Micro Mart Forum / Messages To The Editor / Micro Mart Forums / Re: Should we have to pay to download? / Latest Posts

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

columbo77 — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:58:15 GMT

Hi FS, Be isnt in my area (story of my life with ISP's stuck with crappy BT or Tiscali thats about the limit???

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

ricedg — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:55:12 GMT

It's not just excessive amounts of downloading / uploading.
Bit Torrenting puts a huge strain on any network and kills wireless based ISPs stone dead.
That will be the "unusual burden" part of the FUP I expect.

Using the analogy of the "All You Can Eat Buffet", I don't think anyone would disagree that loading up doggie bags full of food to give to your mates (who aren't there and haven't paid) would be seen as unacceptable.
Yet people seem to think that doing the same thing with data over a network (that you have agreed to share a link with with 50 other people - it's called contention ratios) is perfectly OK.

When there was penty of bandwidth to go around the ISPs could ignore it as "too hard to deal with" as it wasn't impacting much.
Now bandwidth is getting saturated it is a problem.
Those that have paid the same as you want a fair go at the buffet too.

If the altrustic want to share their data willy nilly with each other, fine I have no problem with that IF they buy an uncontended 1:1 link.
Unfortunately they are extremely expensive, so they expect everyone else to pick up the bill for their and their like minded mates habits.

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

BJM — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:29:44 GMT

Define "excessive"

What they may do at present is no guarantee of what they may do tomorrow, or in 5 minutes time, or at any time of their choosing. Any ISP that offers truly unlimited usage at that price without the option to cap etc. is committing commercial suicide.

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

FreakShow! — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:15:54 GMT

Yes, everyone has an FUP, however Be's isn't limited to make it just a loophole. It actually deems excessive as a real excessive amount and not a few Gb, that was my point :)

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

BJM — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:12:12 GMT

No it isn't.
Like all ISP's Be have a FUP.
And like all ISP's they use the word "unlimited", but cover their backs with the small print.
Maybe they haven't applied it yet, but I can almost guarantee that if their network gets fully used or overloaded with P2P'ers migrating to it, they will

See:

https://www.bethere.co.uk/fairusage.do

The relevant sentence is :

Making excessive use of, or placing unusual burdens on, the network,

Not forgetting:

Collecting, streaming, distributing or accessing any material that you know, or reasonably should know, cannot be legally collected, streamed, distributed or accessed

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

FreakShow! — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:35:47 GMT

Columbo77, your answer is [url=https://www.bethere.co.uk/]here[/url]

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

alex3410 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:37:47 GMT

we have BT and after my brother got Internet in his room we where going 10GB+ over our limit (8GB if i remember correctly) so we upgraded ours to unlimited as it was cheaper then paying the extra for out overuse, our connection does slow down but only noticeable sometimes about twice a week when i get cut off from CSS :P and overall i am happy with the service but do agree BT needs to sort its self out as it has been erm challenging at times calling them

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

columbo77 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:31:43 GMT

I hate that they say unlimited and I also hate how new customers get deals and old customers are forgotten about.

I am with BT and have pay for the top service for many many years untill a couple of months ago I was limited to 40gb per month and then they went "Unlimited" with a fair use policy I went over the limit a couple of times nad they sent me NO emails and NO phone calls, I only noticed when I got my quarterly bill in and it had a large amount added to it.

Now that I am "Unlimited" and classed as a high user my connection is limited at peak times 6pm - midnight sometimes i'm not even getting 512 at these times??

Another thing with BT a couple of years ago they contacted me and asked if I would like to sign up for a 18month contract to get 8mb speeds (they admitted I wouldnt get more than 4mb on my line)
I agreed and then when I phoned up to complain about the speed on my line a month ago I got told that my line could only ever supply 2mb??? So they lied to me!!

they have now rang up 3 weeks ago to offer me a home hub and phone for no extra cost to sign up for another 12 months, I agreed and I have rang them 2 times since and been told they know nothing about the call they made to me???

All in all I am not very satisfied with BT and if I wasnt a lazy git I would move elsewhere but I dont like to rock the boat when everything works.

Rant over!

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

ricedg — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:43:18 GMT

Yes the "unlimited" (but not) has spread to mobile phone contracts.
O2 Unlimited texts with "fair usage policy", so that's not really unlimited then....

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

DaveHand — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:30:20 GMT

While I don't think it is unfair for ISPs to charge more for heavy usage, I do have issues with them all lying to get customers to sign up.

UNLIMITED means 'without limits', whereas

UNLIMITED* means LIMITED !!

I'm very disappointed the trading standards have let this continue. There are some parts of language which are completely unambiguous - and this should be one of them.

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

ricedg — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:16:58 GMT

Don't be silly.
Cabling up only part of the country damn nearly bankrupted what has become Virgin Media.

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

Slipstreem — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:48:52 GMT

Surely the dark-fibre route of laying fibre-optics in existing sewage networks would sort that for peanuts. :)

Cheers, Slipstreem. :cool:

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

BJM — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:40:54 GMT

[quote][b]RRich (11/02/2008)[/b][hr]Who fills the exchanges with new equipment? Don't they take extra money from us to fund the future?[/quote]

Never mind a few quid to bolt new equipment into nice warm and dry existing exchanges, alongside the BT kit.

Who is going to fund the £billions to dig up damn near every road, street and pavement in the Uk in order to replace several million miles of multi-core copper wires with nice shiny new fibre-optic cables?

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

RRich — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:17:15 GMT

Shouldn't it be - the more you use the more you pay?
or should it be - one price for every citizen and a cap for all?
or one price no limits?

Who fills the exchanges with new equipment? Don't they take extra money from us to fund the future?

I blame Maggie Thatcher for selling the council house. :hehe:

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

oldphart — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:44:33 GMT

Thank you for the heads up, Dave. I must admit, though, that when I see a surge of outgoing (I use Netmeter to monitor my bitflow), I kill the DG834 connection.

Then again, being a grumpy oldphart, I rarely download anything until I have seen the "MM Seal of Approval" published.

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

ricedg — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:37:01 GMT

Bob's said it all really.
50% of bandwidth is used by 10% of subscribers and that is a fact.

What annoys me is the use of P2P software by the likes of Sky, the BBC and increasingly software houses to distribute their wares on the cheap.
They are using the upload connection from YOUR computer to distribute THEIR content to other people.
They aren't paying for the bandwidth used YOU are because it counts to your cap or fair usage policy.

In the altrustic non capitalist cost model where the state provides and all singing and dancing do what you want system, you are still going to pay because the infrastruture would be paid for by taxation.

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

BJM — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:48:30 GMT

[quote][b]FreakShow! (02/02/2008)[/b][hr]I foresee that company having a lot of its heavier users leaving for pastures new.[/quote]

Do you think it will care?

As has been pointed out numerous times in the past, including by one Forumite who is himself an ISP, bandwidth is finite whilst dwmand is constantly increasing, and with current flat-rate charging policies there is no incentive at present for anyone to pay for the massive investment required to upgrade the networks.

The old 80 / 20 rule comes into play (80% of the usage is by 20% of the users) and in effect the majority are subsidising the high usage levels of a minority. What the ISP's are doing in effect is to charge for what is used. The objection comes from a resistance to change, and mainly from high users who see their cheap access being eroded. For almost any other commodity or utility we pay for what we use (or in the case of many younger forumites, someone else, usually parents, pay for what we use), so why should internet access be any different?

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

FreakShow! — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:22:54 GMT

Just use Be Unlimited.

Problem solved :P

I don't like the idea of paying for more. I am quite a heavy user and it is a shared connection. I chose my BB package with this in mind. Why would I go to a contract that has a low limit and extra charges when I go above the limit?

I foresee that company having a lot of its heavier users leaving for pastures new.

RE: Re: Should we have to pay to download?

jarviser — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:25:48 GMT

I read the article too, but BT are already charging 30 pence for every Gb over the limit of your plan, but are currently only doing this the second and subsequent times you exceed it. First time you get a warning.
Their unlimited package Option 3 is also restricted if seen as unfair usage, or if using P2P software extensively.
ref.
http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=1919ݿ

Re: Should we have to pay to download?

theBishopp — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:58:13 GMT

I thought this was a pretty good article, and I am vehemently opposed to the idea of these low caps and then metered usage...

I don't personally download that much, particularly in comparison to some, but I play games, I listen to online radio, and I watch the occasional film. However, my BB connection is shared between 3 people, and this is the case in many households across the UK.

We already have to buy a computer (which *can* run into thousands of pounds), software to run on it, pay a monthly fee for internet access, and then there are the charges for using the legitimate media services to download music, films, tv or games... now they want to slap even MORE charges on us? I think it's appalling, considering the apparent drive towards an ubiquitous web service, and it most certainly goes against the concept of freedom for all behind the internet, as it will lead to a multi tiered web... As usual, those with money will be able to do what they want, the rest can have the leftovers...