urgrandpasdog

I've got 6meg download 768k upload DSL for $35 a month, no caps.... yet.

The only thing we can (hopefully) count on is competition between companies. Imagine if every ISP had caps and throttling and ridiculous pricing etc., then all of a sudden a company showed up and started charging decent prices for good service and no caps, everyone in their right mind would switch to said company.

I know that's an "extreme" example, but the only thing that keeps prices as low as they are is competition between companies. Imagine what intel CPU's would cost if AMD went out of business, for instance.

Liability

Competition? There are so few companies in a lot of areas, that a monopoly or duopoly exists more often than not.

urgrandpasdog

I know, I know..... sigh

Well, if you read my post carefully, I said a new company coming and doing this. Or at least that's what I was trying to say.

xlink

aren't the two often one in the same?

Ice Dingo

Bah, in Aus it's like this already. I have a 10GB limit (5GB off peak, 5GB on-peak) at 512k for $50 a month. Go over the limit and you get throttled to 32k. Extra GB is $15 each. $54.90 US with $1/GB after the limit for 40GB is a bargain.

__________________

akeedthe

Oh no!!!!

Nonchalant

So your saying were going to go back to the days of 'pay by the hour' like we had in the days of dialup?'

I seriously doubt it.

The only winners out of that will be the ISP's with no extra costs but huge extra profits.

Wont happen.

Where do you live? I pay $70 for ADSL2 with a 40Gb cap..60Gb is like another $10/mth..

__________________
TrustPort Antivirus - 3 antivirus are better than 1!

VulcanDragon

But that's the problem, you can't sue for breah of contract. Our current pro-business, anti-consumer administration (8 days left, baby!) and court system have tilted the scales so far away from consumer rights it's ridiculous.

In this specific case, you're making an assertion that a commercial or print ad claiming to sell "unlimited bandwidth" and failing to follow through is a breach of contract. That's not true, and it never was...an advertisement is not a contract. I do contend that this is false advertising, however.

No, the contract is the EULA/Terms of Service that you agreed to when you signed your name/clicked the button/whatever you did to have your internet service turned on. Which you probably didn't even read. Which is irrelevant anyway, since it is an almost guaranteed certainty that somewhere in the depths of the legalese the company claimed the right to change the terms without notice. Making it virtually impossible for them to ever breach the contract, since they have the right (that you signed off on) to change the terms of the contract.

Why this is legal completely escapes me. No offense to people, but people are stupid. Expecting them to a) know what they are signing away, or b) understand how it can hurt them in the long run, is simply not reasonable. I'm all for personal responsibility, make no mistake; but there is a line where intelligent and greedy companies simply overwhelm average and (sorry) stupid people to the point where they are not really capable of making informed decisions. Hopefully, the next four years will see some changes in this regard. People don't need government to hold their hands while they cross the street, but they do need government to have their backs when the zillion dollar corporations are trying to take advantage of them in order to boost their stock price another penny.

Well, in the sense that most cellular companies also have land based service these days, yes. Plus the cable companies, of course.

Gawd, that nightmare...death to Prodigy and CompuServe days.

But no way that would ever happen, it doesn't make that much sense in the current conversation. ISPs aren't complaining about time spent connected, they're complaining about data volumes. The guy playing WoW and the guy seeding huge torrents are not in the same ballpark, even if they are doing it for the exact same length of time.

__________________
Vulcan Dragon
Core i7 920 @ 3.7 GHz
Currently Playing: Galactic Civilizations II (PC); Call of Duty 4 (PC); Halo 3:ODST (X360); Rock Band: Metallica (X360); Dead Rising (X360); Mafia Wars (Facebook...DOH!!!!)
XBox Live Gamertag: Vulcan Draggon

ENTERPRISE

It should always be a flat rate IMO. If you want more bandwidth then you pay for more. I personally only agree with data usage capping if a particular user is going above his/her fair usage policy constantly. Now and again for a matter of miniutes is not killer.

I can say I have never been hit by the data caps. I am with BT and to be honest I dont even know what there cap is lmao. So far I have not hit it or gone over it.

Making Broadband a Pay as you go industry....if this is what they are saying then this is going to be pretty dumb and I would be much less inclined to use the Internet. If I am barking up the wrong tree tell me lol.

However we will have to wait and see. I cannot see this being enforced. If it is then....well depending on how much it will be I may avoid online content...which would suck.

__________________

VulcanDragon

Agree. I was just thinking, they don't charge me more if I watch too much HDTV...what's the difference? If I leave both of my HDTV capable set-top boxes on 24x7, even if the TV itself is not turned on, then they are essentially streaming me 20GB of data every hour...yet they have no problem with doing that, there is no up-charge for watching too much TV. What exactly is the difference? Nothing...one is just their cable network's data transmission format (and I admit that I have no idea what that is), the other is IP traffic.

__________________
Vulcan Dragon
Core i7 920 @ 3.7 GHz
Currently Playing: Galactic Civilizations II (PC); Call of Duty 4 (PC); Halo 3:ODST (X360); Rock Band: Metallica (X360); Dead Rising (X360); Mafia Wars (Facebook...DOH!!!!)
XBox Live Gamertag: Vulcan Draggon