Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to NormanS
Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon
I do have some what a unlimited Electric plan. I'm on a billing plan by Con Edison. What that means is, i pay a set 'price' all year 'round, if i use the watts or not. Now after each 'year' - My plan could go up, or go down.. Again it all depends on how much i 'use'.
If TWC announced a similar plan, then i'll be A-OK with this trial.. but they're not. They got their hands in every side of this equation.
This company is being run by piss poor management, and they're also god damn lucky they have monopolies in certain areas, with zero competition. But as you see all this is changing, and the only way to stop these jerks, is to switch to another service as soon as one is made available.
--
Dr. Ron Paul 2008
God is my co-pilot, but the Devil is my bombardier! -Anon-
|
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to hobgoblin
Good for you Hobgoblin! You use little bandwidth, and from the looks of things, dont use your PC as much as other users do. Also you pay the same price I do and i triple your usage.
I mean according to your company, shouldn't you be paying less than I do? |
|
B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| reply to saber11
Just one thought. Is anyone under the impression that TimeWarner or other equally poor ISPs have to pay their upstream providers by the byte (and so it's only fair, blah blah, to pass the practice on)?
'Cause they don't.
Every one of the fat circuits they purchase is "unmetered". They pay for a T3 at 45 Mbps and that's what they get, period. 45 Mbps, duplex, every day, all the time.
The ONLY place tracking per-byte in this scenario is TimeWarner, and only WITHIN their own network. And the only reason they are doing that is because they are too cheap to properly upgrade their own network to handle the traffic of the customers THEY solicited and charged for service.
Please correct me if this is wrong.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
Ramadear
join:2003-03-19
Cleveland, OH
2 edits | reply to hobgoblin
said by hobgoblin  :You are missing the point. This site is full of people who use the internet to the extreme. Thus the view is that this is a bad thing. My point is that NOT everyone uses all these mainstream applications. People watch Movies on TV, Order DVD's from Netflix and GO to Blockbuster and listen to the radio. I could say that those that are saying that 40 Gb is not enough could be doing exactly what you say I am doing! Maybe you are all in another litle world where YOU believe everyone does what you do! Hob When individuals don't have anything of substance to say they tend to play the mirror game i.e attempt to reflect what was said to them back or as in "no you". This is exactly what you have done, because you don't have anything of relevance to say.
Your presence in this topic is to simply contend and your reasoning for trying to contend is idiotic at best. Why would you or any other "light" user be concerned if the change happens or not since it doesn't affect you. If the cap goes into effect you are still downloading a average of 11gb a month and if the cap doesn't go into effect you are still downloading 11gb a month.
So, people still watch movies on TV and rent them. So what? More than likely these individuals are light internet users who's daily lives don't revolve around it unless checking email and casually surfing the web. And more than likely these type of individuals wouldn't be able to tell a speed or cap difference since they are casual users. But why would these type of people come to post on the forums in favor of a cap? They wouldn't since they wouldn't care nor know. Yet you who is a casual user makes posts in favor of the cap, something that doesn't have anything to do with you.
So what does this mean? All your posts are merely just rhetoric since the issue doesn't affect you. Perhaps you
are one of those type of individuals who needs to attract
attention to themselves by doing things in reverse in a attempt to stand out of the crowd or perhaps you are posting simply out of egos sake. I'm sure others will agree that your posts in this thread make no sense. Since you aren't affected either way. |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
 ·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to B
said by B :Just one thought. Is anyone under the impression that TimeWarner or other equally poor ISPs have to pay their upstream providers by the byte (and so it's only fair, blah blah, to pass the practice on)? 'Cause they don't. Every one of the fat circuits they purchase is "unmetered". They pay for a T3 at 45 Mbps and that's what they get, period. 45 Mbps, duplex, every day, all the time. The ONLY place tracking per-byte in this scenario is TimeWarner, and only WITHIN their own network. And the only reason they are doing that is because they are too cheap to properly upgrade their own network to handle the traffic of the customers THEY solicited and charged for service. Please correct me if this is wrong. -- B It is wrong. While TW certainly doesn't pay by the byte, they do make contracts with their peers that dictate how much traffic will be going in and out of those connections, as well as what peering points will allow traffic, etc..
HOWEVER, these agreements are fairly standard, and aren't a problem nowadays. The only cause for TW wanting to move to per-byte billing is greed - it has little to do with these transfer agreements.
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -| |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to hobgoblin
quote:
8 Days - 4.2 Gigs.
Thats about 16 gigs in a month on that average.
Yes, and he points out that he's not doing anything intensive with his connection at the moment. Thus my concern about a baseline tier with only 5GB. With OS and antivirus updates and such the "baseline" really needs to be higher.
quote:
It is wrong. While TW certainly doesn't pay by the byte, they do make contracts with their peers that dictate how much traffic will be going in and out of those connections, as well as what peering points will allow traffic, etc..
There was an interesting post by Dane Jasper of Sonic.net regarding bandwidth costs. He said that peering is essentially free because providers need to maintain a certain up/down ratio, and benefit from having users "downloading" from the pipe. See this post:
»Re: Covad Finally lowers adsl service prices |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by djrobx : quote:
8 Days - 4.2 Gigs.
Thats about 16 gigs in a month on that average.
Yes, and he points out that he's not doing anything intensive with his connection at the moment. Thus my concern about a baseline tier with only 5GB. With OS and antivirus updates and such the "baseline" really needs to be higher. quote:
It is wrong. While TW certainly doesn't pay by the byte, they do make contracts with their peers that dictate how much traffic will be going in and out of those connections, as well as what peering points will allow traffic, etc..
There was an interesting post by Dane Jasper of Sonic.net regarding bandwidth costs. He said that peering is essentially free because providers need to maintain a certain up/down ratio, and benefit from having users "downloading" from the pipe. See this post: » Re: Covad Finally lowers adsl service prices true. Bittorrent throws that ratio off for these providers, who for the last 10 years only had to worry about a very small number of users who ran servers, and after they downloaded from P2P would sign off, limiting uploads. Since BT came along, more traffic has come in and out, though, throwing off that Host/Server mechanic which previously drove these agreements.
Frankly, though the cost difference on this should be negligible, and certainly shouldn't be a reason to piss of customers like they're "trial" will likely do.
Maybe this trial is a veiled attempt to get the RIAA/MPAA off TW's back? By instituting data transfer limits, maybe they believe that illegal transfers will go down, or a portion of their profits will go to those organizations on the higher tiers?
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -| |
|
kfsutops
Premium
join:2002-08-19
Brandon, FL
clubs: 
| reply to djrobx
said by djrobx : quote:
8 Days - 4.2 Gigs.
Thats about 16 gigs in a month on that average.
Yes, and he points out that he's not doing anything intensive with his connection at the moment. Thus my concern about a baseline tier with only 5GB. With OS and antivirus updates and such the "baseline" really needs to be higher. He also fails to point out that it's actually 7 days. I would the first day Mac was just setting up the monitoring. But I could be wrong. But hey, that's ok. We all know the truth.
--
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots" |
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
3 edits | reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :Since BT came along, more traffic has come in and out, though, throwing off that Host/Server mechanic which previously drove these agreements. Frankly, though the cost difference on this should be negligible, and certainly shouldn't be a reason to piss of customers like they're "trial" will likely do. Beyond just peering and transit bandwidth changes, it throws off "last mile" bandwidth projections.
Last mile bandwidth on a DOCSIS network is heavily skewed toward downstream use, not upstream. DOCSIS 2 (and soon 3) helped fix that, but only if providers re-engineer, purchase the equipment, and re-combine, the upstream port distribution of their coax distribution network. That's where the cost really is because it has to be done for every node, every headend, every CMTS.
If users suddenly triple the upstream bandwidth needed, that requires more hardware, which requires more space, which requires more support on the providers side.... The faster it's needed the more expensive it becomes.
I know locally, the headend I'm often in went from two DOCSIS 1.0 CMTSs to the equivalent of ten DOCSIS 2.0 in 4 years and rebuilt 50% of the distribution system feeding the area, more than tripling the node count (and fiber) with the remaining system scheduled to be rebuilt in the next 2. It could've been done faster, but personnel shortages (including contractors) and equipment delivery (from some of the biggest suppliers in the industry) was slowing things down...
Meanwhile, AC and power capacity for that building was more than doubled, yet at least 1/3 of the rackspace was emptied out as analog channel equipment was relocated to another site under going similar changes.... |
|
tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by MacLeech :If users suddenly triple the upstream bandwidth needed, that requires more hardware, which requires more space, which requires more support on the providers side.... The faster it's needed the more expensive it becomes. Now here's where my beef with TW on this issue comes in. If they don't have the bandwidth, then they need to stop their speed wars. Give me 5mbps if that's all you can offer, but if usage is going up, don't increase speeds to 15mbps (premium) and then turn around and complain about "overusage".
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -|
|- Ron Paul »www.ronpaul2008.com/ -| |
|
dhthwy
join:2008-01-17
united state
·Embarq
| reply to MacLeech
And you don't think TWCs current pricing accounts for growth as well?
If uploads are increased and TWC needs to increase the price in conjunction with that I'm sure they can offer another package such as what they are doing with turbo for increased upload speeds. |
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| reply to tiger72
"Now here's where my beef with TW on this issue comes in. If they don't have the bandwidth, then they need to stop their speed wars. Give me 5mbps if that's all you can offer, but if usage is going up, don't increase speeds to 15mbps (premium) and then turn around and complain about "overusage"."
Just because speeds get faster why does it mean that people have to download MORE. This is often stated in this Forum.
If I buy a fast car to replace my 92 POS, I use the speed to get to work faster. I dont change my route to add another 40 miles onto it just because I can drive it in the same time as I did with my old car.
The "now I can download three times as much" is one of the reasons I believe this is being trialled.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | So when TWC offers Movie Downloads of excess of 500megs - is that considered ok because you're using the bandwidth on their services? |
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| said by Pizz :So when TWC offers Movie Downloads of excess of 500megs - is that considered ok because you're using the bandwidth on their services? I dont understand what you mean. Sure downloading a movie from anywhere is fine. I have never said it wasn't. And thats exactly what the vast majority will do, download a movie or two. My comment was aimed at those that download more content than they could ever watch in a month just because "its my bandwidth" and I will do what I want. I downloaded one over the weekend. Just about 2Gb worth.
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
4 edits | reply to dhthwy
said by dhthwy :And you don't think TWCs current pricing accounts for growth as well? There's normal growth through customer subscription, speed increases, and new phone service, that can be easily taken into account.... and there's abnormal growth when things like P2P/BitTorrent, 3rd party VOIP, and Xbox/PS3/FPS live game serving becomes suddenly popular.
A lot of things have been added in the last couple of years that many people don't even consider running a server... like BT "seeding", VOIP, and Xbox game sessions. It drives the upgrade cycle into overdrive (for customers too, look at game system sales and 160GB+ hard drive sales). That's relatively recent and it's growth has been explosive. That's the "5% using 50% of the bandwidth".
It also has the side effect of increasing user downloads in gigabytes, so if TWC goes after those high bandwidth downloaders, they'll catch the majority of the the high bandwidth uploaders in the process. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to tiger72
said by tiger72 :Now here's where my beef with TW on this issue comes in. If they don't have the bandwidth, then they need to stop their speed wars. Give me 5mbps if that's all you can offer, but if usage is going up, don't increase speeds to 15mbps (premium) and then turn around and complain about "over usage". The problem is that TW never thought they would have competition so they have dragged their heels with upgrades. Then suddenly here is competition! What to do? Even in Hawaii there is competition now (albeit limited). HawTel announced new DSL speeds last fall to be 11ms down and 1ms up (of course no one could get them at the time of the announcement but that little fact was kept from the press). HawTel began advertising that they were now the fastest ISP in the state. Oceanic TW had to react to that ...gee..RR had always been the fastest at the current 5ms down and 384 up. So, they held a press conference and announced an immediate upgrade to 1ms upload to match HawTel. They also announced a new Turbo Extreme level (we had not had Turbo Extreme before this) at 15ms down/1ms up. Now, they crowed "We are again number one in speed in Hawaii". The thing is that they can't deliver Turbo Extreme and, like HawTel, they kept that little jewel from the press.
I was delighted to get the higher upload as 384 was pitiful but as for both company's' claims about much faster downloads (with Oceanic's turbo extreme being very expensive compared to HawTel's 11/1) that was just hot air and made both companies look silly. Oceanic never thought HawTel would get it together at all. Oceanic has been doing a lot of work on the infrastructure but it seems they are always playing catchup ...that is since TW acquired them. As you have stated, better to give 5ms that you can deliver and guarantee to everyone instead of making boastful claims about higher speeds that you cannot offer except in one small area and even then offer with very inconsistent results which leads to trying to implement usage caps/pay by byte.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Vahid
@dslextreme.com
| reply to saber11
Goblin, believe it or not I download a lot of movies over those services in HD Quality. I don't work full time or that much anymore so most of my days I spent downloading full movies, reviewing them from time to time, and enjoying the rest. If high speed premium 15 mb's wasn't for me to enjoy downloading these movies to watch now rather then to wait for them to download then watch, then honestly I'd rather just have dialup which costs me nothing, and buy the DVD's. |
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| said by Vahid :
Goblin, believe it or not I download a lot of movies over those services in HD Quality. I don't work full time or that much anymore so most of my days I spent downloading full movies, reviewing them from time to time, and enjoying the rest. If high speed premium 15 mb's wasn't for me to enjoy downloading these movies to watch now rather then to wait for them to download then watch, then honestly I'd rather just have dialup which costs me nothing, and buy the DVD's.
Understood. However it appears you are posting from a Dslextreme connection. Whats the difference in the cost of these movies by download and renting them from a video store?
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
1 edit | reply to BurntCricket
said by BurntCricket :Umm Hobs "Preach the Company line", You have got to be kidding. Yes, he is very careful what he says and how he says it, but he is far from a company shill. Thank You. Its trendy to quote the Company Shill piece. I have my own views and feelings and like to debate them. It makes threads like this more fun and stimulating than a constant stream of "Blah Blah"
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
kfsutops
Premium
join:2002-08-19
Brandon, FL
clubs:
| reply to hobgoblin
said by hobgoblin :I dont understand what you mean. Sure downloading a movie from anywhere is fine. I have never said it wasn't. And thats exactly what the vast majority will do, download a movie or two. My comment was aimed at those that download more content than they could ever watch in a month just because "its my bandwidth" and I will do what I want. I downloaded one over the weekend. Just about 2Gb worth. Hob So one or two movies is enough? Anything more we should be charged more?
--
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots" |
|
