BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | better be by a lot.
with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| If they would just be reasonable about it........
Everyone knows the overages shouldn't cost as much as they do. I'm not a fan of caps, but I do see that in certain cases there is a need for them. They are doing this to make more money off of the people who use more bandwidth. Fine. But be reasonable about it. Limit the overage charges to say, 200% of their cost per GB. (which is still an insane profit margin)
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | reply to BF69
Re: better be by a lot.
well said! |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  Generate More Money and Kill Online Video
It's really a win-win for them. They can stifle online video distribution which protects their lucrative VoD and cable service, all the while generating more money off each customer. |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
2 edits | To many of us here who frequent BBR
we look at these 5~40Gb numbers and say...huh?
What are they thinking? And why are they so low.
To Time Warner though, they probably look at them and see that the vast majority of their customers probably do fall into those ranges and the whole debate has probably become a numbers game of sorts. I've been a big proponent of the very upper tiers of customers starting to be subjected to caps and overage charges. I feel that way because like it or not..everyone else winds up paying for them. The ONLY reason someone is able to get a 6~15Mb connection and 300 gigs of data a month for 40 dollars and change a month is because everyone else is subsidizing that. And this is what I think caps and overages should address...not to seek to limit others from a reasonable to even a heavier amount of usage.
I mean..this is BROADBAND we're talking about. And the whole concept of having a connection this fast isn't to say to someone..you can have a 10Gig a month limit. I think that Time Warner would be well served to raise their limit to at least 100gig and call it a day at that level. Go over that and you pay more. I really don't think it will affect them because the majority of their customers still won't come close to that. It will be more of a marketing move than anything else to keep up the appearance that they're fair and competitive. What it will do though is to address the extreme users and to bring fairness back to pricing.
To be clear about this..I don't think there should be caps at all. If someone wants and is willing to pay for 500 gigs a month...the network should be able to provide for that.
But, the customers wallets should also be able to provide for that then. And not expect for everyone else to foot that bill in the form of higher fees for all.
Time Warner management..you need at least 100 gig limits.
Or that vocal minority will rip you to shreds because of it. |
|
ElJay
join:2004-03-17
 ·Great Works Internet
| So will TWC stop their false advertising about DSL speed?
$1 per GB is absurd. I could see a tenth of that perhaps. Why aren't all of the content distribution providers up in arms about this? This sort of pricing could kill distribution models like those of Valve Software, Amazon Video on Demand, Netflix Instant Streaming, iTunes, etc. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to Rick
Re: To many of us here who frequent BBR
And at the same time, I expect that if someone only uses 1 gig per month, then it should also reflect on the customers wallet. If you want metered billing, implement a base access charge, and tiers of usage. Why should someone who only uses 1 gig have to subsidize the people using "up to" 100?
Oh, but they would lose their asses if they didn't subsidize, and everyone knows that. You can't have it both ways. Either you are metered, or you aren't.
cw |
|
cameronsfx
join:2009-01-08
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to ElJay
Re: So will TWC stop their false advertising about DSL speed?
said by ElJay  :$1 per GB is absurd. I could see a tenth of that perhaps. Why aren't all of the content distribution providers up in arms about this? This sort of pricing could kill distribution models like those of Valve Software, Amazon Video on Demand, Netflix Instant Streaming, iTunes, etc. I gig is only $.03 or $.05 each. Ripoff is what I call it. Now, 250 gig cap is okay. I do maybe 40 gigs a month if actively downloaded stuff. Otherwise I've seen 20 gig usage. Maybe rollover gigs? Or, I don't use 10 gigs so I want $1 a gig back. |
|
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Camelot One
Re: If they would just be reasonable about it........
said by Camelot One :Everyone knows the overages shouldn't cost as much as they do. I'm not a fan of caps, but I do see that in certain cases there is a need for them. They are doing this to make more money off of the people who use more bandwidth. Fine. But be reasonable about it. Limit the overage charges to say, 200% of their cost per GB. (which is still an insane profit margin) I'd settle for a 1000% markup over their costs for bandwidth. I'd be willing to pay 10 times what it costs a cable giant to provide and maintain each GB of transferred data. And I would even pay by the GB from zero to whatever they can handle.
Even with a minimum payment of $10 each month to go along with my "pay-only-for-what-you-use" plan, just about everyone would see lower bills each month with this payment scheme.
If they want to go the metered billing route, lets do it in earnest. You can only get so much juice from a lemon. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to ElJay
Re: So will TWC stop their false advertising about DSL speed?
said by ElJay : This sort of pricing could kill distribution models like those of Valve Software, Amazon Video on Demand, Netflix Instant Streaming, iTunes, etc. That's kind of the point. here's an article from CNN just today.
»www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/06/inte···dex.html
More turning to Web to watch TV, movies
(CNN) -- When Corey Wynsma's wife got laid off a few months ago from her graphic design job, the couple did an inventory of their household budget.
Cable TV seemed like an obvious luxury. So the couple, who live in Grand Rapids, Michigan, canceled their cable service and found another way to keep up with their favorite shows: on the Internet.
from later in that article
A recent survey of 3,000 prime-time TV watchers by Integrated Media Measurements Inc., an audience tracker, found that 20 percent watched some TV online. |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
| Elephant in the room?
"The biggest complaints we heard from the Beaumont trial were that the tiers were too small," spokesman Jeff Simmermon tells us.
REALLY???!?!?
[sarcasm] I never would have seen that coming. [/sarcasm]
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to cameronsfx
Re: So will TWC stop their false advertising about DSL speed?
said by cameronsfx :said by ElJay :$1 per GB is absurd. I could see a tenth of that perhaps. Why aren't all of the content distribution providers up in arms about this? This sort of pricing could kill distribution models like those of Valve Software, Amazon Video on Demand, Netflix Instant Streaming, iTunes, etc. I gig is only $.03 or $.05 each. Ripoff is what I call it. Now, 250 gig cap is okay. I do maybe 40 gigs a month if actively downloaded stuff. Otherwise I've seen 20 gig usage. Maybe rollover gigs? Or, I don't use 10 gigs so I want $1 a gig back. exactly if the cap is 40 GB and you use 20 GB is TW going ot give you $20 back or a $20 credit? No. Ask them why and they'll tell you a GB isn't worth $1.
They could chrge 20 cents per GB and still make agood profit. Although the idea shouldn't be to make a profit from overage fees, but to take that money and reinvest it into infrastructure so caps aren't even necessary. |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
| reply to BF69
Re: better be by a lot.
said by BF69 :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. I agree with you BF, unfortunately that assumes "most people" even know what the cap is, and understand its relevance.
I bet if you told the average joe he had a 40GB cap he'd have no idea how it would or could impact him.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Rick
Re: To many of us here who frequent BBR
said by Rick :we look at these 5~40Gb numbers and say...huh? What are they thinking? And why are they so low. To Time Warner though, they probably look at them and see that the vast majority of their customers probably do fall into those ranges and the whole debate has probably become a numbers game of sorts. tehn how come they have to up them because they've recieved so many complaints? "Small but vocal" my ass. They've had a "small but vocal" group of subscribers wanting NFL Network. They haven't see fit to placate them. That number is a lot bigger than TW is admitting. 40 GB is nothing. |
|
MalibuMaxx
join:2007-02-06
Chesterton, IN
·Comcast
1 edit | 72 gig
Is what I used last month... from what I done in a days work... i could hit the cap on comcast's network.
Do I... No... but thats more than what I hit in a month on average... i usually hit only 30ish gigs...
Time Warner is crap... especially if they think thats enough bandwidth for todays media age... things like netflix streaming pretty much doubled my usage this month and I'm not sure if they will go back to norm again...
edit: half my post wasent there??? |
|
atigerman
join:2002-01-19
Tigerton, WI
| reply to BF69
Re: better be by a lot.
said by BF69 :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. Fishy, huh?!
Can the big three, Please! Slap some sense into Frontier? The days of having to live with a 5 gig cap is fast approaching! |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to fireflier
said by fireflier :said by BF69 :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. I agree with you BF, unfortunately that assumes "most people" even know what the cap is, and understand its relevance. I bet if you told the average joe he had a 40GB cap he'd have no idea how it would or could impact him. I bet all those in Beaumont that got overage fees on thier bills know how much 40 GB is now. TW just doens't want a national version of that clusterfuck. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to atigerman
said by atigerman :said by BF69 :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. Fishy, huh?! Can the big three, Please! Slap some sense into Frontier? The days of having to live with a 5 gig cap is fast approaching! the best you can do is for you and everyone you know is to cnacell service. Yeah I know it will hard to do without or have to use dial-up( by the way with dial-up you could download 17 GB a month ), but that's the only way they will lsiten to you. When they lose subscribers by the boatload they'll up those caps. Unfortunatle too many people won't bite the bullet and will just bend over and take it. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
1 edit | reply to BF69
It worked!
See, TW now has people *happy* by raising their paltry caps because they set them so low in the first place. Now people aren't focused on the fact that there is a cap, but rather, how it is increasing. |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
| reply to BF69
Re: better be by a lot.
They probably do, but I bet if you ask them what did it most of them couldn't tell you.
They probably won't consider the usage that accompanies OS and other software patches, firmware updates, map updates (as in GPS) and other things such as on-line gaming, browsing, IM, video IM, applications calling home, virus scanner updates, etc.
They were simply told by the advertisers, "with 40GB/month, you could download a whole sh~tload of pictures*, days-worth of streaming music**, and hours of streaming video***"
Fine Print:
* Assuming typical photo resolution of 320x240
** Assuming typical streaming audio quality of 64Kbps
*** Assuming over-compressed MPEG-4 format with 320x640 resolution.
Then they get the overage bill and wonder what the heck happened. Of course, by then they're locked in to a contract with ETFs and are basically screwed.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
