I’ve been asking engineers around for reasons why ISPs around the world have been implementing bandwidth caps and got several possible scenarios to consider. Here are the top 5 most probable reasons behind the issue of bandwidth caps.
Some or all of these reasons might also be true for our local telcos/ISPs as well.
1) Subscription Mis-match. Residential subscribers using their connection beyond “residential use” (like for powering their internet cafe businesses). If you see one of those small mom’s and pop’s internet cafe that’s placed as an extension to a house, it’s highly probable they’ve used their residential line instead of getting a business subscription. (Why? Because a 2Mbps residential subscription is 50% cheaper than a 2Mbps business subscription.)
2) Over-subscription. ISPs take on more subscribers than they can actually handle. That means, if they sell you a 1Mbps connection for Php999, they might be actually allocating just 0.25Mbps to that subscriber so they can sell 3 more accounts to fit the actual 1Mbps allocation.
If ISPs didn’t allow “over-subscription” on their network, they might need to double the monthly service fees of subscribers just to hit the same annual revenue targets they currently get.
3) Abusive Users. Subscribers who are downloading files 24×7. That usage pattern can already be considered a business subscription rather than a residential subscription. The term “abusive” is debatable though. It’s the service provider that determines what “abusive” in the same way they’re the ones who defined what is “residential subscription” and “business subscription”.
NTC puts this figure at 1 – 2% of total broadband users. It might seem a bit small but that percentage is already equivalent to 30,000 to 60,000 subscribers (from an estimated 3 million broadband subscribers in the Philippines). If all of them sustained a 1Mbps download 24×7, that will use up 30-60Gbps of the whole network. Not sure if my figure is accurate but my guess is that total bandwidth available in the Philippines is in the 250Gbps to 300Gbps (half of which goes to big companies such as BPOs).
4) Mis-distribution. ISPs allocate a certain bandwidth to specific areas but oftentimes, the allocation to those areas do not match the cumulative usage of subscribers there. Hence, there will be areas where internet speeds are better than others.
5) Increase Subscriber Capacity. This is actually similar to over-subscription but the short explanation here would be — if the ISPs can just clamp down on the 1 – 2% of those abusive users from hogging the network, they can probably increase their subscriber capacity by an additional 10 – 20% more of their existing user base.
I believe the issue stemmed from a combination of several points raised above — I’d point the finger on over-subscription first then the network hoggers.
The article on bandwidth caps from Wikipedia mentions:
Many broadband Internet Service Providers in North America and Europe introduced bandwidth caps in the early 21st century. The same practice has been in place in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and South Africa since the release of broadband. NTT Communications in Japan imposes a 30GB/day upload cap with a warning for a first violation and disconnection for repeat offenders.
Remember that ISPs have already implemented the caps years ago, even before NTC made this draft memorandum. Just go over your Service Order Agreement with your ISP and there will be a section there that covers P2P throughput and month bandwidth caps (here’s a sample contract for Globe Broadband).
I strongly believe in the Free Market Economy — that the service provider that offers the best service will always get the most customers; that healthy competition will allow the market to stabilize and result to cheaper prices and/or better service (I used to pay Php1,995 for a 384Kbps connection; now it’s Php1,995 for 2Mbps — not a huge improvement but an improvement nonetheless) making the customers the ultimate winner.
Subscribers just need to be vigilant and I think what should be removed from the contracts is the lock-in period — that if you’re not satisfied with their service, you can just request for dis-connection anytime and switch providers immediately.
This article is junk.
We should use the internet how we see fit.
If I want 24 hour downloading, I will.
That is not abuse, that is what I pay for.
If I dont like what I see, I go to another provider.
[...] It was just this January when we first heard of NTC doing consultations and public hearing regarding the broadband cap. Telcos reasoned out why they have no other choice but to put some sort of capping for their residential subscribers (see: 5 Reasons ISPs Implement Bandwidth Cap). [...]
to doinks:
your analogy seems to make sense at first look.
however, let me extend the analogy a little bit further. let’s say, that indeed a very small group of diners who are voracious eaters availed of the eat-all-you can offer. now, there are not many of them. say only 3 to 5 out of every 100 customers. but when i say voracious, i actually mean they stay in the restaurant 24×7, consuming food at a steady but continuous rate, such that they consume 80% of the food and the other 95 to 97 customers have to contend themselves with the remaining 20%.
i’m sure you will agree that for these hoggers, no amount of increasing the number of food crates will be sufficient. because they are what they are, they will consume whatever is placed on the serving plate. and should the restaurant order more food crates, they will consume 80% of those too.
what is the restaurant to do then? they could block those pigs. but that would work only if there are indeed only 100 customers where you can easily pinpoint the 3 or 5 pigs among them. but when we talk several hundreds of thousands of customers, actually identifying the few thousands of hogs would be a little difficult to say the least.
so the restaurant would have no choice but to make a study of the food consumption habits of the remaining 95-97 “normal” customers, come up with a reasonable amount of food allocation based on that, maybe increase that number a little bit and make that the limit. this way, the 95-97 customers will continue to enjoy their eat all you can. the only ones who will be affected are the 3 to 5 percent who are pigs.
now the existence of these 3-5% pigs is not something that the ISPs fabricated out of thin air. they are real. some of them are even in this forum.
doesn’t the interest of 95 to 97 percent take precedence over the unreasonable concern of these 3 to 5%?
Assuming that I consume 30 GBPS Per month, a 6 mbps connection with 30 GBPS pricing only at P1000 could solve my rant!
Twitter: Vincent
says:
@re
wrong unit. GBPS is a unit of speed (gigagbits per second). the correct unit you want is a unit of size, simple GB or gigagbyte
[...] and throttling (I have defended the idea for some time, and I still do. See related story here, here and here). If those 2Mbps mobile subscriptions are being shared by an allocated number of [...]
it doesn’t work that way explaining bandwidth allocation like an eat all you can restaurant.in the first place subscriber has a internet speed based subscription.that’s already capping..sample if have a 1mb subscription you can not and never will have a 5mb internet ,,why because from the beginning your connection is already limited to your based subscription,,so the term capping is just one way of lie,,,they want more subscriber more than what they can handle..there no need to reduce allocated internet speed if the isp has limit there subscriber to what there network can handle…
If a car dealer sold 1 car to 4 different people at full price and expected them to share it, he would be a criminal. Why can internet companies oversell accounts and expect customers to limit what they use so they company can sell more accounts?
Don’t punish the consumers. Punish the companies selling things that they do not have! If they do not have the equipment to provide the kind of internet they are selling to people, they should not be allowed to take people’s money.