Time Warner bandwidth caps arrive (updated)

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Muadib
Exactly!!! It's false advertising, plain & simple. I have Comcast, and when I signed up, unlimited was plastered everywhere. They brought this sh$# on themselves!

Are you JUST NOW having the epiphany that advertising is false?

On the concept of "unlimited" you need to read your acceptable use policy. As said over and over and over again, you did not sign up for nor do you pay for an unlimited service.

Do you realize that any savvy customer or businessman would recognize a wide gaping "out" from this AUP?

Be happy that you have comcast, because they are reinventing high speed intarweb.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Muadib
Exactly!!! It's false advertising, plain & simple. I have Comcast, and when I signed up, unlimited was plastered everywhere. They brought this sh$# on themselves!

Are you JUST NOW having the epiphany that advertising is false?

On the concept of "unlimited" you need to read your acceptable use policy. As said over and over and over again, you did not sign up for nor do you pay for an unlimited service.

Do you realize that any savvy customer or businessman would recognize a wide gaping "out" from this AUP?

Well, that's the thing. When I resigned up for Comcast, (I had dsl for a year or so.), I did it over the phone. To this day I've never seen their current acceptable use policy. I thought they would have sent something in an email, or in my bill, but they never did.

As for that wide gaping "out" of the AUP, my only out right now, would be to slow down my usage, like they want, or go back to a 1.5mbps dsl line. Both choices are far from idea.

Be happy that you have comcast, because they are reinventing high speed intarweb.

LOL!!! No, that would be Verizon with Fios. I talked to a Verizon tech who I saw on the way home Monday. He said the equipment in the co had just been tested, and that my wait for Fios shouldn't be much longer. I hope the people in Beaumont have the same option.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Muadib
Exactly!!! It's false advertising, plain & simple. I have Comcast, and when I signed up, unlimited was plastered everywhere. They brought this sh$# on themselves!

Are you JUST NOW having the epiphany that advertising is false?

On the concept of "unlimited" you need to read your acceptable use policy. As said over and over and over again, you did not sign up for nor do you pay for an unlimited service.

Do you realize that any savvy customer or businessman would recognize a wide gaping "out" from this AUP?

Well, that's the thing. When I resigned up for Comcast, (I had dsl for a year or so.), I did it over the phone. To this day I've never seen their current acceptable use policy. I thought they would have sent something in an email, or in my bill, but they never did.

As for that wide gaping "out" of the AUP, my only out right now, would be to slow down my usage, like they want, or go back to a 1.5mbps dsl line. Both choices are far from idea.

Be happy that you have comcast, because they are reinventing high speed intarweb.

LOL!!! No, that would be Verizon with Fios. I talked to a Verizon tech who I saw on the way home Monday. He said the equipment in the co had just been tested, and that my wait for Fios shouldn't be much longer. I hope the people in Beaumont have the same option.

You can ask the representative on the phone to read you the policy. It is not right that they can say Unlimited, then try to redefine the word in their policy. Unlimited is already defined.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Muadib
Exactly!!! It's false advertising, plain & simple. I have Comcast, and when I signed up, unlimited was plastered everywhere. They brought this sh$# on themselves!

Are you JUST NOW having the epiphany that advertising is false?

On the concept of "unlimited" you need to read your acceptable use policy. As said over and over and over again, you did not sign up for nor do you pay for an unlimited service.

Do you realize that any savvy customer or businessman would recognize a wide gaping "out" from this AUP?

Be happy that you have comcast, because they are reinventing high speed intarweb.

Actually, I did. I signed up with Comcast before they were more careful with their verbage in these use policies. This was many years ago. I read every policy they had word for word before signing up with them because previous to Comcast I ran into a lot of customer service problems with Sprint which never got resolved.

 

[Anubis]

because this is relevent

LA is sueintg Time Warner lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...able.html?ref=business

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: Anubis
because this is relevent

LA is sueintg Time Warner lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...able.html?ref=business

It doesn't really say why, though. Just vaguely that they have a lot of customer complaints about lousy service. I do love the quote given by the Time Warner spokesman:

?We now receive fewer complaints than we did before the acquisition,? said Mr. Dudley. ?I think that shows some substantial progress.?

Oy.

 

[Foxery]

Oh, and to people citing the Terms of Service, and Acceptable Use Policy... these almost always say, "We reserve the right to change this at any time." Now you see why

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Foxery

Originally posted by: Anubis
because this is relevent

LA is sueintg Time Warner lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...able.html?ref=business

It doesn't really say why, though. Just vaguely that they have a lot of customer complaints about lousy service. I do love the quote given by the Time Warner spokesman:

?We now receive fewer complaints than we did before the acquisition,? said Mr. Dudley. ?I think that shows some substantial progress.?

Oy.

Ya I noticed that too. I think the idea is that they have a nasty history of poor business practices so it really isn't wise to look at them as some sort of expert beta tester for applying caps to an ISP's business plan.

Originally posted by: Foxery
Oh, and to people citing the Terms of Service, and Acceptable Use Policy... these almost always say, "We reserve the right to change this at any time." Now you see why

Yes, I remember seeing that is well which is why I have never called Comcast to complain about that specific issue. You gotta admit that the line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to how much they can change. I'm not saying that they should not be permitted to apply caps of at least reasonable size, but you get my point. That's a pretty serious loophole right there which is also why I foresee lawsuits from various businesses which benefit from the all you can eat way. It doesn't matter if us little people support the idea of caps or not. In the end, this is going to be bloody.

 

[marrr]

Originally posted by: rh71
This is a trial... so what would make them not impose this elsewhere? Overusage or underusage of the 40gb?

BTW, cable companies blow.

not mine OOL Boost ftw

 

[aceO07]

I didn't read this entire thread, but I wanted to mention that DD-WRT v24 final has a traffic monitor that tells you how much data you uploaded/downloaded. It tracks each day and each month. It's really nice. (DD-WRT is a firmware upgrade for specific Linksys/Buffalo/Misc routers.)

I've used about 4GB in the last 2.5 days. Web browsing, linux stuff/isos, streaming videos/radio, missed tv shows.

I pay $30 for 8-10mb/s cable. I certainly don't want to pay more money for more limited service.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Anubis
because this is relevent

LA is sueintg Time Warner lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...able.html?ref=business

I don't see how it's relevant other than being about the same company.

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Yes, I remember seeing that is well which is why I have never called Comcast to complain about that specific issue. You gotta admit that the line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to how much they can change. I'm not saying that they should not be permitted to apply caps of at least reasonable size, but you get my point. That's a pretty serious loophole right there which is also why I foresee lawsuits from various businesses which benefit from the all you can eat way. It doesn't matter if us little people support the idea of caps or not. In the end, this is going to be bloody.

The reason that loophole is no big deal is because you are free to change your provider if you don't like their terms. And businesses have business Internet plans, which are quite a bit more expensive than residential plans.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Yes, I remember seeing that is well which is why I have never called Comcast to complain about that specific issue. You gotta admit that the line should be drawn somewhere when it comes to how much they can change. I'm not saying that they should not be permitted to apply caps of at least reasonable size, but you get my point. That's a pretty serious loophole right there which is also why I foresee lawsuits from various businesses which benefit from the all you can eat way. It doesn't matter if us little people support the idea of caps or not. In the end, this is going to be bloody.

The reason that loophole is no big deal is because you are free to change your provider if you don't like their terms. And businesses have business Internet plans, which are quite a bit more expensive than residential plans.

Yes, that is correct. Unfortunately, I have no one short of one DSL company to turn to whose service and prices are worse. It's the same old story.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: aceO07
I didn't read this entire thread, but I wanted to mention that DD-WRT v24 final has a traffic monitor that tells you how much data you uploaded/downloaded. It tracks each day and each month. It's really nice. (DD-WRT is a firmware upgrade for specific Linksys/Buffalo/Misc routers.)

I've used about 4GB in the last 2.5 days. Web browsing, linux stuff/isos, streaming videos/radio, missed tv shows.

I pay $30 for 8-10mb/s cable. I certainly don't want to pay more money for more limited service.

Thanks, I have the Linksys WRT54GL, which is supported by DD-WRT. I'll have to check that firmware out.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: aldamon
http://www.dslreports.com/show...hind-The-Numbers-95035

Excerpt:

That?s just over 75 minutes of SD Internet video every day - two or three shows at best - which means you might need to continue buying the ?video connection? in order to watch more television. Sure you can slice and dice the data transfers with other online activities, but this is all about video.

What better way to ensure that AppleTV doesn't eat your lunch down the road, while pleasing your investors. And pleased they should be, given the profits on the proposed caps, should they be deployed nationally, would be stunning. I think Dave Burstein probably put it best in an e-mail after I first broke the story last January:

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 don't see where this guy is getting his figures. It must be Time Warner's structure or something, but DSL profitablility is pretty strict and thin. It breaks down to:

Basic 1.5 account = $19.95
Bandwidth, service, maintenence= $15.40
Profit = $4.55

When a "web hog" starts boosting the average bandwidth usage, our costs go to $18, $19....as high as $25/month. At that point, we need to start some usage rules.

The faster the connection, the higher the profit margin, but it doesn't go up that much. A DSL provider never makes more than $8 off of an account without selling extras.

Cable prices are typically higher than DSL prices, so they have more leeway to work with.

 

[AlienCraft]

Did someone from AOL go to work for them?
< Already sending COMCAST notes to not do this.

 

[Pardus]

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

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Did someone from AOL go to work for them?
< Already sending COMCAST notes to not do this.

AOL and time warner are the same company in essence. Ever heard the line "an AOL Time Warner Company" ? Yeah...

 

[Pabster]

AT&T's chief let the big slip go when he announced AT&T is looking at bandwidth caps too. He said "Traffic on our network is growing by 60% but our revenues are not" ...

It's money, folks. Pure and simple.

 

[Raduque]

You know what sucks, is that I pay more than 49.99/mo for my 7/512 TW connection. I damn sure better get a bigger cap than 40gb for the ~$80/mo I'm paying.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Pabster
AT&T's chief let the big slip go when he announced AT&T is looking at bandwidth caps too. He said "Traffic on our network is growing by 60% but our revenues are not" ...

It's money, folks. Pure and simple.

of course it is. what else would a business want?

 

[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.

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
40 GB per month is obscenely low. I am not a heavy downloader by any stretch of the imagination but 40 GB is too low.

Rather than moving to an outright cap they should do something like the satellite providers have done - A bucket that fills at a fixed rate. You can drain that bucket as fast as your speed tier will let you but when the bucket is empty you are limited to the fill rate. This gives all the benefits of a high-speed connection for normal use, allows for the download of large files in a timely fashion, but won't let you max out your connection 24/7 like some people want to do.

Higher speed tiers = faster drain rate + faster fill rate + bigger bucket.

This trial isn't cutting people off at 40gb, just charging $1/gb over.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
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.

Handle? It's a self-created problem. No cap, no crybabies, no money wasted on "handling" them.

Originally posted by: Fritzo
I don't see where this guy is getting his figures. It must be Time Warner's structure or something, but DSL profitablility is pretty strict and thin. It breaks down to:

Basic 1.5 account = $19.95
Bandwidth, service, maintenence= $15.40
Profit = $4.55

Who do ISP's pay for bandwidth? I thought they provided it, if they are just resellers why do we even deal with ISPs, why can't we get internet service directly from the original source?

 

[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

 

[kevnich2]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: cubby1223
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.

Handle? It's a self-created problem. No cap, no crybabies, no money wasted on "handling" them.

Originally posted by: Fritzo
I don't see where this guy is getting his figures. It must be Time Warner's structure or something, but DSL profitablility is pretty strict and thin. It breaks down to:

Basic 1.5 account = $19.95
Bandwidth, service, maintenence= $15.40
Profit = $4.55

Who do ISP's pay for bandwidth? I thought they provided it, if they are just resellers why do we even deal with ISPs, why can't we get internet service directly from the original source?

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.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: rh71
I wish I was actually on my home machine as I've had dumeter installed and running for years without interruption. It's gone through Optimum Online, Verizon DSL, and now FIOS, all round the clock. I use ridiculous bandwidth on my 20/5 FIOS... too bad I can't provide actual numbers right now.

BUT, I only use it because I can. If I were metered, I'd definitely share a lot less and only grab things when I need... very bad for torrents.

Ok, it looks like I haven't done < 40GB a month since Oct. '06. Did 30GB then. Even with crappy DSL I was doing at least 100GB a month and after FIOS, I've been doing 350GB/mo.