Hooray for Google. More than anybody else, GOOG could afford to pay to benefit from throttling. Hopefully not getting some of that GoogleCash will cause the ISPs to think twice about what they are trying to do.

We don't need net neutrality legislation; the ISP's (and the "free market") are doing a fine job of self regulation.

(btw, that was sarcasm).

Hmmm...So is Google evil or not? After their recent stock options markdown, I'd say yes. But after this, maybe not...

awesome idea! i love google. i mean, i hate that i'm almost entirely reliant upon them now, but i still love them.

GOOGLE... me love you long time.

(swoon) Luvs me Google!

Three years later, the net is still neutral, though ISP's are doing what they can to that away.

Huh?

I want to know when Comcast is planning on releasing a bandwidth meter so users can know how much internets they've pulled down per month! They said we would get it in January... but here it is almost February and everyone seems to have forgotten. If they are going to cap me at 250GB per month I want to be able to use all 250GB.

If they're as successful as they were in Canada, just downloading the article is a waste of bandwidth.

[www.p2pnet.net]

ended up as:

[www.financialpost.com]

I bet most internet users in Canada don't even realize that most all DSL connections east of Manitoba are throttled. Unfortunately, the reporting on it was extremely poor, and people are taking the Martin Niemoeller approach as most do, sadly.

I guess what I'm saying is don't end up another Canada, USA!

Welcome to the internet: [isen.com]

Sorry to keep posting Wired links, but this month's issue had an excellent piece on The Plot to Kill Google.

With this announcement and their upcoming offline email feature, they will be the recipient of my Valentine's Day card this year.

It could come down to ISPs preventing you from doing research on a competing company with your internet connection. Search for anything with the competing companies name and you are down!

@rockstarjoe: 249GBs of porn?

@rockstarjoe: Their "bandwith meter" consists of focus groups in which the less internet-savvy members attempt to shame the one P2P user with outrage because they are under the impression this person is "using too much."

(Sorry Frank, you know it's true!)

@richcreamerybutter: So it is just an imaginary thing? I think they will have to give customers some way to view how much they've downloaded if they are going to disconnect people for using more than the limit. Imagine if cell phone companies did this with your minutes!

@FunkmasterC: Google <3

@FunkmasterC:

I feel the need to throw in my two cents.

Is google evil? Nope. So much of what they've done over the last few years points to nay, nay. Cloud computing (vs Microsoft, real evil), free applications, and now this.

Of all the high tech sites out there, I hold Google above and on their own. They are, without doubt, a company with profits in mind, but not a company that will exercise it at any cost.

My pet peeve. Consumerist, I'm saddened.

it's = it is

its = possessive

@FunkmasterC: Google is the next coming of Christ...:D

I have Comcast (the only game in town). I love how they keep trying to push faster internet speeds on us at outrageous prices, but all that does is get you to your cap sooner. Now, I will never by close to 250 gb, even using Netflix to DL movies, but I am sure in a year or 2, they will ease that 250 gig cap down to 150, 100, 50, etc. Then you will pay an additional 10 a month to raise your cap.

In the meantime, if you actually use that speed you are paying for, you get your service throttled. That makes NO sense to me. That's like paying for a large drink, they when you drink 60% of it, the cashier takes your drink and pours half of it out.

Google = Awesome
ISP's = Not so awesome.

Yup, In Canada, we are capped. Bell and Rogers are brutal Internet ?Service? Providers. I am lucky, I get DSL on a Bell line, but from a Reseller that supports Tunneling...Eat it Bell.

I wonder if ISPs will start optimizing there network for these special servers that are going to be testings for isp evil secrets? They already do that for most major speedtest sites why not these too?

Truth in advertising: companies should be required to comply with the Internet specifications in order to advertise "Internet". For example: Comcast should not claim to offer an internet connection because they outright block many ports, they actively prevent certain data packets or delay them. Instead, they can advertise "We allow you to browse the web and get email."

Broadband: Eliminate this term. It means nothing anymore.
Unlimited: Define unlimited to mean uncapped or unlimited. If there is any limit what so ever, then you can not use this term. It shouldn't matter if the cap is so high as to be virtually unlimited. If there is any cap at all, then you should not be allowed to use the word.

To me, real internet means: total uncapped usage with no ports blocked such that I can run a server and have unfettered access to any port I want. Anything less is less: not the Internet. The router should not watch my data, it should not slow my data, it should not inject packets into my data stream. In short, a router should simply switch data packets from one router to another and to the actual destination without any regard to anything.

@rockstarjoe: Well from what I understand, they claim that most consumers would never use that amount, so they shouldn't worry. It seems they're trying to psych you out into believing they're "basically" providing you the courtesy of unlimited access.

@lalawgirl:

one more: "it's sore spots?"

As more and more sites are starting to feed video commercials, video clips, and other content that we didn't request, this issue is going to get heated.

I am all for neutrality. But if neutrality wins, ISPs will counter with usage caps or additional costs beyond various thresholds.

When you are over that limit, you will be paying for every ad or unwanted video that is forced upon you.

I would have to avoid cubs.com because they insist on loading and playing a video on the front page on arrival.

@FunkmasterC:
Don't let semantics get in the way of them cleaning up the mess that the ISP's have scattered about the place.

@lalawgirl: In Web 2.0 land, an apostrophe means "look out, here comes an S!"

So the outcome if you discover your ISP is slowing traffic? Call the service provider get put on hold maybe charged and have someone say I am not sure. Only way to reverse the ISP providers marching army on this is to cancel service but then you can't post clever comments on your favorite blog.

@Murph1908: Hopefully competition will kick in.. Here in the Tampa market both Verizon and Bright House are kept honest because both don't want to be the one who limits their users first because they will hemorrage customers.

@rockstarjoe: Have you tried a search to find one yourself. [www.softperfect.com] is what I use.

Does anyone know if these caps are for download only, or up and down? Currently, I average 150gB down and 200gB up a month. To give you an idea of what I'm doing, I download an average of 7 bluray rips a week, which could be deemed excessive by some. A 250 gB cap should be more than enough for the average user.

The net should be neutral, just like Sweden.

-Jessica Alba

@Murph1908: And if technology was closed forever I would say you are right however...

With the advent of wireless mesh networking there may come a day when we no longer need a telco to traverse the globe. While at first this will be limited, I expect over the next 5-15 years we will see the telco hold on the world diminish even further as the backbone fades in relevance.

This is a last ditch effort on their part to get richer is all.

@shepd: that last link is photochopped, right? please tell me it's fake. i mean, it's gotta be fake.

god, i hope it's fake.

This is Beautiful and very much needed. thanks for covering this guys!

We really don't need big brother watching everything we do? (This isn't China!)
The RIAA and the MPAA really need to step up their game and put better content protection into place. instead of having the ISP's police the customers and punish everyone over a few bad apples.

Google could just throw their weight around by blocking their site from ISP's that throttle. Even better, they could display a Google page listing alternative ISP's that don't throttle if you access their page from one that does. No ISP would be able to survive long if its customers were blocked by Google, and they'd have to stop throttling.

I can't believe people equate traffic shaping in general with the somewhat paranoid notion of ISPs asserting some kind of China-esque influence over their internet connections. Blocking access to the competition is one thing, shaping the traffic to try and provide an acceptable user experience to the majority of customers is something else entirely. Because of our infrastructure, the only reason so many people in this country can afford broadband is by ISPs overscribing. If you want full-speed unhindered access 24/7 then you should get a leased line. If more people did, the prices would come down and infrastructure would be built up to accommodate which would further drive down prices . Instead, everybody expects some sort of bandwidth charity and demands full-access to a line for a fraction of the original price. It simply doesn't work that way people.

@ThickSkinned: It should be, though I do know that Comcast was pressured into providing this cap from the original lawsuit (when they were purposefully blocking P2P activity). I doubt they would have voluntarily implemented this otherwise.

@AirIntake: I love these ideas!

@acasto: Because so far, "traffic shaping" has been some kind of China-esque influence over the internet. Especially with ComCast dropping bittorrent traffic, and other providers "shaping" VoIP traffic that's not theirs.

@acasto:

You act like $50-$70 a month for basic cable speeds is some kind of charity. In most countries, they get 10x that speed for 1/3 that cost.

High speed internet in America is horrendously overpriced, mostly because there is almost no competition.

@AirIntake: Except for one thing- I don't have a whole lot choice in ISP's. It's either comcast, or nothing.

@acasto: I support neutrality as far as an ISP not limiting what you can access. But I agree with you that bandwidth costs money too. You can't give everyone their own T1 connection, but if you have cable it shouldn't be that low either.

I also support the cooperation of ISP's to enforce laws, i.e. copyright laws. No one should be downloading copyrighted stuff they haven't paid for - it's illegal.

So yes, I support ISP's banning certain torrent files and that kind of thing if those files are illegal in nature. I also think pornography in all forms should be prohibited on the internet.

@ThickSkinned: I use DD-WRT firmware on my router. That is by no means the easiest way to do it, but it is one of the best. This is because it is monitoring at the router level, so if you have multiple computers it keeps track of all of them together, plus any extra traffic that might not be getting through.

As far as I can tell, there is no safeguard against someone sending you large-packet pings, and since it is being "downloaded" you could break the cap at no fault of your own.

@GuinevereRucker: Yes, let's ban torrents, and "that kind of thing." And good idea, banning pornography on the internet.

I think it would be best if I were the one to decide what's pornographic and what isn't, though.

@ThinkerTDM: Deregulation would work -if- there were viable competition. Without competition there isn't a "free" market. The only regulation needed (academically, anyway) is reducing the barriers to entry for competition.

In my community, Comcast is starting to lose out because DSL prices have dropped and speeds have increased. We have a FIOS system that competes as well, and a wireless broadband system, too. All offer options in the 10Mbps area. I had Comcast before moving to FIOS and I never noticed traffic shaping. Oh, and prices have fallen, too. 10Mbps is about $20/mo. here. If they start shaping, people can easily move.

Of course, my point goes to the 'last mile' internet, and doesn't treat the backbone (which is where the real problem exists, IMHO).

@richcreamerybutter: The meter could bite them in the butt when users realize they're paying $60/mo. to download 1 GB of email and the occasional Youtube clip. It's like buying a 700 minute plan and only calling your mom on Sundays for 10 minutes to say 'Hi!'

People find alternatives, or realize they don't need it. Comcast isn't about to help people prove that.

@Hawkins:

Hear hear. I wouldn't want to be looking up a Rubens painting for a report or to show someone and have it banned because someone thinks it's pornographic.

@wastedlife: So you need to set your modem to reject WAN ping requests, and find out the IP addresses of the local comast employees homes to send them 251 1GB ping requests.

@Xerloq: Unfortunately for me, I live in one of those areas where many utilities are regional, and they're all monopolies. I have ONE power company, ONE cable/internet company (unless I want 768k dsl for crap).