Did Time Warner cap all users' bandwidth? How can I tell?

[StageLeft]

Since getting Xbox Live with netflix I can only assume I'm cranking through several gigs/day. Game downloads like it's going out of style and humming through Heroes seasons in HD must be making short work of any kind of traffic I used to consume. How can I tell; I see nothing on Time Warner's site...

 

[spidey07]

You can try calling them. It most likely depends on your area. DSLreports.com has some decent info as long as you can filter out all the bullshit.

 

[Crusty]

I'm in the same boat as you(time warner too), I recently bought a handful of games via Steam and my monthly bandwidth is at least 75GB for December... I'll let you know if TWC complains to me or they start to cap my bandwidth.

If you want to monitor your bandwidth DD-WRT has charts that will show daily/monthly bandwidth uses if your router supports DD-WRT that is.

 

[RebateMonger]

Hmmm...I guess that Time-Warner is changing definitions on us. Bandwidth historically refers to the maximum data transfer SPEED. I'm not sure of the correct shorthand term for what you are referring to, but most web hosts refer to it as the "data transfer limit", measured in Gigabytes per month (or something similar).

Typical bandwidth (speed) is usually readily available from the ISP. Transfer limits have sometimes been the subject of "secret" limits, where you can send/receive as much data as you wish, until you magically exceed the secret limit and the the ISP comes down on you with a nasty letter or cancellation of service.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Hmmm...I guess that Time-Warner is changing definitions on us. Bandwidth historically refers to the maximum data transfer SPEED. I'm not sure of the correct shorthand term for what you are referring to, but most web hosts refer to it as the "data transfer limit", measured in Gigabytes per month (or something similar).

Typical bandwidth (speed) is usually readily available from the ISP. Transfer limits have sometimes been the subject of "secret" limits, where you can send/receive as much data as you wish, until you magically exceed the secret limit and the the ISP comes down on you with a nasty letter or cancellation of service.

The term bandwidth was bastardized about 10 years ago and no longer actually refers to bandwidth.

 

[JackMDS]

That was the original use of the term Bandwidth in analog electronics as I knew it for many years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...th_(signal_processing)

When computing started the Analog meaning of Bandwidth became irrelevant and it took other forms as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_(computing)

 

[Tarrant64]

I haven't heard anything about bandwidth being capped, however I know (and I think this is in Texas) that they are charging for going over a certain 'bandwidth'(by this i mean actual data used).

I can call TW and see if they have plans to expand these service fees and what areas have already had this take effect(affect?).

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
I haven't heard anything about bandwidth being capped, however I know (and I think this is in Texas) that they are charging for going over a certain 'bandwidth'(by this i mean actual data used).

I can call TW and see if they have plans to expand these service fees and what areas have already had this take effect(affect?).

Yeah they tested in beaumont texas but perhaps have not expanded. DSL in this area says a reasonable amount is 5 GB month (honestly, yes), but they've not yet started punishing people for overage. 5GB is pitiful, I'd almost just go back to dialup if I was under such a constraint.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
I haven't heard anything about bandwidth being capped, however I know (and I think this is in Texas) that they are charging for going over a certain 'bandwidth'(by this i mean actual data used).

I can call TW and see if they have plans to expand these service fees and what areas have already had this take effect(affect?).

Yeah they tested in beaumont texas but perhaps have not expanded. DSL in this area says a reasonable amount is 5 GB month (honestly, yes), but they've not yet started punishing people for overage. 5GB is pitiful, I'd almost just go back to dialup if I was under such a constraint.

Well what bothers me is this push by media companies to start streaming everything through the Internet. Virtually all content is becoming available now via streaming with a monthly fee. What are we going to do now? Pay $9.99 (say...netflix), $49.99 (overpriced 7mb cable connection), and $20 (iTunes rental movies) a month just to have it all?

Now let's tack on that extra $30 in overage fees.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
I haven't heard anything about bandwidth being capped, however I know (and I think this is in Texas) that they are charging for going over a certain 'bandwidth'(by this i mean actual data used).

I can call TW and see if they have plans to expand these service fees and what areas have already had this take effect(affect?).

Yeah they tested in beaumont texas but perhaps have not expanded. DSL in this area says a reasonable amount is 5 GB month (honestly, yes), but they've not yet started punishing people for overage. 5GB is pitiful, I'd almost just go back to dialup if I was under such a constraint.

Well what bothers me is this push by media companies to start streaming everything through the Internet. Virtually all content is becoming available now via streaming with a monthly fee. What are we going to do now? Pay $9.99 (say...netflix), $49.99 (overpriced 7mb cable connection), and $20 (iTunes rental movies) a month just to have it all?

Now let's tack on that extra $30 in overage fees.

Although I'm CRANKING through gigs, it makse sense to charge high users extra, assuming competition is readily available (it often isn't). Still, I can't believe that in 2008 even 100 gigs/month is really a problem for a lot of ISPs to allocate to their users.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now let's tack on that extra $30 in overage fees.

Although I'm CRANKING through gigs, it makse sense to charge high users extra, assuming competition is readily available (it often isn't). Still, I can't believe that in 2008 even 100 gigs/month is really a problem for a lot of ISPs to allocate to their users.

[/quote]

Bwaahahahhaha. hahahhahhhaaahhahahh. That's the funniest thing I think I have ever read.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Bwaahahahhaha. hahahhahhhaaahhahahh. That's the funniest thing I think I have ever read.

Honestly? I bet you never thought you'd laugh so hard in a thread about bandwidth :thumbsup:

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Although I'm CRANKING through gigs, it makse sense to charge high users extra, assuming competition is readily available (it often isn't). Still, I can't believe that in 2008 even 100 gigs/month is really a problem for a lot of ISPs to allocate to their users.

Bwaahahahhaha. hahahhahhhaaahhahahh. That's the funniest thing I think I have ever read.

Why? I used to do about 1TB/mo on my 3Mbit DSL connection. (Shame that Verizon killed all of the alt newsgroups.)

Edit: Of course, this was all local on-net bandwidth, between a VZ subscriber and VZ's local newsgroup server. So very little internet transit bandwidth. Just wait until I get my revenge on VZ, and sign up for a 3rd-party newsgroup server, and then get FIOS, and max that connection out 24/7. Bwhahahahaha, indeed.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Although I'm CRANKING through gigs, it makse sense to charge high users extra, assuming competition is readily available (it often isn't). Still, I can't believe that in 2008 even 100 gigs/month is really a problem for a lot of ISPs to allocate to their users.

Bwaahahahhaha. hahahhahhhaaahhahahh. That's the funniest thing I think I have ever read.

Why? I used to do about 1TB/mo on my 3Mbit DSL connection. (Shame that Verizon killed all of the alt newsgroups.)

Edit: Of course, this was all local on-net bandwidth, between a VZ subscriber and VZ's local newsgroup server. So very little internet transit bandwidth. Just wait until I get my revenge on VZ, and sign up for a 3rd-party newsgroup server, and then get FIOS, and max that connection out 24/7. Bwhahahahaha, indeed.

That is expensive. FIOS will implement caps soon. It's not feasible to have that kind of capacity at the prices offered to residential customers.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Although I'm CRANKING through gigs, it makse sense to charge high users extra, assuming competition is readily available (it often isn't). Still, I can't believe that in 2008 even 100 gigs/month is really a problem for a lot of ISPs to allocate to their users.

Bwaahahahhaha. hahahhahhhaaahhahahh. That's the funniest thing I think I have ever read.

Why? I used to do about 1TB/mo on my 3Mbit DSL connection. (Shame that Verizon killed all of the alt newsgroups.)

Edit: Of course, this was all local on-net bandwidth, between a VZ subscriber and VZ's local newsgroup server. So very little internet transit bandwidth. Just wait until I get my revenge on VZ, and sign up for a 3rd-party newsgroup server, and then get FIOS, and max that connection out 24/7. Bwhahahahaha, indeed.

That is expensive. FIOS will implement caps soon. It's not feasible to have that kind of capacity at the prices offered to residential customers.

Realistically, it not only is feasible, but it's already in place, since so few, if any broadband customers actually have caps, since ISPs know that most people are just watching youtube and surfing the net. Although ISPs may be going that way, it's not like they've all been losing money hand over fist to gain customers while they hemorrhage money each month.