Time Warner bandwidth caps arrive (updated)

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Anubis
my main issue with them is with deceptive marketing, if you are going to offer XXX speed and have YYY subscribers you should have the ability for all YYY subscribers to use all XXX of the speed you are selling them

That makes no sense at all. They'd be paying for lines that are just sitting idle, and they'd have to charge their customers a hell of a lot more.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: bonkers325
if they impose bandwidth caps they will likely reduce the monthly rates and charge for excessive bandwidth usage. if that happens, the average user will probably pay less for cable internet access.

What fairy tale land are you living in?

 

[Adam8281]

NetLimiter 2 is a good program for monitoring bandwidth - it breaks down the usage with all kinds of charts, etc., so at a glance I can see how much bandwidth I've used over the past year/any given month/any day/down to any hour. For a techie, I think my usage is decidedly average. I get pretty much all of my TV shows over the net, d/l a few podcasts each day, and do a bit of torrenting (not much, maybe 4 GB per month). Over the past year and a half, my monthly average is 37 GB. This doesn't include my wife's laptop, which I'm sure doesn't amount to much, or the Xbox. Factoring those both in, I'd guess I'm right at the 40GB level. I'm a TW RR customer, and I would definitely switch service if they implemented a 40GB cap in my area. There are plenty of months where I'm around 32GB, but there are also occasional months where I hit 41 or 42GB. I'd support a bandwidth cap in the 100-200GB range which would only affect the most serious downloaders, but from my perspective 40GB is still in the "reasonable" range.

 

[Rubycon]

The TCNiso guys will have a MRTG divider crack coming soon. :laugh:

 

[Reckoner]

Between streaming online content, game downloads/demos, regular browsing, etc it could be quite easy to hit that cap. Especially if you watch streaming movies from netflix or the like often. Then you have services like Amazon Unbox, which I use with my Tivo. A cap that low is ridiculous IMO.

 

[silverpig]

I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer didn't get to eat all he could at that restaurant.

Imagine an all you can eat* restaurant doing this.


*2 plates or less

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: silverpig
I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode where Homer didn't get to eat all he could at that restaurant.

Imagine an all you can eat* restaurant doing this.


*2 plates or less

What I have a problem with is people stacking stuff to their chin on a plate and not eating most of it before going to get another plate. They should not limit the number of plates but make you EAT EVERYTHING ON THE PLATE before going for more!

 

[Xavier434]

A couple other things to consider:

1. Porn. People download tons of it and they do not always use bit torrent to get it. People are also quickly finding out about sites like YouPorn which stream it for free 24/7. That is going to suck up tons of bandwidth and it will not only be these "exceptional" users who make use of that feature on the net.

2. If the whole bandwidth capping thing really is an inevitable future for us all, then I can deal with no refunds of bandwidth I don't use. However! I want roll over bandwidth and I do not expect it to expire ever as long as I remain a customer.

3. I think most can agree that 40GB is way too low especially with the ever increasing bandwidth that is being used in the average home that pays for broadband. So, even if the all you can eat dies a plan will need to be made that really feels like all you can eat in addition to the roll over bandwidth. I don't think ISPs will have a choice because the demand + competition will not allow for anything else. Competitors will offer plans at the same price as ISPs like Comcast except they will either be offering all you can eat or they will be offering higher bandwidth caps for the same monthly payment. That could very easily turn into a price war except instead of reducing prices they keep increasing caps.

4. Lastly, if we composed a list of every available feature and service which is somewhat popular out there which uses a lot of bandwidth these days then I am sure it would get really big. It keeps getting bigger too. As it gets bigger, more people find a couple services and features that they start to use regularly. It won't be long until the majority of broadband customers end up being these "bandwidth hogs". At the very least, this transition will happen fast enough to the point where ISPs cannot just rely on capping bandwidth and raising prices. They will have to better their infrastructure and odds are they are going to be making less profit in the future because as competition rises the pie will need to be shared more. That is just a reality that ISPs like Comcast are going to have to come to grips with.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Xavier434
That can be solved by building more hubs or whatever the correct term is that lessens the distance data needs to travel from point A to point B. Again, I realize this costs money but they are going to have to do it pretty soon anyways. Bandwidth demands are increasing extremely rapidly and bit torrent users are not the only ones to blame anymore. They can only ride on that excuse for so long.

As long as the traffic stats say that bittorrent is the way beyond obscene majority of the traffic, yes I can.

You're example of your usage is extremely high. As such you should pay for all that bandwidth you're using. Somehow you feel entitled to use that much and not pay for it?

He is paying for what he uses. They claim "unlimited" he uses unlimited. They want to use the marketing terms but not deliver.

I'm just playing devils advocate, I think BT needs curbed but at the same time I dont want to have to watch a meter for my bandwidth, heck I just bought a netflix player

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Do they really advertise unlimited bandwidth? I thought they said unlimited service. That is different. It just means the service is unlimited meaning you can go on the web or check email any time you want - the service is always on.

They know the majority of users dont think this way, semantic word games are a cop out anyway

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Xavier434
That can be solved by building more hubs or whatever the correct term is that lessens the distance data needs to travel from point A to point B. Again, I realize this costs money but they are going to have to do it pretty soon anyways. Bandwidth demands are increasing extremely rapidly and bit torrent users are not the only ones to blame anymore. They can only ride on that excuse for so long.

As long as the traffic stats say that bittorrent is the way beyond obscene majority of the traffic, yes I can.

You're example of your usage is extremely high. As such you should pay for all that bandwidth you're using. Somehow you feel entitled to use that much and not pay for it?

He is paying for what he uses. They claim "unlimited" he uses unlimited. They want to use the marketing terms but not deliver.

I'm just playing devils advocate, I think BT needs curbed but at the same time I dont want to have to watch a meter for my bandwidth, heck I just bought a netflix player

On top of that, I signed up for Comcast back before they removed the term "unlimited" from the majority of their advertising.

 

[oogabooga]

those are painfully low meters. If this is to curb the highest users I can understand that, but this is reeks of "some people are abusing our systems and making service worse for everyone and raising our costs, so to combat this. We will meter everyone's bandwidth!"


AT&T DSL can only offer 768k at my place, but i'm 15,500 feet from the switch and there's interference on the line so I barely can maintain a connection. TWC can do 10MB, and they deliver that speed. I would switch if this went into effect, but I wouldn't have anything to switch too. If this goes into effect I would call time warner daily to complain out of principle.

I don't want to wonder if watching hulu videos, then streaming netflix is going to mean I have to pay extra that month.

 

[randay]

lol with the 15mb connection I can pull 50gigs in a day easily.

 

[Xavier434]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/

Another popular site where the bandwidth just flows and flows and flows. The list really is endless.

 

[BlackTigers]

I've got TWC, but will look for an alternative if the testing works and we get capped.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Anubis
caps not good, way to low



http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...width-caps-arrive.html

40GB is HUGE!!!!! We service 200 employee corporations that only use 30GB/month. Turn off Bit Torrent and it won't be an issue.

I work for a big ISP- only .4% of our customers go over 10GB per month. The ones that do are impacting the network for other users, causing the need for more infrastructure and bandwidth. If those .4% are causing the other 99.6% slowness, would you expect an ISP to :

A) Charge higher fees to everyone
B) Make the heavy users pay more

I know which one seems fair to me.

Please explain how your ISP is having such problems if 99.6% of your paying customers are not using hardly any bandwidth? Their lack of usage combined should more than satisfy those other 0.4% of your users. Something isn't adding up right here at all.

Also, I say that if ISPs are going to charge more for additional bandwidth then they need to refund those for every bit of bandwidth that they do not use which is under their set cap.

I'll be glad to explain. Say you have a 100Mb pipe from an ATM. If you have 10 people at 10Mb running full bore 24/7, it's going to screw everyone else using that pipe.

Also, your refund suggestion is stupid. I'm sure your phone company, cell phone company, and cable TV company are going to refund you for unused services too.

More cell providers are offering rollover on unused minutes. Any chance of rollover bandwidth?

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I should also note that many people like to take advantage of digital downloads for entertainment purposes such as video games from Steam or renting movies over XBOX Live. I rent from XBL often and it is about 7.5GB per movie that I download in HD. That means that I would be exceeding a 40GB cap by downloading 6 movies or more per month. Combine that with my regular internet usage while gaming and spending a some time (particularly weekends) streaming some music and video media and I am already way over the limit.

I really don't think this constitutes as an exceptional user who goes way above and beyond the average user in terms of bandwidth usage. If it does, then just give it time because the new generations who make regular use of the internet like that are getting older every day and year after year they are leaving home to go to college or graduating college to get jobs. This kind of usage is going to very quickly become to norm. I realize that ISPs are in the business to make money, but they really need to think about the future here. They do not have a choice. They need to plan to greatly increase their infrastructure. This capping of bandwidth will provide them with a band-aid solution at best.

More like a tourniquet.

 

[Adam8281]

I don't know what the demographics of the Texan town where they're testing this are, but it seems that the effect of bandwidth caps will vary widely by region. For example, I live right by research park in Raleigh, NC, where tons of tech companies have offices (Doesn't Anand live here, too?), and tons of tech employees live. I imagine that a 40GB cap would have a much greater negative impact in an area like this, then a rural town in TX.

 

[E equals MC2]

I just realized 99% of the ppl who posted here have no idea WTF they're talking about yet they claim to spew BS out of their mouths.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: E equals MC2
I just realized 99% of the ppl who posted here have no idea WTF they're talking about yet they claim to spew BS out of their mouths.

Care to offer some opposing wisdom then? Personally, I don't mind being wrong as long as I walk away with either a better understanding or being better informed. Perhaps you can provide that to me and the other 99% of the people who have posted in this thread? Just don't get upset if I question your knowledge in search of justification.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Adam8281
I don't know what the demographics of the Texan town where they're testing this are, but it seems that the effect of bandwidth caps will vary widely by region. For example, I live right by research park in Raleigh, NC, where tons of tech companies have offices (Doesn't Anand live here, too?), and tons of tech employees live. I imagine that a 40GB cap would have a much greater negative impact in an area like this, then a rural town in TX.

I'm your neighbor as well and yeah I can eat that up fairly quickly. I have had to call up Time Warner and have them reset my modem twice in the last week and my connection was pretty slow last night as well. I'm not sure if it is related, but something is weird.

 

[Gothgar]

I've been with TWC for a while too, and if this goes live anywhere in California I will be a DTV/ DSL customer over night, fuck that shit.

I probably on average don't even get close to that cap, but it is mostly just principle.

 

[jjones]

Those caps are way too low, especially considering that more and more high bandwidth content services become available almost every day.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: bonkers325
if they impose bandwidth caps they will likely reduce the monthly rates and charge for excessive bandwidth usage. if that happens, the average user will probably pay less for cable internet access.

Ha Ha Ha... the cable company lowering rates... Ha Ha Ha...

Yea thats a good one.

LOL...seriously...that was a joke right? No, the first thing they will do is eliminate the cheapest internet tier that 98% of their e-mail surfing customers use, raise the other tiers 15% and claim it provides a better "value" to customers.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Gothgar
I've been with TWC for a while too, and if this goes live anywhere in California I will be a DTV/ DSL customer over night, fuck that shit.

I probably on average don't even get close to that cap, but it is mostly just principle.

What if all the other ISPs adopt similar plans? Then we're all screwed

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: Gothgar
I've been with TWC for a while too, and if this goes live anywhere in California I will be a DTV/ DSL customer over night, fuck that shit.

I probably on average don't even get close to that cap, but it is mostly just principle.

What if all the other ISPs adopt similar plans? Then we're all screwed

This is why we need more competition. Corporate greed and the desire to steal "the other guy's" customers will result in price plans and deals which benefit the consumer a lot especially considering that placing limitations like bandwidth caps gives the competitors a much larger weapon to play with.