<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Does Not Piss Me Off &#187; data cap</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dnpmo.com/tag/data-cap/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dnpmo.com</link>
	<description>dnpmo.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:21:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Bandwidth Caps Are Deceptive</title>
		<link>http://dnpmo.com/2010/07/29/bandwidth-caps-are-deceptive/</link>
		<comments>http://dnpmo.com/2010/07/29/bandwidth-caps-are-deceptive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:43:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Zakhar</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[PMO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bandwidth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data cap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earthlink]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ripoff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scam]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dnpmo.com/?p=84</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Time to revisit my post, &#8220;Dramatically Lower Bandwidth Cap&#8221; from May 30. It turns out it sparked a mini debate. I am disappointed with joetron2030&#8242;s suggestion to &#8220;leave&#8221; the offending ISP. It seems that Clear does offer uncapped service (but &#8230; <a href="http://dnpmo.com/2010/07/29/bandwidth-caps-are-deceptive/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><div class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 250px"><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jepoirrier/2046188221/"><img title="Data Caps Are A Scam" src="/files/2046188221_dbd7640faf_m.jpg" alt="[truck with the word &quot;Scam&quot; on it]" width="240" height="180" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Data Caps Are A Scam. We paid for big trucks, but we have to drive them nearly empty. (photo by Jean-Etienne Poirrier)</p></div>Time to revisit my post, &#8220;<a href="../2010/05/30/dramatically-lower-bandwidth-cap/">Dramatically Lower Bandwidth Cap</a>&#8221; from May 30. It turns out it sparked a <a href="http://www.giantrobot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38642&amp;page=597#post1370899">mini debate</a>. I am disappointed with joetron2030&#8242;s suggestion to &#8220;leave&#8221; the offending ISP. It seems that Clear does offer uncapped service (but for how long: &#8220;<a href="http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2010/05/first_impressions_clears_4g_wireless_internet_1.html">&#8230; there is pretty strong language in Clear&#8217;s Acceptable Use Policy about not hogging bandwidth &#8230;</a>&#8220;), but there are no other cap-less broadband providers where I live. And Clear is a wireless broadband which doesn&#8217;t reach into every home. But more importantly, <strong>Earthlink is the alternative ISP</strong> &#8212; that&#8217;s why I signed up with them instead of using (TimeWarner when I signed up, but now) Comcast.</p>
<p>joetron2030&#8242;s suggested that this may lead to tiered service. This could be a step in the right direction&#8211;but not with data caps. I understand the ISP wanting to manage the network, but they shouldn&#8217;t advertise 10+ Mb/s as the speed when we&#8217;re really only allowed <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+250+gigabytes+per+month+to+megabits+per+second">0.761 Mb/s</a> to stay within the cap for the month.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s okay with me if they offer different speeds, not different caps (and they better not even think about metering per bit). <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+250+gigabytes+per+month+to+megabits+per+second">With the 250 gigabyte cap, that&#8217;s a less-than-1-megabit-per-second connection</a>. Advertising 10+ is <strong>very deceptive</strong>. <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+10+megabits+per+second+to+gigabytes+per+month">With a 10-megabit-per-second connection, we&#8217;ve paid for over three thousand gigabytes per month</a> (edit 8/3: even if it&#8217;s <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=convert+5+megabits+per+second+to+gigabytes+per+month">5-megabit, that&#8217;s over 1,500 gigabytes per month</a>). 250 is less than 1% of 3,000.</p>
<p>If ISPs really want to worry about network congestion, then they should limit the <em>speed</em> of the &#8220;more than 99% of customers&#8221; who stay within the 250 gigabyte cap. Otherwise those customers are bursting at high speed at random intervals. I doubt that&#8217;s good for the health of the network. It&#8217;d be better to trickle spread their data use evenly through the month. But let them know they are getting a (less than) 1 megabit connection, and charge them far less than you&#8217;re charging now.</p>
<p>I think the price now is still too high for the (about) 10-megabit connection, but if ISPs introduced the lower priced 1-megabit connection, then I could see them keeping the current price for the current speed (but <em>repeal the data cap!</em>).</p>
<p><strong>Edit (8/1) with this waking thought:</strong> You should make me an ally instead trying to squeeze me out because I am an example of your future customers. Soon we&#8217;ll <em>all</em> stream audio and video, back up our media collections to the cloud, download apps, patches, and even OS ISOs, and other yet-to-be-thought-of innovative uses of the internet. If you want us to pick you as our ISP for this (instead of completely abandoning you, so you go out of business), then it&#8217;s time to start showing you value all 100% of your customers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://dnpmo.com/2010/07/29/bandwidth-caps-are-deceptive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

