Metered Bandwidth Coming to a City Near You!

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Wheezer
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.

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."

I've never heard of a buffet that has any limits.

The likelihood of people leaving depends on how the competition spins it. I lived in a city whose cable company (twc) advertised that they were more reliable than satellite tv since twc used cable instead of those precarious satellites. Of course, twc got their programming from satellites.

 

[DrPizza]

Hmmmm....

Even I will admit that sometimes I think I may be/have been on the wrong side of the argument. I was doing some more reading on the topic:
http://www.dslreports.com/show...rket-99389?nocomment=1

I was under the impression that with more and more people starting to get netflix, etc., that bandwidth was going to become a major problem. But, if this article is more true than the story I've been believing, then I think I'm about to change my mind.

***Alert! Someone just admitted they were wrong in ATP&N***

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Adam8281
I'm a TW customer in Raleigh (about an hour from Greenville where they are rolling out caps), and as soon as I read about this I immediately wrote an e-mail to TW, explaining why caps are unfair and bad idea, and saying that the moment caps roll out in my area I will switch to Verizon DSL

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.

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.

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.

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.

But the pricing model isnt reasonable.

$1/GB overage is like saying your gas bill is $300 at 69f and $3000 at 71f.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Spcwright
Hi this is my first post. I Live in Rochester N.Y. one of the effected cities. around 90% of internet users here go through time warner. TWC has a monolpoly here....the media says "virtual monopoly" its quite a bit more than "virtual". The only other alt. is Frontier DSL which is the "dial up" of today. Pretty much every medium to large city in NY state has FiOS except for Rochester NY. Hell our city had some of the first phone lines in the country and some of those lines are STILL Run under older buildings. The damn camera and photos were invented here (google "the world image(ing) center). You mean to tell me some small poodunk towns in NY have FiOS but not Rochester, Buffalo and Syracuse have FiOS they wont see TWC caps there, Rochester is literally smack in the middle of buffalo and syracuse, i dont know why FiOS isnt here ....I smell greed. The courts bashed Microsoft for its "monopoly" the majority of people and companies prefer windows i guess and its not M$ fault. Pardon me if i sound like idk wtf im talking about.

No, they were not. Photographic film was, but not photography.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Wheezer
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.

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."

I understand your point, when they concocted this idea, they had a built in figure of people who would leave...but I think they are going to find out that the percentage they showed on paper is going to be much higher than anticipated.

It's one thing to brainstorm and put stuff down on paper...figures lie and liars figure....but I think they are going to find that they WAY underestimated their customer base...in todays economy for more and more people its all about the money...the best bang for the buck. Many people are changing thier spending habits to conseve as much as possible. I talked to a local ISP who only offers dial-up *shudder* and he told me that he has seen a significant number of people come back with-in the last year.

TW has limited competition in many areas...mine for instance only offers Embarq or TW for broadband...but I think with such low caps companies like Verizion will find a new market here as well as AT&T. The real problem for TW is going to be if and when broadband over power lines becomes a viable option...more and more is being done with that everyday....it's just a matter of time.

 

[zCypher]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
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...

I see your point, but here's another way to look at it. When you pay $X/month for your TV service, does your bill change depending on how often you watched the TV?

I think there are certainly pros and cons to both unlimited and capped services but a business is going to do what's in its best interest in terms of profitability - why wouldn't it? It has to maintain a good ratio of profitability and customer satisfaction. If either one drops too low, they lose.

Some providers where I live don't offer any unlimited service, and I honestly find that to be stupid - it should at least be an option that can be paid for. Some providers offer a few standard plans with various transfer limits, and a nominal fee to have unlimited transfer. Really, if it was totally unrealistic for them to offer an unlimited service, I don't think anyone would be offering it anywhere. So obviously it is still profitable enough.

In terms of piracy, I don't think that's the issue with transfer limits. If they really want to do something about piracy, they can look at the actual content being transferred, where it's being transferred to and from - can they not? Do they not reserve the right to block illegal activities?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: zCypher

Originally posted by: DrPizza
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...

I see your point, but here's another way to look at it. When you pay $X/month for your TV service, does your bill change depending on how often you watched the TV?

I think there are certainly pros and cons to both unlimited and capped services but a business is going to do what's in its best interest in terms of profitability - why wouldn't it? It has to maintain a good ratio of profitability and customer satisfaction. If either one drops too low, they lose.

Some providers where I live don't offer any unlimited service, and I honestly find that to be stupid - it should at least be an option that can be paid for. Some providers offer a few standard plans with various transfer limits, and a nominal fee to have unlimited transfer. Really, if it was totally unrealistic for them to offer an unlimited service, I don't think anyone would be offering it anywhere. So obviously it is still profitable enough.

In terms of piracy, I don't think that's the issue with transfer limits. If they really want to do something about piracy, they can look at the actual content being transferred, where it's being transferred to and from - can they not? Do they not reserve the right to block illegal activities?

That's not a good comparison. The TV signals are being sent to your home whether you are watching TV or not, so bandwidth used is constant. A better comparison would be video on demand services.

And something I didn't realize until recently, but EarthLink provides cable service using Time Warner/Roadrunner's lines. This means that no matter where you live, if you have TW/RR, there is *at least* one competitor. I don't think EarthLink currently has any data caps.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Adam8281
I'm a TW customer in Raleigh (about an hour from Greenville where they are rolling out caps), and as soon as I read about this I immediately wrote an e-mail to TW, explaining why caps are unfair and bad idea, and saying that the moment caps roll out in my area I will switch to Verizon DSL

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.

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.

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.

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.

But the pricing model isnt reasonable.

$1/GB overage is like saying your gas bill is $300 at 69f and $3000 at 71f.

Yeah $1 per gig is a fvcking highway robbery. Perhaps they don't want anybody above the 100gigs but I doubt it. Maybe they think people will pay $1/gig, but really I think very few will.

There is, granted, a gray line here on monopoly with time warner in Rochester, which is one of the few areas this is rolling out. There isn't _good_ competition. There isn't good competition because who would bother rolling out infrastructure to compete with happy cable users and a company that has huge market share? No money in it, but once that company has a stranglehold, as time warner does in this area, they can effectively do what they want.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: zCypher

Originally posted by: DrPizza
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...

I see your point, but here's another way to look at it. When you pay $X/month for your TV service, does your bill change depending on how often you watched the TV?

I think there are certainly pros and cons to both unlimited and capped services but a business is going to do what's in its best interest in terms of profitability - why wouldn't it? It has to maintain a good ratio of profitability and customer satisfaction. If either one drops too low, they lose.

Some providers where I live don't offer any unlimited service, and I honestly find that to be stupid - it should at least be an option that can be paid for. Some providers offer a few standard plans with various transfer limits, and a nominal fee to have unlimited transfer. Really, if it was totally unrealistic for them to offer an unlimited service, I don't think anyone would be offering it anywhere. So obviously it is still profitable enough.

In terms of piracy, I don't think that's the issue with transfer limits. If they really want to do something about piracy, they can look at the actual content being transferred, where it's being transferred to and from - can they not? Do they not reserve the right to block illegal activities?

That's not a good comparison. The TV signals are being sent to your home whether you are watching TV or not, so bandwidth used is constant. A better comparison would be video on demand services.

And something I didn't realize until recently, but EarthLink provides cable service using Time Warner/Roadrunner's lines. This means that no matter where you live, if you have TW/RR, there is *at least* one competitor. I don't think EarthLink currently has any data caps.

I didn't know that earthlink was still in business.

 

[StageLeft]

Luckily for both AT&T and Time Warner Cable, limited competition in Beaumont means most customers won't be able to vote against this idea with their wallet.

Just like in Rochester. Everybody in this area well knows that Time Warner has a stranglehold on this market and is, of course, why they are testing it here and not cities (even close by of similar or smaller size) with competitors.

I don't know that as consumers we have any real indication that $50/month + $1/gig is "fair". Is it a decent profit margin or an egregious one? Who knows.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: frostedflakes


And something I didn't realize until recently, but EarthLink provides cable service using Time Warner/Roadrunner's lines. This means that no matter where you live, if you have TW/RR, there is *at least* one competitor. I don't think EarthLink currently has any data caps.

I didn't know that earthlink was still in business.

Uhh isn't earthlink dialup?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Luckily for both AT&T and Time Warner Cable, limited competition in Beaumont means most customers won't be able to vote against this idea with their wallet.

Just like in Rochester. Everybody in this area well knows that Time Warner has a stranglehold on this market and is, of course, why they are testing it here and not cities (even close by of similar or smaller size) with competitors.

I don't know that as consumers we have any real indication that $50/month + $1/gig is "fair". Is it a decent profit margin or an egregious one? Who knows.

I wonder how much the infrastructure will cost them so that they can charge customers more.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: frostedflakes


And something I didn't realize until recently, but EarthLink provides cable service using Time Warner/Roadrunner's lines. This means that no matter where you live, if you have TW/RR, there is *at least* one competitor. I don't think EarthLink currently has any data caps.

I didn't know that earthlink was still in business.

Uhh isn't earthlink dialup?

EarthLink dabbles in a lot of stuff (dialup, DSL, cable, etc.). They mainly lease lines from other ISPs, such as Time Warner.

Like I said, anywhere that TW/RR is available, EarthLink should be available as well.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Adam8281
I'm a TW customer in Raleigh (about an hour from Greenville where they are rolling out caps), and as soon as I read about this I immediately wrote an e-mail to TW, explaining why caps are unfair and bad idea, and saying that the moment caps roll out in my area I will switch to Verizon DSL

It's not Greenville, it's Greensboro. I live in Winston Salem and am wondering if I am considered a Greensboro client or if W-S is considered a separate client group or whatever.

I ran a test to see the amount of data I download playing 10 minutes of TF2. It was only about 10 MBs. I would have to monitor my playing and stuff if W-S is also under this TWC BS. I would most likely just switch companies.

I find the pricing scheme absurd also. What in the hell is someone going to do with a 16 Mbps connection and a 40 GB cap??? That is utterly ridiculous. They need to mix it up a bit more. Like offer 40 GB and 5 Mbps bandwidth. They are horrible greedy asses.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: FaaR
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.

Covad, Earthlink, Speakeasy ...

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.

ISP's are more then raw bandwidth, they also have to maintain their services (DNS, monitoring & management, etc.) and facilities, and personnel even if they are co-lo.

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?

Because applications of the day ten years ago didn't consume so much bandwidth. With everything in the same scale, bandwidth usage by an average consumer was much lower because it was predominantly email, web, chat, and a few MUDs.


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!

Post up some of those profit reports, I think you're confusing gross numbers and the the actual money made after expenses.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: spittledip
... What in the hell is someone going to do with a 16 Mbps connection and a 40 GB cap??? That is utterly ridiculous. They need to mix it up a bit more. Like offer 40 GB and 5 Mbps bandwidth. They are horrible greedy asses.

I've been wondering the same thing. I've got 6mb dsl and it's sufficient 99% of the time. The 1% when it's not is usually me being impatient.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: zCypher

Originally posted by: DrPizza
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...

I see your point, but here's another way to look at it. When you pay $X/month for your TV service, does your bill change depending on how often you watched the TV?

I think there are certainly pros and cons to both unlimited and capped services but a business is going to do what's in its best interest in terms of profitability - why wouldn't it? It has to maintain a good ratio of profitability and customer satisfaction. If either one drops too low, they lose.

Some providers where I live don't offer any unlimited service, and I honestly find that to be stupid - it should at least be an option that can be paid for. Some providers offer a few standard plans with various transfer limits, and a nominal fee to have unlimited transfer. Really, if it was totally unrealistic for them to offer an unlimited service, I don't think anyone would be offering it anywhere. So obviously it is still profitable enough.

In terms of piracy, I don't think that's the issue with transfer limits. If they really want to do something about piracy, they can look at the actual content being transferred, where it's being transferred to and from - can they not? Do they not reserve the right to block illegal activities?

Bad argument,IMO. The TV traffic goes out whether you (or anyone else) is watching, one or a thousand, no difference. When you are using the Internet, you are consuming a chunk of a finite resource ... when you are not using the Internet, that chunk is available for someone else ... it is a shared resource.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Luckily for both AT&T and Time Warner Cable, limited competition in Beaumont means most customers won't be able to vote against this idea with their wallet.

Just like in Rochester. Everybody in this area well knows that Time Warner has a stranglehold on this market and is, of course, why they are testing it here and not cities (even close by of similar or smaller size) with competitors.

I don't know that as consumers we have any real indication that $50/month + $1/gig is "fair". Is it a decent profit margin or an egregious one? Who knows.

Earthlink is a registered CLEC in many markets. CLEC = Buys discount access through local competitors for resale.

CLECs get their bandwidth at a significant discount. The regulations say it has to be low enough such that the CLEC can provide pricing below the competitor they are buying the bandwidth from. So Earthlink will provide service over cable (in Cable TV dominated markets) or DSL (in DSL-dominated markets).

Although not strictly covered by the CLEC rules when dealing with CableTV folks, because they operate under different (usually looser) regulations than the Telco (xDSL), many communities tend to try to make them play on a level field.


CLEC - Competitive Local Exchange Carrier

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Luckily for both AT&T and Time Warner Cable, limited competition in Beaumont means most customers won't be able to vote against this idea with their wallet.

Just like in Rochester. Everybody in this area well knows that Time Warner has a stranglehold on this market and is, of course, why they are testing it here and not cities (even close by of similar or smaller size) with competitors.

I don't know that as consumers we have any real indication that $50/month + $1/gig is "fair". Is it a decent profit margin or an egregious one? Who knows.

Earthlink is a registered CLEC in many markets. CLEC = Buys discount access through local competitors for resale.

CLECs get their bandwidth at a significant discount. The regulations say it has to be low enough such that the CLEC can provide pricing below the competitor they are buying the bandwidth from. So Earthlink will provide service over cable (in Cable TV dominated markets) or DSL (in DSL-dominated markets).

Although not strictly covered by the CLEC rules when dealing with CableTV folks, because they operate under different (usually looser) regulations than the Telco (xDSL), many communities tend to try to make them play on a level field.


CLEC - Competitive Local Exchange Carrier

Earthlink in fact is the other broadband provider in this area, leasing from time warner. But I heard that they'd end up having to do metered bandwidth, too. However, on their website they have intro 12 month periods. I wonder if I could seamlessly switch to them and lock that in. Probably not, but it may be worth a shot.

 

[Mani]

The moment this hits Austin I'm switching to U-verse.

I don't even download that much, just don't like it in principle.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Mani
The moment this hits Austin I'm switching to U-verse.

I don't even download that much, just don't like it in principle.

Go ahead and switch. The all you can eat model is unstainable at current prices. ALL PROVIDERS WILL MOVE TO THIS MODEL.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The CEOs and execs of this company should be publicly humiliated wherever they go.

Mein gott, I hope I never piss you off.

Actually I tend to agree with Moonbeam on this one.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
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%.

That may be true for TW and some of the other players, but Comcast DOES cut you off. They give you one warning, and if you exceed the limit again, you're cut off for 12 months.

 

[JKing106]

Did everyone really expect it to be a flat fee forever? This is America. Of course they'll find a way to nickel and dime us to death.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Mani
The moment this hits Austin I'm switching to U-verse.

I don't even download that much, just don't like it in principle.

Go ahead and switch. The all you can eat model is unstainable at current prices. ALL PROVIDERS WILL MOVE TO THIS MODEL.

Can you explain how French ISP "Free" can offer the following and is at the same time one of the most profitable ISP in the world

100 Mbit down / 50 Mbit up unmetered internet
Unlimited phone calls in France
IPTV HD service (150 channels)

30 euro / month

if you are not in one of their FTTH regions, you get the same thing on ADSL2+ (28 Mbit down / 1 Mbit up)

Revenue was 1,2 billion euro / net profit was 150 million euro