Frontier Imposing 5GB Download Caps. More to follow?

ack_bak · 11-03-2008, 09:07 AM

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/F...ap-Plans-98815

Quote:

Earlier this year, customers of Frontier were annoyed to find that the carrier was planning to implement 5GB per month caps for their DSL services starting this winter. Customers discovered the plans due to references in the company's acceptable use policy, though the company really wasn't willing to talk in detail about their cap plans. Despite the negative reaction, Frontier CEO Maggie Wilderotter has more on the company's plan to cap users and charge customers a dollar or two per gigabyte should they go over usage limits. From the Associated Press:
Wilderotter said Frontier was looking at providing higher monthly limits, perhaps 20 gigabytes per month, in more urban markets like Rochester and Elk Grove, Calif., where usage is higher than rural areas. The company will also sell plans with higher download caps for higher prices, Wilderotter told The Associated Press, at increments like 10, 20 and 50 gigabytes. . . "All networks are going to have to move to that paradigm in order to stay profitable," Wilderotter said at a conference in New York.
It looks like Frontier is warming to caps that are higher than 5GB, but anything 50GB or under remains fairly paltry in the age of HD video. While Wilderotter claims the caps are designed to tackle high-consumption users, they'll actually impact a lot of regular users. Frontier is fortunate in that many of their markets are more rural, where customers won't have a choice of alternative provider if they don't like the caps. In many markets, Frontier's primary competitor is Time Warner Cable, who is experimenting with 5-40GB caps of their own.

On one hand we have the Netflix's, Sony's, Vudu's, and Mirosoft's moving towards downloading, and on the other you have the network providers moving to block these high bandwidth services. Something has to give IMHO. Paying an additional $1-2 per Gigabyte on top of $5.99 HD rentals will simply not happen in my house. So far my provider, Qwest, had not imposed caps, but I fear they are coming. Comcast caps are set at 250GB per month which seem very fair, but they are also charging up to $130 paer month for their higher tiered bandwidth plans. For that price, there really should not be any caps.

HD Goofnut · 11-03-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ack_bak

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/F...ap-Plans-98815

On one hand we have the Netflix's, Sony's, Vudu's, and Mirosoft's moving towards downloading, and on the other you have the network providers moving to block these high bandwidth services. Something has to give IMHO. Paying an additional $1-2 per Gigabyte on top of $5.99 HD rentals will simply not happen in my house. So far my provider, Qwest, had not imposed caps, but I fear they are coming. Comcast caps are set at 250GB per month which seem very fair, but they are also charging up to $130 paer month for their higher tiered bandwidth plans. For that price, there really should not be any caps.

Some of these caps listed above and elsewhere are downright ridiculous. Most of the ISP companies have spent millions of dollars over the years promoting the internet and then broadband and now in the last couple years they are saying, "Now wait a second we don't want you going to fast there." It's like they are afraid of the public abuse of it or they want way too much bandwidth to spare for additional reasons.

Nikopol · 11-03-2008, 09:15 AM

My guess is, in the long run providers would love to sell their internet customers their own movie download services, in which case there wouldn't be a download cap. If you want to download from a competing movie download service, then you'd have to pay for bandwidth above the cap.

ack_bak · 11-03-2008, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikopol

My guess is, in the long run providers would love to sell their internet customers their own movie download services, in which case there wouldn't be a download cap. If you want to download from a competing movie download service, they you'd have to pay for bandwidth above the cap.

I think this is a big part of it, and I think the providers are getting a little worried. You have more and more people talking about downloads replacing optical discs, and these providers do not have the networks in place to support such a major shift in bandwidth usage. In other words, somebody is going to pay for it. And if it is not the studios, it will be the consumers.

I am not completely against caps per say. But it has to be reasonable. And 5GB per month is not reasonable. That is not even going to support one HD-lite movie download per month.

Lee Stewart · 11-03-2008, 11:07 AM

That cap seems really severe.

I believe Comcast just instituted a cap of 250GB per month.

Also keep in mind that the codec companies are continuing to improve their efficiency and use more compression without affecting the PQ.

There was a test done during 2008 CES - I can't find the link for it but it was an experiment done "live" to show a reduction in the file size (I think it was like 3 GB) and compared it to a "normal" HD file to show no change in the PQ. It was a transmited image though I can't remember if it was done OTA, CBL or DNL.

Maybe someone will have better luck finding the story.

BobY · 11-03-2008, 11:59 AM

It's all about money. If they can get people to pay more by imposing caps they will. If they can sell their own movie download service using caps as a tool, they will.

Either they have the bandwidth or they don't. This is the same garbage as Carbon Credits.

**PFC5** · 11-03-2008, 12:31 PM

If they have the bandwidth to offer the movies through their own VOD service they have the capacity for 3rd party services too. I think it is a monopolistic approach to remove choice to the consumer and force consumers to only use their service by making the other 3rd party services too expensive to consider, and I hope the FCC steps up to the plate to address this. There has to be some solution that is fair to both sides and maybe that includes a fee for each download charged to the 3rd party providers, like what the FCC does with various telecoms.

Lee Stewart · 11-03-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFC5

If they have the bandwidth to offer the movies through their own VOD service they have the capacity for 3rd party services too. I think it is a monopolistic approach to remove choice to the consumer and force consumers to only use their service by making the other 3rd party services too expensive to consider, and I hope the FCC steps up to the plate to address this. There has to be some solution that is fair to both sides and maybe that includes a fee for each download charged to the 3rd party providers, like what the FCC does with various telecoms.

AFAIK - and I am not sure about this . . .

There is a difference between the bandwidth used for video (be it SD or HD) and the bandwidth used for internet services.

I do know that the cable companies are rolling out Switched Digital Video which saves them a ton of bandwidth for TV services.

**PFC5** · 11-03-2008, 01:04 PM

But just like the telecoms who OWN the lines but are forced to rent (at very low rates set by the FCC), to avoid monopolistic practices, I think the cable companies should be subject to those same regulations. After all, they DID fight with the FCC to get fair access to offer ISP services previously only allowed to the telecoms with just that same reasoning. It is likely to bite them in the A$$ now if the FCC actually does something which I believe they should do.

sigill · 11-03-2008, 01:33 PM

I believe these are the issues that will prevent downloading becoming the next big thing anytime soon. There are too many questions that need answering as far as download limits and whether individual providers will only want to sell there own movie services for more revenue.

ack_bak · 11-03-2008, 01:37 PM

Network neutrality is a hot topic (especially with regards to the Federal government stepping in). And one that will most likely not be settled anytime soon. So far, the feds have kept a hands off approach. It will be interesting if this changes as more ISP's start pushing caps.

And caps are just part of the problem. Many Americans simply do not have access to affordable high speed Internet. Competition is great but I live within 10 miles of a major city and I have one choice for high speed Internet. Qwest DSL. That is it. If Qwest institutes 5GB-40GB caps, there is no way HD downloads would be a viable option for me right now.

And this is why I find it surprising that so many people seem to think that optical discs will go away in five years or less in favor of downloads. There are way too many barriers right now for that to happen, and I simply do not see this stuff getting resolved in the next couple of years. I believe many network providers are starting to draw a line in the sand and are saying that if you want downloads to become the defacto format for media, you are going to pay for it based on your usage. I also find it odd that this is not getting more attention via major news outlets.

**PFC5** · 11-03-2008, 01:47 PM

The media outlets OWN many of the ISP companies so they are not going to call themselves out on this.

Another thing is how the hell are people going to KNOW they are approaching the quota limit with a place to check easily?

sigill · 11-03-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ack_bak

Network neutrality is a hot topic (especially with regards to the Federal government stepping in). And one that will most likely not be settled anytime soon. So far, the feds have kept a hands off approach. It will be interesting if this changes as more ISP's start pushing caps.

And caps are just part of the problem. Many Americans simply do not have access to affordable high speed Internet. Competition is great but I live within 10 miles of a major city and I have one choice for high speed Internet. Qwest DSL. That is it. If Qwest institutes 5GB-40GB caps, there is no way HD downloads would be a viable option for me right now.

And this is why I find it surprising that so many people seem to think that optical discs will go away in five years or less in favor of downloads. There are way too many barriers right now for that to happen, and I simply do not see this stuff getting resolved in the next couple of years. I believe many network providers are starting to draw a line in the sand and are saying that if you want downloads to become the defacto format for media, you are going to pay for it based on your usage. I also find it odd that this is not getting more attention via major news outlets.

I couldn't agree more. Such issues are being swept under the carpet. I think that people saying optical media will be on its way out in within 5 years couldn't be more wrong. Downloads may well be the future but it will be an awful long time before that happens.

Lee Stewart · 11-03-2008, 02:04 PM

FCC's Comcast ruling: Fuel for the fire

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10005092-93.html

FCC formally rules Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent was illegal

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10004508-38.html

FCC's Comcast Ruling No Great Victory for Network Neutrality

http://www.voip-news.com/feature/fcc...ruling-080408/

Nikopol · 11-04-2008, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFC5

The media outlets OWN many of the ISP companies so they are not going to call themselves out on this.

Another thing is how the hell are people going to KNOW they are approaching the quota limit with a place to check easily?

I used to have a "metered account" with a 5GB cap in the past, when flatrates were still much more expensive than accounts with a time or bandwidth cap. You had to log into your account via the website of the provider to check how much bandwidth you'd used so far.

I guess it would be easy to provide customers with a little tool, that can show your available bandwidth on your desktop.

11-03-2008, 09:15 AM	#3
Nikopol Uwe Boll's my hero Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Maelstrom Blu-rays: 14 Age: 4 Posts: 6,374	My guess is, in the long run providers would love to sell their internet customers their own movie download services, in which case there wouldn't be a download cap. If you want to download from a competing movie download service, then you'd have to pay for bandwidth above the cap. Last edited by Nikopol; 11-03-2008 at 09:24 AM.

11-03-2008, 12:31 PM	#7
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 28,385	If they have the bandwidth to offer the movies through their own VOD service they have the capacity for 3rd party services too. I think it is a monopolistic approach to remove choice to the consumer and force consumers to only use their service by making the other 3rd party services too expensive to consider, and I hope the FCC steps up to the plate to address this. There has to be some solution that is fair to both sides and maybe that includes a fee for each download charged to the 3rd party providers, like what the FCC does with various telecoms. __________________ Denon AVR-887 Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs) All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr) Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35 For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841 Panny 50pz80u plasma SETTINGS RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+ SA 3250HD 47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom) Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support) Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers The_Cable_Game Take the high ground and be happier

11-03-2008, 01:04 PM	#9
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 28,385	But just like the telecoms who OWN the lines but are forced to rent (at very low rates set by the FCC), to avoid monopolistic practices, I think the cable companies should be subject to those same regulations. After all, they DID fight with the FCC to get fair access to offer ISP services previously only allowed to the telecoms with just that same reasoning. It is likely to bite them in the A$$ now if the FCC actually does something which I believe they should do. __________________ Denon AVR-887 Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs) All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr) Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35 For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841 Panny 50pz80u plasma SETTINGS RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+ SA 3250HD 47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom) Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support) Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers The_Cable_Game Take the high ground and be happier

11-03-2008, 01:33 PM	#10
sigill High Def fan Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: United kingdom-Manchester Age: 30 Posts: 2,519	I believe these are the issues that will prevent downloading becoming the next big thing anytime soon. There are too many questions that need answering as far as download limits and whether individual providers will only want to sell there own movie services for more revenue. __________________ Panasonic 37" LCD 720p/1080i Sony BDP-S350 Sony BDP-S300 Toshiba XDE-500 DVD player Onkyo TX-SR606 7.1 AVR KEF1005.2 speakers Latest HD movies bought - Coraline - American Gangster - Moonraker 97 Blu-rays

11-03-2008, 01:47 PM	#12
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 28,385	The media outlets OWN many of the ISP companies so they are not going to call themselves out on this. Another thing is how the hell are people going to KNOW they are approaching the quota limit with a place to check easily? __________________ Denon AVR-887 Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs) All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr) Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35 For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841 Panny 50pz80u plasma SETTINGS RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+ SA 3250HD 47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom) Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support) Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers The_Cable_Game Take the high ground and be happier

11-03-2008, 11:07 AM	#5
Lee Stewart Behold - the future! Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Albuquerque, NM Age: 58 Posts: 25,193	That cap seems really severe. I believe Comcast just instituted a cap of 250GB per month. Also keep in mind that the codec companies are continuing to improve their efficiency and use more compression without affecting the PQ. There was a test done during 2008 CES - I can't find the link for it but it was an experiment done "live" to show a reduction in the file size (I think it was like 3 GB) and compared it to a "normal" HD file to show no change in the PQ. It was a transmited image though I can't remember if it was done OTA, CBL or DNL. Maybe someone will have better luck finding the story.

11-03-2008, 11:59 AM	#6
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	It's all about money. If they can get people to pay more by imposing caps they will. If they can sell their own movie download service using caps as a tool, they will. Either they have the bandwidth or they don't. This is the same garbage as Carbon Credits.

11-03-2008, 01:37 PM	#11
ack_bak Hidef Junkie Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 2,416	Network neutrality is a hot topic (especially with regards to the Federal government stepping in). And one that will most likely not be settled anytime soon. So far, the feds have kept a hands off approach. It will be interesting if this changes as more ISP's start pushing caps. And caps are just part of the problem. Many Americans simply do not have access to affordable high speed Internet. Competition is great but I live within 10 miles of a major city and I have one choice for high speed Internet. Qwest DSL. That is it. If Qwest institutes 5GB-40GB caps, there is no way HD downloads would be a viable option for me right now. And this is why I find it surprising that so many people seem to think that optical discs will go away in five years or less in favor of downloads. There are way too many barriers right now for that to happen, and I simply do not see this stuff getting resolved in the next couple of years. I believe many network providers are starting to draw a line in the sand and are saying that if you want downloads to become the defacto format for media, you are going to pay for it based on your usage. I also find it odd that this is not getting more attention via major news outlets.

11-03-2008, 02:04 PM	#14
Lee Stewart Behold - the future! Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Albuquerque, NM Age: 58 Posts: 25,193	FCC's Comcast ruling: Fuel for the fire http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10005092-93.html FCC formally rules Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent was illegal http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10004508-38.html FCC's Comcast Ruling No Great Victory for Network Neutrality http://www.voip-news.com/feature/fcc...ruling-080408/