Its NOT the heavy users fault. Its the ISP's - if they cant do it they shouldn't sell it END OF STORY. "

It is exactly as Leslie says. I started an Internet service in an rural area that no one else will cover. I have to pay AT&T $1700 a month for a 10mb line. If I guaranteed full 1.5Mb dedicated data rate to each customer, it then costs them $255 a month without recouping any equipment costs or paying me or my employees for their time.

If you bother to read any broadband contract, the speeds are "up to" 6Mb, 3Mb, 1.5Mb, etc. It is not dedicated data rate, that costs loads of $$. I'll gladly sell someone dedicated data rate at a price that will cover the costs and still come under AT&T's current T1 rates here. Last time I priced a T1, I could get it from AT&T for around $1200 a month, $700 from other resellers.

Going by your logic, well over half of the US would have no basic broadband service because it would cost the company every month to deliver the service to each customer.

To paraphrase a friend of mine, it would be cheaper to stop serving high speed and just send each subscriber $20 a month.

Refraining from political comment:

Set rant = On

Perhaps some of you folks should try living here in Thailand (the developed 2nd world). The Telcos here will sell you "Hi-Speed" connections of any random bandwidth and charge accordingly. They will sell any number of these subscriptions to any number of people. The total number of subscriptions sold bears no relationship to the available infrastructure bandwidth.

Exactly as one would predict where effective controls and consumer protections are not in place.

The result is that every morning, when Bangkok wakes up, the internet goes to sleep. Access to sites outside the country is particularly badly affected, being essentially unaccessible on a regular basis.

I have personally measured 16Kb (thats small 'b' bit) speeds on many occasions when accessing servers known to be serving at orders of magnitude above this. Imagine using today's internet on a 32K modem to get the general idea. While it is not always this bad, it is very often that bad. Until you have experienced 60 second response time on a mouse click action while trying desperately to solve a remote server issue, you don't fully understand the gravity of the problem.

All of the concerns about Telcos and their rapacious behaviour expressed by UK and US readers are demonstrated by the bad example here. There is simply nowhere near the bandwidth available for the number of subscribers paying for it - and paying more does not help at all.

In general we need more not less control of ISPs with greater accountability and requirements to actually deliver minimum service levels - not some nebulous "up to 7Mb/sec" as all current contracts seem to state, because as far as I can determine, the state of affairs here can easily bcome the general condition in Europe, UK and US to the detriment of all users of the net.

Set rant = off

Dweeb

So your saying it's false advertising?? If the contract between the customer says 10Mbs than thats what the customer should use in order to get their moneys worth. If the ISP doesn't want to give 10Mbs than the ISP should change the contract.

Also VOIP does not use much bandwidth at ALL. I pay for a 256kbs line and my VOIP works flawlessly but also, I've also used it over a 56kbs line so AT&T has nothing to whine about over VOIP other than the fact they lose their ill-gotten revenue that they shouldn't have in the first place may they go bankrupt soon.

Please.

Nothing in there about the customer except as a problem... Are the ISPs a new Fawlty Towers business plan?

The big riders on the highway want to run on three and four lanes all at once, while the little putters hang on the slow lanes. Just like health care. The insurance industry is bucking reform to keep advantage and manipulate premiums, hospital and doctors' rates. Never mind the uninsured underdogs. AT&T and them will never want to cede territory to cheaper providers; it would lighten their pockets too much.

@ jilocasin, 26 October 2009

There is a major flaw in the way you present your analogy. In your analogy, you mistakenly ignore the fact that each person is paying $XX.xx for up to 10 apples per day as per the service plan they are purchasing. Not everyone uses or takes their ten apples thus allowing the company to buy less apples or sell them to others.

However, it is *not* the fault nor is it wrong of the customer to insist upon getting the 10 apples per day he has purchased. If the company doesn't like people taking the full 10 apples they offer for that price, then change the agreement so that people can only buy 5 apples if the company is unwilling to buy more apples to meet their obligations.

There is absolutely nothing selfish or wrong for people to use to the full extent what the company offered for that price.

The problem is that they choose NOT to do so because they insist on competing based upon the fastest speed available for the price listed in their competition whilst claiming unlimited. It is deceptive and fraudulent for them to offer 10Mb unlimited access for $XX.xx and then turn around and place artificial limits claiming the need for "network management." That "network management" can just as easily be done without deception by lowering the offered speed rates OR cease calling it unlimited and clearly state their limits. It is INTENTIONAL fraud on their parts.

Their recent methods of sneakily sending false data to people's computers causing it to close ports on the customer's computer thereby denying/blocking their traffic is technically a DoS attack by the ISP and they should be sued/prosecuted.

Otherwise, perhaps people should step up and flood similar packets that cause similar results to the offending ISP's systems. It would be kind of hard to prosecute those doing the exact same things they are doing to others back at them. If it is illegal for everyone else to DoS other systems using their same methods, then it cannot be any more legal for them to do so.

The big riders on the highway want to run on three and four lanes all at once, while the little putters hang on the slow lanes. Just like health care. The insurance industry is bucking reform to keep advantage and manipulate premiums, hospital and doctors' rates. Never mind the uninsured underdogs. AT&T and them will never want to cede territory to cheaper providers; it would lighten their pockets too much.

to make money MY way. From now on I will ride my horses slowly down the motorway to ensure that these new fangled cars don't take my business away from me.

@Leslie
Its NOT the heavy users fault. Its the ISP's - if they cant do it they shouldn't sell it END OF STORY.
I'd like a pint please.
Theres ten other people drinking so heres a drip for the £3.50 I took off you at the beginning of the month?

It is no myth guys - it is fact - heavy users strangle ISP connections.

What you guys don't seem to realise is that ISPs rely heavily on contention ratios. That is, they rely on the fact that not all users will be using the full amount of bandwidth they subscribe to and carefully monitor the number of usings "sharing" the amount of bandwidth that is advertised.

ie. 10 ppl subscribe to a 10mbps plan, but not all use the full 10mbps, instead they use an average of 1mbps. So the ISP can then use that average to calculate that 100ppl would be able to "share" the actual advertised 10mbps. That is, they have a 10:1 contention ratio.

ISPs rely on this to be able to provide you with good value plans. Without it, they would be spending too much on bandwidth and your plan cost would increase dramatically.

No ISP in the world ever provides a 1:1 contention ratio for home users, and most will not provide it for business users. The only time you'll get a genuine 1:1 is if you pay the HUGE amount of money it costs for it.

FYI, a 1mbps symetrical connection with 1:1 contention ratio (ie. not shared) costs several hundred dollars ;)

Now the comments like "I pay for 10mbps so I can use it all and if the ISP can't provide that it is their fault" are very naive and as explained above, it is not so simple for the ISP to simply provide the "advertised" speed to each and every customer for a decent price. Be happy with what you have, and if you don't like the speed of the connection due to contention ratios, don't be so cheap - go pay for a full unshared connection (however I doubt you'd be willing to spend that much money).

Great, it'll lead to an end to the system where the price of mobile phones is hidden in contracts, leading to massive amounts of phones prematurely taken out of service.

If people want the laest phone, they should be paying out for it. It's a better business model and far more eco-friendly to boot!

Well said my friend.

I'm glad to see that for once we are getting it right, here in the US.

The AT&Ts, BTTs, Comcasts and the Telstras would like nothing better than to be given free reign to create their own monopoly where it's legal for them to "tax" the competition out of business.

The FCC is right: net neutrality will foster competition and innovation. AT&T is just set in its old telecom ways and doesn't want to compete with Skype with its own internet-based telecom services. We should not seek to emulate the regressive telecom-protection Internet policies such countries like Saudi Arabia practice (Skype filtering for example). If these companies cannot compete and disappear: GOOD RIDDANCE.

As for high bandwidth users, the argument is the same: if your users are using too much bandwidth YOU HAVE TOO LITTLE CAPACITY. There is no excuse. Add more capacity or your customers will flock to whomever does have it. Such competition will ensure that markets and technologies do not become entrenched by the likes of companies like AT&T. Companies such as Telstra in Australia are prime examples of what happens when there is no competition, and companies are allowed to provide pitifully poor quality service with impunity (like 2GB transfer per month).

The SAS warning is yet another example of the backwardsness that permeates the UK's "think tanks." Their advisory should be rejected as the self-serving, harmful protectionism it is.

They are just trying to kill off free TV. If you watch your TV on Hulu, Netflix ect whats going to happen when/if they start streaming in 1080p.(or like to play your MMORPG all day) this only benefits the Cable and Dish companies that don't want to lose there customers to Cheap TV.

I call BS on the heavy user nonsense as well. For every "Heavy" user, there are at least 6 or more average users that don't even come close to 5% of the heavy users usage. Do they get a pro-rated refund? I didn't think so.

So I guess it's Ok for Comcast, AT&T or BTT to overcharge the majority, but the folks getting their money's worth are persona non grata.

This is a lot like the argument casino's use against card counters. The sheep with no clue how to play are welcome and catered to, but the folks bright enough to study and use their brains to figure the odds and have the gall to play well are called criminals and asked to leave or prosecuted.

Bollocks

I live in an apartment on the ninety-ninth floor of my block
And I sit at home looking out the window
Imagining the world has stopped
- that’s bullish in Bottle speak -
I wanted to get an eight-legged starfish for a flatshare rate, but the landlord says "Don't hang around cause two's a crowd on my Cloud".
This Is It or I Never Heard!
Fawlty Towers: "We could run this place properly if it wasn't for the punters" is their motto.

This article repeats the myth of the 'heavy user' slowing down the net.

"...those using high bandwidth applications will slow everything down for those with less demanding requirements..."

The only thing that a 'heavy user' can do is actually use the bandwidth she's bought. Just because a user is torrenting Linux distros, streaming HD TV shows from Hula, and or having video chats (perhaps all at the same time :) Doesn't enable a user to use more bandwidth than their plan allows. If you have a 10Mb down 1Mb up DSL connection, you can't use more than 10Mb down no matter what you are doing.

The only difference to an ISP between two users, both with 10Mb down/ 1Mb up internet service is that the fellow who only browses text based web sites and sends and receives a few dozen emails a month and the heavy user is that they can successfully OVERSELL their bandwidth with the former, but not with the latter.

It's like selling apples under the 10 apples per day plan. If you get 100 apples a day you can support 10 users if every user takes their 10 apples. Over the years most users only take 2 or 3 apples a day, some only take an apple or two every 2 days. Occasionally someone takes 8 or nine apples, but that was rare. So what did ISP's do? Well they sold their 10 apple a day plan to 100 people. Now that there are some really good apple recipes out there (apple crisp, apple butter, etc.) more people are trying to take their 10 apples a day. The ISP is running around limiting people to only 4 or 5 apples, these 'apple hoarders' are ruining the apple business for our other customers. We must legally be able to limit their excessive apple consumption for the betterment of their neighbors. Sounds kinda obvious if you replace Mb with apples now doesn't it?

If they spent more money upgrading their infrastructure and they may be able to actually support the number of users who utilize the ISP. Claiming that they are 'bandwidth hogs' or evil 'heavy users' that must be restrained is just more bovine excrement.

Does this mean wee need to start paying for porn?

About time some arm of govt slapped it. This is the company that grew too big in the 70s and 80s and had to be smacked down and tore apart because they were stiffling innovation. Then in bush's reign, they threw big parties where the big wigs got together listening in on peoples private phone calls and then whined to bush to protect them from lawsuits. They deserve to go belly up.

"The ruling would benefit content companies like Skype but cut into the revenues generated by telecom providers from phone calls. This ultimately raises outstanding issues that need to be addressed in order for the interests of all parties involved to be protected."

Really. So if technology has made your product or service less valuable or obsolete, you deserve protection?
Regarding the ISP's somebody will step in to fill that need if they won't/can't.
This is typical of current capitalistic thinking: Do not allow the free market to work if it hurts my business.