The majorUS cable broadband provider ComCast is now experimenting with suspending users that go over what they call acceptable usage. Unlike many broadband providers that cap usage a specified number of Gigabytes per day or month, ComCast does not say what a user is entitled to. Instead, according to CNET, they are penalising the top 1% of broadband users; thus affecting around 240,000 broadband users.
It is like having a flat rate monthly bus ticket, but after going over a number of bus trips, the ticket machine refuses the ticket saying "You account is suspended due to over-usage of our bus service". Then call the bus operator and they say "We suspended your ticket because you went over our acceptable usage, but we cannot tell you what our limit is".
The broadband ISP providers blame poorly designed peer-to-peer applications for hogging the bandwidth, such as Gnutella. Most of these applications are designed like 'routers' where clients continuously send updates to other clients to let them know that they are still up and along with what songs are being shared.
Cable provider Comcast, which acquired the AT&T@Home network, is experimenting with capping users bandwidth, suspending users who exceed what Comcast deems acceptable usage. But what is acceptable? Unlike British cable provider NTL, which pegs users to a maximum of 1GB of downloads per day, Comcast simply isn't saying how much users are entitled to use. The written policy is vague, referring to " an unusually large burden on the network"; a spokesperson cited at CNET said that the top one per cent of downloaders would be penalized. This affects around 240,000 users, but which 240,000? "It's like a Cop giving you a ticket for speeding, so you say to the cop 'what speed was I doing' - the Cop says "sorry I don't know" , so you say 'what is the speed limit?' and the cop says "sorry I don't know, but you're still busted!" notes a stateside reader. ISPs blame badly-designed P2P software for soaking up the bandwidth. Systems such as Gnutella were designed to avoid single points of failure, rather than for efficiency. So ISPs now find themselves in the same position as the retail banks, which have been trying to reduce the number of unprofitable customers for many years. (In the UK banks employ fruit codes too distinguish "cherries" from the "lemons, which is more imaginative than the classifications used in the US). Comcast's less than transparent policy disturbs the assumption that flat-rate, predictable pricing means users need not worry about bandwidth costs. These are very real, but with the media firm (which recently sold the QVC shopping channel) sitting on a cash pile of billion, pleading hardship isn't going to be well received by blackballed users. Whatever happened to the bandwidth glut? |
It would be rather unfair to sign up to an ISP believing that they provide unlimited usage and later find out that their usage is capped to an unspecified value. NTL in the UK give users a 1GB limit and the few providers in Ireland cap at around 3GB - 5GB per month. Satellite broadband providers such as EuropeOnline take on a different approach. Many satellite providers have a 1GB limit per month, but if the user goes over this limit, their traffic priority is lowered rather than being suspended, so during peak usage times those who are within their 1GB limit get priority over the heavy users that have exceed their quota.
The ISPs with heavy users should take on a different approach than simply 'pulling the plug' on heavy users. One option would be to introduce a priority based system like Europe's satellite broadband ISPs, so if users abuse their usage, traffic priority is given to other users. The other approach would be to use a priority system based on the protocol, e.g. HTTP, FTP and POP3/SMTP (E-mail) traffic be given higher priority than all other protocols such as those used by peer-to-peer applications.
Source: The Register
