• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Politicians oppose Time Warner Cable caps

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Rubycon
If they block bit torrent on a global scale most of these problems will go away.
For a little while, but people will just find another file sharing method.

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Originally posted by: Hacp
Remember when Bill Gates said we wouldn't need more than 512kb of ram?

No, because it never happened.

And before anyone else posts it, he didn't say that about 640kb of RAM either.

Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: Crono
Problem is, internet access, particularly broadband, is becoming more like a utility that people feel (whether rightly or not, I don't know) they have a right to. You know, like those old NetZero commercials (before those bastards starting charging)... except with paying nominal fee for access. No one wants ISPs to charge too much for access, especially when we aren't getting the same level of speed and service that other countries (like Japan, for various reasons) get for cheap.

I know some people here think that but I see a lot more people who are fine with caps as long as they're reasonable. A 250 GB/mo cap is reasonable as it will stop only egregious BitTorrent uploaders but it is unlikely to interfere with anyone else.

People will accept reasonable caps, not unreasonable ones. Especially when TWC has a monopoly, preventing people from switching to a more realistic ISP. For many people, cable is the only high speed access available - while I'm lucky to be in an area with fast 7 Mbit DSL, many DSL users are limited to just 1.5 Mbps, which is more like 800-1000 kbps in practice and feels noticeably slower.

Once we get to HD content on the web, its not going to be enough. VOIP+Streaming TV+Regular browsing(lolflash) is going to destroy 250GB. All legal. No torrents.

Agreed. 250 GB/mo is fine for the time being but I really hope ISPs will raise their caps steadily over time. Given how fucking tight these companies are, though, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't budge on caps for years.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Once again, politicians have no idea what they're talking about.

The caps won't stop the average customer from doing anything. It will simply stop a very small minority of people from gorging on available bandwidth, affecting the ISP and everybody else. As a generalization, many who actually use that much bandwidth in a given timeframe, also download quite a bit of illegal content.

Only legitimate uses I can see this hurting are of gamers. If anything, this will get them off their asses to either work more to pay for the bandwidth, or upset them enough to simply pick up another hobby. 😉

:roll: yeah it's not like the popularity of streaming video is creatiing more and more demand for bandwidth from your average internet user these days or anything, are you seriously saying 40 gb per month is acceptable? :roll:
 
If they had done what they promised with all the money they got from taxpayers, none of this would be an issue. I really think they need to make these companies accountable for the funds they essentially stole. Just like the corrupt banks. $200 Billion is a lot of money to not have to answer for.
 
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Once again, politicians have no idea what they're talking about.

The caps won't stop the average customer from doing anything. It will simply stop a very small minority of people from gorging on available bandwidth, affecting the ISP and everybody else. As a generalization, many who actually use that much bandwidth in a given timeframe, also download quite a bit of illegal content.

Only legitimate uses I can see this hurting are of gamers. If anything, this will get them off their asses to either work more to pay for the bandwidth, or upset them enough to simply pick up another hobby. 😉

:roll: yeah it's not like the popularity of streaming video is creatiing more and more demand for bandwidth from your average internet user these days or anything, are you seriously saying 40 gb per month is acceptable? :roll:

Yep. Streaming an HD movie from Netflix can easily take 6-8 GB.
 
Caps are fine if they do not limit any legit uses however uses are not static and change with time. If you stream one hd movie you can exceed a 5gig limit easily but this reality has only recently come true. I doubt ISPs can change fast enough to not bog down developments in other sectors.

Also there is rarely a good choice of broadband providers in the majority of areas. So if I don't like one I'm screwed.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Once again, politicians have no idea what they're talking about.

The caps won't stop the average customer from doing anything. It will simply stop a very small minority of people from gorging on available bandwidth, affecting the ISP and everybody else. As a generalization, many who actually use that much bandwidth in a given timeframe, also download quite a bit of illegal content.

Only legitimate uses I can see this hurting are of gamers. If anything, this will get them off their asses to either work more to pay for the bandwidth, or upset them enough to simply pick up another hobby. 😉

I typically find myself agreeing with you, but unfortunately we disagree on this I'm having a hard time digesting your bullshit.

We have three 360's in our house and a server specifically dedicated to streaming Hulu via Playon. A single hour streaming Hulu in high def is appropriately 2.2GB/hr. It is VERY easy for me to exceed 20GB on a single weekend, even more if we have guests interested in watching something. Factor in any movie rental I purchase from XBL in HD is 6.8-10GB and I'm averaging just a little bit over 100GB a month right now from digital streaming alone. This does NOT include any additional surfing, downloading via Steam, uploading, etc in a month timeframe.

You sound like someone working for a cable company, so unfortunately I'm going to have to ask you to be realistic and face actual facts and data and explain how your position makes any sense at all.

Originally posted by: Rubycon
If they block bit torrent on a global scale most of these problems will go away.

I agree 100% since this has the added benefit of effectively stopping the distribution of World of Warcraft in it's tracks, which can only be a good thing.
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
If they block bit torrent on a global scale most of these problems will go away.

There are legitimate uses for the BitTorrent protocol. Just like we wouldn't ban mail ports because a lot of email is spam, or block port 80 because there is pornographic material on the Internet.

I'm not against reasonable caps, but 40GB is easily exceeded. Also, there is no incentive for virtual monopolies to increase caps as our need for Internet bandwidth increases. Why give more when they can charge more?
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
Once we get to HD content on the web, its not going to be enough. VOIP+Streaming TV+Regular browsing(lolflash) is going to destroy 250GB. All legal. No torrents.


I agree with you, but I bolded the key word in your statement.
Most people do not come near the 250GB mark. When they do, the cable companies should up the cap to a higher amount.

I would prefer no caps, except for the "natural" cap of the line speed.
 
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Not sure what legal recourse the government really has (though they could always... you know... make one 😀). Who knows, maybe they can bully TWC around a little more since they're allowing them to operate as a protected monopoly.

However, I pointed out in the other thread that TWC is charging much more than the typical going rate compared to other services. A Comcast user gets 250 GB a month for $60, whereas a TWC user gets 40 GB a month for the same $60. TWC is essentially charging 6x as much per GB as Comcast... over $1 per GB! When they're price-gouging their customers so badly AND they're a monopoly, maybe the government can get involved.

Originally posted by: Dark Jedi
I remember seeing this image a long time ago. All of a sudden it looks a lot more possible...Text

Reminds me of the old AOL/CompuServe days.

LOL...well, like I said in the other thread. The good news is there's tons of dialup providers available that can compete with this. 56K can download ~18GB in a month. Setup shotgun modems and you can have almost the same 40GB "top end" data capacity of TWC's highest-end service. Should cost about the same.

I can't believe how pathetic this really is!
 
If you're too lazy to send your own, at least copy the following that I wrote and send that.

Congressman Massa:
I recently read an article on an internet technology forum about your opposition to Time Warner bandwidth caps, an opposition I would like to congratulate and thank you for voicing. Being a graduate student at Rochester Institute Of Technology in the Networking and Systems Administration program, I see new technologies that are up and coming to be implemented in main stream every day, and this is one of the worst and most violating to our rights as consumers that I have seen so far. I can understand the idea that telecommunications companies are trying to help in the fight against piracy, but as a side effect of this fight, they are limiting the amount bandwidth that a consumer can use, even though they pay for unlimited.
For example, Time Warner's newest cap only allows a 40gb per month transfer. For an average college student, who may not be able to afford cable, this is outrageously low to be able to watch legal tv online (through Fox or NBC), play online gaming, or even allow for a web server to be set up in a residence (A common occurrence for students).
I equate this cap to being told there are unlimited refills at a restaurant for a certain price, but only allowing one free refill. Unlike this situation, though, companies use piracy as their main focus, even while piracy is steadily decreasing according to statistics. If a restaurant initiated their drink limit policy, it would be easy to boycott them. Due to the monopolies that telecommunication companies have in most areas, this is unreasonable and almost impossible to do in this situation.
I urge you to please continue to speak out for the consumers who feel like we are not listened to in these issues. This is an issue which can help the economy rather than hurt it and can fuel the innovation of students like myself and encourage them to develop better methods of fair internet usage.

I sincerely thank you for your time and efforts
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
If they block bit torrent on a global scale most of these problems will go away.

I see you've been suckered into the propaganda machine too. Try again.
 
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

There are legitimate uses for the BitTorrent protocol. Just like we wouldn't ban mail ports because a lot of email is spam, or block port 80 because there is pornographic material on the Internet.

FTP works fine.

 
I am more leaning to the stance that this is unjust. In a truly open market like cell phones, it makes sense, but we do see in some cases a near monopoly for a very important service. My area is rolling this out this year and were surely picked because there are no good alternatives. Also, the $50/month for 40 gigs cap is quite silly. There is a 100 gig cap with unknown cost but a $1/gig overage, which is completely absurd.

I think these services should be based on use, but I am torn in that being in near-monopoly areas.

40 gigs is easy to hit if you watch any hulu or netflix. With netflix streaming, unfortunately it defaults to as fast as you can do. I would want to know of ways to cut bandwidth if I'm put under a cap.

Anyway, I lowered my cable bill by $30 two days ago by cutting my services way back in anticipation of this. I know others will follow suit. I will not have my internet use dictated to me.

Most users are under 40 now, but increasing numbers are going up. 100 is reasonable for a fair user, but if you watch a lot of streaming or gaming or downloading demos I can see how 250 would be chewed up fast, plus as mentioned if you're using online backups.

Clearly, as time goes on we will need more. A few years from now 40gig won't cover jack squat.
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
FTP works fine.

I download my WoW patches via an official Blizzard updater that uses BitTorrent.

Originally posted by: Pegun
If you're too lazy to send your own, at least copy the following that I wrote and send that.

I hope they don't copy that in verbatim or else there must be quite a few networking students at RIT :laugh:.
 
The real surprising thing is, i never thought i'd see the day that there would be an ISP MORE evil than Comcast :shock;
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

There are legitimate uses for the BitTorrent protocol. Just like we wouldn't ban mail ports because a lot of email is spam, or block port 80 because there is pornographic material on the Internet.

FTP works fine.


BitTorrent is extremely efficient and fast. I wish more content was distributed that way, perhaps integrated into browsers and in all the main download/upload services, as well as video streaming (I know companies are working on this already).

The only problem with BitTorrent is that it is too efficient, using up (potentially) all of the download/upload speed available. Which is a good thing, because it means we get our files quicker. Just because a technology "works fine" doesn't mean innovation should be stopped.

Are you being sarcastic? Because you are Rubycon, the Highly Technical Moderator.
 
If you really want to get upset, read about what we are supposed to have for net access right now with all the deals they made with the government. It makes the excuse of 'we can't afford to improve our infrastructure with current usage" total BS.

http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm
Snippet from it
Failed fiber optic deployments have cost America over $206 billion in higher phone rates, tax breaks and other financial perks to the phone companies.

* Do you have a 45 Megabit-per-second (Mbps), bi-directional (downloading and uploading are the same speed), fiber optic service offering 534 video channels for about $50 bucks a month today? (We will explain all of these terms in future sections.)
* We argue that you, your family and friends, not to mention your company, school, library, and everyone you know, paid for this fiber optic service through higher phone rates, not to mention other perks your phone company received for promising to roll out these fiber-based services. In essence, you have been paying a hidden broadband tax ? about $2000.00 per household, to fund these other networks. (NOTE: Every state had different laws and different commitments.)
* Speed is the issue: If you?re using DSL or cable modems, your speed is about 50 times slower than what was promised in 1992. Dialing-up the Internet is 1000 times slower.
* DSL is not a substitute. DSL goes over the old copper wiring to the home or office, and should have been replaced by glass-based fiber optic wiring.
* "Fiber to the home", the direct connect to the home or office, is the Holy Grail of broadband. It is sometimes called "The Last Mile", "Last 100 Feet", "FTTH" (Fiber optics-to-the-home), "FTTP" (Fiber-to the-Premises), "FTTC" (Fiber-to-the-Curb) ? This fiber optic wiring is NOT somewhere in the ether of the network, but directly to your home or office.
 
The problem with BT is the way it works not really the way it's used (or abused). It rapes networks [sic] according to networking engineers.

Of course they (Blizzard) prefers to host the torrents as it takes a huge burden off their hosting bill/servers.
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

There are legitimate uses for the BitTorrent protocol. Just like we wouldn't ban mail ports because a lot of email is spam, or block port 80 because there is pornographic material on the Internet.

FTP works fine.

Landline telephones work fine. Why do you need cell phones?
OTA TV works fine. Why do you need cable?
Newspapers, snail-mail, telephones, TV, etc. work fine. Why do you need the internet?

An abacus works fine. Why do you need computers?

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Aikouka
Originally posted by: Rubycon
FTP works fine.

I download my WoW patches via an official Blizzard updater that uses BitTorrent.

See my previous post - this is exactly why I applaud Rubycon's idea. The death to WoW's distribution would be hilariously good for both of us. Short term I'd get to sit with a wide grin listening to all the WoWtards around me cry and complain, long term you'd get an ACTUAL distribution system that is not one where you are essentially footing the bill for Blizzard with your bandwidth. Win/win.

 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
The problem with BT is the way it works not really the way it's used (or abused). It rapes networks [sic] according to networking engineers.

Of course they (Blizzard) prefers to host the torrents as it takes a huge burden off their hosting bill/servers.


I'm not a network engineer, so please forgive my ignorance, but couldn't the networks be improved in order to better handle torrenting?
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD

Landline telephones work fine. Why do you need cell phones?
OTA TV works fine. Why do you need cable?
Newspapers, snail-mail, telephones, TV, etc. work fine. Why do you need the internet?

An abacus works fine. Why do you need computers?

:roll:

Poor analogy. FTP always worked fine. You don't see Windows Updates coming from BT do you?

Originally posted by: Crono
I'm not a network engineer, so please forgive my ignorance, but couldn't the networks be improved in order to better handle torrenting?

Neither am I but I'm sure it could be - how much would that cost though?
 
Originally posted by: Rubycon
Originally posted by: SunnyD

Landline telephones work fine. Why do you need cell phones?
OTA TV works fine. Why do you need cable?
Newspapers, snail-mail, telephones, TV, etc. work fine. Why do you need the internet?

An abacus works fine. Why do you need computers?

:roll:

Poor analogy. FTP always worked fine. You don't see Windows Updates coming from BT do you?

Not yet.
 
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Rubycon
The problem with BT is the way it works not really the way it's used (or abused). It rapes networks [sic] according to networking engineers.

Of course they (Blizzard) prefers to host the torrents as it takes a huge burden off their hosting bill/servers.


I'm not a network engineer, so please forgive my ignorance, but couldn't the networks be improved in order to better handle torrenting?

Already being done, traffic shaping allows you to throttle torrent. Bell does it here in igloo nation.
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: Crono
Originally posted by: Rubycon
The problem with BT is the way it works not really the way it's used (or abused). It rapes networks [sic] according to networking engineers.

Of course they (Blizzard) prefers to host the torrents as it takes a huge burden off their hosting bill/servers.


I'm not a network engineer, so please forgive my ignorance, but couldn't the networks be improved in order to better handle torrenting?

Already being done, traffic shaping allows you to throttle torrent. Bell does it here in igloo nation.


I know about traffic shaping, I meant in a positive way. Improvements to the networks that would them to meet demand, not strangle (throttle) demand.
 
Back
Top