I got an email from my ISP - BT, to say that I'd used 80GB of transfer for March, and that if I went to 100GB, I'd have my speed capped for the next 30 days. This is on their (and I quote) "UNLIMITED" plan. bleurgg
Most likely the problem is that they now can no longer blame the problem on "bandwidth hogs"--with everyone using Youtube, everyone uses the bandwidth that you advertised to them.
It's sort of ironic, since they have specifically sold the benefits of broadband ADSL as being able to watch movies, etc and now they complain people are actually doing that ;)
If the Telcos feel they can charge Google for carrying its bits, then perhaps they should pay all the newspapers, blogs, etc that are providing all their content to those telcos for free.
Over the last 20 years, Telcos have made humongous profits selling internet access to content that they didn't have any hand in producing. Meanwhile, the newspapers are going bust.
People keep talking about saving newspapers by introducing paywalls and such. There's already a paywall: it's the internet access monthly fee. Take the money out of there.
If the newspapers can't survive, (I for one still like reading my daily non-electronic paper), let them die.
ISPs should simply be a pipe. Nothing more, nothing less.
I just think that it's an uneasy "let's keep our eyes closed" arrangement to begin with. If the Telcos want to open their eyes instead, they might find they have a lot more to lose than to gain. Ditching Net Neutrality will cost them a whole lot more than it will gain them, as soon as content providers realise that actually, the providers should be paying them, not the other way around.
I mean, if Telefonica wants to block access to youtube, why should Google stop them? Fine. Block it. And lose 80% of your customers overnight. If Google wanted to play this game, they should be asking Telefonica to pay them money.
It's not a long step from this to having bloggers, newspapers, etc, organise in collectives that can charge telcos for "access to every newspaper on the web" or "every blog on the web".
In the UK you have a choice from a few hundred ISPs, so there is no real monopoly here.
Same with the magic word "free". You'll often see that used such as "free mobile phone (small print: when you sign up to a contract at £19/month)" etc.
Are there true unlimited plans in Germany that aren't subject to any limits then?
Google has had to take a lot shit lately from non free speech and non free market ideologies.
For mobile internet, it's a whole different story, obviously. There are all kinds of caps.
I think 'unlimited' should mean unlimited. But I agree, introducing caps sadly makes business sense for some companies.
The problem is now that the term is completely meaningless. We found an Unlimited mobile data plan a few months back that had a 250mb a month 'fair usage' allowance. Total rubbish.
The next thing to watch for is "fibre optic broadband". The ASA don't see any problem with Virgin Media (a cable company) advertising their service as "fibre optic", despite the fact that the last leg is actually coax.
I've already had a couple of non-technical friends wonder what all the fuss is about "fibre optic", since they think they already have it.