Verizon CTO Predicts that Metered Broadband is the Future

54

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

gendoikari1

Well, it really doesn't matter here, because both of the major ISPs (Rogers and Bell) are Satan anyway. Although, broadband penetration is skewed because everyone lives in the bottom, so its rather dense there and sparse the rest of the country.

avatar

angel2u

The Internet is the property of the United States

citizen and that will not, in the future, include Corporations,

if sanity prevails. People have forgotten that the "air waves"

are free and so shoud be the Internet. If we can maintain the

largest military force on the face of this planet, surely we

can maintain and afford the Internet. ALL of our freedoms

and our economic future are tied to keeping it free and

robust. There is no reason it has to be considered a

limited commodity. It can be expanded cheaply and

with a great return to our society. Those who would 

control it WILL limit it to make it valuable enough to

leverage demand. The result will be that mankind will

get less and some will get very very rich. Next they will sell

you the air you breath. 

 

The Internet should never be considered something 

other than Public Property and quality access should be

as free and pure as clean air to breath. Afraid of more

Government? BS! Something is always "governing". It's

either under our control or under those of hands we never see

and are unaccountable to us.

 

What else would you expect a corporate Bone Head from

Verizon to say? Of course they will say that it should be

the source of a stream of cash right into their pockets.

Of course they will - and of course the stream of arguments

from them will never stop, unitl you don't have the Internet 

any longer to listen.

 

Don't give in!

avatar

kemcho12345

Ok, I can live with meter based system, but it needs to be "post paid"; kind of like our utility bill. Only pay for what you use. With pre-paid (like our stupid cell phone bill); the companies can charge for x-number of KB, but if we use less then what we paid for, we (us the consumers) loose...

avatar

KnightXENO

Several people have been proposing wireless to reach more rural ideas (which IS a good idea), but I can see several reasons why this would be fought against by the companies.  First and formost, in an age of increasingly capable smartphones, PDAs, etc...... how long would it take for someone to design and sell a "phone" to run solely on said wireless network, getting rid of the bloat that is your current cellphone bill?  I mean who wouldn't want to get calls, mobil data plan, and decent home broadband all on the same plan (and cheaply)?  Not the phone or cable companies thats for damn sure.

 Metered is not the future, its the last dying breath of dinasaur buisness models that are just too mean to die so far.  1)  Cable, cellphone, and internet companies have all been staying in the red, many with increasing profits, so there is no "crisis".  2)  There is no reason for all of our data plans to be seperate anymore, its all digital info.  Sure some cable companies provide a "triple-play" option, but thats not nearly enough.  A "triple-play" type plan STILL treats all of that data as 3 seperate services, when the reality is they all come in on one pipe.  Cable TV is intrinsicly no different from internet or phone service, its just resplit at the home and connected to outputs (phone wiring in home, cable wiring + cable box, modem).... so WHY are there 3 seperate charges again?  Your entire calling plan for the month most likely uses less bandwith than ONE 60min TV show (stream or torrent) of decent quality...... but thats 1/3 of the "triple-play" which makes NO sense at all as far as cost to the company goes.  

Caps are in no way the answer, but if they ever come about they damn sure better be fair!  Cable TV doesn't have any sort of cap right now, but thats sharing the same pipeline my cable internet is.  If you institute a cap, I for damn sure better get as much bandwith/data in TOTAL as my neighbors who watch 5+ hours of TV a day and use the phone vs me who only gets internet service.

An obvious solution is to roll everything (internet/cable/phoneservice/cell service) into 1-2 services max.  ALL data going to home as one plan and one CONNECTION, and not priced as 3 diff services.   The existing non-fiber phonelines should just be scrapped or used as a free public/emergency service since any new construction forgoes them into including phone service as part of a broadband pipe anyway, People are already leaving traditional land line phones in droves for either only a cellphone or cable based phone service anyway.  If its rural and wireless is used, the cell service should be included as well.... certainly can't say normal cell traffic holds a candle to broadband internet usage.  The bonus of the all in one wireless for rural areas is it has the added benefit of finally offering mobile data service in the area (GL trying to even get slow-as-can-be 3G there now).  Could even reuse many of the existing cell towers (with just new equip) in said rural plan.  All in one SHOULD be done on a community basis, with larger companies only coming in to connect the dots unless they can tone down on the greed and bloat alot. 

The NC company is a good model to expand upon, and considering how bad small communities usually get abused by big providers anyway, is just a better solution overall for small towns to midsized cities.  At the least this would provide multiple sources of competition, which is why I have 4x better internet, and for less, when I moved to the NE for school...... vs 1 cable + 1 DLS provider per town as in midwest, south, etc.  How is it there is never any mention of monoplies in minurature?!  In a non-city setting there is usually 1, maybe 2 broadband options for a given street adress..... and they both somehow charge the same exact price (even if different forms: dsl vs cable).  Thats an obvious monopoly, and once they get approval/contract with a town they become the only possible providers, steadily increase rates over time.... and the town now has no recourse.

avatar

TimberWolf

I think we need to take the job of ISP's away from these for profit corporations and have something like a few non profit organizations who simply deliver uncapped internet at cost and use the revenue to pay there people and to keep there network up to date. although I'm sure this will never happen :(

avatar

Biceps

How come Japan, where I lived for several years, had NO CAPS, LOWER PRICES and HIGHER SPEEDS, 4 YEARS AGO?  ISPs have been posting record profits for the past 5 years, and they are calling a no-cap system unsustainable?  What they mean is, "We can't continue to NOT upgrade our infrastructure AND post profits in excess of 10% of gross revenue, if we don't cap our customer's connection."  Screw you, Lynch, I hope we meet some day in a dark alley.

 

avatar

Kaldor

The largest problem the US has is population density isnt nearly as high.  We have rural areas.  That alone scews the results somewhat.  I live in a small town.  You can either get DSL thru Verizon with 3meg or 8 meg thru Charter.  Pick your poison.  Hi density countries like Japan do not have as much infrastucture to keep up to date.  Less infrastructure equals less money updating said infrastructure which turns into higher speeds for the customer.

The flip side of the coin is greedy corps not wanting to invest back in their infrastructure, which does caa our speeds and access as a whole.

Its a mix of both.  Do you concentrate on New York City (hi pop) or rural Nebraska (lo pop) to do your network upgrades?  What makes more business sense?

avatar

nekollx

 So your saying we sould be satisfied with 18th place?

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0908/

Gods man Belgim has better boradband pentration then us! Belgim!

 

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Kaldor

No we shouldnt be happy with it.  But we need to make a switch away from burying mile after mile of copper or fiber in the ground.  It just doenst make sense to try and get it done this way.  It works in a metro area but not all in rural areas.  Before I got into IT, I worked for a cable contractor and can tell you first hand, digging holes in the ground is expensive.

We need to switch our more rural areas to a wireless tech that can carries a 3meg signal minimum.  That alone would boost the US into the top 5 for wireless speeds worldwide.

Belgium is a tiny country as well. If you see all the top 10s could fit into CA or TX.  All boils down to my last post.

I sincerely hope that the government, when its start handing out its welfare checks to the ISPs for improvements, actually makes a difference this time.  Unlike the last time they gave money away and the ISPs did nothing.

avatar

nekollx

 soooooo instead of investing in the infestructure because it would be "expensive" and "hard" we should let them charge us more for less and less?

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Kaldor

Since you seem to be having a hard time reading my 5 other posts...

What Im saying is that business wise pouring 50 million into new infrastructure, EI new fiber/copper, is not economically feasible for say a $500k return at best per year.  Im taking a guess on that BTW, but it does hold up.  No business in their right mind is going to spend $5000 to get you internet access out in Timbuktu so you can pay $25 a month.  Your looking at 17 years to pay this off, and thats if you took all the money coming in and just used to pay for the wire in the ground.  I will probably be something closer to 40 or 50.

We need to find a way to get these people connected WITHOUT digging holes and laying fiber/copper.  Wireless is the best route here.  Towers are a hell of alot less pricey then cable.

If anything our prices need to go down.  Case and point, user Biceps posted that they pay $70 per month for their hi-speed with a 250 gig cap they never hit.  Why not set his soft cap, which can be exceeded, at 100 gig?  When they exceed that cap, bump them into the next rate plan for the month, then back down to original the plan.

avatar

Biceps

That the majority of this infrastructure was not paid for by these companies, but through taxpayer-funded subsidies (particularly in the rural regions).  Kaldor, I totally see where you are coming from, but disagree with the idea of wireless.  I think we need wired connections - even if they need to be paid for (again) by taxpayers.  But, in return for paying to upgrade our own connections, some very real and very strict restrictions need to be put on the companies that are allowed to manage those lines.  AND, part of the agreement should be that Mr. Lynch gets dragged into the street and kicked betweeen the legs by 30+ small children on video.  That would make me happy.

avatar

Kaldor

I dont particularly like like the idea of wireless towers all over the place either.  But from a business standpoint, it makes sense.  Of course they need to look at things like how much it costs to operate that system as well.  When doing that, fiber or copper in the ground may still be a winner.  Doesnt cost much to maintain those systems once they are buried providing some dumass doesnt dig it up.

If the taxpayers are footing the bill then damn straight it needs restrictions.  I agree 100% on that.

I can understand why everyone is up in arms abotu metering service.  If its done right, its shouldnt be a problem.  If corporations get their fingers into it too much, itll be a mess.  There needs to be a balance.  Cant be all one way.

avatar

nekollx

 except you can't do it right, their excuse for metering is "it's to hard to be unlimited" Sooooa year from now, infistructure is the same, damand has increased. Now they say "throwtting is the only way" then "packet prority" whats next "qued bandwith turning?"

 

FYI some companies are already doing the other 2 so it's not baseless fearmongering, its extrapolating out and poliferation of existing plans...

 

But i better go now, AT&T only has me qued up for another 30 minutes today.

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

nekollx

 becase we shoulndt have to. If fiber isnt a option then find another but when other coutries give me more, un caped, for less saying "oh metered is inevitible" is a crock of shit.

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Kaldor

Yeah Ill probably get crucified for saying that.  But most people dont have a clue.  ISPs have to pay for that fat pipe that runs to their head end somehow.  Fiber isnt free.  What I dotn want to see is ISPs filtering my content, shaping my traffic, or using deep packet inspection.

If the prices were tiered out correctly, it would be fine.  You would pay for X ammount, if you use more they bump you to the next tier for that month, then back to your base tier the following. The actual speeds your getting needs to be figgured in as well.  You should pay less for a 3 meg connection than they guy with a 30 meg connection as well.  Requires a hell of alot less overhead to run at 3megs than 30.

For instance, my mother has no use for unlimited internet.  She looks her email, and maybe reads CNN everyday.  She would get by just fine on next to nothing.  Cost should be cheap, like $10 a month.  Right now shes paying $20 a month for a 256k connection because thats all she can get. 

Myself, I run a little Bittorent, look at Youtube once in awhile, stream music, play MMOs, and probably use more than my share of the available bandwidth.  Would I piss and moan if Verizon charged me more?  Probably not, but my service better get better, ei faster, if Im using more bandwidth.  I pay $35 a month now for a 3meg connection.  Id gladly pay $50 a month for a 15 meg connection, with a soft cap of say 100 gigs before I jump into the next tier.  

The idea behind this is to control the idiots that abuse their connections, ruining it for everyone else by flooding the network, which does happen.  If you want to fileshare 24/7, share your internet with the neighborhood, or do other stupid things, you should have to pay for the priveledge. God forbid you may have to pay for your share.  This country has turned into a bunch of sniveling, whining, self entitled, little bitches.

People have to remember that information isnt free.  Storing it cost money.  Transporting it cost money.  And making it available costs money. Get a decent degree and work in the IT field as more than a phone jockey and youll find that out quik.

avatar

1337Goose

Conceptually you make a very good point. If you use more bandwidth, you should be charged accordingly. Under good circumstances, this system works flawlessly.

 However the entire idea of bandwidth caps is a real monkey-sh!t-fight. You have to check back routinely sometimes to see if you're still under usage. If you go over, then you have to limit your usage. You can't increase your cap without increasing your connection speed. I'm speaking from experience by the way, I live in Canada, and we already have bandwidth caps here.

~Goose

avatar

Biceps

I shall be the first to crucify you, then.  I pay $70/month for a high-speed connection, and am a reasonably heavy user.  However, I have never hit my Comcast Cap of 250Gigs.  I am not willing to pay even more for less.  Shame on you! :)

P.S. If you are going to talk about your awesome college degree, perhaps you should learn to spell?

avatar

Kaldor

I agree, you should be paying LESS. Thats the point.  Most people dont abuse their connections.  Its the few asshats that do, that can and will slow your connection down.

Ass farr as my speeling, no speelchecker on theze forems.

(mutters something about better things to do than proofread my Max PC forum posts..)

avatar

nekollx

 get in line, i already wormed up my pitch fork. you can uh...handle the torches?

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

Kaldor

Bring it on.  Ive got my flameproof gloves on!!

avatar

nekollx

 people bitch and moan because EVERY OTHER FIRST WORLD COUNTRY has lower rates, no caps, and higher speeds. Our broadband is pratically 3rd world.

 

And ISPs want to limit it MORE?

 

------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

nekollx

 so Mr. CTO. You propose that China, that curently enjoys uncapped 50 MBs for 25 bucks will soon be metered?

REEEEEEEEALY now?

------------------------------

Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.

avatar

joem77

I hope they find kiddy pRoN on his netbook.

avatar

Tweak_BL

I am already metered,but instead of charging you they Throttle you.

Welcome to Hughesnet Satellite.

I have no problem with limitations on how much a day,but I am limited to 300 Mb a day try living on that.

It is a excuse to try to find a scam to grab more cash from people instead of upgrading the existing land lines.

In my area Verizon will NOT upgrade the telephone lines,some dating back to 1960!

avatar

icebox

I think I'm gonna hurl. And then I'm gonna move to a nice place in South-Eastern Asia where they could care less about being the US-equivalant of a "Fortune 500" company. Time Warner Cable, Embarq, whomever, you make me sick. I will be discontinuing broadband service if it hits Goldsboro, NC (so close to those residents of Wilson, NC). Count your subscribers TWC, prepare to do some subtracting. This just isn't going to go well for anyone.

avatar

ogremustcrush

I love how these ISP's are trying to depict bandwidth as a scarce resource. While it is true that at any given point, there is a finite amount of bandwidth available, it's also not something being used up. If you download a 2GB movie, that doesn't mean that there is 2GB less for everyone else to download. The only limitations on the internet are the width of the pipes and the routers that handle the bandwidth. Unlike gasoline, when you pull more demand there isn't less to go around, you just build a bigger pipe and everyone is happy. Considering how much dark fiber there is in this country, and how nearly all major ISP's profits on the internet have went UP in the last few years, the case that broadband needs to be more expensive is ridiculous. It's just a cash grab, these companies know that broadband media and VOIP is replacing their cable tv and traditional phone offerings, and they want to keep making the same amount they always have. The proper way for them to do that would be to expand bandwidth, I'd gladly pay the $100/mo most cable companies want for their "triple-play" cable/internet/phone packages for an unlimited 100mb internet connection. However, I'm not going to pay $100/mo for a 10mb connection that charges me per gigabyte. Or was it $150/mo that Time Warner was planning on charging for those who wanted such a pitiful speed with true unlimited access?

avatar

arkweld

comparing it to wireless carriers is a bit idiotic now with cell phone companies like Sprint introducing all-you-can-eat plans for one monthly price.

A price that's lower than Verizon's.

avatar

tamas305

Cell phone carriers in America are the worst in whole frickin world. I like the path that Sprint is taken but unfortunately they do not have the iPhone and are possibly going into bankruptcy.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/336235/Ten-Big-Companies-That-Are-Veering-Toward-Bankruptcy?tickers=AMD

avatar

colinjm0517

If anything is going to get done, then people need to set aside their differences and work together to build a good future, or else there won't be a future. Also, if Cloud Computing will ever become a reality, then we need to take tips from the Chinese and the rest of the world to make 50 Mbps wireless internet a reality and at a low cost. In China, a 2 GB movie from iTunes takes only about 10-20 minutes, while for me and my 1.5 Mbps internet, it takes about 3 hours. We as Americans invented TCP/IP, ethernet, wireless internet, hi-speed internet, the microprocessor, the internet itself,  the PC and other forms of networking for computers, but yet we let Asia beat us at implementing it and they even made it faster. We have fallen behind. We need to advance. We are the metaphorical old PC with a Pentium II, 128 MB of ram, and running Windows Me with dial-up. We need to upgrade so we can keep up with today's tech. In the metaphor I talked about earlier, figuratively we need to upgrade to a new Intel Core i5, with 4 GB of RAM, and Windows 7 x64 with cable 8Mbps internet and a Raedon HD 5750. Corporate Greed is sending us back to a 486SX and 32 MB of RAM with Windows 3.1 and 2400 bit/s modem. Major companies need to focus and expand on areas that only have dial-up. If an area already has faster internet than theirs, they should not bother going there. An end to Monopolies that drive local services out of busines needs to come. (also, this is un-related but has anyone noticed that Apple has a LOT of propritery stuff (like the iPod or the Mac) that they keep secret, but they don't get sued for it?.

-Imagine an OS that has the Windows foundation, merged with the Unix of Mac OS X, and the ui elegance of Mac OS X (the hi-res icons and cover flow) and Windows Aero's glass effects, plus throw in a bit of Linux. The perfect OS, but impossible to make.-

avatar

ShuTDowN

 i look for a better ISP just to make my download more faster then they have to set a meter into that?? thats totally crazy.. why dont you just you just upgrade to make your service a lot better

 

[img]http://i44.tinypic.com/2irm8ma.jpg[/img]

avatar

ironmon1

Re metered internet proponents: Hang 'em High!

The moment my internet gets metered is the moment I figure out how to "steal" internet. What next? Having to pay for each time I listen to a song?

avatar

ghot

...gas rationing.....If they start to "meter" the internet...well...there will probably be riots, at the LEAST!!  For some reason, corporate America thinks they are the ONLY ones feeling the "pinch".  Let's get real, people, we're all feeling it...and the solution is rather simple:

One baker sells his loaves of bread for 25 cents, and another sells his for 40 cents.....who's going out of business first?

 

Take an OS, and edit out all the efficiency, and what you have left is a post-XP Microsoft operating system :)

avatar

I Jedi

By no means are ISPs feeling the "pinch"

avatar

Branden_Stone

I decided I want to purchase a piece of pie from Verizon (Whomever), but Verizon only has so many pieces of pie to sell. They decide to resell the pie I’ve already bought and say they’re in the right; wrong. America’s corporate businesses will squeeze money out of whomever they can without sympathy; they don’t care. Yet, they want to keep injecting money back into wealthy urban communities that already have perfectly operating high speed service, instead of communities that don’t have high speed in their area. The United States communication system’s an outright joke for the wealthiest country in the world. FACT: In the world, the United States (Richest Country) is in 15th place. WHAT?! We’re supposed to be advancing into the future, but yet we keep letting these companies take us backwards for larger profit. The internet isn’t going to be the same old stationary pages for long. High Definition Video (Not YouTube’s Crapshoots) and live streaming websites are already in the works. Our system hasn’t got faster—if anything it's got slower and more expensive. Verizon is outright lying to the American people to make more money off their current system. It’ll make most people sick to their stomach if they further read into the matter. Enough's Enough--Fess Up!!!

 

 

(http://www.greenlightnc.com/about/faq/)

"A Fiber to the Home system (FTTH) is an advanced telecommunications technology that utilizes 100% fiber optics throughout the entire system. Unlike traditional cable or telephone systems that use copper wire or a mixture of coax and fiber optics, the FTTH system is more reliable, provides virtually unlimited bandwidth and requires less maintenance once it is constructed. If the local cable provider or the telephone company were to significantly upgrade their system in Wilson today, the FTTH technology would be the technology of choice."

avatar

Zachary K.

its the future! meterd internet on my phone modem, just like the flintstones.

avatar

Military IT

Corporate ISP's need to stop squeezing their customer base for every penny. The metered model and the bandwidth caps have no basis on actual cost to the ISP. These are just new ways for the ISP's to squeeze more money out of the consumer to increase the size of their already inflated money bags and egos. Just look at their attempts to shut down local community owned providers who can offer better service for less. See below for a rehash:

Man, Time Warner Cable -- you are some shady players. Hot on the heels of the ISP's decision to withdraw DOCSIS 3.0 trials from areas that have rejected its tiered billing plan, we're hearing that TWC's teamed up with Embarq to persuade the North Carolina state government into banning community-owned broadband services. Why? Well, turns out the 47,000 residents of Wilson, NC got tired of paying for slow broadband, so the city government launched its own fiber ISP called Greenlight that offers some pretty solid packages ranging from $99 for 81 cable channels, unlimited phone service, and 10Mbps (down and up) internet to $170 for every single channel including premiums and 20Mbps up/down internet. (There's even a "secret" 100Mbps up/down internet plan.) Of course, these prices blow TWC and Embarq out of the water -- the comparable basic Time Warner plan has fewer channels and less bandwidth for an "introductory rate" of $137 -- and rather than compete, the two giants decided to lobby the North Carolina legislature into proposing bills that outlaw community services like Greenlight. The argument is that the big companies can't turn a profit and compete against a community-owned enterprise that essentially sells service for cost, but we're not buying it -- if anything, TWC and Embarq can invest the extra profits they've been earning in other areas into building services that would blow Greenlight out of the water.

avatar

Branden_Stone

I refuse to allow these crooked companies to take control for profit. The only reason why they’re pissed about Greenlight services is it'll show the American people the truth about their lying. They’re not going to lose sleep or money over one town or city. This has nothing to do with losing money and they know it. They're worried that they’re going to have to change their ways. I’m sick of this crap and the American people are too. Embarq (whomever): You can’t keep holding the people back with your little finger for long. I’m demanding that we take action now!!! These companies aren’t kings and queens that can do whatever they want.

avatar

ghost6007

I havn't used Verizon since I got rid of them and use Vonage and Optimum Online; they can add caps, go ahead, lets see how it works in competition to ISPs with no caps.

avatar

greymist08

Oh, yes. This is goiing to work so well, like power companies. They have so much competition. "We can charge whatever we want, with no regulation, and no one can complain." What about the information that your PC sends as regular checkups? IM services, social networks, they all send and recieve information behind your back. Which you'll be charged for. I can see "tiered" charging schemes, so you're charged differently for each "kind" of traffic. And remember, it's not snooping, it's for your "convienience".

avatar

w2ed

The easiest way to prevent pirates from pirating, hackers from hacking, and people from commiting other crimes is to never give reason to.  No one wants to get screwed over, but by gouging every little penny, nickel and dime out of honest America, you give people - some who would do it regardless and some who would never had reason to before - to do what they can to screw you  - and everyone else stupid enough to play this game - out of their money.

It's too bad these corporations don't see that by screwing over the public in this way, by making us buy ridiculously-priced package plans,  they're setting the noose around their necks when the one or two companies who have the cajones to offer unlimited access to people at a reasonable price come around.  I hope that day comes soon.

avatar

comptech08

What kind of name is Dick Lynch?  Maybe the words should be switched and an ed added to the end of one of the words.  greeeeeeeeeeed is just gonna kill them in the long run. 

 

 

Goodness gracious do some updating on the dam infrastructure.  The USA is lagging, literally lagging behind the rest of the world.  Some 3rd world countries have faster internet than what we can get.

avatar

eleck

Giant hand basket to hell and we all have first class seats.... the reason they wont cap it is so they can keep charging just like on cell phones.... one HD netflix movie on the 360 and your out 90$

avatar

XSV DBLs

Fuck you corporate America.

avatar

genghiskhen

Remember when cash machines were free? This is just another way for the big companies to screw us, nothing more.

avatar

johnny3144

They got unlimited Wireless 3G in china for only 200yen(around 25 dollar USD)/month. and this include roaming nation wide 5GB/month or something.

avatar

Pyrophorics

Why cant corporate America be honest for once?

They don't mean to say that metered broadband is the future. They really mean to say they are going to start limiting broadband and we better like it or else!

It's always cool to proclaim your idea or product is the wave of the future when really it's only in your head.

Corporate America, shoving crap down your throat since 1492.

avatar

CuGi

Major ISP's in Canada have them (Bell, Rogers), and believe me it sucks. There is never any clear way to show the consumer their current data amount vs. monthly allowed, quite simply to screw the consumer.

avatar

JohnP

 I have Cox Premimum Plan. There are 4 plans, each has their speed caps AND each has their bandwidth caps. Impossible to find but they have specific limits for both on each plan. Premium for instance has a 100GB per month download limit and a 20GB upload limit.

 

avatar

1337Goose

I think you're getting bandwidth caps confused with metered bandwidth.

Bell and Rogers have bandwidth caps, where you're allowed a maximum of 90 or so gigabytes before you get charged. This article seems to suggest more of a per gigabyte billing.

EDIT: I may be wrong however, is this suggesting bandwidth caps or per gigabyte billing? 

~Goose

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.