web analytics

Highlights

5 Reasons ISPs Implement Bandwidth Caps




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.



Abe is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of YugaTech. You Can follow him on Twitter @abeolandres.

You may also like...

83 Responses

  1. Juan says:

    Hopefully mas mag improve pa ang mga internet providers sa Pinas, napapag-iwanan na tau eh..

    • Rodney says:

      Hello guys. Do you know of any better & reliable broadband (canopy) in general trias, cavite other than smartbro and globe? I’m going back and forth with these 2 and it’s always a bad experience — very slow, palaging napuputol, eventhough its already on 1mbps.

      I would appreciate a feedback.

  2. Lezuric says:

    there can be tons of reasons to profit ISPs! lmao

    UPGRADE THE WHOLE SHIT!

  3. Say no to CAP says:

    Hello papaano po pag tulad dito sa lugar namin, pare parehas ang mga ip namin parang shared po ang connection ang ginagawa ng isp namin.

  4. Capping is Crap! says:

    Ang pinakakawawa dito is ung big online games like levelup games and egames sobra lakas kumain ng bandwidth ng mga laro nila ang majority ng mga naglalaro ng games nila ay residential subscribers….. imagine per game ilan milyon na naglalaro kung matutuloy ang capping mawawala ng milyon milyon ang 2 kumpanya na ito…. Sana magisip na muna ang mga nasa NTC…. Ban the free download site kamukha ng ginawa ng US sa Limewire not capping the internet connection. kapag natuloy ito pinapakita nila kamangmangan ng NTC….

  5. JM says:

    does PLDT implement the capping? I just upgraded my DSL plan from bundle plan 990(384kbs) to plan 999 (1Mbps) to enjoy downloading from torrent. Maybe I’ll be one of those abusive users :) anyway, I just began downloading..so can anyone advise me if PLDT already implementing the capping.

  6. Pinoyblognet says:

    sana nga lang dumating dito yan.

  7. Philip says:

    I’m OK with the monthly or daily download cap as long as the cap is not too low. Globe’s 25GB per month is too low, 50GB would be good enough but I’m hoping for something like 100GB per month.

    There should be different download caps implemented depending on the price of your broadband plan. For example, Plan 999 can download 100GB per month but Plan 1995 can download 150GB per month and so on.

  8. Zyper says:

    Then they better advertise their service as it is. Do not say unlimited if its not really unlimited (or put an asterisk and a note below their advertisements)

  9. Philip says:

    In addition, there should also be provision for buying additional download cap if you’re a heavy user similar to what Wi-Tribe is doing, but not at the prices it’s offering which is P200 for 1gb.

  10. roiji says:

    the problem I got with PLDT is that when they up the bandwidth offerings of the new plans, the current users don’t get any upgrade, which is very frustrating on the loyal users.

    we were a loyal customer of a business line of 2Mbps for 6 years. We pay Php 3,500 for it each month.
    and what we got for it are:
    1. constantly interrupted connection.
    2. we never got the max 2Mbps (even at night) not even a constant 1Mbps.
    3. then they offered 3Mbps at the price of Php 3,000

    I asked them about any upgrade since lugi kami… they couldn’t answer me.

    I hope the bandwidth caps are on a per month basis than per day..

  11. JM says:

    @roiji – to bad for you bro, on my experience, I get a constant speed on what they’ve indicated on the plan, I even exceed on that speed sometimes. even when I’m using the 384kbs, I got 391-424kbps. And now at 1mpbs I got 1042-1100mbps connection.
    Never had interrupted connection since then, depende na lang kung may ongoing upgrade sa site. na aadvice naman kami if meron.

  12. kjalcordo says:

    I’d rather have a cap (decent cap) than have crappy internet.

  13. Ian says:

    Does the NTC have any data to back up its “1-2% abusive users” claim? And even so, who even gets 1Mbps *sustained* download, 24×7? Is this the reason why we get such poor bandwidth here? Because of “hoggers”?

    The reasons you mentioned — over-subscription, mismatch, etc. — appear to be the providers’ fault. So the consumers have to bear the brunt by having their bandwidth — which they paid for, BTW, according to the providers’ advertised speeds — capped? Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

  14. Mark Villegas says:

    This is BS.. I’m paying them monthly for a 1mbps connection but all i get is 100kbps-125kbps max, and now they’ll be putting up usage cap. When I had an internet cafe before, PLDT inspects their subscribers if their using residential lines for internet cafes (I was one that got caught doing that) so had no choice but to change to a business line that doesn’t improve the performance at all.

    This would be unfair for those people who uses up their residential lines fairly

  15. Robin says:

    I have been checking my usage over the past few days, and I average about 10MB to 20MB per hour typically. Now if I watch one movie trailer on YouTube than I can consume 14MB’s in 2 minutes and 31 seconds.

    Any cap should be reasonable enough to allow up to access multimedia content.

  16. NemOry says:

    @Everyone

    What will happen if the limit is already exceeded?for example your limit is 100GB then you are in the middle of the month then you finished the 100GB, will the internet be cutted off imediatley?

  17. Robin says:

    I depends per ISP, but in most of the broadband CAP service policies I have seen abroad it is trottling down of the speed. Seems fair enough.

    On Verizon 1GB a month of 3G cost US$20.

  18. Robin says:

    Additional:

    1GB = US$20

    “In addition, there should also be provision for buying additional download cap if you’re a heavy user similar to what Wi-Tribe is doing, but not at the prices it’s offering which is P200 for 1gb.”

    Sort of make wi-tribes 1GB for P200 very reasonable.

  19. Jejemon says:

    Consumer Rights! So kung may cap sila, dapat may minimum GUARANTEED speed sila! 2mbps, minimum 2mbps, screw the the interference, di naman sila papayag kung sasabihin kong dinownload kong 1.5gb na file corrupt, e di dapat lang di tayo pumayag na pwede nalang kung may ‘interferences’ nga. Di nga nila kasalanan, pag ka download ng corrupt files, di rin naman natin kasalanan.

  20. ricardo isip says:

    booo pa rin…. fine prints should ought to be illegal.

  21. NineSwordz says:

    ang MAXIMUM nga na speed dito sa Pilipinas ay wala pa sa MINIMUM ng ibang bansa eh.. hindi tayo makakatikim ng 100Mbps unlike sa Japan, at ang capped lang sa kanila ay ang “uploads”. Tapos ganyan pa gagawin sa residential consumers? tsk tsk..

  22. petken says:

    Abusive??? Debatable to dahil unlimited nga eh. In the first place why offer unlimited kung hindi kaya ng facilities niyo??? Dapat nilimit ang number ng mga subscribers sa limit ng facilities niyo. Dapat hindi kayo nagooverload ng subscribers. Kumabaga sa sinehan at mga concerts bakit ka magoffer ng mga seats na hindi mo naman kaya iprovide.

  23. It’s not “abusive” if they advertize/label the plan as “unlimited”.

  24. NemOry says:

    I just got it apreciated, ‘The Image Above’ very meaningful image.

  25. jp says:

    mag.invest man lang sana sila lalo na sa mga engineers at it professionals nila. Puro mga underpaid kya tuloy puro palpak ang mga design ng mga network nila tapos ipapasa sa mga consumers. Buti pa sa sales at marketing malalaki suweldo at porsyento nila.

  26. gg says:

    siguro ang mali lang talga e ung consumer education at advertisement. the word ” unlimited” is the real culprit here.

    other than that, I think the statements above help enlighten some people about the issue. that for once, they can try to look at the ISP’s perspective.

    kung kailangan na talaga ng CAP, I hope they can compensate it with the actual “advertised” speed.

  27. anonymous says:

    Sir Yuga, the Globe contract you have been referring to ever since this issue came out is incorrect… or at least it has never been in effect. Our household uses Globe’s 2mbps (Upgraded to 3mbps because of the lack of landline here) and whenever we download via P2P, we are able to download at the maximum speed. There is no such P2P throttling unless they make a distinction between old subscribers (that’s us) and new subscribers.

    I honestly don’t believe in bandwidth capping, especially for wired Internet where bandwidth is just becoming cheaper and cheaper. Look at the revenues of the telecom companies and compare it with the service they give. Do you honestly think they’ve exhausted their resources into actually trying to properly fix the bandwidth scarcity that they seem to be pointing to? It is their responsibility to make sure that they have proper infrastructure to accommodate more users without having to compromise their service. After all, for the longest time, they have been selling “unlimited” internet, not 24×7 800Mb/day internet. Such capping is a big step backward. If they are honestly going to wrought if they don’t implement these bandwidth caps, then I am not against it. This, however, I think is far from the case of the telecom companies.

    Putting bandwidth restrictions on consumers, especially really low bandwidth restrictions, is very short-sighted. Everything is migrating to the web, and the worst thing you can do is limit the users’ access to it. This will only turn out to be worse for us consumers as the internet becomes more and more of a commodity each day.

  28. Cake says:

    In response to the reasons:

    1. First, this is absurd. I’m pretty sure the contract for residential connections restrict it’s use commercially.

    Second, it doesn’t really matter how a residential subscription is used. 1 computer using the full extent of the line uses the same bandwidth as 100 computers sharing it; you cannot get faster speeds or consume more bandwidth than your plan allows.

    2. Spot on. Note that the bottom line for the ISPs is to hit a certain amount of revenue. Overselling does not make them unprofitable, just less profitable than what they could be by taking in as many subscribers as they can regardless of the impact too many subscribers will have on the service as a whole. It’s pure greed.

    3. This is an outright fabrication. If you are on an unlimited 1Mbps line, it should not be considered an abuse to maximize it’s use since that is exactly what you paid for.

    The concept of “abusive users” is made up to act as the ISP’s scapegoat. The reason the network is strained is because there is just too many subscribers on it. You know there’s something wrong with with the network’s capacity when 2% of it’s subscriber base degrades the whole service.

    Instead of making excuses and using these so-called abusive users as an excuse to cap bandwidth, they should upgrade their capacity.

    4. This is a reason to cap bandwidth? Seriously? If an area is getting more bandwidth than it’s users can consume, the logical thing to do is to re-appropriate this excess bandwidth to areas that need it, not impose bandwidth caps on everyone.

    5. Again, pure greed. They know what their network capacity is. It is obvious from the spotty service that the network is already strained as it is and still they want to add even more subscribers in?

    I’ll explain the scenario in a metaphor. It’ll be simplistic and not mathematically accurate but the idea is the same.

    ISPs are like eat-all-you-can buffets. For example, they buy 100 crates of food. These 100 crates of food can feed 100 people since the few people who eat more than what they pay for are offset by the vast majority who eat less then what they pay for.

    So now, the ISPs have been slowly and steadily letting more people in without buying more crates of food. So they end up making much more money with the same amount of crates of food. Of course, with more people eating, there would be less for everyone so people start complaining.

    The ISPs in turn, instead of buying more crates of food to accommodate everyone as what is the proper thing for them to do, they start telling people that some of the customers are abusing their eat-all-you-can buffet so they have to start limiting how much everyone eats. So they effectively advertise as an eat-all-you-can buffet and charge people the premium for that and yet rations the food into servings.

    This is essentially what the ISPs want to happen here.

  29. goodha says:

    on another note, re globe’s newest tv add featuring that black globe tattoo with the runner… it says “no limits”. pinalitan lang yung “unlimited” from previous ads.

  30. Marcus says:

    OK, of the 5 reasons only 1 seems to be right for CAPPING bandwidth, it’s the first 1 when personal use becomes business use (attaching 10 computers and making your own internet shop)

    and the other 4 reasons are just B.S.

  31. vince 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

  32. vince 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

  33. clef says:

    If they offer their subscription as “Unlimited”, then people downloading 24×7 are not “abusive” but actually “fair” because that’s what they actually offer.

    Also, nobody is forcing them not to “double their monthly fees”. But nobody is forcing the consumers from jumping ship to a competitor though, that’s how consumer market works.

    Now, if they do cap, then they should be upfront* about this. Their ads should say “1mbps for 250GB per month for P1299”.

    * and not just placed in an asterisk footnote

  34. clef says:

    @Marcus

    Reason #1 is also BS. Even if how many computers they connect, that line is still limited to the speed it’s broadband plan provides.

  35. Night says:

    I agree with Cake with the buffet comparison. Dagdagan nyo yung crates wag nyo bawasan pagkain namin! hehe

    Dont offer “unlimited” plans if pag ginamit 24×7 eh “abusive use” siya. Panu naging “unlimited” un? Dapat ang offer nila is “plan 999 limited DSL for 12 hours only” or “plan 999 one line shared DSL for the entire barangay so 5 hours per house only”

  36. Henry says:

    1) Subscription Mis-match. Residential subscribers using their connection beyond “residential use” (like for powering their internet cafe businesses).

    – Can’t blame them. Especially the small-timers. Why? In your own words:

    “(Why? Because a 2Mbps residential subscription is 50% cheaper than a 2Mbps business subscription.)”

    Plus it doesn’t matter what if that subscriber wants to share it to 100pc anyway. As what Cake pointed out, a 1Mbps plan is still a 1Mbps plan, it will not go up. The bandwidth will only suffer depending on the usage and the number of user sharing on that same residential plan and will not the entire area (e.g. if I have a 1Mbps plan and 2 of us were sharing, each of us will have a “chance” to have a 50-50 usage depending on how we use our plan or on how it was configured in our router)

    Bottomline, this is really lame excuse

    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.

    – In the first place, if they want more subscribers then why not upgrade their facilities first? I really hate their excuse of “not feasible because of high expense”. They’ve set-up an Internet provider business so its also their responsibility to upgrade their facilities in order to accommodate more subscribers AND provide them a better service

    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”.

    – Why a business plan if that particular user doesn’t use it to gain profit? There are people out there that buys LEGITIMATE games (i.e. from Steam) and just downloads it directly to their PC because it’s much more cheaper than buying the retail box.

    Another one is those who does remote backups/restoration of their PERSONAL data. Do you honestly believe they make profits from that?

    Now for users who work remotely and part of their job is they have to download huge audio files, PSD files that they needed in their profession, common guys, most of them has only an average of 5$/hour. Do you think that they can still stay on the game if 1/4 of their income will be going for an Internet business plan?

    #4-5

    Again, as what I’ve stated on #2 — it is the telco’s responsibility to provide good service for their subscribers. They have the statistical data per area so they are aware which area needs to be upgraded.

  37. Clarence says:

    They should fix their service first before they will implement that so called bandwidth cap.

  38. Roger says:

    the main reason why i disagree to bandwidth capping, slow freaking speeds. dwnload and upload are not equal. download is seriously ‘underpowered’ compared to ACTUAL broadband connections abroad.

  39. Michael Andrew says:

    I believe the “no limits” is just a tagline for Tattoo…similar to SmartBro’s “B Free”…”Simply Amazing” etc. its the brand positioning lang.

    It doesnt pertain to capping at all…

  40. Benben says:

    @yuga

    I think you should also explain/post regarding the difference kbps vs KBps. Ive been reading some comments and I think some people are not aware of this.

    When you subscribe to your ISP’s 1Mbps. You get ~1000 kilo”bits” per second, This is what you usually see in speedtest sites.

    when you look at your actual download speed and you see about 100-130KBps, dont be angry, be happy! This is actually normal. 1024 kilo”bits” = 128 kilo”Bytes”. (1 Byte = 8 bits). It means you are actually maximizing your connection!

    Back to topic:
    Regarding many PCs connecting to one subscription, it is not an excuse! because your 1Mbps supply will cannot magically replicate itself to all connections, it has to share.

  41. Kenneth says:

    Agree with Cake.

    Also asked my friend year back about his internet link in the US. He said that so long as you are not doing anything illegal or violating any rules/laws, the ISP where he got his service from does not care how he uses his DSL internet connection. He can setup a LAN and connect as much devices he wants and even share it with his neighbors, – basta no illegal stuff – his ISP does not care -‘coz he is subscribed to a 2Mbps link; and that is all he is gonna get at any given time 24×7.

  42. billyjoecrawford says:

    We need more upgrade on this sh*t!

    Daily Jokes

  43. Mpst says:

    Points ISPs should improve on upon implementing the download cap:

    Speed
    Minimum 6mbps download, 500kbps upload MINIMUM
    They should offer true unlimited internet access with speeds restricted to 500kbps download and 128kbps upload
    Stability
    Stable connection, less intermitent connection, fiber optic cables!
    Customer service
    DSL subscribers, they know what i mean.
    Download cap
    PLDT has long implemented shaping upon excessive downloads for years! They dont stop your service, it just sloooows down to the tune of 128kbps.
    200gig download cap minimum, without counting uploads!
    And upon reaching 200gigs, offer data blocks for pruchase or shape speeds down to 128kbps.

    Ph already is in the top 10 countries that have the most expensive internet connection.

    Recently i moved to Australia and from download caps and shaping they are now offering true unlimited acess.
    Imagine that PH is moving backwards!

    Price check:
    Australia

    Adam.com.au
    100g = 50aud which is 2k pesos and the connection has at minimum 3mbps download! Uploads are not counted towards the cap.
    Tpg internet
    250g = 50aud, downloads only! Uploads not counted, minimum 3mbps!

    Examples lng yan prices vary but you can get real cheap deals for at minimum of 3mbps!

    3g internet
    8gig for 20aud or 800pesos that is for a month on your phone at minimum 500kbps!

    Hay nako ang pinas 4th world?!!!!

  44. allan says:

    tumbok na tumbok ni cake! ikasa mo pre!

  45. Manix says:

    Hi Abe, question though, is the infrastructure responsibility of the Telco or the Govt?

    Comparing the SG service:

    Internet/Wifi 10Mbps line @ S$48/mo (~Php1600/mo), 11Mbps actual download speed, 1Mbps upload speed.

    3G 12GB-capped line @ S$26(~P860/mo) add-on to any regular mobile plan. 1Mbps download speed.

  46. Fleeb says:

    @Mark Villegas: I think you are confusing “bits” with “bytes”. 1,048,576 bits (or 1 Mbps) is 131,072 bytes per second, thus the maximum download speed you are getting = 125 kilo”bytes” per second is just about right. Basically that 1mbps connection is in terms of “bit”rate.

  47. Fleeb says:

    @Manix: not the government’s. Presently these are private lines/infra. If we have our infra nationalized, then that’s a different story.

  48. fragglerock says:

    i remember before, when ISPs offer trial periods, ang bilis ng connection pag nakasign-up ka na biglang bagal.. tsk.. tsk..

    sa mga na-enumerate nyo sir abe, it seems to be more of a TELCO problem than a subscriber problem, lalo na oversubscription, it’s a common problem with them kaya consumer laging talo dito. Yong 3% na abusive users ang liit lang nyan compared to the abuse we receive from the TELCOs.

    Before ISPs use to have CIR or committed rate, sana impose yon ng NTC sa kanila, mas matatanggap siguro ng mga tao yong capping if NTC also assures consumers of the quality of service

  49. Mpst says:

    The govt is at fault, likewise.
    No watch dog org or at least unbiased
    No regulation laws

    When a president of the phil sold the only govt-owned oil company which regulates prices and serves as a viable competitor of other big-oil companies, oil prices hiked and the economy went kaput.

    Same with this, no regulation, up we go.

  50. Criticko says:

    In a third world country like us, it seems network expansion SHOULD be the first thing these telcos must do and capping is way BEHIND of time of cloud computing especially information dissemination is so fast.. Every Filipino netizens @ 24/7 are doing the following (analogy)

    1. 4 to 12 hours online in Facebook and other social network sites (even at the office, breaktime, “wee” time, even in your SLEEP time!)
    2. “online” status at Yahoo Messenger, Skype and other alike VOIP sevices.
    3. “Real time” Twitter status/news updates
    4. Legitimate download/upload of games, movies, file transfers, paid subscriptions.
    5. Streaming of video or audio (Standard or High Definition)
    6. Illegal internet activities

    At those internet activities, 1,4, and 5 alone consumes 500 Million bytes to 5 Gigabytes of data per day!

    And number 6, more than 100 Gigabytes of data depending on subscription (There are some residential/business accounts seems legitimate in nature but in reality, a syndicated front for illegal internet activities)

    But capping the bandwith data, I doubt eradication of “abusive” users can be determined.

  51. Onnie says:

    Kudos to Cake for that comment, he already whacked out that 5 reasons, “Greed” is the root of this bandwidth cap.

    Sana lang talaga magkaron ng “Data only” lang na competitor ang mga leading Telcos, problema dapat ng provider yan at hindi dapat i-regulate ang subscriber, again Upgrade dapat ng system hindi bandwidth cap ang sagot dito at may mas importante pang issue kesa dito sa naisip ng mga Telcos/ISP.

  52. daniel says:

    ung pinsan ko nag speedtest 30mbps internet download speed nya… sabi ko niloloko mo lang ako… pero totoo daw. eh itong pldt dsl namin 3mbps lng eh haha

  53. anonymous says:

    The first reason is indeed BS. Business connections offer much more than residential connections – they have lower latency rates, static IP, and are prioritized over residential lines for efficiency. That being said, there is no such thing as subscription mismatching.

    It is ultimately the lost of a business if it decides to use a residential line. That being said, I don’t agree with the practice either.

  54. tarbis says:

    huh? These are pure BS. Don’t ever put the trash of our country in other country’s lawn. Other countries still offering 64kbps dial-up connections and are getting actual 64kbps speed. While our 1mbps connection only get a 10th of the advertised speed. Big difference.
    This bandwidth cap only proves that we do not need a better infrastructure just to increase the speed. And the fact that they can implement this right away only means that they have been screwing their subscriber from the very start.

  55. trickz says:

    hmmm. Big trouble for TELCOS. Bandwidth capping was UNLIKED by thousands of the subscribers. Most of the reasons by the subscribers are vaguely fair. Which means, TELCOS should have an alternative plans for BANDCAPPING, a new challenge for TELCOS. HAPPY NEW YEAR:)

  56. vince 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?

  57. camr says:

    2) Over-subscription.
    this happened in our area. i am satisfied an availed the retention offer of the company only to experience “color-code” issue on their network. frustratingly, they want to charge me for the service they can no longer provide.

  58. PTA says:

    There is no valid reason to penalize every consumer for the abuses of some and the inadequacies of the service provider. I agree with the posts above, in a developing country like the Philippines, capping is the way backward. The clear path is to improve the network capacities to support the demand.

    I have been a subscriber with PLDT and I have never experienced the advertised speeds. I really feel bad that some people get to exceed their badwidth while I languish with slow speeds. Now with the badwidth cap, all the more frustrating. BOO for supporting this!

  59. jun says:

    upgrade muna service nila.. pero siguro.. ok ang cap sa wireless connection.. pero sa wired siguro.. sana walang cap :)

  60. phoy says:

    “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.”

    sounds cheating right? anu paki ko sa income nila..at the very first place sila ang nagsasabi na 1mbps for 999..if they are actually just givin customer 1/4 of the said speed that is a F$%@$&G cheating!!!

  61. Manuel says:

    ISPs can solve all these problems if they UPGRADE. Capping bandwidth is not the answer.

  62. doinks says:

    In response to the reasons:

    1. First, this is absurd. I’m pretty sure the contract for residential connections restrict it’s use commercially.

    Second, it doesn’t really matter how a residential subscription is used. 1 computer using the full extent of the line uses the same bandwidth as 100 computers sharing it; you cannot get faster speeds or consume more bandwidth than your plan allows.

    2. Spot on. Note that the bottom line for the ISPs is to hit a certain amount of revenue. Overselling does not make them unprofitable, just less profitable than what they could be by taking in as many subscribers as they can regardless of the impact too many subscribers will have on the service as a whole. It’s pure greed.

    3. This is an outright fabrication. If you are on an unlimited 1Mbps line, it should not be considered an abuse to maximize it’s use since that is exactly what you paid for.

    The concept of “abusive users” is made up to act as the ISP’s scapegoat. The reason the network is strained is because there is just too many subscribers on it. You know there’s something wrong with with the network’s capacity when 2% of it’s subscriber base degrades the whole service.

    Instead of making excuses and using these so-called abusive users as an excuse to cap bandwidth, they should upgrade their capacity.

    4. This is a reason to cap bandwidth? Seriously? If an area is getting more bandwidth than it’s users can consume, the logical thing to do is to re-appropriate this excess bandwidth to areas that need it, not impose bandwidth caps on everyone.

    5. Again, pure greed. They know what their network capacity is. It is obvious from the spotty service that the network is already strained as it is and still they want to add even more subscribers in?

    I’ll explain the scenario in a metaphor. It’ll be simplistic and not mathematically accurate but the idea is the same.

    ISPs are like eat-all-you-can buffets. For example, they buy 100 crates of food. These 100 crates of food can feed 100 people since the few people who eat more than what they pay for are offset by the vast majority who eat less then what they pay for.

    So now, the ISPs have been slowly and steadily letting more people in without buying more crates of food. So they end up making much more money with the same amount of crates of food. Of course, with more people eating, there would be less for everyone so people start complaining.

    The ISPs in turn, instead of buying more crates of food to accommodate everyone as what is the proper thing for them to do, they start telling people that some of the customers are abusing their eat-all-you-can buffet so they have to start limiting how much everyone eats. So they effectively advertise as an eat-all-you-can buffet and charge people the premium for that and yet rations the food into servings.

    This is essentially what the ISPs want to happen here.

  63. ocommon says:

    ISP’s must update the prices.. 1 Megabyte per second (1MBps) P999 per month. Not the old one, 1 Megabit per second (1Mbps).So that’s only 125 Kilobytes per second.. :)

  64. ocommon says:

    Oh, sorry.. What i means is,

    New Price: 1024 Kilobytes per second=P999/month
    not the
    Old Price: 125 Kilobytes per second=P999/month. :)

  65. Dyego says:

    #6. so that ISP’s could swallow more unreasonable profit. This is not applicable to us in the Philippines. First, the government nor Philippine laws do not define what is “fair use.” Second, in a misguided democracy like ours, who will regulate the regulators who are the providers themselves? NTC? This is much of a “corporate greed” issue. ISP’s are over-subscribed and yet no one is punished nor the least reprimanded. Is that short of a crime? Oh Poor Juan.

  66. mr. bogus says:

    tubong lugaw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! greedy telco comp!!!

  67. Aris says:

    This the only 5 reason I see that most of us are agree!

    1. Money
    2. Money
    3. Money
    4. Money
    5. Money

    So what the difference Nothing!

  68. Patrick says:

    You pointed out the best reason why the ISP is capping but I believed it is the responsibility of the ISPs to improve there service and bandwidth capacity.

    Anyway, If they cap our bandwidth it would be better to increase the monthly quota. There are subscriber like me that rely more on downloading and uploading of website files for living. For example that 25 gig monthly cap will not suffice my Bandwidth needs.

    Right now, Globe Wireless [Postpaid 25 GIG, Prepaid 20-22GIG] BayanDSL[100GIG] and Sun Wireless Broadband[11mb/30min] officially announced the capping. I am not sure with PLDT and SmartBro.

    But for sure, they already do the speed capping long long before.

    Streaming will greatly affected, personally I subscribe in Revision3 and Miro..:(

    What I am hoping right now is that, they will only set monthly QUOTA e.g 60/80GIG/monthly and the Speed will not be capped…

  69. angelu lot lot says:

    It’s a good thing the NTC did not immediately enforced such capping considering the strong lobbying from telecos. Kudos for NTC in allowing public consultation on this matter. What a pain in the a** if this will be approved agad!

  70. neo says:

    i hope globe prepaid dongles are spared to the caps imposed. i think its not “hogger” to download a pirated movie sizing 801mb. if i regged to the 1 day unli surf – i download the 801mb file – i get capped – 24 hours – then im expired – then ill have to register again just to completely download that file? unfairrrrrr….

    postpaid ung limitahan. wag ung prepaid.

  71. jhun says:

    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.

  72. kibitzer says:

    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%?

  73. re says:

    Assuming that I consume 30 GBPS Per month, a 6 mbps connection with 30 GBPS pricing only at P1000 could solve my rant!

  74. Vince 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

  75. jingle2x says:

    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…

  76. Tim says:

    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.

    • Lee says:

      @ Tim

      your comment is spot on

      but thats is the real truth behind the ISP and Sun broadband before they moved over to smart was a perfect example of overselling the service..

      most of the ISP’s claim a fair usage policy but the reality behind the fair usage policy is to benefit the ISP not the customer

      i am currently on Globe Tattoo using LTE i pay 200 pesos for 5 days SuperSurf Plan that amounts to 1200 every 30 days i was being capped at a very unacceptable 700 MB per day data limit that for the past couple of days now seems to have gone down to 300 or 400 MB per day

      and frankly if they set me a speed limit of 1 Mbps download limit a day but taken off the data cap then i would be ok with that so at least i have no fear of running out of data and i can still download and at 1200 i think is a fair enough rate

      because how Globe Tattoo is at the moment is very unacceptable because once you reach the daily cap they restrict speeds to a total crawl i actually have seen Dialup work faster

      today i just switched over to Sun Broadband again its only 3G i do get good download speeds to a point but at least their limits are not as bad as Globe because when they restrict i can still download at 50 Kbps unlike Globe 2 Kbps and internet surfing with Sun is still possible whereas Globe is impossible

      end of the day internet in the Philippines is very expensive when you compare it to the rest of the world it is still far behind in terms of technical and hardware even tho 4G/LTE is here but its not true 4G/LTE

      but one thing to note when we discuss an internet service provider is the term GREED like i said with the FUP it is just all to benefit the ISP while the customer is getting screwed in the back end

      also to note as i mentioned above about 4G/LTE not being a true 4G/LTE those of you who are technical minded and know the systems like i do will understand my point here

      4G/LTE normally starts with an advertised speed of 42Mbps and can reach as high as 100Mbps this is based on real world speeds

      here is what the ISPs are claiming in the Philippines take smartbro for example they are selling pocket wifi devices with a set speed of 7.2 Mbps and they call it their latest 4G/LTE service

      note at the same time i have a pocket wifi here with a max speed of 12 Mbps yet the device only works on 3G even Globe are selling pocket wifi and usb sticks for the 3G network that connect at 7.2 even my Sun broadband connection connects at 7.2 and its a 3g Sim

      so yea the new 4G/LTE in the philippines is also being mis-sold in the hope of making more money trying to sell 4G/LTE at the same speeds found on 3G

      ISPs world over are like governments they dont care about the people as long as they are filling their pockets with our hard earned cash while we sit here sucking up slow ass speeds and unreliable connections

  77. WAAbuffet says:

    I think the capping is a good idea, as long as we get our money’s worth (i.e. if i get an CONSISTENT/UNINTERRUPTED 1Mbps at Php995 per month, with a cap of 5GB/day, well i’d be happy as heaven!)

    It think the solution is for ISPs to create more pipeline, to increase consumer capacity and avoid traffic. Also, huge companies like BPO should acquire their own their own internet connection server. They are the real network hoggers!

  78. Please let me know if you’re looking for a
    article writer for your weblog. You have some really good articles
    and I think I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off,
    I’d love to write some articles for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine.

    Please shoot me an email if interested. Kudos!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open

Close