Topic: So I wrote about broadband penetration and connectivity expectations in the US

[Quemaqua]

http://www.popoptiq.com/hpb-low-bandwidth-in-a-broadband-world/

Wanted to bring some attention to this. Too many times when you see these discussions online it devolves into "Everybody has broadband, what's your problem?" And people get really hostile about it. The comments you see on articles related to the topic often get really ugly, as though people who have these issues are somehow hurting the people who don't. It's pretty weird.

Hoping this will get enough exposure to generate some positive discussion.

[idolminds]

[Cobra951]

The phenomenon cuts a wide swath.  I call it corporate white knighting, but that's just a placeholder until (and if ever) I understand better the psychology of it.  You can't criticize the most obvious of deficiencies in products or services without some idiot charging in on his dubious steed.

Yea, bro.  I know.    No excuse for that hole in the ether where you live.


Edit:  Que, you may want to do something about your link to the FCC report.

Error 404 - Not Found

We're very sorry, but that page doesn't exist or has been moved.

Edit 2:  Looks like it's a malformed link:

"https//www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report"

Add a colon in the right place, and it works:

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report


Edit 3:  Believe it or not, I'm one of the people on the deficiency side of those stats.  Apparently, the standard now is 25 mbps.  I get 20, realistically 16--because I've never seen a download speed greater than 2 megabytes per second.

Quantum Break is coming out, and if you want to have rather than stream the video content, that download alone is a whopping 75 GB, on a console.  I don't know how big the game itself will be, but I'm sure it will be in the 20-40GB range.  The Division is online-only (no sale for me).  Battleborn will be online only (no sale).  Both of these games have single-player components.  The push to go online full-time is strong in the game industry (though no stronger than my determination to avoid it entirely).  Juxtapose that with the broadband woes, and something--somewhere--has got to give.

[Quemaqua]

Thanks for catching the link, Cobra. And yeah, I agree with you. It goes way beyond just the broadband woes and such, and those figures have shifted around considerably from year to year at times, and it doesn't always have a 1:1 crossover. I mean wireless can be broadband, but you often have to pay through the nose to get decent speeds, and then you have reliability issues to deal with as well. The whole thing is just a mess, including the infringement upon consumer rights, and it's unfortunate.

[W7RE]

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report


Edit 3:  Believe it or not, I'm one of the people on the deficiency side of those stats.  Apparently, the standard now is 25 mbps.  I get 20, realistically 16--because I've never seen a download speed greater than 2 megabytes per second.

25 is the standard? I'd kill for that kind of speed. I mean, I'm not unlucky enough to be stuck with dialup, but where I live we pay $45/mo for 8Mb / 1Mb. The fastest my ISP offers is 50Mb / 4Mb, but they charge $100/mo for it. (until very recently their $100 plan was 24Mb / 2Mb)

[Cobra951]

They do that because they can.  In a bigger market, there is more competition, and they couldn't get away with those prices for those speeds.  Check this out.  In New York, TWC has to compete against Verizon FiOS.  Well, here, they just started to have to compete with Cincinnati Bell FiOS.  I saw them lay the fiber on the poles.  Before, the competition was only ADSL.  I'd be surprised if our speeds don't start to go up, finally.  In rural areas, with few customers and poor infrastructure, nobody gives a shit but the residents.  Until there are some serious regulations in place, that isn't changing.  The FCC may be tracking speeds and making some noise, but they aren't biting any internet providers in the ass.

Edit:  You raise a good point.  Availability of 25+ mbps doesn't mean affordability.  If they charge $100/mo for that paltry speed, most customers aren't going to see it.  I'd like to see the broadband studies impose a reasonable monthly price limit on their availability results, or have more than one set of results, based on price structures.

[Quemaqua]

That's part of the big problem, that even when access is available, oftentimes the rates are astronomical for reasonable speeds. I'm lucky as I've got great speeds here for not THAT much, even in a relatively rural area, but it doesn't work out like that all the time. And we pay a lot more here than in many places that have better average speeds.

[scottws]

The phenomenon cuts a wide swath.  I call it corporate white knighting, but that's just a placeholder until (and if ever) I understand better the psychology of it.  You can't criticize the most obvious of deficiencies in products or services without some idiot charging in on his dubious steed.


Yea, bro.  I know.    No excuse for that hole in the ether where you live.


Edit:  Que, you may want to do something about your link to the FCC report.

Edit 2:  Looks like it's a malformed link:

"https//www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report"

Add a colon in the right place, and it works:

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-report


Edit 3:  Believe it or not, I'm one of the people on the deficiency side of those stats.  Apparently, the standard now is 25 mbps.  I get 20, realistically 16--because I've never seen a download speed greater than 2 megabytes per second.

Quantum Break is coming out, and if you want to have rather than stream the video content, that download alone is a whopping 75 GB, on a console.  I don't know how big the game itself will be, but I'm sure it will be in the 20-40GB range.  The Division is online-only (no sale for me).  Battleborn will be online only (no sale).  Both of these games have single-player components.  The push to go online full-time is strong in the game industry (though no stronger than my determination to avoid it entirely).  Juxtapose that with the broadband woes, and something--somewhere--has got to give.

What's really interesting about games going download only is that many ISPs (who are also cable companies) are putting in data caps toboffest losses from cord cutters. My AT&t U-Verse Internet has a 250 GB a month cap. Comcast does 300 GB in the area. You can go over, bit you pay $10/50 GB.

Something has to give.

[Cobra951]

Caps are the other big issue.  I don't think I have one, yet.  I have a feeling that will change.  In Indiana, Comcast has that 250GB cap too.  There are rumblings here about TWC merging with Charter, and God knows what that means to the end consumer.

By "cord cutters" I assume you mean people getting away from traditional CATV?  I have no idea about the figures on that.  I have a feeling the ISPs would be looking for ways to squeeze more money out of us regardless.  That's capitalism, with its need for constant double-inflation growth in returns for stockholders.  Once their expansion into the market peaks, they need to find other ways to continue growing revenue.  There's also the issue of net neutrality, which unfortunately has this negative side.  For example, Microsoft can't make deals with the ISPs for preferential treatment for its XBL service, which could very well include some give in the cap math for its customers.  People don't even dent the cap with normal browsing and small-scale activities.  They eat it up with the big game and media downloads and streams.

Edit:  Paying $10 for every 50 GB above the cap is not terrible.  It's so much better than the punitive measures I've heard of in the past, things like cutting off your service entirely, or crippling the speed to a trickle.  Not that I'm saying I'm on board with caps--not at all.  Some negatives are easier to live with than others.

[scottws]

Caps are the other big issue.  I don't think I have one, yet.  I have a feeling that will change.  In Indiana, Comcast has that 250GB cap too.  There are rumblings here about TWC merging with Charter, and God knows what that means to the end consumer.

By "cord cutters" I assume you mean people getting away from traditional CATV?  I have no idea about the figures on that.  I have a feeling the ISPs would be looking for ways to squeeze more money out of us regardless.  That's capitalism, with its need for constant double-inflation growth in returns for stockholders.  Once their expansion into the market peaks, they need to find other ways to continue growing revenue.  There's also the issue of net neutrality, which unfortunately has this negative side.  For example, Microsoft can't make deals with the ISPs for preferential treatment for its XBL service, which could very well include some give in the cap math for its customers.  People don't even dent the cap with normal browsing and small-scale activities.  They eat it up with the big game and media downloads and streams.

Edit:  Paying $10 for every 50 GB above the cap is not terrible.  It's so much better than the punitive measures I've heard of in the past, things like cutting off your service entirely, or crippling the speed to a trickle.  Not that I'm saying I'm on board with caps--not at all.  Some negatives are easier to live with than others.

I don't think $10 for 50 GB is too unreasonable either, but I'm not sure how I feel about the pay for use idea when it comes to Internet.  Some people say that Internet connections should just be metered like power and water, but I think that would have some severe downsides.  It would have downsides in innovation (eg. new cloud-based services) as well as downsides in security as people turn off automatic updates to reduce their bandwidth use.  There isn't anything really like that with water or power that I can think of.  I guess you could say that pay for water use stifles innovation of machines powered by water or some such.

In any case, it looks like in the very near future you won't even be able to buy physical game copies and those same games will be absolutely huge.  With Internet usage being metered, that $60 game isn't really $60 anymore, is it?

If ISPs are trying to do something about high bandwidth users without overbuilding their infrastructure too much, I just wish they offered a more genuine plan for light users.  Last I checked Comcast has this discount where you classify yourself as a light user and that cap changes from 300 GB to 5 GB/month and you get a - wait until you read this - $5 monthly discount.  $5!  Then if you go over the 5 GB you pay those normal overage fees.  It could end up costing significantly more per month than the standard plan.  Imagine using 20 GB on that plan.  That's 280 GB less than the normal plan but you pay a lot more.  That's ridiculous.

I also think the cap should change with speed.  Let's say you get a 75 mbps speed plan.  It still has the same 300 GB cap that the 10 mbps plan does.  So you can download stuff really fast, but you just run out of your monthly allotment faster.

The pricing structure is completely terrible and anti-consumer.

[Cobra951]

Last I checked Comcast has this discount where you classify yourself as a light user and that cap changes from 300 GB to 5 GB/month and you get a - wait until you read this - $5 monthly discount.  $5!  Then if you go over the 5 GB you pay those normal overage fees.  It could end up costing significantly more per month than the standard plan.  Imagine using 20 GB on that plan.  That's 280 GB less than the normal plan but you pay a lot more.  That's ridiculous.

That also points out how artificial caps are to begin with.  The difference in cost to the ISP between  5 GB and 300 GB of usage is so small (or nonexistent) that $5/month is the best difference in price you'll see between them?  The infrastructure is paid for.  The systems run 24/7 already.  Differences in usage amounts mean nothing as long as spare capacity remains.  They institute caps because they can, and not so much because of genuine added costs of "unlimited" service to normal consumers.

Regardless, it comes down to price, speed and reliability.  As long as there's competition, things will find their proper level.  Where there's collusion or no competition, reality will be uglier.

[Quemaqua]

And that's what's so ugly to me. Trying to squeeze more out of us when other countries already have better service for cheaper with no caps. Even though American telecom companies are making tons of money off of us, a really gross amount of which is pure profit at this point, they don't seem to reinvest that into the infrastructure, which is why ours is so substandard compared to Europe (or so I gather).

[scottws]

It's funny that we were just talking about this, but AT&T just increased their caps:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/03/att-boosts-data-caps-for-home-internet-and-steps-up-enforcement/

[Cobra951]

That's actually not too bad--a terabyte for the high tier, 600 GB for the (kinda-slow) middle, and no cap if you bundle other services.  I think people tend to bundle if the price isn't too bad.  I don't know.  Same disclaimer:  I hate caps.  If we have to live with them, the terms are getting less despicable.

[gpw11]

Everybody has broadband, what's your problem?

[Cobra951]

Isn't that gpw12's territory? 

[gpw11]

Hmmm.....haven't seen him around lately.   Maybe it's time for a comeback tour....