Time Warner bandwidth caps arrive (updated)

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: kevnich2
The companies that provide the bandwidth are the ones that own the fiber optic lines. Time warner, comcast, level 3, etc, all own part of the fiber that stretches across the county and they pay each other for traffic that goes into another person's network. Some ISP's aren't big enough to own their internet infrastructure so they have internet leased to them from these companies to then sell to their customers. Level 3 I believe owns the most amount of fiber optic lines but they don't sell directly to customers. Just like for a car, Ford or chevy won't sell directly to customers, they sell to a dealership who then sells the car to you.

That sounds about right, but my underlining question remains unanswered.

How is money saved by saving bandwidth? Are the ISP's really charged by the GB for bandwidth? How does it benefit the provider to have unused bandwidth, less electricity pushing around packets (lol?)?

 

[Bill Brasky]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: kevnich2
The companies that provide the bandwidth are the ones that own the fiber optic lines. Time warner, comcast, level 3, etc, all own part of the fiber that stretches across the county and they pay each other for traffic that goes into another person's network. Some ISP's aren't big enough to own their internet infrastructure so they have internet leased to them from these companies to then sell to their customers. Level 3 I believe owns the most amount of fiber optic lines but they don't sell directly to customers. Just like for a car, Ford or chevy won't sell directly to customers, they sell to a dealership who then sells the car to you.

That sounds about right, but my underlining question remains unanswered.

How is money saved by saving bandwidth? Are the ISP's really charged by the GB for bandwidth? How does it benefit the provider to have unused bandwidth, less electricity pushing around packets (lol?)?

Because they will be able to service more customers without changing their existing means of providing internet.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev
Because they will be able to service more customers without changing their existing means of providing internet.

What are the ISP's going to magically make these new customers from? I'm under the impression that everyone who can get high speed internet and wants it already has it, unless it's just plain not available- which has nothing to do with bandwidth and has everything to do with the last mile wires reaching their house.


I have *never* heard of being denied an account for internet access due to the provider being out of bandwidth. Either it's available in your area, or it isn't. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

[El Guaraguao]

Time Warner isn't the only ISP doing this. Supposably in a week or two, Sprints wireless EVDO is going to cap us at 5gigs a month >( I signed up for 2 years with them with unlimited usage. if they cap me at 5gigs.............i dunno what to do really. Im in a rural area with no physical broadband support from anybody.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: ActiveX
For those who want Verizon, consider they charge to come to the house. If the problem is outside, you will pay, if its inside, there is no fee. Verizon also wanted a 1-year contract..

I been with Time Warner for 4-years now, speeds are awesome and never had a issue at all. I think for those who live in a big city like LA or NY can expect bandwidth caps due to the enormous bandwidth hogs who down 100's of gigs per week, you know who you are

The only thing I don't understand, if these users are the problem, then implement a 200GB/mo cap or something like that. These low, across the board caps are not only going after the abusers they complain about, it seems to me like they're trying to discourage streaming, making users turn to their VoD services.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Zaitsev

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: kevnich2
The companies that provide the bandwidth are the ones that own the fiber optic lines. Time warner, comcast, level 3, etc, all own part of the fiber that stretches across the county and they pay each other for traffic that goes into another person's network. Some ISP's aren't big enough to own their internet infrastructure so they have internet leased to them from these companies to then sell to their customers. Level 3 I believe owns the most amount of fiber optic lines but they don't sell directly to customers. Just like for a car, Ford or chevy won't sell directly to customers, they sell to a dealership who then sells the car to you.

That sounds about right, but my underlining question remains unanswered.

How is money saved by saving bandwidth? Are the ISP's really charged by the GB for bandwidth? How does it benefit the provider to have unused bandwidth, less electricity pushing around packets (lol?)?

Because they will be able to service more customers without changing their existing means of providing internet.

You are 100% certain that they have reached saturation and must build more infrastructure to service new customers?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: ActiveX
For those who want Verizon, consider they charge to come to the house. If the problem is outside, you will pay, if its inside, there is no fee. Verizon also wanted a 1-year contract..

I been with Time Warner for 4-years now, speeds are awesome and never had a issue at all. I think for those who live in a big city like LA or NY can expect bandwidth caps due to the enormous bandwidth hogs who down 100's of gigs per week, you know who you are

The only thing I don't understand, if these users are the problem, then implement a 200GB/mo cap or something like that. These low, across the board caps are not only going after the abusers they complain about, it seems to me like they're trying to discourage streaming, making users turn to their VoD services.

Bingo... this cap is too low intentionally... it isn't a middle ground cap or anything like that... it is a MONOPOLY CAP

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: dahunan
You are 100% certain that they have reached saturation and must build more infrastructure to service new customers?

In my area, it sure seemed like it. Then again, I'm pretty sure comcast hadn't upgraded the hardware around here for a while.

And it's all in preparation. They may have not reached saturation, but with media moving online fast... it'll get there. And they want to not lose the money coming in from the TV sector.. just transferring it over to the internet.

 

[Chiropteran]

How much does bandwidth *really* cost?

How is it that Comcast has to cap it at 40GB on a $20+/month service when you can get a hosting account with godaddy (just as an example) with 3000GB bandwidth for only $13/month? I seriously doubt that Comcast pays over 100 TIMES as much for bandwidth compared to godaddy (or any other of the numerous bargain web hosts).

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: aldamon
There is nothing inherently wrong in charging for bandwidth, if the charge is reasonably proportional to the costs. Time Warner's numbers don't pass the smell test, however. The markup over cost on that bandwidth is between 1000% and 1500%. . . 40 gigabytes at seven cents is less than three dollars per month. Time Warner charges over $40. That's like Starbucks drastically raising the price if you put sugar in your coffee. Any large carrier with a cap below 100 gigabytes and a price above $30 is abusing market power. Their bandwidth costs are less than the marketing budget, and the customer is profitable.

The markup over cost on that bandwidth is between 1000% and 1500%[/i]

You really believe that? You are probably the same type of person who believes the total cost to create a music cd or movie dvd is 10 cents. Hence anything over $0.30 retail is a gross rip-off.


Or, here's a better idea, if you truly believe the ISP industry has that huge of markups and profit margins, then it should be no problem for you to start up your own ISP, charge half the price, and rake in the billions!

Oh, right, there's that infrastructure that must be built and maintained. Then there's the support staff that must be hired and paid to handle the crybabies who believe it is their God-given right to download 200gb of torrents and "newsgroup" files every month.


This thread continues to amaze at how much more pathetic it can get.

Ah yes, ignore the core point of the original quote which you conveniently lopped off (the threat of Internet video) and cry poor some more. I'd expect nothing less from the shills in here. Pathetic.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
How much does bandwidth *really* cost?

How is it that Comcast has to cap it at 40GB on a $20+/month service when you can get a hosting account with godaddy (just as an example) with 3000GB bandwidth for only $13/month? I seriously doubt that Comcast pays over 100 TIMES as much for bandwidth compared to godaddy (or any other of the numerous bargain web hosts).

I've already addressed this. High bandwith over short distances is very cheap, like in a data center.

High bandwidth and operating a network over a large geographic area is not. They simply are not the same thing and cannot be compared.

 

[KMFJD]

Originally posted by: kevnich2
You can't tell me that a company with net profits in the billions every year is really hurting for money (comcast). To me, this has nothing to do with increased network congestion, it's just like some have said. It has to do with tv viewing over the internet. More people (including myself) are watching tv shows and movies through online viewing. I use netflix for their on-demand movie viewing. My cable company wants me buying this service through them, so they want to charge me more for my internet to compensate for this. It has nothing to do with increased network congestion, people have been downloading with P2P for years and it's never been a problem until on-demand movie and tv services started becoming popular. My overall internet usage, for viewing one netflix on-demand movie this month and the rest has just been casual browsing is 12gb last month. I don't do any P2P and last month I downloaded one ubuntu ISO. 40gb/month for $55, you better believe I'd be cancelling that service. Luckily where I'm at, I have cable, I have FIOS and I have 3G cellular. I have no problem with caps, as long as they are reasonable. Reasonable for me would be...100gb for $45/month and each 5gb over is $1-$2 extra each month. I know what ISP costs are for providing service, I used to work at one, actually I've worked at two. The larger the ISP, the less they pay for bandwidth capacity (same concept as buying in bulk) and with how large time warner is, 40gb for $55, that's a total ripoff. Just my $.02

Ding Ding we have a winner...

 

[Aikouka]

I was talking to my friend about it again and one thing he mentioned was how this change wasn't necessarily meant to meter those dastardly downloaders, but to offer a cheaper package to the complainers. The complainers being the people that use the Internet for light surfing and e-mail yet still have to pay $45 a month. He mentioned how these people never think to downgrade to the Roadrunner Lite service (it's slower, but cheaper), so if they provide a cheaper service but with a cap (that these light users will never hit), it would be a benefit to them. Also, one thing is that these caps weren't put into place on all people anyway. These caps only went into effect for new users.

They say that here:

http://www.dailytech.com/Time+...Texas/article11965.htm

The limits would only be placed on new customers.

Also, it looks like the packages listed do not include Road Runner a la carté as they mention Video/Phone (I assume TW's cable TV and their VOIP service).

EDIT:

He also said that they hated it in Texas and doubts that they'll implement it elsewhere. He better not be lyin' to me .

 

[Xavier434]

Another example of how the common broadband user is demanding more bandwidth:

Disney to stream full-length films on web this summer

 

[Aikouka]

Here's another little un-fun thing:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html

Bye bye, newsgroups .

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Here's another little un-fun thing:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html

Bye bye, newsgroups .

All I'm reading there is that those ISPs won't offer newsgroups directly to their subscribers anymore. There's nothing stopping you from accessing usenet through a 3rd party provider.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
Here's another little un-fun thing:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9964895-38.html

Bye bye, newsgroups .

So Cuomo looks good for doing something in the fight against child pornography (he's not), ISPs look bad for bowing to pressure from the NY attorney general, and the perverts continue to get their kiddy porn from third party USENET providers.

 

[Kev]

Is that only in New York?

 

[frostedflakes]

Weird that they're getting rid of alt.*, why not just alt.binaries.*?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Kev
Is that only in New York?

Article says nationwide

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Weird that they're getting rid of alt.*, why not just alt.binaries.*?

Probably bad reporting or miscommunication.