Data Caps vs Speed Limits

"Should broadband data hogs pay more? ISP economics say 'no"."

I'm of the opinion that a broadband provider should either limit a subscriber by a data cap or a bandwidth speed but not both. If you are utilizing a service based upon time usage such as a cell or satellite based network then data caps can make sense. If you are using a wired network then fixed "up to" speeds make sense.

Most wired ISP costs are fixed. The ISP has to pay for those costs whether the network is being used or not. The price the subscriber pays for trying to use the network at busy times of the day is congestion. If your supposed 50 Mbps Internet only gets 10 Mbps when the kids get out of school or at night when everyone is downloading their Netflix choices for the evening - you don't expect a rebate from your provider do you? Likewise it would be equally unfair for providers to charge subscribers for exceeding "data caps" when no "data cap" actually exists.

The wired ISP speed is limited by their backhaul Internet connection. If that connection is say 10 Gbps then that's the theoretical  "data cap" for the ISP. If I'm paying for an "up to" 50 Mbps connection then the ISP is imposing a "speed limit" on my connection. If I want a higher speed - then I can pay a higher cost to get a faster tiered service. For the service provider to try and charge additional for exceeding randomly selected "data caps" is just plain gouging.

The problem is for many subscribers there is no choice. The first one with a wire to your house (fiber or coaxial) will probably be the only one with a wire to your house.

Speed Tests

Interesting. Netflix has a new speed test Fast.com (which consistently pegs my Charter broadband at 16 Mbps).

Compare to SpeedTest.net (which also tested my Charter connection fairly close to 15 Mbps).

Others have found wildly varying results comparing the two testing sites.

How do your results compare?