Time Warner Cable cancels usage caps

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: cheezy321
This is fucking bullshit.

250 GB was at least reasonable. 40 GB a month? Thats freakin insanely low! All you need to do is watch 2 hi-def movies and POOF! Half of your GB usage for the month is gone.

I hope there is a huge uproar about this and they change it back.

Aye..One of the websites I run can require me to upload 6~GB of files a month. That'd be over 10% of my limit there. Not to mention getting the files downloaded in the first place throughout the month..12~GB...it adds up.

Add in some movies and it's gone.

While I don't really embrace the caps and what TW/RR is doing, this as you pasted above is then a business line and you can get business class internet. Sure you pay more for it... but guess why?

We live in an information age.

That was just an example, but I still don't think a similar concept (tele-commuting employees for example, which is pretty much the same), are business class line customers, do you?

Bandwidth is cheap, ask any hosting provider. Time Warner is abusing their position. They are charging roughly $1.15 a gigabyte for bandwidth!

Anyhow, since my last move it doesn't affect me since I am with Verizon, but I still oppose it.

I work in the backbone industry, and am quite aware exactly how much bandwidth costs carriers. Not to mention I deal with hosting providers EVERY DAY. It's not "cheap" or "inexpensive" as you people think.

Well if you want to be snarky about it ("you people"...:roll, how much DOES bandwidth cost? Break that down on a per GB level.

Time Warner believes that their bandwidth is worth at least $1.15 a GB for most people. Does that seem like the right price? Because I think it is an insane price.

I've seen it through multiple providers of hosting, but will use Rackspace as an example.

BANDWIDTH Out $0.22/GB
BANDWIDTH In $0.08/GB

That is ALL I CAN EAT BANDWIDTH at that price.

If I wanted to cheap out and go through a few more setup hassles I can throw myself onto the ol' Amazon Cloud (EC2) at these bandwidth rates:

Data Transfer In
All Data Transfer $0.10 per GB

Data Transfer Out
First 10 TB per Month $0.17 per GB
Next 40 TB per Month $0.13 per GB
Next 100TB per Month $0.11 per GB
Over 150 TB per Month $0.10 per GB


So tell me, how much is your bandwidth worth? If Bandwidth was expensive the multimedia web as we know it wouldn't exist. Look up how much data a year youtube shifts and their bandwidth costs.

You know what? Don't Bother. I'll do it for you with the most recent stats I can find with accuracy. Youtube Circa 2006.

Youtube = 25 Petabytes per month x 12 = 300 Petabytes a year.

At one point Limelight Networks was providing services for Youtube. Monthly revenue for the company: $4.7M USD/month, no doubt a large portion from Youtube.

If they would pay $0.05 per GB/month the bandwidth cost would be $1.2M USD/month. Though they probably have $5 Mbps/month price with their volumes and in that case the cost would be around $385k USD/month.

I don't believe your numbers are accurate in the TW context: you are talking about a hosting center; all of the bandwidth, infrastructure, and equipment is in one place, under one roof, managed by one group of people (or just colo and the owners use their own people) etc. , not spread all over town, over diverse media, on poles, underground, in vaults, managed by a much larger (union) workforce, infrastructure and licensing agreements and more.

Furthermore, there is more than just a bandwidth charge, there's a real estate charge (rack space) that also includes some base bandwidth, whether it's declared up-front or not.

The hosting center also does not have to put in or maintain the infrastructure, bribe the local politicians, repair the infrastructure after bad weather, or pay a bunch of other costs simply because it's only one location, managed by a small crew, providing service to professionals.

The cost structures are not even close.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I don't believe your numbers are accurate in the TW context: you are talking about a hosting center; all of the bandwidth, infrastructure, and equipment is in one place, under one roof, managed by one group of people (or just colo and the owners use their own people) etc. , not spread all over town, over diverse media, on poles, underground, in vaults, managed by a much larger (union) workforce, infrastructure and licensing agreements and more.

Furthermore, there is more than just a bandwidth charge, there's a real estate charge (rack space) that also includes some base bandwidth, whether it's declared up-front or not.

The hosting center also does not have to put in or maintain the infrastructure, bribe the local politicians, repair the infrastructure after bad weather, or pay a bunch of other costs simply because it's only one location, managed by a small crew, providing service to professionals.

The cost structures are not even close.

How does the Internet access the hosted services?

 

[ScottMac]

They could boost those caps, let the the backbones saturate, driving latency and jitter through the roof and really screwing anyone with VoIP and IPTV/VOD.

Maybe someday people will understand why "net neutrality" is hurting more than it's helping. Caps are (among other things) a side effect of net neutrality.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I don't believe your numbers are accurate in the TW context: you are talking about a hosting center; all of the bandwidth, infrastructure, and equipment is in one place, under one roof, managed by one group of people (or just colo and the owners use their own people) etc. , not spread all over town, over diverse media, on poles, underground, in vaults, managed by a much larger (union) workforce, infrastructure and licensing agreements and more.

Furthermore, there is more than just a bandwidth charge, there's a real estate charge (rack space) that also includes some base bandwidth, whether it's declared up-front or not.

The hosting center also does not have to put in or maintain the infrastructure, bribe the local politicians, repair the infrastructure after bad weather, or pay a bunch of other costs simply because it's only one location, managed by a small crew, providing service to professionals.

The cost structures are not even close.

How does the Internet access the hosted services?

Do you mean how do Internet users access the hosted services? I don't understand what you are asking.

Do you know about the NAPs and how all of the ISPs are inter-connected?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ScottMac
I don't believe your numbers are accurate in the TW context: you are talking about a hosting center; all of the bandwidth, infrastructure, and equipment is in one place, under one roof, managed by one group of people (or just colo and the owners use their own people) etc. , not spread all over town, over diverse media, on poles, underground, in vaults, managed by a much larger (union) workforce, infrastructure and licensing agreements and more.

Furthermore, there is more than just a bandwidth charge, there's a real estate charge (rack space) that also includes some base bandwidth, whether it's declared up-front or not.

The hosting center also does not have to put in or maintain the infrastructure, bribe the local politicians, repair the infrastructure after bad weather, or pay a bunch of other costs simply because it's only one location, managed by a small crew, providing service to professionals.

The cost structures are not even close.

How does the Internet access the hosted services?

Do you mean how do Internet users access the hosted services? I don't understand what you are asking.

Do you know about the NAPs and how all of the ISPs are inter-connected?

I'm trying to understand how the costs of the incurred by the ISP aren't passed onto the hosting center.

 

[ScottMac]

Of course the ISP passes the costs along to the hosting center (and every other customer) according to the cost of providing bandwidth and possibly other services.

(All of this would be redundant, though I am referring to it in the singular)

The bandwidth could be anything from DS3 (45Mbps) up to OC792 (40Gbps) individually or in multiples, according to the needs of the center. They pay a flat rate, at a discount. They get an SLA for "availability" (reliability), frequently something like 99.97% uptime or better (or the customer gets a rebate according to their contract).

They pass that charge along, first as part of the real estate/rack space, then in per-unit charges.

Unless specifically contracted (for a higher charge), that bandwidth is shared among all of the hosting clients, "probably" at a higher booking rate (oversubscription) than the ISP/Carrier is providing to the hosting center ... kinda like cutting the drugs; the more layers you add, the more it's cut and diluted to maintain profit.

Higher-tier providers charge more than lower-tier providers; lower tiers are subject to higher booking factors (oversubscription), that's usually why they are cheaper. Higher-tier providers are "closer" to the NAP - the Network Access Point - the place where all the ISPs connect (there are a number of them, usually in large cities, owned by a variety of providers like AT&T and Verizon).

The point is that not all T1s (or other chunk sizes) to the Internet are not the same; higher-tier providers will tend to have lower latencies, for example, because there's likely to be less infrastructure between the local loop and the NAP, and less oversubscription.

So, (sorry for getting long winded) the rates charged by the hosting center for bandwidth can vary significantly, depending on the bandwidth they provide, the SLA they provide, the booking factor, and internal services and a bunch of other possible features.

Consumer bandwidth tends to be more expensive because the infrastructure is more expensive per-user; coverage is geographically more diverse, support costs tend to be higher, charges are added (by government edict / by permission) to offset costs for areas with sparse populations so the small towns can have service too, billing costs tend to be higher, and consumer-feature software development aren't necessary for something like a hosting center.

A provider might serve several bundles of OC192 to one center ... one sheath to one center is cheaper than copper or fiber to every house, with aggregation points cascading to a central switching and monitoring center and ultimately to the NAP via whatever chain of ISPs.

If this billing and caps stuff has you irked, then call the real "bad guys" ... your community leaders - they are the enabling body. They are the folks that struck the contract with the provider. Call 'em and bitch, you might get some action ( I doubt it though. Higher charges means higher taxes for the community ... more money for the bloodsuckers).

Don't blame the carriers because your community voted in a bunch of bloodsucking idiots that can't negotiate and sold you down the river for a few bucks.

 

[Modelworks]

Updated with new info.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2291036&enterthread=y

 

[Eos]

By offering higher than 40gb caps (business class circuits as well), they too admit that heavy usage does by some not equal poor performance for others. Which brings the whole thing back to profits.

If they can't charge enough to cover their costs and make a profit, then they should sell the whole fucking thing, or raise their prices. Let the market decide, right?

Free market! Capitalism!

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: ScottMac
Maybe someday people will understand why "net neutrality" is hurting more than it's helping. Caps are (among other things) a side effect of net neutrality.

So in other words, you're saying that because an ISP cannot set hulu.com to a very low priority, they'll simply cap us to force us to be very frugal about our visiting. (Note this being an example)

As for the COO response:

We continue to make improvements to the infrastructure which will allow us to offer the following new services in the tiered broadband test markets:

1) Wideband service (DOCSIS 3.0) -- speeds up to 100mbps, as available

2) Higher speeds for existing standard and turbo services

3) Powerboost to all standard customers

Translation: "We'll finally give you what Comcast has been offering for months!"

We are developing a "super - tier" now that allows for up to 100 GB of broadband usage per month in all of our test markets. We haven't confirmed pricing details as of this moment, but you have my word as Chief Operating Officer of Time Warner Cable that we will make this tier available to our customers.

The current highest tier is 40GB and $55 a month... where exactly will this fit? $55 a month is already a pricey solution. I would entertain the idea of 150GB for $55 a month, but simply no less than that.

When you go to lunch with a friend, do you split the bill in half if he gets the steak and you have a salad?

Let's use an actual real world analogy, shall we, Mr. COO? When you live with a roommate and share utilities, do you typically quibble over whether someone used 60% of the electricity that month? Do you go over logs of Internet traffic and charge a person based on a percent that they used that month? No... well, maybe if you're that anal about it, but most people simply split it 50/50!

Furthermore, I am convening a series of meetings this week to develop plans that will allow customers to choose among tiers that provide tradeoffs between speed and consumption. If one family prefers to have lower download speeds but a higher data tier, or vice-versa, we want them to be able to make that choice.

This is the smartest thing you've said all day. I don't really mind my 5MB service from Roadrunner. I am disappointed that another local area gets 10MB for the exact same price (and they're in the same RR region), but 5MB gives me around 600k/s, which is quite adequate! Give me an option to stay with 5MB and get 150-250GB of use a month and I'd be fine with that.

 

[AstroManLuca]

It would all make sense if they were to, oh, multiply all their numbers by 3-4x. I've got no problem with tiered pricing and paying more depending on how much you download, but 100 GB is not a "super tier" when Comcast, Qwest, and AT&T all have 250 GB caps for EVERYONE without having to pay extra for the privilege.

TWC could one-up everyone by changing their 40 GB plan to a 200 GB plan and then offering 500 GB as their "super tier." But I guess since they've got a monopoly they can do whatever they want.

The crux of this is they're charging $55/month for 40 GB when everyone else charges the same or less for 250 GB. In other words, they're egregiously overcharging for bandwidth compared to what the rest of the market has settled on as a fair price. 250 GB for $60 from Comcast is $0.24 per GB. Hell, my Qwest plan is only $34 a month (for 7Mbit DSL) and it has the same 250 GB cap, meaning I only pay $0.14/GB. TWC is charging $1.38 per GB, which is in fact higher than their $1/GB overage charges. So it would actually be cheaper if they offered a pay-as-you-go plan where you simply buy bandwidth at $1/GB. You'd at least get 55 GB out of something like that instead of 40 GB for the same price.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Yeah i just read that. They are smoking some crazy stuff. I'll be switching to Everest here in Kansas City or DSL if i have to. Even the so called cheap plans are not cheap.

 

[StageLeft]

This is nice to see that they are responding to news. $150/month is nuts, but if you could share it with neighbors you could set up a wireless network between the two or three of you at crazy high speeds. If you were naughty. I'm not, of course.

Good to see the caps raised a bit, though. I MIGHT opt for the $75/month plan. I pay $50 now, but since I just hacked away at what I'm paying in cable (this week, motivated by TW's recent plans), I actually would still save $5/month

In the meantime I have started torrenting like a damned crack addict, honestly I have.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

When you go to lunch with a friend, do you split the bill in half if he gets the steak and you have a salad?

Let's use an actual real world analogy, shall we, Mr. COO? When you live with a roommate and share utilities, do you typically quibble over whether someone used 60% of the electricity that month? Do you go over logs of Internet traffic and charge a person based on a percent that they used that month? No... well, maybe if you're that anal about it, but most people simply split it 50/50!

I have to say, his analogy is quite horrible... someone using less bandwidth to me is not comparable to him having salad and me having steak. My rebuttal would be that we in fact would be splitting the bill in half after going to an all you can eat salad bar and I ate more salad than him... not steak.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Hmm... for $150 a month do I get at least 2Mbps upstream, a static IP address (or actually SEVERAL) and a SLA along with no restrictions on what I can do with my connection (aka: servers)?

If not, I might as well just get a T1 to my house for marginally more.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

75$ for 10/1 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

you can get so much faster for so mcu cheaper with a huge or no cap at all from other companys.

Wired has a good article on this crap

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Good for them. If you want unlimited they are giving you the choice, you just have to pay for it. And 150 bucks for those kinds of speeds is a freaking deal.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Anubis
75$ for 10/1 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

you can get so much faster for so mcu cheaper with a huge or no cap at all from other companys.

Wired has a good article on this crap

It is purely ridonkulous.

EDIT:

Originally posted by: spidey07
Good for them. If you want unlimited they are giving you the choice, you just have to pay for it. And 150 bucks for those kinds of speeds is a freaking deal.

Why even post? We already know that you're going to suckle the corporate teet with each and every one.

You're completely and utterly missing the point that everyone is trying to convey, but that's okay... it's okay to be different .

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Good for them. If you want unlimited they are giving you the choice, you just have to pay for it. And 150 bucks for those kinds of speeds is a freaking deal.

That's all you can say? It's an amazing deal?

What are you talking about? Business class internet never has any caps or limits, you are free to max it out 24x7 every day, all day. But of course you have to pay for that capacity with 1000s or tens of thousands of dollars every month.

Gee, that's a humongous error. Are you sure you're not making similarly sized errors in the rest of your price estimates? Also, aren't all the bandwidth caps in markets with no effective competition? I suppose that without competition, it drives up costs, huh?

 

[trmiv]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Good for them. If you want unlimited they are giving you the choice, you just have to pay for it. And 150 bucks for those kinds of speeds is a freaking deal.

I can't figure out if you do this because you actually believe it or just because you like pissing the people in this thread off.

 

[isekii]

Originally posted by: trmiv

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Good for them. If you want unlimited they are giving you the choice, you just have to pay for it. And 150 bucks for those kinds of speeds is a freaking deal.

I can't figure out if you do this because you actually believe it or just because you like pissing the people in this thread off.

he works for a cable co doesn't he ?

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Good for them. If you want unlimited they are giving you the choice, you just have to pay for it. And 150 bucks for those kinds of speeds is a freaking deal.

Yeah, $150/month for unlimited 10/1 is a deal. A BAD deal.

Unlimited 6/1 from AT&T DSL: $35
Unlimited 6/1 from AT&T Uverse (with TV & phone): $144
Unlimited 18/1.5 from AT&T Uverse (with TV & phone): $204
Unlimited 7.1/1 from Verizon: $42.99
Unlimited 50/20 from Verizon FiOS: $144.95
Unlimited 20/? from Charter for $$79.99
16/? from Comcast for $52.95

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Good for them. If you want unlimited they are giving you the choice, you just have to pay for it. And 150 bucks for those kinds of speeds is a freaking deal.

good lord you are stupid.

you can get FASTER for CHEAPER from both Comcast and Fios, hell i think Optimum and Brighthouse is also faster and cheaper

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Good new everybody

Time warner have agreed to let you keep your unlimited bandwidth... for the paltry price of $150 per month.

Good for them. If you want unlimited they are giving you the choice, you just have to pay for it. And 150 bucks for those kinds of speeds is a freaking deal.

Yeah, $150/month for unlimited 10/1 is a deal. A BAD deal.

Unlimited 6/1 from AT&T DSL: $35
Unlimited 6/1 from AT&T Uverse (with TV & phone): $144
Unlimited 18/1.5 from AT&T Uverse (with TV & phone): $204
Unlimited 7.1/1 from Verizon: $42.99
Unlimited 50/20 from Verizon FiOS: $144.95
Unlimited 20/? from Charter for $$79.99
16/? from Comcast for $52.95

It's like TWC thinks their customers are too dumb to use the internet to research this

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Phokus

It's like TWC thinks their customers are too dumb to use the internet to research this

Actually, I have to thank TW. When I moved in to my house in September, U-verse wasn't available. Now that I know it is, I might have to switch when my DTV time is up.