Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

News ISPs should pay no mind to the (bandwidth) cap, 500GB cost AUD$75(RM220)Email this to TM

views
     
TShmmm906
post Aug 27 2009, 09:31 PM, updated 17y ago

New Member
*
Newbie
0 posts

Joined: Aug 2009
http://business.theage.com.au/business/isp...90824-ewkk.html

ISPs should pay no mind to the cap
Joshua Gans
August 25, 2009

ONE of the great anomalies of the Australian broadband industry is the existence of usage caps, which around the world are virtually non-existent.

In the US, some internet providers have talked of a 250 gigabytes-a-month limit. That has led to consumer outrage that forced those providers to desist lest they lose customers. This is despite the fact only 0.003 per cent of US broadband users exceed that level - just 0.21 per cent exceed 100GB.

To an outsider, the Australian system seems very strange. Telstra boasts a basic package on its BigPond Cable Extreme network that, for $39.95 a month, gives 200 megabytes in usage. At Telstra's boasted 30MB a second speeds, that amounts to a minute of high-quality video downloads. After that you pay 15¢ a megabyte. It is hard to imagine that being an option for consumers.

But even its Liberty plan, which costs $69.95 and offers 12GB a month - after which the extreme speed is slowed to the speeds of last century - only allows you 20 hours of video watching a month, provided you do nothing else. That's about 45 minutes a night.

No wonder so many people do their YouTube watching at work.


Had the US and rest of the world had similar practices, requiring users to carefully watch their megabytes, YouTube and similar services would never had been conceived, let alone put into practice. Perhaps the carriers would have hosted content, under the cap, but then we would be in a world where they decided what we saw rather than the demonstrably better one where that choice is truly free.

There are costs to bandwidth. But rather than being 15¢ a megabyte, they are in the order of 15¢ a gigabyte - or 1000 times less. So if you are using 500GB a month, you are costing your carrier $75(RM220) a month. It seems reasonable that you pay for it. But, in Australia, if you want to use 50GB a month, you'll pay $2.60(RM7.70) a gigabyte to Telstra. Paying for bandwidth is fine. Getting gouged for it is another matter.

It is not just Telstra, although it has a special role. No internet provider in Australia offers a plan like they do in the US. The best ones are cheaper than Telstra but offer more by dividing between peak and off-peak use.

They have not tried to grab market share by going for it and freeing people from dreaded usage monitoring.

Why isn't competition working here? It is difficult to say but consider what would happen if a smaller provider lifted its cap to 250GB and charged 15¢ beyond that. It would attract a disproportionate share of those who would use that much. That may represent a small part of the market but a large part of its customers. Add to that the potential congestion caused by such usage - if concentrated in the evenings - on the equipment installed in Telstra exchanges, and that 15¢ a gigabyte may be something much larger.

This is a problem that Telstra likely does not face. But it does face conflicts that might give it pause when lifting caps.

For instance, a higher cap moves video watching online and out of the living room where Foxtel boxes reside. That is a cost it faces that others do not. But it is a cost borne of choice, the choice to be integrated with Foxtel.

We are told that the new management of Telstra is more open and ready to meet the challenges brought about by the national broadband network. The NBN will have the capacity to break through usage caps. But why wait eight years?

There is an opportunity for Telstra to demonstrate its new responsiveness and get rid of this anachronism. It could lift its Liberty plan to 100GB and likely face few additional costs if it charged 15¢ a gigabyte. It would send a strong signal to markets.

For others, there is a similar route. Smaller providers need not offer high-cap plans widely, but, for example, as an employee deal with businesses they also serve.

Think about it. Employees would be offered plans that gave them incentives to watch YouTube at home rather than at work. Employers would be happy and there would be only a marginal increase in traffic for the service provider as usage moved from work to home.

There is a way out of tight usage caps that stifle appropriate internet use. These will not be costly given international experience, but will open up more services to broadband usage. The NBN will provide this, but Australians shouldn't have to wait that long.

Joshua Gans is an economics professor at Melbourne Business School. He writes on these issues at economics.com.au

This post has been edited by hmmm906: Aug 28 2009, 04:52 PM
Cheesenium
post Aug 27 2009, 09:52 PM

Vigilo Confido
*******
Senior Member
4,852 posts

Joined: Aug 2006
Thats true.

I watch all my HD Youtube videos at uni,with their awesome 9MBps connection,rather than at home.

Even half way during lab.

0.50AUD per G exceed still sounds good to me.Better than my friend have to pay over 300AUD for exceed 1GB on a slow connection.

This post has been edited by Cheesenium: Aug 27 2009, 09:56 PM
robertngo
post Aug 27 2009, 10:45 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,027 posts

Joined: Oct 2004


australia broadband is not that advance but they have a massive project to upgrade the infra all across the country

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7986918.stm

looks similar to our own high speed broadband plan, wonder which one will complete the project first.
Moogle Stiltzkin
post Aug 28 2009, 02:01 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,465 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
bruce.gif

This post has been edited by Moogle Stiltzkin: Jul 14 2017, 07:52 PM
miahahaha
post Aug 28 2009, 02:07 PM

Beru
*******
Senior Member
7,558 posts

Joined: Mar 2008
From: HornBill Borneo



Maybe our ISP should create packages that can satisfy users...lets says:

1M Package, package limit is 60GB per month..after that, will be capped but instead of capping why don't they just charge the extra GB that the user use,much more easier and less problem for us...in this way, still a win-win situation, because we are paying what we are using...
TShmmm906
post Aug 28 2009, 02:13 PM

New Member
*
Newbie
0 posts

Joined: Aug 2009
QUOTE(Moogle Stiltzkin @ Aug 28 2009, 02:01 PM)
Many reasonable people agree that these ISPs are not able to provide unlimited bandwidth. We recognise that.

But what upsets many users is that, instead of creating different packages to cater to different segments like casual and heavy downloaders, instead they bundle us all together, then they cap us after we reach a certain bandiwdth cap (which seems to be 10gb for streamyx which is ridiculously low).

How can the bandwidth cap be only 10gb? How exactly is this considered a heavy downloader that they set is to 10gb o_O;

Another problem is throttling. It discriminately targets p2p. They don't let us use p2p at all. Nevermind the bandwidth cap, they will just throttle any p2p traffic ..... How is that fair? Why bother getting a better broadband speed if we can't use p2p?

Probably the biggest is dropped packets. How can the drop packets be so damn high? For example notice that you download something, and just when it's about to finish download, suddenly it stops and the file is corrupted. This is due to dropped packets etc doh.gif it's happened to me more then a few times so i am forced to re-download again.

Latency is also crap because of poor routing.

The download and upload speed we get is usually not even 80% of the advertised speed.
In summary,ok if they want to set a bandwidth cap fine, as long as they make a few different packages one of which would be true highspeed broadband with unlimited bandwidth ( or a very large cap like 200-300gb or something).

Also don't discriminate against P2P. As long as we are below our bandwidth usage, don't mess with P2p doh.gif

Fix too many dropped packets, also provide better routing cause latency sucks.

*
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/27228/127/

To improve broadband speeds, don't fiberise, optimise
by Stuart Corner
Wednesday, 26 August 2009

The local head of wide area network optimisation specialist, Riverbed Technology, has delivered a stinging attack on the government's National Broadband Network project claiming end users are unlikely to see real benefits simply from fatter pipes and that the performance of existing broadband services could be greatly improved by widespread deployment of wide area network optimisation technologies.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


This post has been edited by hmmm906: Aug 28 2009, 02:15 PM
Moogle Stiltzkin
post Aug 28 2009, 03:44 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,465 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
bruce.gif

This post has been edited by Moogle Stiltzkin: Jul 14 2017, 07:52 PM
TShmmm906
post Aug 28 2009, 04:36 PM

New Member
*
Newbie
0 posts

Joined: Aug 2009
QUOTE(Moogle Stiltzkin @ Aug 28 2009, 03:44 PM)
hmmm906 @  are you saying the incomplete download and dropped packets is becaue tmnut is using this riverbed technology? Explain doh.gif
*
No. I mean they need network optimisation.
Moogle Stiltzkin
post Aug 28 2009, 04:37 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,465 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
bruce.gif

This post has been edited by Moogle Stiltzkin: Jul 14 2017, 07:58 PM
andrew9292
post Aug 28 2009, 08:49 PM

-/Livin' On A Prayer/-
*****
Senior Member
955 posts

Joined: Sep 2008
From: Petaling Jaya


QUOTE(Moogle Stiltzkin @ Aug 28 2009, 04:37 PM)
Their routing is so shoddy so how?

I seriously doubt they have the personnel competent enough for optimization. So their only solution is to throttle and hope for the best -.-;
*
They have, if not why those corporate buildings, factories, offices using SOHO or business packages can get such great speed?
They have and they can do it, but.......it's not available to us.......


robertngo
post Aug 28 2009, 09:05 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,027 posts

Joined: Oct 2004


QUOTE(Moogle Stiltzkin @ Aug 28 2009, 04:37 PM)
Their routing is so shoddy so how?

I seriously doubt they have the personnel competent enough for optimization. So their only solution is to throttle and hope for the best -.-;
*
well the riverbed wan optimization will be great for http tranffic, caching popular site will allow much better utilization of tmnut limited international line, but stuff like gaming i dont believe will gain much speed on this.


SUSautoman5891
post Mar 28 2010, 05:52 PM

New Member
*
Junior Member
16 posts

Joined: Sep 2009


bump for exposure
ahtung79
post Mar 28 2010, 07:08 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
76 posts

Joined: Oct 2004
From: Kuala Lumpur


QUOTE(andrew9292 @ Aug 28 2009, 08:49 PM)
They have, if not why those corporate buildings, factories, offices using SOHO or business packages can get such great speed?
They have and they can do it, but.......it's not available to us.......
*
name me 10...hmmm no need 10 laaa, only one enuff...engineer/consultant/expert in TM, which i guarantee already have the ccie (or wutever highest industry cert), that really have experience managing (with hands-on) other public broadband network (other successful ISP) prior to TM...

for me, for this kinda job, u really need a few experts WITH same industry experience working together with internal TM engineers...

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0199sec    0.26    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 9th December 2025 - 01:43 AM