dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
26
share rss forum feed

Wraith1283

join:2002-11-30
West Hempstead, NY
reply to Dogfather

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
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

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.


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
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

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.


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

xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
reply to espaeth
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
reply to espaeth
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
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
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
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
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).