dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2008-01-21 15:10:49: As we were the first to report last week, Time Warner Cable will be testing overage charges in one of the company's Texas markets. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

HarleyYac
Lee
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
·Verizon Online DSL
·Optimum Online

Good to know

Hi,
I was worried with my 20/20 connection. While I do not use file sharing that much, I do have 6 pcs/laptops going at one time. I believe some users would be crippled with the TW plan.
When I used CompuServe, PC link,Prodigy BB-S's back in the day I dreaded opening my phone bill for the per min. charges. :P
\Lee
--
"I Don't feel Tardy"
"When Clinton Lied , All that was left was a stained dress.
When Bush lied ,all that was left was 3000 + less US Soldiers..

swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

1 edit

Re: Good to know

If it's pay-by-transfer-amount with neutrality, or "unlimited" transfer with discrimination (i.e. filtering by traffic content or destination), then the per-gig pricing is the lesser evil.

The ridiculously low caps they're talking about, however, could amount to a big rate hike for even moderate users.

I think what we're seeing here is the ISPs trying to exhaust all alternatives to wring more money out of subscribers without spending on upgrades. Only when they reach the point of diminishing returns on these tactics - or face competition, whichever comes first - will they finally resort to upgrading the infrastructure for more capacity.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

Re: Good to know

said by swhx7:

I think what we're seeing here is the ISPs trying to exhaust all alternatives to wring more money out of subscribers without spending on upgrades. Only when they reach the point of diminishing returns on these tactics - or face competition, whichever comes first - will they finally resort to upgrading the infrastructure for more capacity.
Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice?

Then again I was commenting to a coworker the other day about how the 99 cent bag of chips seems to be smaller than it was a few weeks ago. I think they are trying to squeeze us as well buy by making the bag appear the same size but the contents less. I didn't buy that day, but I might if everyone else goes that route.
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: Good to know

A lot of us are in areas that there are no other reasonable alternatives. Reasonable to me would be 5meg speed at sub $70/month. In my area that leaves only one company.
thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA

1 recommendation

said by xsiddalx:

Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice?

For most people, competition does not exist. It took me 4 visits from Time Warner to determine that my new home was NOT able to be serviced with cable. I then explored the options.

Wireless: Would require me to build a 50' tower to receive the signal

CellPhone based wireless: Latency and very poor signal at my house. The result would be dialup.

Satellite: Large initial investment, resulting in a sub-par and expensive internet service.

ISDN: Another fairly expensive option with lackluster results.

DSL: My CO isn't equipped for DSL.

Fiber: If I can't get DSL, this won't be around soon.

T1: Yes I considered it. I even considered starting my OWN ISP.

I lived off dialup for a year.

Eventually I paid the cost of running a cable line to my house, it just took 10 months for the cable company to get around to it and cost me a good amount.

So competition? No, it was hard for me to get anything, and I was willing to sink costs into the infrastructure to get it.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

Re: Good to know

I'm really not being a snot, really!

You have quoted 6 viable choices. None of them really optimal in my opinion, but they are choices. This is why the various regulatory entities argue competition exists. It does. Even if you have to pay an arm and a leg, you have options with regard to whom you pay an arm and a leg to.

Internet access is only worth what your willing to pay given your choices. Seems obvious, but all of us know real competition to drive prices lower...especially when some of use used to pay a buck an hour on time shares.

It sounds like dial-up is your best choice. Depending on how you use it, I have discovered that it ain't quite as bad as everyone thinks it is unless you need the ads and other shockwave junk. Tough to get into details, but even MMO games I played as well on dial up as "broadband" when I had no "broadband".

Again, I am not being a snot, it just sounds like you do have quite a bit of competition. The competition doesn't sound like they are at your price point yet to compete with dial-up...it'll come. You're willingness to sink costs into their infrastructure development will possibly make your neighbors happy if that run financed a terminal.

Then again, your neighbors will just think the build out made sense for the cable company. Did you think about talking to them to share the costs of a build out?

Out of curiosity, was it worth it? Are you free and clear or tied to a contract? If your really bold, what was the cost of the run?

FWIW, from what I have seen, some people are getting fiber based connections before DSL is made available. It depends on the telco and their current network. Sometimes FTTH is relatively equivalent or the same as deploying a DSL terminal with copper to the home. The downside is that your home can create "noise", old inside wire is old inside wire.

said by thevorpal1:

said by xsiddalx:

Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice?

For most people, competition does not exist. It took me 4 visits from Time Warner to determine that my new home was NOT able to be serviced with cable. I then explored the options.

Wireless: Would require me to build a 50' tower to receive the signal

CellPhone based wireless: Latency and very poor signal at my house. The result would be dialup.

Satellite: Large initial investment, resulting in a sub-par and expensive internet service.

ISDN: Another fairly expensive option with lackluster results.

DSL: My CO isn't equipped for DSL.

Fiber: If I can't get DSL, this won't be around soon.

T1: Yes I considered it. I even considered starting my OWN ISP.

I lived off dialup for a year.

Eventually I paid the cost of running a cable line to my house, it just took 10 months for the cable company to get around to it and cost me a good amount.

So competition? No, it was hard for me to get anything, and I was willing to sink costs into the infrastructure to get it.
hfosteriii

join:2007-11-15
Erie, PA

Re: Good to know

said by xsiddalx:

I'm really not being a snot, really!

You have quoted 6 viable choices. None of them really optimal in my opinion, but they are choices. This is why the various regulatory entities argue competition exists. It does. Even if you have to pay an arm and a leg, you have options with regard to whom you pay an arm and a leg to.

Internet access is only worth what your willing to pay given your choices. Seems obvious, but all of us know real competition to drive prices lower...especially when some of use used to pay a buck an hour on time shares.

It sounds like dial-up is your best choice. Depending on how you use it, I have discovered that it ain't quite as bad as everyone thinks it is unless you need the ads and other shockwave junk. Tough to get into details, but even MMO games I played as well on dial up as "broadband" when I had no "broadband".

Again, I am not being a snot, it just sounds like you do have quite a bit of competition. The competition doesn't sound like they are at your price point yet to compete with dial-up...it'll come. You're willingness to sink costs into their infrastructure development will possibly make your neighbors happy if that run financed a terminal.

Then again, your neighbors will just think the build out made sense for the cable company. Did you think about talking to them to share the costs of a build out?

Out of curiosity, was it worth it? Are you free and clear or tied to a contract? If your really bold, what was the cost of the run?

FWIW, from what I have seen, some people are getting fiber based connections before DSL is made available. It depends on the telco and their current network. Sometimes FTTH is relatively equivalent or the same as deploying a DSL terminal with copper to the home. The downside is that your home can create "noise", old inside wire is old inside wire.

said by thevorpal1:

said by xsiddalx:

Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice?

For most people, competition does not exist. It took me 4 visits from Time Warner to determine that my new home was NOT able to be serviced with cable. I then explored the options.

Wireless: Would require me to build a 50' tower to receive the signal

CellPhone based wireless: Latency and very poor signal at my house. The result would be dialup.

Satellite: Large initial investment, resulting in a sub-par and expensive internet service.

ISDN: Another fairly expensive option with lackluster results.

DSL: My CO isn't equipped for DSL.

Fiber: If I can't get DSL, this won't be around soon.

T1: Yes I considered it. I even considered starting my OWN ISP.

I lived off dialup for a year.

Eventually I paid the cost of running a cable line to my house, it just took 10 months for the cable company to get around to it and cost me a good amount.

So competition? No, it was hard for me to get anything, and I was willing to sink costs into the infrastructure to get it.
When costs and services are not comparable, that is not competition.

cable user

@comcast.net
Forward this information on to your elected members of congress. Before you blow off the idea, what can it hurt? Placing information in their hands has helped me in the past. There's nothing they can do to convince me overage charges are warranted. Please, just remove the abusers, and leave the rest of us alone. I'd be willing to pay a couple of bucks extra a month down the road, if they truly needed to recover costs because of this "video download" scare, or whatever the heck. But screw the overage charges.

I've got enough to worry about in a days time. I don't need to fret over the need to routinely check my internet usage. It's bad enough you gotta do it with your cell phone. Oops went over by a minute, got pay frickin 40 cents per minute. Yeah, that too is warranted, I suppose (40 cents per minute, whatever).

RX8

join:2004-07-18
Marietta, GA

No surprise..

..Just to see if they can get away with it---why not jump on the bandwagon

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Suddenlink

1 recommendation

Right on the nose

This writeup didn't leave anything out that needed to be said. Consider this just a thumbs up to the whole thing...
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

2 edits

1 recommendation

Next round of web-hog ads in the works

I'm sure the telco ad departments are already planning their next round of advertising.

There is no way they would let these caps go by without tearing into them.

But in fairness to the cable operators, the costs of delivering service are far more than just the cost of the OC192 at the headend. Cable operators have a per channel limitation that is only address by dedicating more channels to HSI and/or limiting the use of the existing service.

So those 100GB for $30 numbers don't seem entirely accurate to me given the other factors involved in delivering the service to the customer.

But that doesn't justify 5-40GB caps unless the service is $10.
Wraith1283

join:2002-11-30
West Hempstead, NY

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

This definitely isn't good news. I in no way want to see metered bandwidth unless its something that is reasonable. I am glad I am on FiOS as it looks like Verizon doesnt have a plan to enforce these kind of caps on people.

Dont get me wrong I believe people who abuse the network of their cable co. should have to pay more than the average downloader/web surfer but to enforce these rules on everyone simply is BS.

What about people who are avid gamers? To download demos sometimes takes about a gig or two. Not to mention downloading patches for a game and simply playing it takes up bandwidth. You can eat up a lot of Bandwidth quick without being one of these P2P "abusing" people.

It just seems like an excuse for the cable co. to get more money out our pockets.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

There is simply no way that they can make these caps stick in a competitive market if for no other reason than the counter-advertising the telcos could use.

I believe that TWC is throwing the blood in the water to see what happens. I don't think they're very serious about it.

But if they are, I am also in a Verizon FiOS area and I'm sure Verizon wouldn't mind getting my triple play dollars 'cause if I give up HSI with TWC might as well pitch CATV and Digital Phone as well.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

1 recommendation

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

They can and they will. If they flat out lie using the "Twice as fast as DSL" crap they will lie about the usage charges.

The cable companies have already given this a great deal of thought. They are now testing it and will eventually use this to compete with DSL's different pricing for different speeds. They don't care if they piss off the 400Gb+/mo torrent users. They would just as well prefer you take a hike.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

With a 5GB cap, they're going to piss off more than just the 400GB/mo torrent users.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

RTFA. 5Gb will be the bottom plan most likely meant to compete with DSL Lite.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

2 edits

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

Nice BS conjecture there sport.

Post links to anything showing that TW says that the 5GB plan will either be budget or geared to compete with DSL Lite.

They just stated that the caps will be 5-40GB, nothing more. You have ZERO idea where the 5GB plan will be priced or what restrictions they'll have on it in addition to the beyond stupid cap. You don't even know what the speeds will be let alone what services it will be competing with.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

said by Dogfather:

Post links to anything showing that TW says that the 5GB plan will either be budget or geared to compete with DSL Lite.

They just stated that the caps will be 5-40GB, nothing more. You have ZERO idea where the 5GB plan will be priced
Per the BusinessWeek article:
Time Warner intends to offer plans priced for up to 5, 10, 20, and 40 gigabytes per month, with middle-tiered plans running roughly the same amount average users currently pay for high-speed connections.
If the middle tiers will be priced around what people pay today, logic would dictate the 5GB plan would be cheaper.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

4 edits

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

That is what BW said, not what TW said. They're guessing, just like the rest of us are guessing. TW hasn't elaborated on what they're doing. They only thing they've said what is in the memo and the short damage-control follow up where they said that 5% of users consume 50% of the service. That's it so far.

And as other analysts point out, the tier claims don't match the needs of fixing the latter issue. IOW, the bit caps are way overkill for what the TW spokeshole was complaining about. The two issues don't appear to be related.

If we've seen anything, it's that TW is anything but logical and unless it comes from the mouth of Time Warner, it's conjecture.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

said by Dogfather:

That is what BW said, not what TW said. They're guessing, just like the rest of us are guessing.
BusinessWeek is a publication, not a blog. They can't make statements like that without fact checking them, unless they preface their speculation. (ie, We believe they would keep the middle tiers the same price...)

said by Dogfather:

TW hasn't elaborated on what they're doing. They only thing they've said what is in the memo and the short damage-control follow up where they said that 5% of users consume 50% of the service. That's it so far.

And as other analysts point out, the tier claims don't match the needs of fixing the latter issue. IOW, the bit caps are way overkill for what the TW spokeshole was complaining about. The two issues don't appear to be related.
These "analysts" quote all kinds of uses that aren't representative of average users. Sure, online backups and movie downloads from Unboxongoflixtunes are valid legal uses of a home Internet connection .... but they're not common. Most people don't even make backups, yet alone have the presence of mind to do offsite backups. A friend of mine is doing some consulting work for Charter Communications so I recently had the opportunity to see what a CMTS usage report looks like for them. I had to page down a few times before I found the first modem that downloaded more than 2GB in a 30 day period. From the CMTS I looked at 5GB would have satisfied over 90% of the users.

Members of this site are not representative of broadband subscribers as a whole. True average subscribers just don't drive massive usage. People who join a forum just to talk about their broadband connection are the folks that are going to be more inclined to be early adopters of things like online video distribution. Assuming you work in an office-like environment, you should ask around to see hwo many people are downloading movies or pushing bandwidth intensive apps. I think it might surprise you.

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

The media makes unfounded statements all the time.

They don't even bother stating the source of their information and then they contradict their statements by stating it will only work if priced right.

Either they know what the prices are or they don't.

Fact is they don't, otherwise they would state what the prices were along with their source.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
said by Dogfather:

Members of this site are not representative of broadband subscribers as a whole. True average subscribers just don't drive massive usage. People who join a forum just to talk about their broadband connection are the folks that are going to be more inclined to be early adopters of things like online video distribution. Assuming you work in an office-like environment, you should ask around to see hwo many people are downloading movies or pushing bandwidth intensive apps. I think it might surprise you.
Maybe "we, the BBR reader" are representative and talk otherwise "big bandwidth user"!

The only difference between BBR and email and usenet is the boring (2000 ish) BB setup and more "bandwidth expensive" presentation of text, which of course drives bandwidth requirements, but generally doesn't provide value.

Aren't we broadband reports readers and posters bandwidth hogs? Or is it all relative?
thevorpal1

join:2007-11-16
Alexandria, VA
Of course.

Lets assume you pay $30/month now for unlimited bandwidth.

Now, you get the following choices:

5gb/m for $25

10gb/m for $30

20gb/m for $50

40gb/m for $80

You know it is going to look something like that. You will get less service for more $.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

said by thevorpal1:

5gb/m for $25

10gb/m for $30

20gb/m for $50

40gb/m for $80

You know it is going to look something like that. You will get less service for more $.
I doubt it. The industry needs this system to be successful, and they know it. That doesn't mean you're going to see 500GB for $50, but 40GB isn't going to be $80 either. I fully expect some people are going to be pissed off about this, and I expect those people to leave TWC. (mission accomplished?) The plans they come out with will most likely appeal to the overwhelming majority of their subscriber base.
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

espaeth

That does not make sense. If you assume that thier numbers are correct and 95% of their customers use less than 5gb/month then they will take a huge loss by charging them less than they are now. Lets assume they have a hundred customers:

$30x100=$3000 (right now)

$25x95=$2375(less than 5gb)
$80x5=$400(40gb plan)

$2375+$400=$2775(new 5gb +40gb)

$2775 is less than $3000 so they would show a net loss. They will almost have to charge the same amount as they are now for the base package, just to break even on the deal. This also does not take into account the huge amount of overhead that will come about in tracking/billing the bandwidth.

espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

Most people sign up for a higher level of service than what they really need. Not everyone is going to gravitate to the 5GB intro plan, most people will likely opt to stay price consistent with what they already pay and go with a middle tier plan. Some will downgrade to a cheaper plan, most will stay with a middle tier plan, and they can make up quite a big of ground no the top tier + overages.
Lazlow

join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

Espeaeth

Get real, very few people are going to pay $1.00/GB overages for any length of time.

With how hard they are pushing 95% use less than 2GB, and 5GB being the cheapest plan I bet the VAST majority of those users will drop back to the $25 plan. Two and a half times your bandwidth use will be more than enough overhead for these people. Just think about cell phones. People do not get a plan with 2-1/2 the number of minute they use.

The other thing you (and the cable companies) are forgetting is that hard times are at the door. People are scared and will be trying to save money wherever they can ($5 is $5).

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
"You have ZERO idea where the 5GB plan will be priced or what restrictions they'll have on it in addition to the beyond stupid cap. You don't even know what the speeds will be let alone what services it will be competing with."

Really? No kidding? So where did I say any of this?

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

RYFP
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
said by Dogfather:

Nice BS conjecture there sport.

Post links to anything showing that TW says that the 5GB plan will either be budget or geared to compete with DSL Lite.

They just stated that the caps will be 5-40GB, nothing more. You have ZERO idea where the 5GB plan will be priced or what restrictions they'll have on it in addition to the beyond stupid cap. You don't even know what the speeds will be let alone what services it will be competing with.
Better yet, how will the customer control the bandwidth?

Most people don't know what bandwidth they are using.
Most wouldn't know if they were hijacked or if their ISP was lying about their usage.
Would anyone know how much of their BW was lost to pings and random port scans?

Then again, I am guessing, and you should too, that TW is not interested in alienating the vast majority of their customers and has built into the usage model all of the above.

Most people are longing for an old-school AOL/Prodigy/Delphi/Compuserve connection, they just don't know it because they never experienced it (or they did but their cheapness led them into the "internet experience" and now complain about the "scams/spam/ads/requirement to register to web sites". This seems to be the case of the old folks that I talk to that click on and forward too many junk emails....or have kids that do the same. The "safe experience" is where the money is, but the service providers have been too dumb to provide it (though their own management are the people I refer to).

The walled garden is coming...

Back to original BW topic...give the customer an ability to control their experience. This would include real time usage information that is under their control.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
The twice as fast as DSL crap is true in my market. AT&T won't give me 15/768 for $35 per month. But TWC will. And i get 14.5 download and 758upload. It makes it over twice as fast as DSL from AT&T.
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

said by hottboiinnc:

The twice as fast as DSL crap is true in my market. AT&T won't give me 15/768 for $35 per month. But TWC will. And i get 14.5 download and 758upload. It makes it over twice as fast as DSL from AT&T.
Nice!

Now if that can be replicated...

Will your choice change if the new limits are imposed?

a GE connect might not matter if used in a day of 30, but it sounds cool with the kidz.

you don't need to reply. you likely won't likely be concerned until it's too late.no biggie, this internet access stuff is definitely a luxury...we should be paying more than cable IMO. At any price less it is a steal!
xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
said by Wraith1283:

This definitely isn't good news. I in no way want to see metered bandwidth unless its something that is reasonable. I am glad I am on FiOS as it looks like Verizon doesnt have a plan to enforce these kind of caps on people.

Dont get me wrong I believe people who abuse the network of their cable co. should have to pay more than the average downloader/web surfer but to enforce these rules on everyone simply is BS.

What about people who are avid gamers? To download demos sometimes takes about a gig or two. Not to mention downloading patches for a game and simply playing it takes up bandwidth. You can eat up a lot of Bandwidth quick without being one of these P2P "abusing" people.

It just seems like an excuse for the cable co. to get more money out our pockets.
Yeah, VZ is always about the customer!

FIOS' increased CapEX is about less revenue (because they love the customer)

Gamer or not, usage based pricing will likely be based on 0-90th percentile of usage, maybe 95.

Either way, good luck with moving from 1 ISP to the other if you are lucky enough to have 2 landline based ISPs. Most of the wireless types will restrict what you want to do and not make the news here.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

1 recommendation

said by Dogfather:

But in fairness to the cable operators, the costs of delivering service are far more than just the cost of the OC192 at the headend. Cable operators have a per channel limitation that is only address by dedicating more channels to HSI and/or limiting the use of the existing service.

So those 100GB for $30 numbers don't seem entirely accurate to me given the other factors involved in delivering the service to the customer.
Exactly just because 500 GB of bandwidth only cost the cable companies $35 doesn't mean that's the only cost associated with providing someone with internet service.

Some bandwidth hogs woud complain if the cap was 1 TB a month. They seem to think for their $40-$70 they should get all the bandwith they want.

nunyabiz

@applsys.com

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

Since they sell me "unlimited Internet" and "blazing fast 5Mb download" I should get all the bandwith I want. If I am considered a "Bandwith Hog" then tell me what defines that, and give me a limit I can see and not some magic number that I hit when they say.

(I only use about 20-30GB monthly, but since the invisible cap varies by market, maybe I am a bandwith hog?)
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works

They don't advertise unlimited. Thats the key part. They never use the word Unlimited. And if they do RoadRunner doesn't; who is the primary provider for TWC's HSI; who has their own agreement with each and every RR customer. which does NOT state unlimited.
SilverSurfer1

join:2007-08-19

Blowback awaits any ISP that implements this

so after all the hemming & hawing about keeping the net neutral, we're all going to end up paying through the nose anyway for bandwidth because providers won't pony up and upgrade their infrastructure. We are essentially reverting back to the AOhell days of a price plan that charges online time per minute, only this time it's bandwidth.

•••••

bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Orlando, FL

Why

Why would any company think that caps on cable usage isnt gonna scare new and current customers away... This is one of the only reasons i would agree with booting the people who use way to much
NoOneButMe

join:2001-08-24
TX

Re: Why

you know why becuse we are flees to them the economy is allso goin to be a factor its slow and we are about to get hit up with a Recession the people with money will love this why the people without that realy cant aford it will have to just drop it
short09

join:2006-07-21

heres a simple plan that they could implement

it would be easier imo to charge $1 for every 10 gb of bandwith used up. so it would be $10 for 100gb $20 for 200gb and so on. people who just use the net to email would be charged the least
SilverSurfer1

join:2007-08-19

Re: heres a simple plan that they could implement

said by short09:

it would be easier imo to charge $1 for every 10 gb of bandwith used up. so it would be $10 for 100gb $20 for 200gb and so on. people who just use the net to email would be charged the least
Because those prices don't cater to the real reason behind caps and charging for bandwidth. Providers can dance around it all they want and throw up all the smoke screens they want ("network management" et al.) but quite simply, it all boils down to and is exclusively motivated by ::GREED:: moreso than anything else.

Your proposed prices don't sufficiently ::GOUGE:: the consumer in the manner the providers would like to.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
yes, but that assumes cableco would give the lowest users a price decrease. something that just won't happen. however, they are happy to increase rates for everyone...

MarkyD
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Oklahoma City, OK

idiots.

If Cox does indeed adopt this, I'll find someone else to provide my service. I won't stand for something like this.
--
MCSE, ACSA, and a lot more

factchecker

@cox.net

Re: idiots.

said by MarkyD:

If Cox does indeed adopt this, I'll find someone else to provide my service. I won't stand for something like this.
Especially if they foist a stunt like that on their Business users...
averagedude

join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
said by MarkyD:

If Cox does indeed adopt this, I'll find someone else to provide my service. I won't stand for something like this.
Agreed.

iLive4Fusion
Premium
join:2006-07-13

Way to go Verizon /Sarcasm

Your FIOS and DSL might not have caps but you really shouldn't be the ones to talk with your 5 GB wireless EVDO caps.
--
I get 29 MPG in my Toyota Highlander Hybrid!

•••

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN

damn comcast

lol, GO VERIZON!

I'm already thinking about going back to dsl..but then atat is trying to filter the internet..man wish Verizon had services in Michigan City..and not in the next town over which is like 10 miles..bah!
--
"I am the worst president in U.S history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush
guppy_fish
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Lakeland, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Verizon doesn't pay for bandwidth

Verizon, being one of the 5 main tier one internet providers doesn't pay others for bandwidth, unlike the cable company's that do. So they can provide literally unlimited bandwidth if they want with no added cost, a real cost and marketing benefit.

Verizon of course has to keep up with capacity, but going 100% fiber and being paid by other is very different that what the cable company's have to pay for.

I also see streaming video has a threat to cable, as VOIP is to POTS ... what goes around, comes around

••••••

Dagda1175

join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA

Switch to who?

If they're all doing it. Complaining isnt going to get very far. Go to dsl? ugh. far slower than cable in most places I've seen.

••••

wruckman
Ruckman.net

join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH

1 edit

Good Job

Awesome, Verizon or not, I love the fact that they totally plan to make money off not charging for metered bandwidth while other companies are gonna become a joke and go out of business!

Broadband is the future of TV and they are scared shitless.
ricklg
Premium
join:2004-03-07
Laurel, MD
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Comcast

4 edits

Metered Bandwidth

The concept by itself isn't bad. The terms TW has chosen are ridiculous, but it's not an unreasonable business model however.

Telephone companies have for years offered a message rate over and above some threshold for people who don't use the phone a lot. My phone company (Bell Atlantic / Verizon) picked 65 calls as a baseline. That was a reasonable amount for the base fee they charged compared to flat rate calling. Anything over that cost something (now 10 cents).

If TW were to pick a reasonable base bandwidth (changes with time as technology changes) and then charged a reasonable fee per GB above that then it might be hard to argue against it--other than "I don't like it".

I suspect that future (5 to 10 year) internet access will have access with specified caps and an overage (marketing will call it "user experience enhancement") charge. Flat rate won't exist, but there will be some large base bandwidth offerings at increased cost. This will satisfy most people provided the charges are reasonable.

I see the current TW attempt at gouging to be just the first shot in the rate war to come. They are testing the waters to see just what rates the consumer will put up with.

djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

1 edit

Re: Metered Bandwidth

quote:
The concept by itself isn't bad. The terms TW has chosen are ridiculous, but it's not an unreasonable business model however.
Exactly. I could see something like $1 per gig over 100, but starting out at a 5gb limit on their lower tier? That's lunacy.

fatmanskinny
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Wandering
Reviews:
·Vonage
·Comcast Digital ..

1 recommendation

Karl, keep kicking them in the N*ts!

I love this line:

Keep in mind that Time Warner Cable did not "announce" these plans as is being hinted by several outlets. The leaked memo obtained by Broadband Reports indicates the trials were to be conducted quietly, with the company studying consumer reaction for a broader launch if customers weren't annoyed. The largely negative press reaction to these plans may force Time Warner Cable to scrap the plan altogether.
Now that this story is on DSLR and many other sites, it is no longer "quiet" and deserves a ton of attention as this is absurd and another way to get deeper into consumers' pockets.

Keep blowing them up, Karl. Great job!
--
The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary.

P2P

@comcast.net

With this now legalize p2p of copyright

And through my bill and activities pay those copyright holders accordingly

Create a government sanction ISP copyright system where any and all copyright holders make money off the downloading and streaming of their content! From big media to joe blow!

Create a new market economy!

wallyghs
Who Needs Sanity?

join:2001-09-13
Fairborn, OH

Eh

Proud to say that I will be ditching TW in favor of DSL should this reach the WOH market.
--
12/05/04... Goodbye Mickey.12/06/04... Goodbye Matthew.
travelguy

join:1999-09-03
Santa Fe, NM

The real reason....

From Forbes: »www.forbes.com/markets/2008/01/2···s10.html

HBO Goes Online
Melanie Lindner, 01.21.08, 3:15 PM ET

Downloading from the Web is the latest trend in movies, and HBO will soon jump on that bandwagon.

HBO, a subsidiary of Time Warner (nyse: TWX - news - people ), announced on Monday that it will launch an online downloading service on Tuesday to subscribers in Green Bay and Milwaukee, Wis. The new service, called HBO on Broadband, will be available to Time Warner Cable (nyse: TWC - news - people ) high-speed Internet customers as a free add-on to HBO and HBO on Demand, according to HBO spokesperson Jeff Cusson.

jchambers28

join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR

earthlink

does earthlink cable have anything to do with this hopefully it will not trickle over to earthlink cable i have Friends on it since there is no other option for them.

MTBikerChris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO

Re: earthlink

Uh earthlink don't own the pipe TWC does so i bet if TW does this Earthlink will be forced to do this as well.
threetrolls

join:2003-04-19
Bellevue, WA

competition or bandwith management or a happy coincidence

I was wondering if this wasn't more geared toward managing competition from Amazon Unboxed , Netflix and other companies looking to get into the movie download/streaming media business. Yikes, that base cap posted is low - 5GB? I hope the price is scary low as well!