I wonder what Berners-Lee has to say about this. Ladies and guys, AT&T has just announced that they will implement a 150GB monthly bandwidth cap on its regular DSL users (250GB for premium U-verse accounts). A bandwidth cap is simply a limit on your Internet usage. The more common type of bandwidth cap is a download quota. Once you go past it, you get charged extra (as in AT&T’s case: $10 for every additional 50GB) or your friendly ISP throttles or blocks your access to the Net (Thanks, COMCAST!). Advocates of network neutrality are against such practices, upholding the principles of a free and unregulated Web. In the other corner, ISP’s argue that the caps must be implemented because of network congestion and the ever increasing amount of data flowing through cyberspace. Biases aside, both are very valid reasons. This issue (or non-issue) deserves attention, not because of its immediate effects, but of its implications.
To be completely fair to the ISP’s, 150 GB is really big. A moderate Internet user like me wouldn’t even be able to go beyond 20 GB in a month. It’s quite obvious then that the cap wasn’t meant for us modest Internet users. The ISP’s impose caps to regulate their “abusive customers” who downstream and upstream massive amounts of data. AT&T estimates that these users comprise a whopping 2% of their total subscribers. 2%. Two-percent. TWO PERCENT.
 |
| Inarguably fashionable though! |
To be completely fair to the ISP’s, 150 GB is really big. A moderate Internet user like me wouldn’t even be able to go beyond 20 GB in a month. It’s quite obvious then that the cap wasn’t meant for us modest Internet users. The ISP’s impose caps to regulate their “abusive customers” who downstream and upstream massive amounts of data. AT&T estimates that these users comprise a whopping 2% of their total subscribers. 2%. Two-percent. TWO PERCENT.
Capacity limits and congestion are the two main reasons for bandwidth caps. With these caps in place, AT&T can “take” bandwidth “freed” up from their “abusive customers” and give it to another person. It’s the concept of fair-use, forcibly applied. It does make some sense but again, these abusive customers make up TWO FREAKING PERCENT of their total subscribers. Why not just spend some of the 8 billion dollars they earned last year to accommodate these high-usage customers? If only the top two percent of users will feel the cap, why not just charge them extra instead of capping everyone else? Why cap the regular customers when it really wouldn’t make much difference to them in the first place?
The public might cry “corporate greed!” but would the cap really rake in much more profit in the short run? Again 98% won’t feel it and I think the bandwidth hoarding 2% would start monitoring their usage. This leads me to speculate only on the true intentions behind bandwidth caps.
We should first consider the people immediately affected by the cap. Internet based businesses that require lots of downstreaming should watch out. Services like Netflix will be most hard hit. An HD movie is worth 3.5 GB of data. Also, with the increasing quality and size of movie formats, Netflix and similar companies would feel the cap’s grip the most. Their customers would then budget their Internet use as though it were currency. It wouldn’t seem very fair to put successful and ingenious businesses like Netflix at a disadvantage. Both the business and the consumers lose because of the regulation of the medium that, inherently, is supposed to be “free”. Ryan Singel, of Wired, wrote “When ISPs force their customers to watch the meter, experimentation, innovation and business will suffer,” Turner said.
Now, let’s look at the potential reasons behind the cap. The most logical and most probably cause is profit. Again, in the short run, it wouldn’t really be profitable because 150 GB is way too big for regular customers to max out but think about the future where a gigabyte will just receive the passive treatment of a megabyte today. A scarier thought is what if they’re just testing the waters with a 150 GB cap? What if they lower it down to 100 GB and argue that no one feels it anyway? And then lower it some more? By putting on too large a cap, it might be a strategy of desensitizing the public from its effects. It may seem a bit too pessimistic but with these caps almost pointlessly put in place, what else would we think?
When you go over the limit, you have to pay extra, $10 for every 50 GB above the limit to be exact. COMCAST has its cap at 250 GB but instead of charging you extra, they throttle your connection- a bit annoying but much less dickish and more attune to the excuse of fair use than charging you extra.
 |
| *tagadish* |
The NTC recently scrapped bandwidth caps on broadband in an MO draft. They said they’d rather focus on policies that will let ISP’s provide better service to their customers which a network neutralist would call the right thing to do. Globe has an 800 MB per day cap on their ironically named Unlisurf service. ISP’s blame network congestion (no surprise there) and cite Fair Use for their implementation of caps.
In the Philippines, BayanTel DSL already has a 100 GB bandwidth cap for its residential subscribers. According to pro-bandwidth caps people on BayanTel’s forums, the cap makes sure that residential users don’t abuse their Internet connections. Abusive users affect those in their area with their bandwidth hoarding by using these residential connections for Internet cafes or illegal downloading. It’s difficult to argue with these points of contention because, really, the Philippines is hardly a disciplined country when it comes to these things (though no empirical data is available to prove this point). But is the lack of discipline a valid enough reason to impose limits on everyone’s Internet use? ISP’s and intellectual property protectors say yes but in the online arena, traditional arguments are deemed invalid by Internet freedom fighters who stand by the creed of Network Neutrality. Here’s an article that gives a nice and short insight on local bandwidth caps.
Honestly, bandwidth caps aren’t that bad, at least not any time soon but they will always be contended because of the threat they pose on Internet freedom. The problematic aspect of this argument though is that the Internet can never be entirely separated from the offline world. Your access to the Web is limited to what your locality can provide. These limitations and realities, may it be cultural, technical or physical, hampers the concept of absolute freedom on the Web. For any mutually beneficial conclusion when it comes to conflicts of Internet freedom, advocates of network neutrality should get down from their high horses and the corporations should learn to talk with their hands outside their pockets. Otherwise, we’d just be wasting a lot of time.
Sources:
(Blogger), Cocoy. "Why NTC’s draft memorandum order on Broadband Cap is wrong." The Philippine Online Chronicles. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.thepoc.net/commentaries/10713-why-ntcs-draft-memorandum-order-on-broadband-cap-is-wrong.html>.
"Bandwidth caps explained, NTC endorsed | YugaTech | Philippines, Technology News & Reviews." YugaTech Philippines. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.yugatech.com/blog/the-internet/bandwidth-caps-explained-ntc-endorsed/>.
Fenlon, Wesley. "What AT&T's New Bandwidth Cap Means for You." Tested. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <www.tested.com/forums/pc-and-mac/5/what-atts-new-broadband-bandwidth-caps-mean-for-you/6694/>.
"MINIMUM SPEED OF BROADBAND CONNECTIONS." MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <portal.ntc.gov.ph:9081/wps/_mc/MC2011/MO_minimum_speed_12jan11draft.html>.
Roettgers, Janko. "AT&T’s New Bandwidth Cap Is Bad News for Netflix: Online Video News." GigaOM“ Technology News, Analysis and Trends . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://gigaom.com/video/att-bandwidth-cap-netflix/>.
Singel, Ryan. "AT&T Puts Broadband Users on Monthly Allowance | Epicenter | Wired.com." Wired.com . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/att-dsl-cap/>.
Taylor, Keaton. "AT&T to Impose Caps on Home Internet." BestTechie. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.besttechie.net/2011/03/15/att-impose-caps-home-internet/>.
"Telecoms regulation: Put a cap on it." The Economist. The Economist, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/telecoms_regulation>.
Tofel, Kevin C.. "AT&T Shuts Down the Mobile Broadband Buffet by Ending Flat-rate Mobile Plans: Mobile Technology News." GigaOM“ Technology News, Analysis and Trends . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://gigaom.com/mobile/att-shuts-down-the-mobile-broadband-buffet/>.
"is Policy on internet bandwidth usage now applicable." bayanFORUM. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <www.bayan.com.ph/forum/yaf_postst5492_is-Policy-on-internet-bandwidth-usage--now-applicable.aspx>.
No comments:
Post a Comment