Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | 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
| 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
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| 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. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Dogfather
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. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| reply to Dogfather
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 | With a 5GB cap, they're going to piss off more than just the 400GB/mo torrent users. |
|
nunyabiz
@applsys.com
| reply to BF69
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?) |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | reply to Dogfather
RTFA. 5Gb will be the bottom plan most likely meant to compete with DSL Lite. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to battleop
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. |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | reply to battleop
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. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| reply to nunyabiz
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. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Dogfather
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
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
4 edits | 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. |
|
battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| reply to Dogfather
"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? |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Dogfather
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 | reply to battleop
RYFP |
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| reply to espaeth
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
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to Wraith1283
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. |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to Dogfather
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. |
|
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to hottboiinnc
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! |
|
