×

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!

ISP Trying Free (But Limited) Home Broadband Plan

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the market-pressure-on-the-big-boys dept.

The Internet 213

adeelarshad82 writes "Earlier today FreedomPop, a telecom company headquartered in Los Angeles, announced its plans to launch a very low cost home broadband plan for extremely low-intensity users, with 1GB monthly for free. Clearly this is much lower than an average U.S. home broadband usage, which is between 24 and 28 gigs per month. The 1GB of free Internet is basically a teaser; the company aims to disrupt the cable and DSL business with its 10GB for $10 plan which is extendable by paying $5 for each additional GB beyond 10."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

213 comments

My HOSTS file gives me free broadband (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096733)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

Disproof of all apk's statements:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040729&cid=40949719 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040697&cid=40949343 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040597&cid=40948659 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40947927 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040425&cid=40946755 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946043 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40942439 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3024445&cid=40942207 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40942031 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038601&cid=40942085 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040803&cid=40950045 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040867&cid=40950563 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40950839 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041035&cid=40951899 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041081&cid=40952169 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041091&cid=40952383 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40952991 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954201 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042199&cid=40956625 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897177 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40894889 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40886171 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042451&cid=40959497 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042547&cid=40960279 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042669&cid=40962027 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965091 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=40965087 [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967049 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972117 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3044971&cid=40972271 [slashdot.org]
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045075&cid=40972313 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3045349&cid=40973979 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046181&cid=40978835 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3046211&cid=40979293 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3050711&cid=41002319 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3118863&cid=41341925 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3131751&cid=41397971 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41429005 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146511&cid=41469199 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3146549&cid=41469495 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509255 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3164403&cid=41555261 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832417 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41846971 [slashdot.org]
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861263 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228787&cid=41866351 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228683&cid=41866627 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3228991&cid=41866737 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868513 [slashdot.org]
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41868567 [slashdot.org]
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869275f [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229765&cid=41872927 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3472971&cid=42939773 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3483339&cid=42972349 [slashdot.org]
http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981835 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42988415 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3500483&cid=43026797 [slashdot.org]
http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028205 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43033535 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3504883&cid=43040365 [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044767 [slashdot.org]
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507727&cid=43048175 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3507873&cid=43049019 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051385 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3509683&cid=43054221 [slashdot.org]
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3510265&cid=43056879 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063711 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43066627 [slashdot.org]
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3513659&cid=43066843 [slashdot.org]
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521721&cid=43094323 [slashdot.org]
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521669&cid=43094855 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521797&cid=43096277 [slashdot.org]
AND MANY MORE

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

That's the kind of martial arts I practice.

Re:My HOSTS file gives me free broadband (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097221)

The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless.

1GB of free porn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096741)

...is still free porn.

Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096751)

Remember when everybody was screaming about bandwidth caps and the need for government to regulate them out of existence?

This is why that regulation was a bad idea.

1GB/free and 10GB/$10 is highly disruptive to the major cable cartel. It is also extraordinarily beneficial for low income or student subscribers. This is innovation. We need more competition, not more regulations treating the symptoms of the lack of competition in most markets.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (4, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#43096819)

Highly disruptive. Sure. Whatever.

Given my bandwidth usage, I'd have to pay about $1,000 a month to get what I have now for about $70. I'm not seeing what's "highly disruptive" about that.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (4, Funny)

Sez Zero (586611) | about a year ago | (#43096881)

I'm not seeing what's "highly disruptive" about that.

Well, it would be highly disruptive to your wallet.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

noc007 (633443) | about a year ago | (#43097485)

It would. Look at how they bill. You have to provide a card upfront. If you reach your allowance, they go ahead and charge for the next block of data. I don't believe that block gets rolled over to the next month either. It would be pretty easy to have a kid or malware burn through a bunch of data and max out the card.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43096885)

yeah, but lots of people like my inlaws who don't use too much will jump on this if it costs them $20 or $30 a month

if i use less than 1GB per month on my iphone i'm sure there are lots of people who use the same on their home internet

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096887)

I'm guessing people, like yourself, that download 208 GBs a month are not the target market. Any other products you'd like to declare dead just because you personally wouldn't use it?

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097337)

Yes. All of them.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

egamma (572162) | about a year ago | (#43097443)

I'm guessing people, like yourself, that download 208 GBs a month are not the target market. Any other products you'd like to declare dead just because you personally wouldn't use it?

Yes, I declare the following are dead: tampons, hang gliders, skirts, tofu, turkey burgers, yachts, and nuclear missiles.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097543)

let's be honest... if you had a nuke... would you want to use it... just to ya know... see what happens? Be honest now.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097671)

It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#43096907)

If this works out, your $70 bill is going to go up. High bandwidth users get a bit of an effective subsidy from low bandwidth users, who are more profitable than we are (although not nearly to the degree that the companies would claim). If the lowest use, highest margin customers jump ship, the rest of us who remain will pay more...

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097333)

What is the 'subsidy'? The wires he uses are somehow more special than the other wires to these other people?

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#43097537)

The wires are shared. A cable modem circuit runs between lots of different houses. It's very similar to "party line" telephones in the old days, where you had one line that you shared with a few neighbors to save cost. But when the neighbors start dropping off and buying individual lines, the cost of the party line actually goes up, not down, because there's fewer houses paying to support the infrastructure for the party line (although individual lines become cheaper).

From Comcast's perspective, a circuit with 1 heavy user and 10 light user doesn't look that much different than a circuit with 2 heavy users and no light users. But it generates 5 times the revenue. If all those light users go away, and the heavy users need to pay the full cost of the infrastructure alone, the cost will go up.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (4, Informative)

dmatos (232892) | about a year ago | (#43096939)

RTFA - median internet usage numbers in the US are 5.8GB/mo. This plan is cheaper for those users than _any_ other plan out there right now.

If they can steal 50% of all internet customers from other service providers, to the benefit of those customers, it will be disruptive.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

Score Whore (32328) | about a year ago | (#43097141)

How is this disruptive? The only people who won't like this are the customers. The ISPs will love selling metered bandwidth.

People should think about this for a minute.

Once we're used to paying per GB, all that will happen is the rate per GB will go up and within two or three years we'll be paying as much or more than we are now for less bandwidth.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year ago | (#43097271)

Are you sure? I used to have effectively unlimited minutes on my cell phone. Now I pay $0.10 a minute and I pay a fraction of what I did for the "unlimited" plan and have actually started using my phone *more*. Metered solutions work great for people that have little usage. You can pay your $100+ a month cell phone bills. I pay

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096991)

Given my bandwidth usage

If it doesn't appeal to Slashdot nerds, then it's worthless like that stupid iPod.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097277)

Hey! The original iPod had no wi-fi. It had less space than a Nomad. It was lame.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (3, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43097051)

Holy shit, I didn't realize we had The Guy Who Is Representative Of Everyone's Bandwidth Usage on Slashdot.

(If you didn't get the sarcasm, what I mean to say is "Maybe this product is targeted at certain demographic/market of which you are not a member")

My maternal grandmother uses a few dozen MB a month, she does almost nothing beyond email a couple times a week, look up the odd recipe and a little online banking. My paternal grandfather does even less with his Net connection. Both are on fixed income.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#43097453)

My maternal grandmother uses a few dozen MB a month, she does almost nothing beyond email a couple times a week, look up the odd recipe and a little online banking. My paternal grandfather does even less with his Net connection. Both are on fixed income.

There's still dialup.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097063)

Thank you. I don't know why my brain processed 1Mb and 10Mb!

Certainly, 1G may be good enough to check email. But more to the question, would they go with the AT&T approach of charging you per MB by default or would they just cut service and ask you to re-enable/acknowledge the exceeded quota?

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

dintech (998802) | about a year ago | (#43097073)

Given my bandwidth usage, I'd have to pay about $1,000 a month to get what I have now for about $70. I'm not seeing what's "highly disruptive" about that.

When the debt collectors come to take away your computer. I think that would be highly disruptive. :)

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097317)

bandwidth caps great for the low end user forced to pay $50 for unlimited right now. My parents for example use 5 GB per month so actually pay $10/GB.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year ago | (#43097475)

Then the question is, do your parents need "unlimited" high-speed Internet? Or could they make do with something like dialup or a tethering solution?

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

PhotoJim (813785) | about a year ago | (#43097697)

Given your bandwidth usage, clearly a wired solution makes more sense than WiMAX, which is what this provider is using.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096843)

Oh yeah, this surely has them shaking in their boots. Let's see, they say the 'average' use is 24-28GB per month. So the price for an 'average' user using this disruptive service would be $10 + (18 * 5), or $100/month.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096955)

Considering their pricing scheme starts at 10 for $10 it would be logical to assume they are not targeting the "average user" at this moment. They appear to be targeting folks who haven't really jumped into broadband or people who don't use it a lot and want a cheaper option. Nothing points to them trying to target the "average user." If they were targeting the "average user" wouldn't they do something like 10 for $10, 20 for $15, and 30 for $20 instead of just 10 for $10? Looks like they are trying to avoid the user that uses 24-28 GBs by not offering a cheaper tier for them.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43096845)

The problem Ms AC was NOT the very idea of caps at all, it was and is the fact that with zero competition and conflicts of interest they have you by the short hairs which is what pisses everyone off. In my area the cable is pushing their PPV and VoIP and guess what? Those do NOT count against the cap but if I use a competing service they DO count.

Now as for TFA? In my area most of the poor can't afford Internet AT ALL, the minimum cost to get cable or DSL (if you are lucky enough to lie in the 1/3rd of the town they serve) or the local WISP is bare minimum $120 counting hookup and $50+ a month so a deal like this would certainly make it more accessible, too bad it'll never end up here.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#43097117)

In my area the cable is pushing their PPV and VoIP and guess what? Those do NOT count against the cap but if I use a competing service they DO count.

Ha ha! Bittorrent over VOIP! Take that, evil cable monopoly!

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

Applekid (993327) | about a year ago | (#43096919)

Remember when everybody was screaming about bandwidth caps and the need for government to regulate them out of existence?

This is why that regulation was a bad idea.

1GB/free and 10GB/$10 is highly disruptive to the major cable cartel. It is also extraordinarily beneficial for low income or student subscribers. This is innovation. We need more competition, not more regulations treating the symptoms of the lack of competition in most markets.

We just wanted the government to enforce that the duopoly doesn't get to redefine the term "unlimited" just because it was starting to become inconvenient.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (2)

shaitand (626655) | about a year ago | (#43096931)

I doubt it. It's a scam. My phone's data usage is higher than that. The data usage is so ridiculous any student, low income, or other user will exceed it within a week even trying to "behave" they'll be getting massive overage bills. The faster the link, the faster they'll exhaust it.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#43096967)

Not all ISPs are looking at caps in this price range, I've heard $50 for 250gb before... i get 250gb + unlimited bandwidth right now for $50, how would that be helpful again? You're underestimating corporate greed by a very large magnitude.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43097019)

Highly disruptive to my wallet maybe.
I can't wait for my first $400 bill.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year ago | (#43097137)

Here is an idea. Don't sign up with them.
This service is not for most of the people here. It is for our parents. I seriously doubt my mother has ever used a gig of data in any month.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

Sechr Nibw (1278786) | about a year ago | (#43097637)

Except any month in which one of her loving children stop by and connect to her WiFi!

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#43097089)

It depends.
People don't like paying for metered services. They would prefer to pay more for unlimited, even if the metered service will be less for their normal use.

Even if you get the first bit free, it doesn't mean people will be comfortable with it.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097353)

The 5/GB after that, however, puts them well above big cable in pricing once you get to 25GB.

Re:Attacks on bandwidth caps are shortsighted (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43097695)

What should be regulated out of existence is the advertising of such plans as "unlimited". It's entirely OK to have a cap if you announce it up front. It is not OK if you hide it in the fine print.

Why not? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096761)

My grandma could use it to check mails.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097095)

And then Cousin Jimmy sends her an email with 3GB of cat videos, and she's got a bill. Thanks Jimmy. This actually happened to my sister about 7 years ago. 3GB of stupid cat videos in one email, which pushed her over her 2GB bandwidth cap with the local Telco's service, and into a $200 over-usage charge. (Only a few $extra for every 10MB! Don't worry! Email will NEVER go past your bandwidth cap! It is text, and text is small!)

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097711)

wtf email service? no email server i know of lets you send files that large. GMail has a 15mb cap on attachments (until very recently where you could "attach" google docs, but then i still think you have to click the link before it even downloads). most mail servers allow for even less than 15mb.

Re:Why not? (1)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a year ago | (#43097413)

Your grandma could do all kinds of stuff with 1GB! All that the cap would really prevent is video and gaming. Tell her to stay away from youtube, maybe get an ad-blocker on her machine, and she'll be sending you pictures of cats in no time.

Model cycling (4, Insightful)

nycsubway (79012) | about a year ago | (#43096763)

Hopefully the home ISP market won't follow the cyclic model of the cell phone industry. With cell phone data, first you paid by the kB, then they introduced unlimited data plans, then they capped the limits and you paid by the GB, now they're going back to unlimited data plans. I'd prefer the home ISPs to not do that. They've always been unlimited (within reason) so I'd wouldn't like to see some small company changing the model for the industry.

Re:Model cycling (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096865)

They've never been really unlimited anyway. They just have a limit that it's impossible to go over (because it's a multiple of your maximum speed)

A crappy 1.5Mbit/sec DSL can xfer, let's say 187KB/sec. Multiply that by 86400 seconds per day, and you get about ~16GB per day (or something approaching 500GB/mo)... that's of course 24/7 downloading, which, let's face it, very few people actually do.

Just for fun, that's about $2500/mo using their pricing scheme :) About the cost of a T-1 back in the 90's. We've come full circle!

Re:Model cycling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097381)

That's unlimited. If it's impossible to go over the cap, that's unlimited. That's a bit like saying that the highways within Montana that don't have speed limits aren't unlimited speed because the car is only capable of going so fast.

Not Cheaper (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096777)

Let us do some basic math:

$10 for the first 10 GB then $5 / GB after that.

I use approximately 30 GB / month. The first 10 GB would be billed at $10. The next 20 GB would be billed at $5 / GB. This would cost me ~ $110 / month for internet usage. That is well over double (almost triple) what I'm paying today.

Fuck-off FreedomPop and your shitty pricing scheme.

Re:Not Cheaper (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year ago | (#43096835)

Unless you only use 5 gig... Not everyone spends all day downloading movies or playing games.

Re:Not Cheaper (3, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#43096873)

You'd want to be careful about auto-updates of software, though. Adding a new (to you) computer with a pre -SP3 fresh reinstall of winodws XP (something resonable to happen for people in this market) would eat up stubstantial bandwidth as it downloaded updates.

Re:Not Cheaper (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#43097709)

Sorry, but today, a single game update can be anything from a few hundred MB to a few GB, and lets not even start on YouTube, Netflix and streaming traffic.

Re:Not Cheaper (3, Interesting)

cluedweasel (832743) | about a year ago | (#43096853)

And one of my remote workers gets through 4Gb to 5Gb per month and she has the privilege of paying $56.99 per month for that. Just because this pricing doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it's a bad deal for everyone.

Re:Not Cheaper (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096855)

You are not their target customer, idiot.

Re:Not Cheaper (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096963)

No, their target audience are idiots who think that paying $5 for 1 GB of usage is a good deal.

Re:Not Cheaper (3, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | about a year ago | (#43097003)

Paying $5 for 1 GB of usage is a good deal, idiot.

Paying $50 for 1 GB of usage (which is what some people are doing now) is a bad deal. It's like paying to take your anorexic girlfriend to the world's most expensive all you can eat seafood buffet.

Re:Not Cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097185)

Their target customers are such a small group that they're not going to have any customers, idiot.

Re:Not Cheaper (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43097307)

yeah, but these customers will take their money from the regular ISP's who may be forced to raise prices on their remaining customers, idiot

the light users subsidize the heavier ones. take away the revenue from the light users and you need to raise prices. ISP's make very little PROFIT after ALL BILLS ARE PAID

Re:Not Cheaper (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43097083)

All of my grandparents combined use 100MB/mo between their respective ISPs. Email, maybe a few recipes, not much else.

Let's do some basic math.

Right now, they pay around $45/mo for cable each
Under this plan, they pays $0/mo.

Seems like a good plan to me. It's not marketed to every Internet user ever, just certain low-use demographics like the elderly.

Re:Not Cheaper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097313)

Well I wouldn't say elderly, since my mother has a network enabled DVD player that plays netflix and rarely DVDs and is certain to go over 1GB in just a couple days. Not to mention her Nook or her cell phone.

WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096787)

Now I can pay cellphone prices for landline service. yay.

Re:WOW (1)

HappyHead (11389) | about a year ago | (#43097145)

My cellphone provider gives me unlimited internet bandwidth for $10, if I ever bother to activate it. (Using wifi has been fine so far.) These guys are way more expensive than that.

Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096795)

I know I would want to switch from my $29.99/mo DSL to $80/mo for whatever-this-is (that's at the low end of "average use"!)

Could Work for Some (3, Informative)

cluedweasel (832743) | about a year ago | (#43096831)

Interesting to see the average usage at 24Gb to 28Gb. When our local cable company was trying to bring in a 30Gb monthly cap, their argument was that 95% of their users went through 2Gb a month or less, effectively subsidizing heavier users. Total bollocks argument of course, but that's another story. The age demographic tends to skew high here and a lot of people only use their Internet connection for email. even here at work, people will reach for the Yellow Pages book before using Google. Those people would be a good target for this sort of service.

Re:Could Work for Some (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096891)

Usage has gone up in the decade or so since your cable company wanted a 30Gb cap. Caps today are more likely in the 250GB range, 10x the 'average' use.

Re:Could Work for Some (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096953)

Blow your cap in a day with a single file - just download planet-latest.osm.bz2 [ftp5.gwdg.de] from this site (not a direct link). It's only 26 gigabytes compressed. Other huge files involve bioinformatics data.

Re:Could Work for Some (1)

skine (1524819) | about a year ago | (#43097043)

They could still be telling the truth.

If 95% use 2Gb or less, and the mean usage is 26Gb per month, then the average heavy user only uses about 700Gb per month.

Re:Could Work for Some (4, Informative)

Rogue Haggis Landing (1230830) | about a year ago | (#43097053)

Interesting to see the average usage at 24Gb to 28Gb. When our local cable company was trying to bring in a 30Gb monthly cap, their argument was that 95% of their users went through 2Gb a month or less, effectively subsidizing heavier users. Total bollocks argument of course, but that's another story.

The summary is a little misleading. The 24-28 gb is the average use, but the mean is a lot lower. Here's the full quote:

"While average [U.S. home broadband usage] is 24-28 gigs per month, the average is skewed heavily by the whales. The median is actually 5.8 gigs, which is basically your non-streaming user," Stokols said.

So half of all users are using 5.8 gb or less. Still makes the 2 gb limit ridiculously low, but the 24-28 gb average is skewed by some heavy users.

Re:Could Work for Some (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097469)

Why are heavy users of internet infrastructure (Slashdot geeks) unwilling to pay their fair share?

Re:Could Work for Some (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43097109)

How long ago was that? Netflix and the likes probably accounts for a big portion of that 24-28GB, so I wouldn't be surprised if that number is four or five times higher than it was just a few years ago. I'm a pretty heavy Internet user, but five years ago the only way I would exceed 2GB/mo would be if I were downloading ISOs or movies... which isn't too common among the general Internet population.

A few years ago (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43096861)

Back in the day 600 megs a month was what you got with the standard ADSL account (which cost NZ$200 per month) and you paid extra for any overage.
There was a cheaper plan that gave you only 126Kb/s but was unlimited.

So we're back to the AOL model? (1)

realisticradical (969181) | about a year ago | (#43096927)

How is $10 for 10GB plus $5/GB after that a good deal? A 24GB average user is going to end up paying $80/month.
This sounds extensively like the cable company plans where they want to cap right below the level where someone trying to replace their $150/month cable subscription with $10/month netflix streaming would be.

My grandma could use it (2)

Chirs (87576) | about a year ago | (#43097049)

Currently she pays $12/month for a 128KB/s cable connection. Basically email, a little bit of web browsing, and audio-only skype.

I hope it works out for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43096943)

I'm not sure I'd ever use their service as I'm pretty sure that it would end up costing me more than my current plan because I'd use enough data but I do recognize that there are likely people who this would work very well for. One area that Cable and DSL are pretty poor at is inexpensive plans for low usage. Just because you want something better than dial-up, doesn't mean you are doing much more than email and basic surfing. I wouldn't be surprised if my in-laws uses less than 10gbs a month. Even if they are using 20gb or 30gb a month it would still only be $15-$20 a month which would still end up saving them money pretty quickly. The only problem is I'm not sure if I can even check to see how much they are using monthly as they are using the router provided by the phone company with their dsl and I doubt it actually tracks usage.

Opt-In Cap Limits (3, Insightful)

MatrixCubed (583402) | about a year ago | (#43096945)

If they're implementing cap-excess fees, they should also enable the user to hard-limit his internet access when the cap is reached, with a manual bypass when the user wishes to "accept the charges".

My ISP (Rogers, up here in Canada) offers soft-cap notifications in your browser when the cap reaches 75% and 100%, but these notifications would never be seen if I, for example, were to Netflix my Gbs into oblivion.

Re:Opt-In Cap Limits (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year ago | (#43097161)

If they're implementing cap-excess fees, they should also enable the user to hard-limit his internet access when the cap is reached, with a manual bypass when the user wishes to "accept the charges".

My ISP (Rogers, up here in Canada) offers soft-cap notifications in your browser when the cap reaches 75% and 100%, but these notifications would never be seen if I, for example, were to Netflix my Gbs into oblivion.

They inject code into webpages you're viewing? Aside from the technical problems that would cause, and being a breach of copyright and trademark law, it just sounds like a terrible thing to do. Why don't you change ISP?

Re:Opt-In Cap Limits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097481)

Canada is as bad or worse than the us when it comes to ISP competition.

I can pick between 20MBPS down 2 up or 20/20 capped at 250GB. two providers. When i threatedn to switxh, the offical stance is "why bother? Theyre just as bad"

Theres faster, but any faster (up to200 GBPS) is capped at 250GBPS. This is in a major city.

I should just do it now... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year ago | (#43096997)

Get a license to practice law in CA, because the shit's about to hit the fan with bandwidth abusers with a refusal to pay. Ingeniously profitable!

FreedomPop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097091)

If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. FreedomPop is one of those businesses that uses shady tactics to make money.Data usage is calculated every 15 minutes and rounded to the nearest MB,which means that a device checking e-mail every 10 minutes will produce 4MB worth of traffic every hour according to their rounding method.If you DON'T USE their device they will charge an INACTIVITY FEE. The deposit becomes NON-REFUNDABLE after one year,and even before one year they will charge a restocking fee,and if the device is not in like new condition you won't get all of your deposit back.Customer service is non-responsive.Overall, it's best walk away when you hear the name FreedomPop.

lol, throughput caps (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#43097149)

The main regional ISP in my area (Canada) just ran a TV spot about how the throughput is unlimited on all their plans.

Jeez... (1)

Nexzus (673421) | about a year ago | (#43097183)

On a rainy weekend, with a bunch of Netflix, Gamecenter and music streaming and some other downloads, we can easily hit 50 GB in a day.

Freedompop uses ClearWire's WiMAX (1)

anasciiman (528060) | about a year ago | (#43097193)

Which, as someone who's using that network from Sprint's software/hardware SUCK BALLS! It's almost as slow as dialup much of the time. Freedompop is also charging $89 for the WiMAX modem. No thank you...

24 - 28GB per month? (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | about a year ago | (#43097211)

Wow... that's really high, I did 30GB in February and I work from home, use a softphone/voip and often do video conferencing with my coworkers.

Does the average home user download 5-6 720p movies a month?

Re:24 - 28GB per month? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about a year ago | (#43097309)

I'm right in that average, maybe a little over (pushing 30gb). I work from home. I am on 1.5mbps down line of sight wireless and 512 or 384 (forget which) up. We watch youtube videos on the 3xx setting (380? 324? 340? I forget). Occasionally stream music. We average somewhere between .8 and 1.2gb per day. We download almost no videos, I don't even play online games anymore...

Re:24 - 28GB per month? (1)

tantrum (261762) | about a year ago | (#43097551)

well, I seem to have downloaded 308gb and uploaded 368gb during february. No wonder I have to keep buying new drives.

Didn't even download a single movie during february.

lol-data caps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43097457)

all i have to say is AS8708

Too Costly (1)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year ago | (#43097483)

$1/GB? That is way too pricy for broadband internet. It would be a godsend for mobile pricing but not broadband. I guess people who barely use the internet might save money but a lot of us get our digital entertainment/media almost solely through the internet these days. Hell, if I bought a game off Steam, it would cost me $4 after the cost of the game. If I spent $20 on a game, that would be a 25% increase in price. This all assumes I use less than 10GB a month. I wouldn't be surprised if my household hits over 200GB a month.

Evil (1, Interesting)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a year ago | (#43097631)

Customers who use the internet in more sophisticated ways, for example to cut their TV cable and stream; to use bittorrent; to game, and so forth will not benefit from this pricing plan.

We're left with less informed and poorer customers as the target demographic. The problem here is that most people and especially those in the target demographic don't realize how many bits that javascript game is transferring. They don't realize Mom's facebook page links to 3 gigs of pictures. This will inevitably result in a large percentage of their customers going far over the cap and getting hit with an unpayable bill.

I would like to think this company will simply cut off internet service at cap but a much, much more likely scenario is debt collectors harassing poor people for anything they can get.

This is evil from start to finish.

4 users 200-300 gb a month (1)

natespizer (1362373) | about a year ago | (#43097661)

My household has 4 internet users - Main bandwidth usage in our house: netflix, pandora, youtube, pbskids app every single month for the last 2 years we have used over 200 GB. The large majority of that is streaming.
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

Loading...