Broadband adoption slowed in U.S. due to neighbors stealing Wi-Fi

Over the past five years Internet Service Providers in the U.S. as a whole only saw a 3% increase in revenue according to a study conducted by Mintel. They believe that the revenues have hardly moved because broadband penetration has slowed dramatically. They go on to suggested that the reason for the slow down is because people are leeching Wi-Fi from their neighbors rather than buying their own Internet subscription. 

According to their study, 72% of those that responded to the survey had Internet access at home while only 56% reported having a subscription to an Internet Service Provider. They suggest that the other 16% could be sharing a connection with a roommate, stealing Wi-Fi from their neighbors or using their mobile phone for Internet access. 

Billy Hulkower, senior analyst at Mintel, said: 

Home Internet penetration barely moved from 2006 to 2009. The slow growth in the era of Facebook, Pandora and YouTube shows that people are accessing the Internet from home through different methods, even if they haven’t paid for access themselves. Younger consumers appear especially likely to use a neighbor’s Wi-Fi signal instead of subscribing at home as they are more likely to know how to find and connect to their neighbors’ service.

The survey went on to suggest that higher income homes are more likely to steal Wi-Fi. They found that households earning $75,000 were more likely to have Internet access at home but did not have a home Internet subscription. 

DSL and cable modems are the most prominent methods of getting online with 38% and 44% usage respectively while dial-up connections are still hanging on with 9% saying that they are still using a phone modem to get online. 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple's new MobileMe Calendar goes live for all subscribers

Next Story

Microsoft planning Office announcement next Tuesday

103 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Around here everyone has the sense to secure their wi-fi.A scan of all detectable wi-fi shows no unsecured access points. So nobody can be doing that around here.

How about extending service to people who actually want it? I've been on the Verizon DSL waiting list since it was Bell Atlantic.

If Isps are really concerned about this, they would not force their subscribers to get wireless routers/broad band modems. At least offer the user at home, the wired option.

If people are 'piggy backing' others connections, then by default the providers should make

sure they supply kit with the right encryption and the user has to change the default password.

My kit came with encryption but a lame weak password, so I changed it to a very strong

un-crackable password.

Only un-secured connections I see in my area are talktalk, they are weak.

So let me see if i understand this now people arent buy broadband cause they are stealing it? Sound like the movie biz and the music biz.Maybe these companies should wise the f--k up and realize maybe people dont buy cause something is wrong on their end. Freemarket baby if it dont sell then people dont want what you have for sale.Dont blame the consumers look at your product.This is getting so f--kin pathetic im beginning to feel sorry for these guys they really need to wise up.

Several Times An Illegal Scenario In Some Countries:

I Live Near A Bus Stop, Some Travelers Wait For The Bus Hearing Music Without Headphones In Their Devices, The Music Reaches My Apartment Loud And Clear, And I Find It, Some Times, Very Enjoyable.

How The mafiaa Sees This Scenario:

A - It Is Illegal For Them Not To Wear Headphones.

B - It Is Illegal For Me Not To Be Deaf.

Sorry, But I Am Home, I Will Not Avoid Hearing It, And Definitely, I Will Not Feel Guilty, No Matter What The mafiaa Trolls Say.

Stealing isn't the right word. The Dell's are designed to look for the best connection and if some moronic neighbor hasn't secured his wifi, inevitably the Dell will go to that one instead of the one in the house. Fortunately I think he finally secured it... but it was pi**ing me off. I didn't want a particular laptop getting on it. Had to lock it off. But by default it'll look for the best connection. So Dell technically would be the one stealing. Not the owner of the laptop.

Stop complaining. I live in India and I pay $40 pm for '1 mbps down / 512 kbps' up with a 100GB down/up "fair usage" cap. Oh! and please do not overlook the fact that $1 is actually worth a lot more here than it is in the US.

Sanjay said,
Stop complaining. I live in India and I pay $40 pm for '1 mbps down / 512 kbps' up with a 100GB down/up "fair usage" cap. Oh! and please do not overlook the fact that $1 is actually worth a lot more here than it is in the US.
Yeah but someone in Hungary is flying twice as fast as I am steady and mine's not steady

Sanjay said,
Stop complaining. I live in India and I pay $40 pm for '1 mbps down / 512 kbps' up with a 100GB down/up "fair usage" cap. Oh! and please do not overlook the fact that $1 is actually worth a lot more here than it is in the US.

gee poor you 100GB data cap for 40 bucks lucky you not that you'd be able to do that much on a 1mbps/512kbps you want to move to NZ where we pay $39.95 for upto 24down/1up mbps and 5GB data cap

You've all been arguing with the POV that these claims Mintel makes are fact. They are not fact...they are assumptions. At no point do they say, "x% responded that they use their neighbor's connection". Instead they very specifically say, "...may be sharing a..." and "...may be uncertain...". This is a clear indication that the questions posed are too vague, and the questions that would have shed light on previous answers were never asked.

Got a smartphone with data plan? What do you need an ISP for now? Got ClearWire? What do you need an ISP for now? And I'm willing to bet $20 that those who go these routes likely make over 75K a year. Duh.

Old AOL dial-up survivor? "Oh, I don't have an ISP like AOL or MSN anymore...I switched to cable". Yes, there are people who firmly believe they left ISP-land. And considering that cable service providers are not ISPs, but instead multimedia providers (television, phone, Internet), those people are actually sort-of correct in their definition of an ISP.

Besides, this story is nothing new. Broadband adoption came to an almost screeching halt three years ago, we all read about it. The studies back then correctly found that people who had a dial-up service with available broadband service purposely made a conscious decision not to go with broadband for a myriad of reasons (I know, narrowband - it's shocking, isn't it?). This is why you still get bombarded daily with "special offers" on TV commercials to sign up...they know the turtles are still out there. Adoption never picked back up to where it used to be...once everybody who wanted to adopt broadband did adopt broadband, naturally the adoption rate declines.

This story is nothing more than a stunt to fool lawmakers into giving service providers more power over their customers and services. Bandwidth caps, throttling, subjective canceling, privacy...you name it, they want control. And piracy, being such the nasty word that it is, it gets everybody's attention.

Either yawn or look out...

Auzeras said,
Don't even let me get started on New Zealand's broadband

awe go on do it tell them all how we're ripped off big time I dare ya

Romania: DSL 6Mb/256kb = 9.1$. Small town. Big cities go from 10Mb, half the price. And we still have analogue cable TV.

So, if a worker is stealing bread from the bakery he works at, the management will go down to making only black bread?

Beyond the fact that when I first read it I saw: "Adoption slowed in U.S. due to neighbors stealing" I decided to take a quick look at the APs available from my bedroom... The total? 40 APs. Two of which were unsecured, one of those two was a 'Free WiFi' type service, and the second one was an unconfigured wireless with no internet on the other side. Geez my neighborhood is boring!

Poof said,
Beyond the fact that when I first read it I saw: "Adoption slowed in U.S. due to neighbors stealing" I decided to take a quick look at the APs available from my bedroom... The total? 40 APs. Two of which were unsecured, one of those two was a 'Free WiFi' type service, and the second one was an unconfigured wireless with no internet on the other side. Geez my neighborhood is boring!

Lucky. I have no networks in my area other than the 3 I'm broadcasting from the same router (I have my reasons).

according the free market (aka the current predator system):

sharing = communism.
then
banning sharing = fight against the communism.

I walked around my streets around me and only found 1 open network out of about 60. So where I'm at this is far from true.

So-Unreal said,
I walked around my streets around me and only found 1 open network out of about 60. So where I'm at this is far from true.

Same here. Open networks are few and far between.

Frylock86 said,

Same here. Open networks are few and far between.

and most are not configured, DEFAULT, DLINK, LINKSYS.

Problem getting broadband use out more means the ISP's need to invest into more rural area's like mountains and such. But they won't and prob cause on a road that may be 10miles long they may only get a few hundred customers. This is the reason I still live in the city is cause I couldn't do without my cable internet now - just won't happen. Can't go to DSL cause they don't have service too far out and Satellite internet is out of the question when they cut you off after a certain point and the speeds are just as bad as dial up. Individual counties and area's need to push broadband ISP's to go farther out with fiber to utilize otherwise we will stay stuck in the past!

Silly excuses.

They're not seeing revenue increases because the market's just saturated.

Those that are still on dial-up probably don't have other viable options, or they're too expensive, so there can't be any growth there.

Those who don't have a connection at all probably just don't care, so there can't be any growth there either.

I'm thinking that the lousy economy might have had a little to do with this too, but of course, the ISPs would rather blame people stealing or sharing service for the decline in their profits. There's also the fact that many areas are reaching saturation, meaning that everyone who wants broadband service already has it. I used to work in customer service for a local broadband ISP and even then (nearly 10 years ago) we were starting to reach saturation in some areas.

Perhaps we should revise the term "broadband adoption". If they are sharing with their neighbours instead of paying an ISP, that still counts.

Nothing is wrong with sharing your neighbours wifi knowingly. Some of these ISPs are expensive and itr doesnt make any sense paying for hi bandwith cost and u not getting good service when u can split the cost.

James said,

(They do!)

Some of the older networks given out when Broadband was new are unsecured, some people also choose to unsecure them, for ease of use. But in this case they really should warn users that it's a private network.

jamesyfx said,
ISP's should supply wireless routers that have already been secured with a key, then.

They do but they use WEP.

Benjy91 said,

some people also choose to unsecure them, for ease of use.

Friend of mine does this. Only has MAC address filtering on it. I never go to my bank or anywhere else I need to get to secure things when I am at his house.

Kirkburn said,
Which is still beyond 99% of people to crack.

LiveCDS now come with GUIs with 3 step/GUI button clicks.

So if it was 70% easy before, now its around 95%.

Jaybonaut said,

Correction: yours does. I am really bad at math though so if you could explain how yours = everyone's.


Correct: All the major ISP's in the US do
SBC, Comcast, Road Runner, Verizon, AOL, Earthlink, and Cablevision all provide password protected wireless routers.

jamesyfx said,
ISP's should supply wireless routers that have already been secured with a key, then.
Uhh no thanks. I already had to deal with ****ty Cable Co routers before. It's YOUR responsibility to secure YOUR network. And having the ISP do it just screws everyone else who knows what they are doing and now has a router they need to reboot 6 times a day.

Benjy91 said,

Some of the older networks given out when Broadband was new are unsecured, some people also choose to unsecure them, for ease of use. But in this case they really should warn users that it's a private network.

Unsecured for ease of use? Please.

I don't know of any operating system (that includes Linux distributions and UNIX, by the way) that does not allow the one-and-done method for logging on to a known wireless network (in short, you log in only when starting the OS or session). In fact, it's usually a background process (no user intervention). I have an ISP-supplied (Comcast, to be specific) Netgear WNR-3500v1 (WNR3500-1VCNAS is the SKU) that uses WPA2, and I have nary a problem with the wireless side of things *unless* the OS/distribution doesn't support the *adapter* (SMC Networks USB wireless-G on my desktop, and DYNEX wireless-G PC Card on the XP-powered laptop that is usually upstairs in the kitchen).

1510 said,
LiveCDS now come with GUIs with 3 step/GUI button clicks.

So if it was 70% easy before, now its around 95%.

Perhaps. But that doesn't change that 99% of people don't know.

Kirkburn said,
Perhaps. But that doesn't change that 99% of people don't know.
None of my friends or actually anyone I know outside of my work would have any idea how to crack it really. so, agreed


Whats to say that the "neighbors" don't have an agreement of some sort? In which they PLAN to share the WiFi? To automatically assume that because it is reported folks have wifi yet don't subscribe to an ISP is jumping it quite a bit. The neighborhood we previously lived in had the houses much closer together. We SHARED an internet connection through my WiFi with two of our neighbors and they pitched in to pay the bill. Hell you can even share your cell phone's wifi data now.

The ISPs need to readapt much like the RIAA and MPAA rather than using they "they are stealing it...." logic.

marinejld said,
Whats to say that the "neighbors" don't have an agreement of some sort? In which they PLAN to share the WiFi?

You can find a clause in the contract with your ISP that forbids you to "share" your connection.

tiagosilva29 said,

You can find a clause in the contract with your ISP that forbids you to "share" your connection.

You can also find a Speed Limit sign along the highway - I suppose you always obey the speed limit?

marinejld said,

You can also find a Speed Limit sign along the highway - I suppose you always obey the speed limit?

Last time we didn't we got a ticket.

I don't know about the law in the US, the law here in the UK is if it's unsecured, it's a free network, unless it had a passcode or warnings to keep off it. What's there to tell you it isn't a free public network?

Benjy91 said,
I don't know about the law in the US, the law here in the UK is if it's unsecured, it's a free network, unless it had a passcode or warnings to keep off it. What's there to tell you it isn't a free public network?

[ citation needed ]

Benjy91 said,
I don't know about the law in the US, the law here in the UK is if it's unsecured, it's a free network, unless it had a passcode or warnings to keep off it. What's there to tell you it isn't a free public network?

That's as dumb as you other comment, it is illegal to use someone else's wifi, even if its unsecured. There was even a case a while ago where someone got prosecuted for it.

pickypg said,
Eh, not so much. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/n...aconian-law-86908-22099375/

This law may not have passed, but the fact that it was on the table really suggests that "if it's unsecured, it's a free network" is not exactly true. Just because it might be the norm does not make it the law.

Its already illegal to use a wifi network without permission. That article is referring to PUBLIC networks, that article is also a load of crap.

So if someone left their car door open, I guess it's ok to take their car? LOL - I'm sure that will work in any legal system anywhere in the world.

Well technically you are just getting a free car ride without them knowing, not stealing the car. Huge difference lol

(V)eGa said,
So if someone left their car door open, I guess it's ok to take their car? LOL - I'm sure that will work in any legal system anywhere in the world.

Depends if they left the keys in it or not. If they didn't, then you hacked in to their network...errr...car

When I do not have a connection available, I will gladly use any unsecured network, because if a network is unsecured. It is NOT stealing. It's an open invitation to use it, there aren't any warnings to stay away and not use it.

If people are dumb enough not to put a simple password on it, they deserve to be leeched.

Benjy91 said,
When I do not have a connection available, I will gladly use any unsecured network, because if a network is unsecured. It is NOT stealing. It's an open invitation to use it, there aren't any warnings to stay away and not use it.

If people are dumb enough not to put a simple password on it, they deserve to be leeched.

So, with that same logic.. it's not stealing if you take a bike that's not locked up?

Benjy91 said,
When I do not have a connection available, I will gladly use any unsecured network, because if a network is unsecured. It is NOT stealing. It's an open invitation to use it, there aren't any warnings to stay away and not use it.

If people are dumb enough not to put a simple password on it, they deserve to be leeched.

nice, that means if u go into a store with one person on counter and no ne to look out the shelves, that is open invitation to put stuff in ur pocket and then leave. hats off sir.

Benjy91 said,
When I do not have a connection available, I will gladly use any unsecured network, because if a network is unsecured. It is NOT stealing. It's an open invitation to use it, there aren't any warnings to stay away and not use it.

If people are dumb enough not to put a simple password on it, they deserve to be leeched.


If its not nailed down its mine, if I can pry it loose its not nailed down?

Benjy91 said,
When I do not have a connection available, I will gladly use any unsecured network, because if a network is unsecured. It is NOT stealing. It's an open invitation to use it, there aren't any warnings to stay away and not use it.

If people are dumb enough not to put a simple password on it, they deserve to be leeched.


You talk like a random guy caught by the police in that COPS television show.

Skyfrog said,
I like how everyone is comparing using an unsecured wifi point to stealing physical property.
x2!! olol comparing apples with onions...

Skyfrog said,
I like how everyone is comparing using an unsecured wifi point to stealing physical property.
It's called an analogy. It doesn't have to be directly equal.

Benjy91 said,
When I do not have a connection available, I will gladly use any unsecured network, because if a network is unsecured. It is NOT stealing. It's an open invitation to use it, there aren't any warnings to stay away and not use it.

If people are dumb enough not to put a simple password on it, they deserve to be leeched.

+1 for stupidity anyone? How about this analogy for those who didn't see the concept between digital theft and physical property theft..

If I piggyback on an unsecured wifi zone - your saying that's not the same thing as me stealing a copyrighted image off the internet using it for my own use without prior permission from the legally appointed ownership of such image/connection?

Benjy91 said,
It is NOT stealing. It's an open invitation to use it, there aren't any warnings to stay away and not use it.
Bear in mind that a lot of states (and maybe even federal laws, I cannot remember who covers it anymore) consider it illegal to use unsecured Wireless internet without getting permission.

If for no other reason, this is a good thing because it prevents people from doing their nefarious things on someone else's bill/time/address since it traces back to the bill payer.

Morphine-X said,

+1 for stupidity anyone? How about this analogy for those who didn't see the concept between digital theft and physical property theft..

If I piggyback on an unsecured wifi zone - your saying that's not the same thing as me stealing a copyrighted image off the internet using it for my own use without prior permission from the legally appointed ownership of such image/connection?

It is physical theft of property if you account for that all plans in the US have caps on the. Sure they are so high that youd have to be using your bandwidth at max 24/7 for the whole month but regardless, the cap is there. Now your neighbor gets on your network and pushes you over the cap. I guess you don't mind paying the fees that the ISP throw on you since your neighbor obviously didn't do anything wrong...

I'll steal wifi from an unsecured, or even secured network if I'm in a bind. That being said I always check the ISP it's on, to make sure I'm using one with Unlimited, and don't cause any undue strain on their network by torrenting or something like that. But if I'm in the city and I want to check my mail, ya, sure I'll do it.

ILikeTobacco said,

It is physical theft of property if you account for that all plans in the US have caps on the. Sure they are so high that youd have to be using your bandwidth at max 24/7 for the whole month but regardless, the cap is there. Now your neighbor gets on your network and pushes you over the cap. I guess you don't mind paying the fees that the ISP throw on you since your neighbor obviously didn't do anything wrong...

+1. I might do it if my connection was temporarily down and I wanted to get my emails. But it is very wrong to be downloading movies and large torrents and the like on someone else's connection, even if their internet isn't capped. First, they might get blamed for illegal downloading, and second, it would slow their connection down.


In short, I might only do it if no harm was caused to my neighbor.

Kirkburn said,
How would you know?

Most unsecured systems I have seen were store bought routers by non techy person. Admin/admin is the password for most of them if they haven't been changed. Once you are in the router settings you can see the user name. @sbcglobal.net is SBC and so on.

Skyfrog said,
I like how everyone is comparing using an unsecured wifi point to stealing physical property.

exactly! . it's not the same thing.

as i said before... physically stealing something is different from digital stuff simply because there's a direct measurable loss when you physically steal something where as doing it digitally is not.

p.s. i think at worst using someone unsecured Wi-Fi is a grey area.... because using their connection, as long as it don't mess with the person who is paying for it, i don't really see much problem at the end of the day. especially when you factor in prices the ISP's charge for a decent line. Sweden the internet is practically free and is lightning.

Edited by ThaCrip, Oct 15 2010, 9:00pm :

ThaCrip said,

exactly! . it's not the same thing.

as i said before... physically stealing something is different from digital stuff simply because there's a direct measurable loss when you physically steal something where as doing it digitally is not.

p.s. i think at worst using someone unsecured Wi-Fi is a grey area.... because using their connection, as long as it don't mess with the person who is paying for it, i don't really see much problem at the end of the day. especially when you factor in prices the ISP's charge for a decent line. Sweden the internet is practically free and is lightning.

You want something physical to measure? Last time I checked, my modem connects to a cable that sends electrons out of my house to get the the interwebs. Electrons are physical things right? Pretty sure we can measure those btw. I think its called electricity? FYI the more bandwidth you are using the more electricity the modem which while a small amount, it is very easy to measure and charge for.

It's hilarious that those that can afford it are stealing other people's wifi. On the other hand the ISP's are shooting themselves in the foot with all the fees and restrictions. Only in America. In other countries they have 1Gbps connections already and charge a low rate.

Americans should have 200mbps for $25/mo by now.

Minimoose said,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview...ews/broadbandspeedchart.jpg

Out of date by now, but you get the idea. NA coverage is quite a challenge compared to small countries like South Korea and Japan.

I'm so tired of seeing this crap. It's not a challenge at all. Small secluded towns/areas are a challenge yes, but using blanket statements like "NA coverage is quite a challenge" is a joke at best. Nothing personal against you Minimoose, just this whole debate.

We have large cities and several smaller cities who could easily be upgraded to sustain speeds such as those in Japan. The issue isn't so much that it's a challenge, the issue is the cable and telco companies don't want to spend the money and or couldn't care less because we let them charge us out the ass for what we DO get. There is no reason at all why cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Montreal etc can't have upgraded infrastructures to support stupidly high speeds. From there, the infrastructure is build outwards towards all of the little towns/cities in the surrounding area. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

nekkidtruth said,

I'm so tired of seeing this crap. It's not a challenge at all. Small secluded towns/areas are a challenge yes, but using blanket statements like "NA coverage is quite a challenge" is a joke at best. Nothing personal against you Minimoose, just this whole debate.

We have large cities and several smaller cities who could easily be upgraded to sustain speeds such as those in Japan. The issue isn't so much that it's a challenge, the issue is the cable and telco companies don't want to spend the money and or couldn't care less because we let them charge us out the ass for what we DO get. There is no reason at all why cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Montreal etc can't have upgraded infrastructures to support stupidly high speeds. From there, the infrastructure is build outwards towards all of the little towns/cities in the surrounding area. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.


so the cable companies are currently set up and able to run docsis 2.0, with docsis 3.0 coming out, how would you propose those cable companies upgrade all the hardware, without charging you more? there is a lot of work, hardware upgrades and other things, that have to happen before the upgrades can happen, not to mention that they have to make sure that all their modems are 3.0 compliant.

Moker said,

I would have thougt my $120 bucks a month for the past couple years with an actual degradation of service ( not increase ), would go towards it, let alone my towns population of a couple thousand, which everybody has cable, due to no competition, would help towards an upgrade. And it is a small town, let alone the bigger towns and cities.
Edit, as of last year the towns population was 5000.

nekkidtruth said,

I'm so tired of seeing this crap. It's not a challenge at all. Small secluded towns/areas are a challenge yes, but using blanket statements like "NA coverage is quite a challenge" is a joke at best. Nothing personal against you Minimoose, just this whole debate.

We have large cities and several smaller cities who could easily be upgraded to sustain speeds such as those in Japan. The issue isn't so much that it's a challenge, the issue is the cable and telco companies don't want to spend the money and or couldn't care less because we let them charge us out the ass for what we DO get. There is no reason at all why cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Montreal etc can't have upgraded infrastructures to support stupidly high speeds. From there, the infrastructure is build outwards towards all of the little towns/cities in the surrounding area. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

So overall it is a challenge, a blanket statement is the correct one. Just look at South Korea's and Japan's population densities compared to NA's. I never said it was intellectually a challenge, but in terms of cost and willingness it is.

South Korea had massive public funding go into the broadband infrastructure, hence why it overtook Japan in ratings. It's not just up to the companies, since they don't want to spend money when they can charge the same for a substandard service

Hell-In-A-Handbasket said,

that money most likely was being used to pay their current bills off.
so you pay 120 a month for video and internet. you're also paying for the programming. cable companies have to pay the networks for their programs, which comes to you also.
you just think these companies are pocketing everyones money and getting rich. time to realize that companies, regardless of what they offer, also have bills and stuff that they have to pay for.
and if your service has degraded, and nothing has been done about it, whose fault is that? theirs, or yours for not getting someone out to fix it? your cable company most likely promises you "x" bandwidth. that is "in network", once you leave their network, they can't promise you any speeds, at all. if you're not getting the promised in network speeds, then get someone out to fix it.

Moker said,

so the cable companies are currently set up and able to run docsis 2.0, with docsis 3.0 coming out, how would you propose those cable companies upgrade all the hardware, without charging you more? there is a lot of work, hardware upgrades and other things, that have to happen before the upgrades can happen, not to mention that they have to make sure that all their modems are 3.0 compliant.

Not to mention that due to restrictions, cable companies cannot do into territories where another cable company is servicing. Comcast cannot offer service to an area where Charter services and vice versa.

RangerLG said,

Not to mention that due to restrictions, cable companies cannot do into territories where another cable company is servicing. Comcast cannot offer service to an area where Charter services and vice versa.


that's kind of untrue.
cable companies have pretty much said, hey, you don't come into my hood, and i wont go into yours.
there's nothing actually stopping them from building out into a new area, except for the "cable company code"

Revenue might not have increased much but they sure as hell aren't doing/spending much to improve the system. In fact, many ISPs are working on methods to squelch bandwidth usage. Get with the times, digital media is becoming mainstream and 100GB/month upload+download caps (courtesy of Charter) won't cut it.

Face it, if the customer can reach the monthly bandwidth cap in less than 12/24 hours downloading at the advertised speed, something is terribly wrong.

For clarification their profits are insane, of course there will be leeches who wouldn't pay even if they had all the money in the world. Once you saturate any market and already charge the highest profits you can't increase profits all that easily any more.

JAB Creations said,
For clarification their profits are insane, of course there will be leeches who wouldn't pay even if they had all the money in the world. Once you saturate any market and already charge the highest profits you can't increase profits all that easily any more.
Exactly. Bandwidth isn't free, but it isn't all too expensive with modern hardware either. The ISPs are too focused on limiting people, and looking for new things they can charge for, rather than providing better service. They are not reinvesting into their system, which means that when the next big thing finally comes around, then people are going to massively jump ship. Honestly, I look forward to the day that most cable companies go under. No one will miss the days of constantly increasing bills for the exact same service simply because they can.

I love my FiOS internet, and it amazes me what the first competition in the broadband market looks like: extremely quick and reliable internet (with a terrible billing provider). It's actually so good that it's a big negative to look at areas without it whenever I think about moving in the future.

JAB Creations said,
That's because they already charge an insane ratio for bandwidth!

No s***!

I'm getting charged sixty dollars a month for this 1.5 down, 256k up! Insane in every way, especially since there are no other providers in my area.

Recon415 said,
I'm getting charged sixty dollars a month for this 1.5 down, 256k up! Insane in every way, especially since there are no other providers in my area.
Got to love the local monopoly that the government has given them. Really turned out well for everyone... in the cable industry.

Recon415 said,

No s***!

I'm getting charged sixty dollars a month for this 1.5 down, 256k up! Insane in every way, especially since there are no other providers in my area.

Ouch, I'm in the US (still getting ripped) but I have 6 mbps down 2.5 up for 30 bucks a month and that includes telephone. Mines cable though, not DSL. those are typical DSL speeds, I worked for a telecom helpdesk that did DSL the last few years.

Recon415 said,

No s***!

I'm getting charged sixty dollars a month for this 1.5 down, 256k up! Insane in every way, especially since there are no other providers in my area.

I used to get charged for 1.5 down 60 dollars. They upgraded me though because I guess too many people complained. I'm on Road Runner here. It's at 10 down but gives me a 25 speed boost.

Izlude said,

I used to get charged for 1.5 down 60 dollars. They upgraded me though because I guess too many people complained. I'm on Road Runner here. It's at 10 down but gives me a 25 speed boost.

Wow, I guess I should consider myself fortunate, I pay 50 dollars a month for a 12Mbit down connection and no bandwidth cap(At&t Uverse). Those are outrageous prices.

Recon415 said,

No s***!

I'm getting charged sixty dollars a month for this 1.5 down, 256k up! Insane in every way, especially since there are no other providers in my area.

And for some perspective... I live in Sweden and pays ~25 dollars for 100 Mbit (up & down) internet.

Marshall said,

Wow, I guess I should consider myself fortunate, I pay 50 dollars a month for a 12Mbit down connection and no bandwidth cap(At&t Uverse). Those are outrageous prices.


You pay $50? I pay $35 for the same connection through Uverse.... possibly because my wife works for AT&T

Izlude said,

I used to get charged for 1.5 down 60 dollars. They upgraded me though because I guess too many people complained. I'm on Road Runner here. It's at 10 down but gives me a 25 speed boost.

RoadRunner through TimeWarner Cable? I pay the same amount and hate it, AT&T is offering the sane price for 25mb down.

Paradox^ said,

And for some perspective... I live in Sweden and pays ~25 dollars for 100 Mbit (up & down) internet.

When China takes over the US I'm moving to Sweden.

Recon415 said,

No s***!

I'm getting charged sixty dollars a month for this 1.5 down, 256k up! Insane in every way, especially since there are no other providers in my area.

I'd be curious of your provider. I pay $60 for 3 down and 512 up and that includes phone. Only $30 is for dsl.

Izlude said,

I used to get charged for 1.5 down 60 dollars. They upgraded me though because I guess too many people complained. I'm on Road Runner here. It's at 10 down but gives me a 25 speed boost.

3mbit is fast becoming the norm. I know... not much of an increase. My dsl provider is getting speeds greater than 10mbit in some areas though using bonded dsl. 25mbit is possible with 2x 12.5mbit bonded lines. Don't know how far it goes out though.

Paradox^ said,

And for some perspective... I live in Sweden and pays ~25 dollars for 100 Mbit (up & down) internet.

Very nice...

Paradox^ said,

And for some perspective... I live in Sweden and pays ~25 dollars for 100 Mbit (up & down) internet.

Very nice...

Marshall said,

Wow, I guess I should consider myself fortunate, I pay 50 dollars a month for a 12Mbit down connection and no bandwidth cap(At&t Uverse). Those are outrageous prices.


wow, i pay 15 euro's a month for 20mbit down, 1mbit up. and no bandwidth limits \o/