Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Belgian ISP Claims One Customer Downloads 2.7TB

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the and-he-was-just-a-tiny-guy dept.

Businesses 276

An anonymous reader writes with this envy-spawning excerpt: "While for most people the data limit is never reached, with media-rich websites becoming every more prevalent, and more media services going online (we're looking at you streaming video services), it won't be long before the average user is surpassing even the highest caps commonly imposed today. But how much data is it possible to download every month? And do the so-called data-hogs really burn through that much more data than everyone else? According to Belgian ISP Telenet, the answers are 'a lot' and 'yes, they can.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Human nature (2, Insightful)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322412)

It's free, so consume it till it's all gone.


Re:Human nature (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322418)

And do so by downloading millions of copies of hello.jpg [goatse.fr]

Re:Human nature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322448)

That's a lot of "Linux isos", which will actually be pirated media and porn.

Re:Human nature (2, Informative)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322534)

Any linux ISO can be considered a pornographic file when paired with the appropriate one time pad [wikipedia.org]

Re:Human nature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322548)

Although in that case all the actual pornographic *information* would be contained in the one time pad. Why not take the easy route and pair it with an appropriate fetish instead?

Re:Human nature (2, Informative)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322936)

No, the one time pad would have as much or as little pornographic information as the linux iso, only when used together through an XOR stream cipher would they become the pornographic file.

Re:Human nature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322494)

Human Nature

It's free, so consume it till it's all gone.

Do I detect envy in there? If you have the proper infrastructure and equipment, no, having your customers consume your service doesn't result in it "all gone".

The people at that Belgian ISP were not complaining, unlike the constant whining we hear from ISPs in USA. These guys were actually bragging.

Re:Human nature (3, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322588)

BT Broadband claimed I used 170GB per month on average over a 12 month period using my 2.5Mb connection.

Meanwhile, 2.7TB is nothing if you have a leased line. Just had a two week film shoot, used 6TiB. We have had to transfer all the daily rushes via the Internet.

Re:Human nature (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322804)

Human nature? That's the nature of life. All life forms from bacteria to dogs to people fail to rationally ration themselves. If there's food on the ground, and you don't eat it or take it, something else probably will and you won't get any benefit from it.

Overcoming eons of evolutionarily reinforced instinct to consume all that you can as fast as you can is something that humans are better at than most other species. Lets give ourselves credit where credit is due.

Its possible (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322424)

If he had a decent connection and was downloading all the time. Unfortunately if I tried it I would be well inside the 1c per MB excess usage tariff within a day. and my ISP is owned by bankrupt Australians who need every 1c they can get

Re:Its possible (5, Informative)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322454)

You'll only need 8 Mb/sec to get that 2.7 TB over a 30 day period. If I fully utilized my (Danish connection) I could get more than double of that. Koreans and Japanese would get 20 times. I suspect both UL and DL are included.

Re:Its possible (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322618)

I have a 10Mb/s connection, but it gets throttled if I go over certain thresholds (3000MB in the morning, 1500MB in the evening) at 'peak' times, with 14 hours in the day when there is no throttling. The throttling lasts for 6 hours, so maximum total throughput is achieved by staying under that limit. That means that the maximum that I can download in a day is (a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=14%20hours%20*%2010Mb%2Fs%20%2B%204500MB">14 hours at 10Mb/s plus 4500MB, or 67.5GB. That gives just under 2TB/month, so I'd be unable to download 2.7TB with my connection.

Mind you, I have one of the cheapest connections that my ISP provides. If I bought their 20Mb/s package, I could download just over 4TB/month. With their 50Mb/s package, it would be over 16TB. This is in the UK.

Even so, 2.7TB seems excessive. In a typical month, I download well under 100GB. The only time I've ever hit my ISP's throttling caps was when I was uploading the source material for a DVD to my publisher. Even with an Internet radio stream left running most of the time and fairly regular downloads from iPlayer, I don't come close to 1TB.

Re:Its possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322690)

Brought to you (slowly) by Virgin Media.

Re:Its possible (1)

master811 (874700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322870)

Minor correction, the throttling actually lasts 5 hours 10am-3pm and 4pm to 9pm for downloads, although the upload is 3pm - 8pm, so there is an overlap. But still it is a pain. The daytime cap is not too bad, but the 1.5GB during the evening is so easy to go over, I often get throttled back to 2.5Mb.

Re:Its possible (2, Interesting)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322496)

maybe he was running a TOR node then?

Re:Its possible (2, Insightful)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322624)

No, because the limit there would be upload rates, which are much less.

Re:Its possible (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322832)

Could be or he is a business user.
The rest of the top 25 (original in Dutch: http://userbase.be/nieuws/telecom/366-telenet-publiceert-top-25-grootste-downloaders [userbase.be]) is well below that. These are the top 25 users of that provider.

At 25 we are already at 700GB, so well below the number 1. I get that with mainly upload (It is usage, not download) of Linux torrents. This is done over a one payment period of one month. July is a holiday month. So there are many ways to explain this.

To me these numbers mean absolutely nothing. They are anomaly in any statistic. I bet the bottom 25 are 0 or close to 0. The theoretical maximum is about 22TB. The average of the top 25 is roughly 1TB. And again, these are the top 25 users of a provider. I am sure many cable providers who look at their top 25 will see similar or higher numbers.

Re:Its possible (2, Informative)

kneutral (1882628) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322608)

I'm visiting Australia for work and was shocked that the hotels have usage limits on their wireless (in addition to their already mildly annoying practice of adding a surcharge for wifi usage - though the more pricey hotels do this in most countries it seems, whereas the cheaper hotels provide it for free). $20/day for a 500Mb/week limited internet connection. At first I thought that would be fine, I'd cut out skype, streaming video, and stop downloading podcasts and wouldn't have to worry. Sadly I'm 4 days in and already over ($.30/Mb now) -- the internet's just no longer made for such ridiculous restrictions.

Re:Its possible (1)

eharvill (991859) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322828)

If you've cut out the "heavy usage" stuff at the hotel, what else are you doing to use that much data? I travel frequently as well and don't use that much data (unless I'm streaming Netflix or something). Web browsing, occasional VPN, work/personal email don't add up to a whole lot, especially for just a couple hours at the hotel each night.

Re:Its possible (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322862)

Have a look into using 3G wireless prepaid. Surprisingly it is often cheaper than what the hotels will charge.

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322432)

It is the ISPs problem if they can't deliver the bandwidth they promise their customers. Their business is data transferings so if they should rejoices peoples use their pipes to transfer datas.

Re:Who cares? (1, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322572)

It is the ISPs problem if they can't deliver the bandwidth they promise their customers.

Their business is data transferings so if they should rejoices peoples use their pipes to transfer datas.

Except the industry -- at least, in the US -- is nowhere near capable of handling 100% utilization by 100% of customers. Heck, I'd be surprised if they're ready for 100% utilization by even 10% of customers.

Like it or not, everyone's fat pipe is sold under two unspoken conditions: That you're not going to use it 24x7, and that those who vastly under utilize (grandmothers checking their email on DSL, for example) are going to subsidize the rest of us.

In theory, they'd be working on infrastructure to supplement the need, but in reality, well, buying hookers and yachts for lobbyists and politicians aren't cheap, you know.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322872)

It's ok to oversell services but customers who want to use 100% must be able to do so. Otherwise the ISP is failing to provide.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322642)

Their business is data transferings so if they should rejoices peoples use their pipes to transfer datas.

comparethemeerkat.com. Simples!

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322838)

Overselling is a necessity if we want sensible prices - I won't reiterate the whole argument here, but Dreamhost explained [dreamhost.com] it pretty well.

What should be banned is the rampant false advertising that we see now. If my household is using the 50Mbps connection to download around 200GB/month then we want an oversold connection - no point in paying for the tens of terabytes more that we're not using. The ISPs, however, should be required to state clearly what the limitations of the connections are - if they're selling 'unlimited' then I sure as hell want unlimited, however impractical that may be on the prices they're charging.

Beyond that, sensible limits (two standard deviations from the mean, perhaps?), reasonable per GB charges or voluntary throttling or cutoff over the monthly limit, and a rolling three month average to calculate whether or not you've gone past your allocation would all be beneficial for both the customers and for the ISPs reputation.

Ah well. We can dream. Or try to get investment to set up our own ISP, with blackjack and hookers.

And if you read the ORIGINAL story, they don't car (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322854)

The ISP doesn't CARE. This is old news and the data has been used by the ISP to show data limits are useless AND they dropped them therefor.

So the ISP isn't complaining, it is advertising. Both making its competitors seem like cheapo's AND showing that you can download what you want with them as well as showing that overall, the average consumer doesn't even come close. Because the difference between 1 and 2 is already huge but number 10 barely counts.

Why else do you think some of the users agreed to have their username printed on the list?

Windows Update (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322436)

Poor guy just left Windows Update set to automatic.

Re:Windows Update (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322458)

Actually I think he was trying to get a video driver that would work with Linux.


Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322444)

Lordy!!Lordy!!That be a heepin heppin' of that ther gud stuf he don gotz nowz!!

WANTED! (2, Funny)

neonux (1000992) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322450)

We will pay up to $50,000 for any information leading to the identify and ultimately capture of the individuals present in the Ten Most Wanted list published by Belgian ISP Telenet.

Warmest regards,

Signed RIAA, MPAA and BSA.

Re:WANTED! (2, Funny)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322536)

Luckily for you, screen names are given for four of them in the image in TFA. Where do I collect my $200,000?

Hardly a big deal (2, Informative)

neoprint (949158) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322452)

I've done just under 2tb in a month before, I've heard of other people on the same internet plan as me (Big Time on New Zealand's Telecom, unlmited ADSL2+) before they took it away because of people like me. Most I heard of was just shy of 3TB, this was on a horribly shaped connection too. Why is this news?

Re:Hardly a big deal (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322600)

I've done just under 2tb in a month before, I've heard of other people on the same internet plan as me (Big Time on New Zealand's Telecom, unlmited ADSL2+) before they took it away because of people like me.

Most I heard of was just shy of 3TB, this was on a horribly shaped connection too.

Why is this news?

This is news because if the US ISPs have their way, we'll be limited to approximately what, 0.37% of this per month?

2700 GB -> 5GB AT&T cap, 10GB theoretical cap by my ISP (cableone), etc etc.

About 1/3 of 1 percent of what your connection could use?

So in other words, the people selling us "Unlimited Broadband" would really like it if we would only use our connections about 2.6 hours a month (0.37% * 30 days = .111 days * 24 hrs = 2.6 hours).

Of course, my math is probably wrong. It's 4 AM, and harble bleeb SNARF.

Re:Hardly a big deal (1)

Danieljury3 (1809634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322684)

The max I've used on Telecoms Big Time is about 380Gb and I've had to give up torrenting (total ratio 1.045) now that I'm stuck on 20Gb a month. Telecoms biggest plan is 40Gb and the largest plan I could find with another ISP (actually a power company) http://www.kinect.co.nz/Broadband.aspx?m=2 [kinect.co.nz] was 100Gb on their big user plans although for that ISP's plans under 10Gb any data you haven't used carries over to next month and if you go over you just buy another data pack

Re:Hardly a big deal (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322836)

Not sure what you're paying, but you could look at Xnet. http://www.xnet.co.nz/hsi/pricing.shtml [xnet.co.nz]

Basically $34/month for the plan, then $1.02 per Gig (unlimited), so 35Gig/month costs around $70 but no actual cap unless you want one. Just pay $1.02/gig

or you could go with their "Torrenting" plan.... http://www.xnet.co.nz/hsi/ [xnet.co.nz] and pay 1.52 per gig, with downloads free from 2am to 8am.

I am with xnet, and am pretty happy.

Download caps? (4, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322460)

What are these? Is that a relic from the past?

Re:Download caps? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322498)

they brought them back when they realized people were catching on to their smoke and mirrors sales pitch regarding 'unlimited.'

Amazing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322466)

Onlive must have found someone foolish enough to actually sign up. Shocking!

Well... (3, Informative)

Raxxon (6291) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322468)

In theory:

28 Day "Month" (4 weeks), 24h/day, 60 min/h, 60 sec/min, 2.5Mb/sec..

I see a possible 6Tb in total transfer (and that's assuming you're not also transmitting!), and that wouldn't be saturating my internet link. However I do find it quite difficult to (1) Maintain 2.5Mb/sec constant (speaking of Torrents/other P2P in general) and (2) Having things to constantly download at that rate.

Re:Well... (1)

loufoque (1400831) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322488)

The headline is 2.7 TB, not 2.7 Tb.
6 Tb is 0.75 TB

2.5 Mb/s is pretty slow though. Some European ISPs already provide 100 Mb/s. So the maximum limit would be 230 TB.

Re:Well... (1)

Turiko (1259966) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322620)

Actually, the bandwidth counted by the ISP's here in belgium add download and upload, and that's what they show as your volume. That way, it's a bit easier to reach crazy amounts... perhaps he's seeding a few hundred torrents? :P

What is the actual cost to the ISP? (4, Interesting)

thue (121682) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322504)

Based on what we are paying for Internet traffic, 2TB of traffic would very roughly cost about $50.

So since this is their one biggest user, and even he is probably paying more than $50 for his internet connection, I don't see the problem with bandwidth hogs.

Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322586)

So since this is their one biggest user, and even he is probably paying more than $50 for his internet connection, I don't see the problem with bandwidth hogs.

That's actually the reason the ISP posted the information - they want to convince their customers (and potential customers) on cheaper slower plans that not only is the ISP capable of handling massive bandwidth consumption, but that they encourage other people to upgrade/switch to the same unlimited plans and really take advantage of the available capacity.

Its totally the reverse of what we are used to in the USA with places like comcast bitching and moaning about hogs - apparently this ISP understands that bandwidth hogs are a business opportunity to be cultivated not capped.

Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322830)

It seems that you have no knowledge of the Belgian ISP climate, it has been the worst of Europe for the past decade. Once Telenet was one of the fastest providers in Europe surpassing broadband leaders such as Sweden and The Netherlands. When the revolution of Napster came up, many of the Napster root servers where hosted on Telenet machines basically almost toppling Telenet over in usage.

That is where the age of heavy data limits started, up to last year it was very common for Belgians to have a download cap of no more then 30GB a month. This new "Fair Use" plan has been introduced just a few months ago and you can see how some of the users are playing catch up.

So don't be envious of the Belgians at all, they might just have been pulled into the current age, but their broadband market is still heavily monopolized and overprized.
Countries as Sweden, Denmark, and The Netherlands have far better connection with no caps or limits what so ever, I bet many Swedish ISP can show 2.6TB logs 5 years ago.

Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (1)

thenickdude (1481249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322598)

I wish I lived in your country. Here in New Zealand, we get data at NZ$1/GB. 2.7TB would cost us US$1900. We currently download 180GB/month. If we had a truly unlimited data connection, we'd do our darnedest to pull 3TB!

Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (2, Informative)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322606)

First of all, it's 2680GB, so it's more like 2.6TB. Second of all, where are you getting your data transfer prices? Amazon has some of the lowest prices around (unless you count the "unlimited" bullshit on dreamhost or something), and even with the >150TB discount it's $0.08/GB [amazon.com], bringing the bill to $214. Of course AWS's pricing isn't directly comparable to an ISP's but that's the best I could find. Finally, Telenet's most expensive offering is 99 Euro, so effectively everybody else is subsidizing this guy.

Interestingly, Telenet says that they are not complaining, but are showing this to encourage users to switch from the capped plans to the more expensive ones. The trick is that the expensive ones have a "fair use" policy, and they can slow your connection down to 512 Kbps [arstechnica.com] until the next billing if you download twice as much as the average user.

Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322798)

Uhhh I don't get 5~7 9s of uptime on my ISP you? I also don't get and fancy ass hosting stuff.

http://www.100tb.com/dedicated-hosting/ [100tb.com] = $0.002/GB and that is a hosting solution not simply a line you get to use as an ISP is (also it is 50% off atm). Comes with a computer and all that shit... and given that this is an ISP they likely pay even less than this. (BTW when i started looking I expected to find like $0.02/GB which is sorta normal... I've no idea how 100tb can possibly exist without crushing its competition or going bankrupt)

Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (2, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322656)

Yup. The real problem is charging for an unmetered service, and then trying to somehow meter it.

Look, is it "unlimited" or not? If yes, then just live with what you promised. If not, come up with something reasonable.

The last mile of telecom is a natural monopoly, and price should be PUC regulated just like your water or electricity. Does the electric company publish a list of top-10 electric consumers? Of course not - those are its best customers.

I'm fine with paying by the GB, provided those rates are reasonable. Then everybody can use whatever they want to.

Probably the best free-market solution is to have the telco/cable co own the last mile, and charge PUC-regulated rates. They only provide data service to the central office, and they cannot sell "internet" service (email, etc). Then you buy your internet service from an ISP, who runs their own bandwidth to the CO and rents rack space at a regulated price there. That is no longer a natural monopoly, which means every town in America will likely have 3-50 of them to choose from. That means you'll probably get a fair price, and get to pick whether you want usenet, email, plain old routing only, or whatever. Your local telco just transmits raw ethernet frames or something like that, so it also means that IPv6 will be available as soon as some local ISP decides to offer it.

Also - if the telco provides service over a shared line, they could meter it. However, if the telco's technology uses dedicated lines (like DSL) then they would have to offer it uncapped. Prices would of course be tied to actual costs, and investment decisions/etc would be PUC-regulated.

This isn't rocket science - we've operated utilities for years...

Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (2, Insightful)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322770)

> Does the electric company publish a list of top-10 electric consumers? Of course not - those are its best customers.

Those customers also pay per kW-h used, so this is a completely opposite situation.

Re:What is the actual cost to the ISP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322748)

Their homepage list it with 61,32€ (~76$) Don't see a problem either.

useful data? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322540)

I've just been reading this morning's BadScience [badscience.net] so my statistics brain is running a bit hot this morning.

There's a lot this data doesn't tell you. For one thing, the start dates are all different, and the guy that downloaded the most had the earliest start (along with a few others). Are they counting to a specific date, or over a period of time. If it's the former, the guy who is second has a whole 10 days more of data to download, or roughly 1/3rd of a month.

Also, what about the people that didn't agree to this, are there people who are higher, but didn't agree to have their data usage shown? Or a lot of people thought their usage was excessive, but actually was at the 1TB mark. It could be that the top guy there is a line that has a lot of students on it, all downloading P2P data, all with no anti-virus so all with trojans turning their computers in to zombies that are sending out incredible amounts of spam.

Another point, what about the rest of the data? This is obviously the top %age of users, but what percent is that? 1%, 0.01%? This could be a guy doing a lot of HD video editing, or has a company editing for him and he wanted review different edits at home. It could be that most people are on holiday in July in Belgium and therefore not downloading, so it's much easier to download more data because the contention is lower. It could also just be that it is 'download all the crap you possibly can' month in Belgium, totally throwing this data out of whack.

Basically what I'm saying is, while this data is very interesting, it's not useful. I would love to see a more about the context of this information. I bet there are plenty of people (like me) who go to work and don't P2P, and aren't using anywhere near their data cap.

Re:useful data? (1)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322570)

Ars has a better summary which addresses your points. It notes that

Telenet recently published a list of its top 25 downloaders to a discussion forum—but the goal wasn't to demonize the users. Instead, it was to show other people just how much data could be transferred in a single month. The ISP hopes to encourage people to migrate up from its least-expensive plans (with 50GB and 80GB data caps, respectively) to its more expensive "fair use" plans.

In this case, "fair use" doesn't refer to copyright but to downloading. Telenet doesn't want to call its plans "unlimited," but it does say that "'fair use' means that you can send and receive a very large quantity of data via the Telenet network. Telenet will only ask you to adjust your consumption in the case of excessive volume consumption that may threaten the comfort of other subscribers."

So the data provided is fine for the intended purpose - advertising to customers what they could be getting if they upgraded their service - but insufficient for the point others seem to be interested in making.

Re:useful data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322630)

the image in the article shows more or less what they pay and what their limitations are

1 & 2 : 61 euro (max download 30mbps)
3 & 4 : 75 euro (same internet, but extended with hdtv, decoder rental,fixed phone...)
5 : 69 eoro (if on 50mbps) or 99 (if on 100mbps)

(prices from the isp's site www.telenet.be)

Re:useful data? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322644)

My worry though was that ISPs might seize on this as the reason to have caps. Which this data doesn't really show. But yeah, it's intended purpose is certainly correct.

Put it into perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322542)

I'm from Belgium, and i would just like to add that Telenet has always had bandwith caps untill recently (Max 60gb/month, we pay around 60 euros for it). These statistics are from the month in which it was abolished.

This guy was obviously just overcompensating for all the years he had to live with a 60gb/month bandwith cap.

the article (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322544)

they are just saying it gonna start getting a trend more then the exception it is atm. and they are right.

most people don't ever reach their bandwith limit atm, thats because they actually are very carefull what to download. the trouble of having your speed extremely low just is too much, so you limit yourself, by a lot.

All you can eat (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322554)

So, the ISP, in essence, advertises and sells an all-you-can-eat buffet, then complains when people pay for it and proceed to eat all they can? Cry me a river.

Re:All you can eat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322740)

They are not complaining, they are bragging.

Does this come as a surprise? (2, Interesting)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322556)

The article itself mentions it. Youtube is 1080p, netflix is getting into online streaming. Everything is getting bigger. Alien Swarm (a free and short game on Steam) 2GB, Left4Dead 2 is 7.5GB, god forbid someone pirates some 1080p movies then there's another 12GB gone.

Download limits get you no where these days and ISPs don't get this. 10GB limit on Telstra here in Australia (one of the first in the world) was fine in 1999. Dropping to 3GB crippled my fancy new broadband connection. We put up with Telstra's 10GB crap for years constantly hitting the limit and they called us a power user. Now here we are in 2010 I have a 150GB download limit, 110GB offpeak, and 40GB onpeak. We hit the 40GB onpeak limit every single month. This does not include any download, high def porn or any other such nonsense since we schedule that to run through the night. Yet even then we still do about 70GB offpeak per month.

I'm almost scared of what we will be doing in 2020. What a nail-biting election we're having today too. Tonight we find out if the future of Australia is to make the worlds dumbest monopolistic ISP (who still think 10GB is for power users now in 2010) even bigger, or if we're going to get FTTH setup by a political party.

Re:Does this come as a surprise? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322604)

Don't they have 30GB caps in Japan?
Per day, of course.

Re:Does this come as a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322834)

It's 30GB per day upload

Re:Does this come as a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322622)

Fingers crossed, huh? (I'm Australian too)

Re:Does this come as a surprise? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322806)

Although Telstra would dearly like to be a monoploy again those days are long gone. These days there are plenty of ISP's to choose from [whirlpool.net.au]. The Optus cable plan I have been on for over 10yrs years had a 20GB cap, when I recently started bumping up against the cap for a couple of months in a row they rang me up and said for an extra $5/month I could have a 170GB cap. It was win-win, I was happy they noticed and offered a cheap solution and they are happy to be getting an extra $5/m. I know Optus are far from the chapest ISP out there but they sure beat the shit out of the luddites at Telstra.

The only reason I haven't switched to iiNet or one of the other cheap ISP's is because of the excellent service I have recieved from Optus over the years. Since I often work from home a responsive helpdesk is more important to me than minimum price, even better is the fact I've only needed to use said helpdesk a few times in the last decade.

And no I don't work for Optus, I just happen to think I get exactly the kind of reliable service I'm willing to pay for.

8,07 days. (2, Informative)

Tito1337 (1585785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322578)

The guy has a Turbonet connection, means he has 30Mbits down and 1,25Mbit up. If he used this at full speed, 2680GB would only take 8,07 days.

so what? (2, Insightful)

yyxx (1812612) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322584)

It's easy to accumulate 2TB in video data, say on iTunes. And it's reasonable to want to transfer that from one machine to another over the Internet (e.g., to back it up to a machine somewhere else or in the cloud).

If ISPs don't want this to happen, they need clear limits and rules, not underhanded complaints and name calling.

Re:so what? (2, Informative)

Turiko (1259966) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322628)

Actually, this ISP isn't looking for a way to put back draconian limits - the limits were only removed last february IIRC. Before that , i believe it was 80 GB per month. They're using this to show off their service :P

Re:so what? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322810)

They are actually bragging that a customer reached 2.7TB on their slow line saying that even our slow line is good for mega users. Too much North American news made you jump to conclusions a bit.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322596)

The ISP I worked at (Netherlands) had a top 10 that consistently managed 2+ TB each month and that was five years ago.

One of them managed to reach 98% of the theoretical maximum for a month.

So basically I don't see the point is this so-called "News"....

Consumption (3, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322632)

And do the so-called data-hogs really burn through that much more data than everyone else? According to Belgian ISP Telenet, the answers are 'a lot' and 'yes, they can

I'd be interested to know how people can consume that much data! Assuming 1080p rips at 11GB a pop lasting 3 hours, you're looking at 251 movies or 754 hours worth of entertainment.

Assuming you don't work and you don't sleep then there are only 744 hours in the longest month! Assuming you're unemployed and you do sleep, then this puts this down to a "mere" 496 hours and you'd have to be watching them from the moment you wake up to the moment you fall asleep.

Even in a house of 4 people, that's still each person downloading 54 HD movies a month - how on earth can you watch that much in a month? Or find that many movies worth watching for that matter?

Re:Consumption (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322764)

I don't know where that particular user lives. However, in Brussels you can find houses that are rented out to students, and have just one internet connection. So you might raise that 4 to 10 or even 12, and it might just be possible that some of them are moving away, and they wanted to make a collection before moving to a country where it's more problematic to download movies.
hell... think of a mirror to a porn site and that's enough :)

Digital Download games (2, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322634)

This summer there were an astounding number of digital download sales. Each title was originally designed to be packaged and distributed via 8GB DVD. When you're offering 8GB of data that is to be absorbed over a period of days or weeks, people tend to jump up and buy/download it when it only costs $2.50 or so. Couple that with EA's store recently having several $1.99 pricing snafus, and the careful shopper can buy 35GB worth of data for under $10, and feel right in downloading it that very day (who doesn't want to play with their new toys?). That doesn't include any of the 20 three minute 720p videos I watched on youtube this afternoon.
A Terabyte is what, 1000GB? I signed on to steam yesterday on my linux machine (via wine) to message someone about something, walked away and came back to find out that it'd finished downloading all 11GB of Call of Duty 4 and 3GB of Street Fighter 4, in addition to countless updates to other steam games I had installed to test but never play on that machine. Let me put it this way; I accidentally downloaded 15GB of data this afternoon. Didn't phase me a bit. Didn't cost me anything, only downside on my end was maybe a couple extra cents on the electricity bill for running the laptop a couple of hours. Valve pushed out a 64mb patch tonight to fix the fact that all their game characters were wearing birthday hats on the wrong day. My roommate probably downloaded 60gb worth of "HD" netflix movies this afternoon. Data is cheap, practically free after the cost of infrastructure, and the baseline of data being pushed around is growing by the day, because, hey, it's better to have it locally just in case, rather than wait 60 seconds to download it.
No doubt as market saturation begins to plateau, we'll all see large caps (15gb, 20gb) installed, with a couple of neighbors splitting the cost of a pair of bonded T1s to skirt around it.

Re:Digital Download games (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322904)

A Terabyte is what, 1000GB?

No, 1024GB. It's only drive makers and a committee that try to redefine that.

math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322650)

since when does 2.617 TB == 2.7 TB?

Re:math? (3, Funny)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322724)

are you seriously going to start the 2.6 = 2.7 debate when they're still fighting about Kb, KB and KiB?
the numbers are more like guidelines...

Not so bad ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322662)

According to this article : http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/357548/_unlimited_broadband_dead_water_iinet_iprimus/?fp=4&fpid=5

There's some guys in Australia on an AAPT Unlimited plan who do 3-5Tb per month!

"Malone claimed a number of AAPT’s unlimited plan users had openly bragged about downloading three to five terabytes per month on ISP community forum, Whirlpool. "

Amount downloaded isn't very interesting (2, Insightful)

rawler (1005089) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322678)

I could easily saturate my 100mbit line, from Giganews or other usenet source, setting up my own news mirror, mirror a few big download sites, or find some other way to waste bandwidth.

My theoretical monthly download capacity would be something like 10MB*3600*24*28 = 24TB, and if that's not enough, there are gigabit upgrades available. However, that's not very interesting, since just the storage cost for 24 TB is much much more than I care to pay.

And, especially, what could I possibly consume that requires those data amounts? Scene-released 720p averages at 7mbit, assuming 1080p averages at 10, and I have to watch 10 simultaneous Full-HD streams around the clock to consume that bandwidth. Who's got the time?

Caps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322680)

Welcome to the 90s?

Re:Belgium? Pretty much a non-country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322840)

Yeah, because that's really relevant.

Here's a real funny observation... (2, Informative)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322742)

It's funny that ISPs can whine and cry over the biggest users of bandwidth but can't be arsed to shut down let alone locate and notify their customers about their malware-infected PCs that are blasting spam all over the net. Start working on that and we might not have to worry about bandwidth caps.

Re:Here's a real funny observation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322844)

In Canada the ISP Shaw DOES kick people off their network for having viruses/malware. My roommate had a virus and one day I got a call from Shaw saying that I was going to be disconnected if I didn't unplug the computer from my network and clean it. I did both and actually got a thank you call 2 days later. I appreciated this because I wouldn't have known that my roommate was sucking away at my bandwidth (limit 100gigs) without the call. He was you usual user that thought that computers just slowed down with age. A seemingly common misconception amongst less tech savy computer users.

some comments (1)

Seth024 (1241160) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322758)

I'll post the same thing here that I posted on Digg yesterday. This was the first month Telenet was offering an Unlimited (fair use) subscription (the previous download cap was 100GB). I'm sure many people tried to download as much as possible just to see if there was a hidden download maximum and if they would get capped at a lower speed. The real mass downloaders are on different ISPs that have offered unlimited for many years now. And FTA: Telenet has not posted this information as a complaint of what they have to deal with, but to give us "a better picture of what exactly is possible with this new way of surfing." FYI Turbonet costs 61 per month for 30 Mbps download & 1,25 Mbps upload speed. Fibernet is a bit more expensive for 50Mbps

All the rest must thank him (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322786)

Telenet recently went from capped to "free" download where "free" means you can download 150% of the average user. It used to be 60GB. Nobody knows what the average is. Could be less then 60GB, could be more then 60GB.

But one thing is for sure, this person raised the average for everybody. Good job.

OTOH I can imagine Telenet just charging for this and the user could well be a professional user working in advertising or in any other type of business where a lot of data is transferred.

1.7 TB is not that much ;) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322792)

1.7 TB is not that much. If you have a standard 100/100 MBit/s connection, you're getting more than that if you only use 10% of your connection on the average.
      month rx | tx | total |
    Oct '09 551.44 GiB | 2.43 TiB | 2.97 TiB |
    Nov '09 475.61 GiB | 2.00 TiB | 2.46 TiB |
    Dec '09 485.49 GiB | 2.17 TiB | 2.65 TiB |
    Jan '10 521.51 GiB | 1.93 TiB | 2.44 TiB |
    Feb '10 570.42 GiB | 2.40 TiB | 2.96 TiB |

Re:1.7 TB is not that much ;) (1)

rolfc (842110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33322856)

I have a 100/100 unlimited and have no idea of the amount of traffic. I don't need to.

Not that hard these days with hi-def! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322822)

Not that hard if you download most of the hi-def video from a website like ztod.com that's almost 1TB itself.
I know I did it in like a 2 week period :)

2.7 terabytes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33322928)

2.7 terabytes? Great Scott!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account