Using Broadband Cap To Hide System Deficiency
Days ago, I blogged about some of our Internet Service Providers’ (ISPs’) move to adopt “fair use policy” in their broadband business to prevent a small minority from hogging the bandwidth to the detriment of the great majority of users. As such, our ISPs are saying that they are imposing a data cap to subscribers who exceed their subscribed bandwidth. However, could this be just a convenient way to hide the real situation of their systems regarding network capacity and capability to provide reliable quality broadband service?
As I write this article, the Philippines is ranked 116th in the World’s Household Download Index by online NetIndex.com with an average speed of 2.13 Mbps (Megabits per second). The figure is way below the top 34.31 Mbps download speed in South Korea and about four (4x) times slower than the mean average of 8.65 Mbps for the measurements in 170 countries for the past 30 days. It also does not show the frequent slowdowns and disconnections that we are experiencing with our DSL connections. On top of this, our monthly average cost of PhP1,000/Mbps is very high compared to say PhP1,300 (2600 Yen) that my son pays for his 100 Mbps residential DSL subscription in Tokyo, Japan.
The above facts clearly show that the quality and cost of the broadband services or DSL connections being provided to us by our telcos or ISPs are way below par if compared with the rest of the world. So the question is why put a limit on something that is below standard. If their poor services are caused by what they call the “bandwidth hogs”, why don’t they run after them? After all, they also say that they consist only five (5%) percent of their total users. Why punish the big majority for the sins of the very small minority?
Our ISPs are also saying that limiting our bandwidth usage is the only way for them to deliver the connection speed that we pay them in our subscriptions. Is this the truth or they want to implement broadband caps so that they can put in more subscribers to their already deficient systems? Should our regulating agency allow them to that without having to check their current system capacity? We can only wait and see.
Telcos or ISPs, just like most businesses, like to amass more profits with less investments and will never admit that they’re making huge profits. As such, income understatement is par for the course just to make their shareholders happy.
Philippines are good in IT development, should not deprive from internet download speeds. i don’t know the reason why we are getting that kind of download speeds that i have hate so much when creating my website.
Everybody wants to optimize their earnings and profits and ISPs are no exceptions. They’d merely just live with the competition and provide just about a little bit above average of what the market is offering.
That way, people won’t have to complain and those who wants better services are offered a VIP price as well -the result, more subscribers sharing the IC and more profit. That’s the way it has been all around.
A valid point you put in there. “why put a limit on something that is below standard?” Why indeed?
True there maybe people who use their service to the maximum. That is their choice and what they are paying for. Assuming one “downloads continuously” for 24 hours non-stop, the amount of data one can get within that time frame is limited to the speed at which data is received. Assuming of course that that connection speed is stable and constant (which is not the case). What does this mean? Simple. The ISP’s therefore can compute for a CONSTANT MAXIMUM daily usage FOR EACH CUSTOMER, say: USER X paying for X Mbps can download X amount of GB’s in that 24 hour period. Given the fact that our connections are asymmetric in its design usually download flow is higher than upload flow. For a usual 2 Mbps connection, the ISP’s sets the ratio at 75% download and 25% upload. This means for 2 Mbps, you can download at 1.5 Mbps (1500 KBps) and upload at 0.5 Mbps (500 KBps). Notice that we use speed to get the amount (GB) we get off the net. The FASTER and RELIABLE the connection, the more DATA we can get (more on this later). The math is so simple. Only if there were no UNWANTED VARIABLEs that puts this simple equation in utter chaos. There is distance, condition of the cables, the condition of the equipments that is used to send the data. However, all these variables, as you can see, cannot be faulted to the user.
In reality, the bandwidth is split across multiple users. If the ISP’s are UPRIGHT in their dealings with their subscribers, based on the math above, they can gauge HOW MUCH EACH USER NEEDS DAILY to deliver their advertised speeds and set up an infrastructure that will not shortchange existing and future subscribers. Can we say, they are living up to it? If your current ISP is doing just that, then lucky you. The fact therefore is simple, THERE ARE FAR MORE USERS THAN WHAT THEIR SYSTEMS CAN HANDLE and they have to spread the bandwidth so thinly that we are actually getting a fraction of what we are paying for.
Now why would they want a DATA CAP to hide this deficiency? Is it therefore right to assume that it can be faulted to the so-called “abusive” 5% who hogs their connection? I will let the math speak for itself. Each users MAXIMUM DAILY DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD CAPACITY CAN BE COMPUTED. And as stated above, based on the computation, it is their responsibility to deliver this promise to their subscribers But as of now, and as it should be, we are paying them for the speed at which this data is transmitted to us or sent by us to/from all over the world. We pay them a constant monthly service fee for that speed. Is it now getting hot enough for you? We are already PAYING FOR THAT SPEED (or lack of it). Why not CHARGE US AGAIN for the AMOUNT OF DATA we get if we exceed a given amount of LIMIT? This scheme will ultimately affect all users on all strata regardless if we use our connection to a maximum or use it sparingly. What next? Are they going to put PHYSICAL METERS on our PC’s so we can see our actual usage? I will not pay for that equipment if it comes to that.
Now you see, by implementing this scheme, there will be no need for them to spend and upgrade their systems but in return get MORE MONEY BY CHARGING EXTRA for each GB we get off the net. If we reach that limit, they have the right to slow you down or disconnect you to free the resource for others who are paying the same as you get the resource. A resource that should have been available for all existing users in the first place. It is therefore safe to assume that we are being sold a service that is so deficient and lacking to begin with. If the system slows down or ultimately stalls, they have the “abusive” user they can pin the fault on. This is SMS (Texting) 101 all over again. Brilliant! Simply brilliant.