Funny, FIOS is going to limit as well. The last mile isn't the problem anymore with FIOS. They don't now, but they will given what I know. I'll have to dig this thread up in about 24 months.
Funny, FIOS is going to limit as well. The last mile isn't the problem anymore with FIOS. They don't now, but they will given what I know. I'll have to dig this thread up in about 24 months.
fios just got approved here, but they way my city works, it'll probably be 5 years before i see it. fortunately, verizon offers their 7 mpbs service here. To be honest, i don't even need fios. my internet is blazing fast.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I think it's a bit more than that. How much money would it cost them to upgrade their networks to allow 90% of their customers to use 250GB a month? Keep in mind that the vast vast vast majority of the customers don't use anywhere near even 50GB a month. And, while some of you may be telling the truth about tremendous legal bandwidth usage, the majority of people exceeding 100GB a month are either watching a lot of Netflix movies, else illegally downloading stuff. Yeah, yeah, I've heard people here claim before about how it's all linux... then a lot of those people turn around somewhere else (IRC, etc.) and brag about all the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies they've downloaded (from what mythical legal source?)
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I pay maybe $50 month or so for my interwebs. New pricing for rochester market at least is $30/mo for 5 gigs and 20 gigs is $50/month. I think that $55/month covers 40 gigs and there is a 100 gig price plan with pricing not yet specified. Unfortunately, overage charges are $1/gig (that's expensive). If there was an "unlimited" plan, I could see getting a quality wireless router and sharing with neighbors. Not that I would, I'm a good boy, but I bet some people would.
There will be a three month warning apparently, giving us time to choose. Once it's life there is a real-time gas gauge we can use online to find our usage.
There will be a three month warning apparently, giving us time to choose. Once it's life there is a real-time gas gauge we can use online to find our usage.
Never heard of FIOS. In any case, I just googled it and have signed up my contact info for them to let me know when it's available. Perhaps if enough people did that, they'd speed that deployment.
I agree with this. It's just that with private companies offering a private service, I don't see a way to address this. Most people have limited broadband options. I could get DSL but in this area it is a bit of a hassle and not ideal.
Some will just have to cut back. A DVD compressed to a nice divx can be a gig or so. Not perfect, but really if people want perfect they'll need to buy the media. It is a bit crazy to be DLing 5-10 gigs for a movie constantly. Data use is not free and somebody is paying for it somewhere. This is somewhat similar to everybody in the country paying $200/month for as much gasoline as they use and you've got some people who just like to drive top fuel dragsters around going at 1 mpg all the time. Somebody is paying for that.
As a time warner customer, i will jump ship the second this goes live in my area.
Actually, id do it a lot sooner if there was a viable alternative.
Actually, id do it a lot sooner if there was a viable alternative.
Caps are only "unfair" to those who pirate massive amounts of movies & music. Guess who loves caps? Everyone else, the majority of their customers!
Besides, it's not a "cap", your internet connection continues to work even if you hit the limit.
Why would 'everyone else' love caps? That's non-sensical. That said, I believe this is a fair business practice.
Right, I'm going to help "fight the man" so that my neighbor can continue pirating 100 movies in a month for a flat $30...
I host LANs at my house, I stream in HD, i get legal games from Direct2drive and Steam, I use Xbox Live and play online wii titles. I can easily blow by 40GB in a month in a perfectly legal manner. Comcasts 250GB is a lot more reasonable.
I do not pay for Cable TV. I believe that is what this is about.
I do not pay for Cable TV. I believe that is what this is about.
Because when you drop off the abusers, the quality, the speed for everyone else improves. ISPs, many other service industries too, rely on percentages that not everyone maxes out their connection 24/7.
And you can do the same if this gets implemented in your area. You just pay more for the connection than the grandma down the street who only reads emails and looks up recipes.
I think that's fair.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
They'd love it in theory because it should lower their costs. Interesting, it's only a tiny minority, I think, who will see their costs go lower. So, ultimately TW will probably end up more profitable, not including some bad PR from people who aren't going to even pay more and those who simply switch.
It is fair, just as I pay more if I insist on watering my lawn each day or keeping my house at 75 f in the winter.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,139
- 236
- 106
This is what happens when you get a cable company that has a hold on the market. Sadly for most people the only option for high speed internet is cable or DSL. The three big monopolies are Time Warner, Comcast and AT&T (DLS).
With both RoadRunner and Comcast capping rates I think ATT would be right be hind them in doing the same.
I don't see any solution to this and right now I am not burning up 40Gigs a month, but, as with computers getting faster and hard drives getting bigger sooner or later ... 40 gigs a month will look like peanuts. 1TB hard drives are already the standard with 2TB now being the norm.
With both RoadRunner and Comcast capping rates I think ATT would be right be hind them in doing the same.
I don't see any solution to this and right now I am not burning up 40Gigs a month, but, as with computers getting faster and hard drives getting bigger sooner or later ... 40 gigs a month will look like peanuts. 1TB hard drives are already the standard with 2TB now being the norm.
Why is this so hard for some to comprehend?
They do not shut off service after hitting the "cap", they just charge more.
Perhaps they'll use the extra $$ to increase speeds. I'm stuck here on a 1.9mbps connection. If the extra $$ the pirates pay go to increasing my max speed, then I support these plans 100%.
If the extra $$ from pirates goes toward expanding services out to areas where there currently are no other option than 33.6/56k dial-up, then I support these plans 100%.
They do not shut off service after hitting the "cap", they just charge more.
Perhaps they'll use the extra $$ to increase speeds. I'm stuck here on a 1.9mbps connection. If the extra $$ the pirates pay go to increasing my max speed, then I support these plans 100%.
If the extra $$ from pirates goes toward expanding services out to areas where there currently are no other option than 33.6/56k dial-up, then I support these plans 100%.
It's won't last long.....once TW starts losing customers they'll either drop the caps completely or raise the limit...TW competition is already foaming at the mouth thinking about the prospect of all the new customers they are going to get.
Who knows with all the deals that they'll offer many people may just be better off.
I have TV, digital phone and cable all through TW...if it comes down to it, I'll drop the TV and the phone to pay for the extra cost of internet....the wife won't be able to watch QVC or Food Network, but she'll live.
Who knows with all the deals that they'll offer many people may just be better off.
I have TV, digital phone and cable all through TW...if it comes down to it, I'll drop the TV and the phone to pay for the extra cost of internet....the wife won't be able to watch QVC or Food Network, but she'll live.
I'm sure everybody understands this.
The real bone of contention isn't that there's a cap per se, but that companies are charging prices straight from la-la land for data exceeding said cap. Plus they may strangle your transfer speeds significantly as well.
Right, and monkeys will fly out of Queen Elizabeth's nether region any day now. I'm sure you too are aware it's not a lack of money that's holding these companies back, they've got the cash to make these investments, in fact they've had the cash for ages. But they're so GREEDY they'd rather not do it unless absolutely neccessary.
Fact is, the extra money from traffic caps will merely pad out their profit reports, nothing more.
Nonsense. The margins for broadband are so razor thin and the prices are so incredibly low they can barely turn a profit on that service. It's not greed, it's that fact that bandwidth and operating a network is so incredibly expensive. The prices for these kinds of speeds just don't work.
Go price a 20 megagbit service at the wholesale level. You'll be in the 10,000 dollars a month range. Why do people think they should only pay 50 bucks for something that the going rate is 10,000 dollars a month?
A: what major ISP in the US has internet service providing as its sole means of income? Right, NONE. Yes, they've got the money.
B: 20Mbit wholesale is guaranteed 20Mbit capacity (unless you make bad purchase decisions of course...); that's not what ISPs offer their consumers even on unmetered contracts.
C: If they managed to survive for the last ten plus years of selling ADSL/cable services when network capacity was even lower than it is today, then why wouldn't it be possible today? They're giving BAD excuses; you're uselessly apologising for them. Why?
My ISP has offered the standard "up to" 24Mbit/s (though it's too far to the DSLAM from where I live to get that much; 12.5-ish is max) - unmetered - for YEARS now, and they make many tens of millions of $ in profits quarterly. No problem making money from my point of view!
B: 20Mbit wholesale is guaranteed 20Mbit capacity (unless you make bad purchase decisions of course...); that's not what ISPs offer their consumers even on unmetered contracts.
C: If they managed to survive for the last ten plus years of selling ADSL/cable services when network capacity was even lower than it is today, then why wouldn't it be possible today? They're giving BAD excuses; you're uselessly apologising for them. Why?
My ISP has offered the standard "up to" 24Mbit/s (though it's too far to the DSLAM from where I live to get that much; 12.5-ish is max) - unmetered - for YEARS now, and they make many tens of millions of $ in profits quarterly. No problem making money from my point of view!
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Do you guys really think they're hiring kindergarten graduates to run these companies? Do you think that a day is going to come soon where they think "oh nooooes! Where'd all our customers go? We didn't think of that!" They're not morons. People aren't going to leave in droves. The only ones who will leave are the people who are well over what the caps are going to be. And, that's an insignificant number of users. And, to be honest, when those customers leave, I don't think they're going to say "what can we possibly do to make you come back?" I think they'll actually be thinking "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
This Computerworld article is about 8 months old here, but according to Comcast back then, their average customer was 2 to 3 GB a month. I find that a little hard to believe, but it makes it VERY believable that under Time Warner's new caps, a LOT of people will save money.
Think of it as an all you can eat buffet. Owners realize that out of every 100 customers, there are 1 or 2 big guys who come in and eat 50 times more food than their average customer. For a while, they put up with it. Finally, they change their "all you can eat" to "eat up to 10 platefuls of food." Those guys who are eating 100 platefuls of food are saying "you'll be sorry! Everyone is going to go to your competitor! <stomping feet> and I want an Oompa Loompa too!" Owners smile and say "go ahead, go hurt our competitor's business."
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
Well I think in the Beaumont trial about 15% went over their bandwidth cap. Hardly an insignificant number IMO.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Nope. You don't have to be pirates. Why shouldn't you have to pay 3 times as much as the average customer who only has one computer and doesn't stream netflix, Hulu, and download linux distros?
edit: I do agree, however, that TW's caps seem quite a bit low for the prices...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter