A recent draft memorandum by the NTC indicates some sort of service level agreement where ISPs are required to provide a minimum guaranteed speed on subscriptions as well as allow for daily bandwidth capping on subscribers.
The circular requires ISPs to deliver a minimum average of 80% of the subscribed plan for regular broadband/dial-up lines and 99% for leased lines.
The NTC defines this accordingly:
… service reliability is measured over a period of one month and is derived by dividing the number of hours used in a day into the difference between hours used in a day and hours used below minimum connection speed in a day.
On the other hand, the NTC also endorsed recommendations by ISPs to put a daily cap on bandwidth usage. This clarifies the bandwidth caps already being imposed by telcos which we reported earlier.
While many would look at the “bandwidth caps” and cry foul, I’d look at the other provision that requires a minimum guaranteed speed based on the subscribed speed. This means if you subscribe to a 1Mbps plan, your average internet speed over a period of 1 month should not be under 800Kbps. If that’s the case, I’d gladly agree to be capped at 25GB per month (see Globe’s Broadband Internet bandwidth caps here).
I recently talked to a network engineer who’s a supplier of one of the telcos mentioned above and he explained how they arrived on the bandwidth caps imposed by the carriers.
What they do is they look at network traffic and determine how much bandwidth is used on a monthly basis. It turns out that over 99% of the users consume less than 1.5GB of bandwidth on their mobile phones.
The less than 1% who exceed are very few and inconsistent — meaning, they don’t consistently exceed 1.5GB on a month to month basis. Btw, this 1.5GB cap of Smart is for mobile 3G internet only.
In order to avoid regular users from being affected by the heavy users, the heavy users (those who exceed the 1.5GB cap) are isolated and transferred to a different network segment or bucket. The allocation for that small group in the segment is then limited. Hence, only the heavy users will be competing for the limited bandwidth in their bucket while all the regular users remain on the regular, uncongested network.
The rationale behind this policy has been studied and compared with other carriers in other countries worldwide. Of course, there are other factors that come into play.
I personally own several servers and re-sell bandwidth so I have a lot of experiences with system abuses. It’s the same reason why Cabalen imposes a double-the-price penalty to diners who put more food on their plate than they can finish. Same goes with Mang Inasal’s unlimited rice — just go try and ask for 100 cups of rice in one go. Or why the MMDA imposes number coding and restricts which car you can drive on a given day.
Apparently, in the Philippines, regular consumers don’t fully understand the “bucket system” so telcos resorted to time-based servicing. Remember that standard mobile internet used to be priced on a per KB basis back in the days? That did not work out well (the bucket system) so they shifted to the time-based billing system.
However, the time-based system is very prone to abuse (a problem which don’t exist if they imposed the bucket system). The throttling and capping of bandwidth to supplement time-based services allows the service providers to regulate the network and separate the heavy users from the regular users.
I don’t like the idea of putting caps but I’m okay with it as long as it’s a reasonable one. Just give me that 1Mbps speed I actually subscribed to. I hope this draft memorandum gets pushed thru so we can all get that 80% minimum guarantee on subscribed internet speeds.
Addendum: I think the issue here is the use of the word “unlimited” in the subscription plans when in fact it’s actually just a modified form of “bucket plans”. What if the NTC orders all the telcos to shift to “bucket plans” and sell internet connection on a pay per use basis? Say if you consume 15GB a month, you only pay Php500 but if you use 50GB in a month, your bill goes up accordingly (say Php1,500). I think that would have been a more straight-forward approach. Never mind if most of the consumers could not quantify what a gigabyte is. At least it’s not false advertising.
We’re not really that alien to caps. Even the MMDA has capped how many days you can drive your car in a week. We seem to be okay with that since everyone is experiencing how congested EDSA is.
To NTC: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! You’re all a bunch of prats deserving a good drive by shooting. Capping. Instead of screwing around with the paying public, make the service better! Terrestial DSL for instance, the type of broadband internet I use is dedicated bandwidth yet the idiots at the telcos say otherwise. WTF is up with that? I pay on time and now NTC is recommending capping? Unlimited indeed. I pay for a service because of the advertised features. If the telcos follow the recommended caps, a lot of customers like me are going to be pissed. (I already am.) Its like being told to sleep only 5 hours a night for the reason of productivity purposes. Bunch of bollocks!
ahaha, kulang na lang ay i-cap ng meralco ang kuryente na pwede nating gamitin!!! ‘yon ang mas nakakatakot!!!
@isonski
kilabutan ka naman sa sinasabi mo, isipin mo nga ang epekto nito sa mga call center agents, medical transcriptionist at Icafe owners. naghahanap buhay din yun mga yun di ba? di mo ba naisip ang magiging epekto nito sa kanila magkataon?
kaya lalong naghihirap ang pinas kasi may mga tao na katulad mo na walang pakialam sa mga nagyayari sa paligid nya since hindi naman sya gaanung maapektuhan.
at isa pa, wala kang pakialam sa mga tao nagfafacebook, nag-oonline games, nanunuod sa net, or kung ano-ano pa. buhay nila yung at may karapatan silang gawin anumang gustuhin nila. kung yung favorite passtime mo kya eh lilimitihan ng gobyerno, ano feeling? di ka aangal? wag manhid bro
@isonski
ano kaya kung i-cap ng government ang pagkain dito sa ‘pinas? pati yung hangin na hinihinga natin? yung tubig? yung kinikita natin?
ganon lang kas-simple ‘yon…kung may pakialam ka sa nangyayari concerned ka. kung wala, manhid ka!
ano kaya kung i-cap ng mga magulang mo ang oras na pwede kang gumamit ng pc or mag-masturbate, anong pakiramdam?
eh kung i-cap ng pharmaceutical store ang gamot na bibilhin mo para sa malala mong sakit?
cap means limitation…
@isonski
kung wala kang pakialam sa nangyayari sa bansa natin, mang-rape ka na lang ng aso or mag-masturbate ka na lang sa public toilet! meganon?!
[...] already discussed it in detail here, but this is your chance to be heard in a public [...]
isonski is a prime of example of a dumbass douchebag lmao. Since you seem to have no idea what the cap means to people doing proper things online, stfu and gtfo.
On a purely economic basis, capping makes sense for ISPs even if they lose your subscription. This just means their low performing accounts will move to their competition, which isn’t exactly a bad thing so if people think that stopping subscription will make ISPs change their minds, I doubt it, unless mass action can be achieved.
http://redkinoko.blogspot.com/2011/01/pldt-bandwidth-cap-why-it-makes-sense.html
@isonski
go play with your dick you dumbass!
if you don’t care about us people who’s gonna sufer from these caps, blow yourself off…you selfish fool!
@lolipown
isonski is a primitive caveman…beware!
how unfortunate is it to actually live here with this kind of system.
everyone has stressed enough their point and i couldn’t agree more. bandwidth capping is not the answer to internet speed problems.
this is just plain bull. an excuse to get more money from consumers.
@isonski e tarantado ka pala eh, wala naman palang laman yang utak mo.
yang pinagmamalaki mong “totoong internet working-class heroes, sa mga sysads, network admins, developers/programmers, project leads, MIS/IT/ICT personnel and techs” sila ang unang-unang maaapektuhan nang capping na ito.
hindi mo alam kung pano? eh natural hindi mo malalaman kasi obvious naman na panggap ka lang na “totoong internet working-class”. letche may nalalaman ka pang “totoong internet working-class”, EEEENNNNAAAAMOOOO!!!!
May magagawa tayo dito about sa
issue na to mga tol yung mga may
account sa Social networking like
Twitter Facebook or even sa mismong
site ng mga network, batikusin natin
ang NTC sa mga palpak nilang idea. Ang dapat nilang gawin ay iimprove
nila mga equiptment and installation
nila hindi yung mga nanahimik na
network consumers. Puro kasi
pangungurakot inaatupag ng mga
hinayupak na to eh. . Lets go guys!!!
ayun, pumasok na pala dito.
@mister kunat
oh good, I can stuff him up and display him next to my barney collection
Twitter: Mon Macutay
says:
Yup. Agree with the bandwidth cap as long as we get the real speed that we’re paying for.
@lolipown
that made me laugh so hard. too bad i can’t include him to my “flinstones caveman action figures” LOL!
@mister kunat
that’d be an insult to the flintstones. Mas may isip pa ang mga taga-bedrock compared to that sniveling buffoon.
Ka INUTILAN ang mga alam nila. lol
PAPANSIN sila kabastusan. kaya lalo tayo nalalate when it comes to technology! please naman kahit minsan umangat tayo! sus.
Twitter: Vincent
says:
re: the NTC public hearing
this is a very very iportant issue which affects filipinos all over the country. This should be televised and phone in, text in and IM in questions should be entertained. If not, then the NTC is treating it as if it were a mere local ordinance. People from other parts of the country would be “disenfranchised” so to speak because they would not be able to air their views
Twitter: Vincent
says:
lok at this pic which compares price per 1mbps around the world for major countries
http://www.billshrink.com/blog/5787/internet-penetration-costs/
unfortunately the big version of the pic is down. my dsl gives me 1 mbps (in fairness 1.3mbps) for 1000 pesos or around $23 a month. That puts me off the scale since the scale only goes up to $20 a month per mbps. #1 is japan with $0.27 per 1 mbps
This is all a result of business being protected by the 40% limit on foreign ownership in the constitution.
If we allow 100% foreign companies to enter the market, they can provide better service. No need to worry about low caps… because the caps will perhaps be higher. Or there will be hundreds of ISPs to choose from. And we’ll have real DSL, not the false DSL we have here.
Wonder if the capping is why I’m having terribly intermittent connection in Globe since last week.
Twitter: Vincent
says:
[quote]SmartBro, Smart’s wireless broadband service – through its wholly-owned subsidiary Smart Broadband, Inc. – continued to expand as its wireless broadband subscriber base grew 71% to
reach 596,000 as at end-March 2009, 183,000 of which were on SmartBro’s prepaid service.
Wireless broadband revenues grew 40% to P1.3 billion, a significant improvement over the P 919 million recorded in the first quarter of 2008. [/quote]
[quote]Retail DSL continued its strong performance as broadband subscribers grew by over 38,000 to 471,000 at the end of March 2009 from 433,000 at the end of 2008. PLDT DSL generated P1.6 billion in revenues in the first quarter of 2009, up 27% from P1.3 billion in the same period in 2008, accounting for about 50% of the PLDT Group’s broadband and internet revenues for the year. [/quote]
http://www.firstpacific.com/admin/upload/media/press/ep090505.pdf
nalulugi ang smart bro and pldt dsl?
how about patches and updates would it also be included in the capping ?
have they thought about the scenario of a fresh formatted computer having various apps and games installed..
what about security updates.. if the capping would be 80mb only? it wouldn’t be sufficient for you to update and patch your apps and games for 1 day, you need to wait.. hmmm…
I also suggest they should focus more on the “uber long” lock-in period given by our “generous” ISPs
@isonski
* sorry this is OT *
kung ganyan ka mag-isip makasarili ka .
Dapat upgrade muna ng mga Telco’s yung system nila before doing this, hinde pa nga nila naayos NGN buong metro manila (PLDT), rampant disconnection on internet while raining or worst no net connection (GLOBE). Sana wag matuloy to ..