1 edit | You should read this editorial by Justin on bandwidth caps
»Editorial: Caps are welcome
You HAVE TO read this editorial by Justin(owner of DSLReports) on bandwidth caps:
As TW internet users, it will prove very interesting to you.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | Yep. It screamed to me that we all need to en mass dollarcide since none of us agree in the slightest with what the owner of this site espouses. If we stay here, Time Warner Cable is going to think we agree with Justin who obviously was paid to write that crap.
Some of us old timers have felt for a long time that Justin is not really the owner anymore and that editorial leads more credence to this view.
This is a sad day for dslr.
--
"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 |
|
 RombusPremium
join:2007-04-11
Columbus, OH | DSL Reports has such an ANTI Cable slant that it might as well be a vertical line. Just look at the front page some days, Heck, at one point they had a front page "news" story that was nothing more than a editorial blog post about "The power of you" as TWCs tag line. |
|
|
|
 RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | reply to fAcEtIOUs
I've read it, i've posted. This is a very smart move for Time Warner though. Pay off a site that usually trashes them, so this one news story doesnt get trashed.
What can you do, what can you do. |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | said by Rally: Pay off a site that usually trashes them, so this one news story doesnt get trashed. To use a technical term, bullshit.
Justin is entitled to his opinion without folks saying that he has ben paid.
maybe some of you weren't around for the old days of regulation, When local phone serve was a pittance but long distance cost an arm and a leg, more than ten times what it costs now.
Or perhaps not for the mid-seventies, when the price of natural gas was set by the government, and when it ceased to be realistic we no longer had natural gas. I get to look across the street at a school from that era, electrically heated, in Ohio!
Bandwidth should be pay-as-you-go. I'm not about to pay for someone else's downloading of movies, music, etc. |
|
RombusPremium
join:2007-04-11
Columbus, OH | Your comparing apples to oranges.
Frankly, Its not the "pay for bandwidth" use that scares me, its the 40gb limit for the HIGH end residential customer (Turbo). With everything you can LEGALLY do on the internet now, such as youtube, xbox 360 demos, video streaming, etc, you can easily top that number.
My question is in other countries that are referenced eveytime someone complains about US broadband, do they use metered bandwidth? |
|
 MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3
1 edit | said by Rombus:...you can easily top that number... What percentage of users actually do?
Maybe less than 5%....
Has there been any studies done on how much users actually consume? |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | said by MacLeech:said by Rombus:...you can easily top that number... What percentage of users actually do? Maybe less than 5%.... Has there been any studies done on how much users actually consume? That is the scary part to me. I hope that the cable companies know, because the public sure doesn't.
One could argue that there is a conflict of interest, perhaps rising to the level of an antitrust issue, when a content subscriber can restrict access to competition in the form of other video suppliers on a system that is largely built over public right of ways.
On a related note, I bought a digital tuner for my HDTV monitor, and was surprised to see how much better the 1080i signal is over the air rather than the compressed junk coming from RR. OSU football, I'm ready! |
|
 unknvoipRIP goosePremium
join:2006-07-25
Rochester, NY
kudos:1
 ·ViaTalk
| said by K Patterson:One could argue that there is a conflict of interest, perhaps rising to the level of an antitrust issue, when a content subscriber can restrict access to competition in the form of other video suppliers on a system that is largely built over public right of ways. I have wondered the same thing, only in a different medium. Those using cable company internet with a VOIP provider for telephone rather than the 'all-in-one' packages could have issues. Couldn't CAP be used by the ISP to reduce or eliminate the savings of using a VOIP service? |
|
RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to K Patterson
said by K Patterson:said by Rally: Pay off a site that usually trashes them, so this one news story doesnt get trashed. To use a technical term, bullshit. Justin is entitled to his opinion without folks saying that he has ben paid. maybe some of you weren't around for the old days of regulation, When local phone serve was a pittance but long distance cost an arm and a leg, more than ten times what it costs now. Or perhaps not for the mid-seventies, when the price of natural gas was set by the government, and when it ceased to be realistic we no longer had natural gas. I get to look across the street at a school from that era, electrically heated, in Ohio! Bandwidth should be pay-as-you-go. I'm not about to pay for someone else's downloading of movies, music, etc. I was old enough to drive, but old enough to vote during the gas ration fiasco. I was full aware of the telephone nightmares during the 80s-90s and watch how the industry changed. Also during that fiasco, the phone companies found a unlimited local and long distance plan, because consumers wanted said product.
I'll buy into the pay per byte, when the company i'm buying from makes sense. You cant introduce a cap based system, when you're coming out with products that will force you over that cap. Or goto RR's own page, or comcast or any cable provider, and see their premium content.
Justin has a right to his opinion, as anyone does. But as a site owner, your opinions are better kept to yourself. Unless you were paid to write something, to sway people a certain way.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen.
|
|
| reply to unknvoip
said by justin:US ISPs, due to inheriting dial-up pricing plans (effectively included caps due to very low speeds) have been missing one pricing factor, to the detriment of the majority of users and the benefit to a minority. ................................................... In australia, which has had usage caps from the get-go, I can get ADSL2 and higher speeds than in most of the US. First off, it is rather funny that an aussie takes a poke at the US pricing structure.
Secondly, he might indeed have an argument for folks like KPatterson who do not want to "pay for someone else's downloading of movies, music, etc.". I doubt that anyone wants to pay for someone else's usage.
Nevertheless, although caps and tiered plans are very strong arguments for a more qualitative internet connection, the problem I have with his article is that he only references Australia.
I believe that before making opinion judgements and pricing policy arguments publicly, folks like Justin should take a look at the internet service in some european countries like Sweden, France, Germany, Norway, etc.
Availability of fast and reliable connection for dirt cheap prices refutes from the start his pricing judgements based solely on Australian or US experiences. |
|
RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Rombus
Sweden, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. All from my personal experience, do not use a metered system. Unlimited broadband, unfiltered access 24x7. I dont know about other countries first hand, but from reading. The Aussies, a few latin countries, Canada - have it. But thats because there is no competition in those markets, from what i've read. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
I understand the points that Justin raises and if this were a perfect world, I would agree -- but its not.
A few things that Justin missed out on are:
- 1. If you are lucky enough to get broadband, you are most likely limited to one provider. Meaning if you don't like it, you SOL because you do not have another broadband option available to choose from.
- 2. Once implemented, it will next to impossible to change or remove. As a consumer, the best time to ACT is now before this becomes the market standard.
- 3. When it comes to Cable Broadband specifically, why would they want to cannibalize their TV revenue by making it easier for their broadband customers to (legally) download movies and tv shows from alternate sources like iTunes?
That is why I am against the caps and yes I would be more than willing to upgrade today to a higher tier package if the right packages were available at the right rates.
--
You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property.
-- Ron Paul
|
|
MacLeechThe one and onlyPremium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal
kudos:3 | said by PhoenixDown:yes I would be more than willing to upgrade today to a higher tier package if the right packages were available at the right rates. So you're willing to pay a little more to suck down unlimited bandwidth faster, overload their system quicker, and increase support costs...
I don't think that is what they had in mind. |
|
| reply to Rally
said by Rally:Justin has a right to his opinion, as anyone does. But as a site owner, your opinions are better kept to yourself. Unless you were paid to write something, to sway people a certain way. Actually, freedom of speech/press means Justin or any other site owner is specifically entitled to express his opinion, just as we are entitled to agree or disagree, and to stay or leave.
Freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns the press (or in this case, the site). There is no requirement to be unbiased or objective, except to stay within the boundaries of avoiding libel or slander. |
|
 Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | said by MrBradTX:said by Rally:Justin has a right to his opinion, as anyone does. But as a site owner, your opinions are better kept to yourself. Unless you were paid to write something, to sway people a certain way. Actually, freedom of speech/press means Justin or any other site owner is specifically entitled to express his opinion, just as we are entitled to agree or disagree, and to stay or leave. Freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns the press (or in this case, the site). There is no requirement to be unbiased or objective, except to stay within the boundaries of avoiding libel or slander. "Freedom of speech" and "knowing when to keep your mouth shut" are two entirely different things... |
|
 CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:Yep. It screamed to me that we all need to en mass dollarcide since none of us agree in the slightest with what the owner of this site espouses. If we stay here, Time Warner Cable is going to think we agree with Justin who obviously was paid to write that crap. Some of us old timers have felt for a long time that Justin is not really the owner anymore and that editorial leads more credence to this view. This is a sad day for dslr. You shouldn't speak for other people, you might not agree, doesn't mean everyone does.
You honestly think TW cares what you think anyway? |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
2 edits | reply to Rombus
Justin failed to clarify what his stance on Time Warner's proposed terms is. Just because he is pro-caps doesn't necessarily mean he is encouraging Time Warner's 40gb cap on a 15/2 connection.
I THINK I agree with what he was trying to convey, because in general, I agree that people don't repsect and conserve bandwidth like they should. Charging people a reasonable amount of money for their bandwidth use is a sure-fire way to get them to think in those terms. But 40gb for a $55/month premium tier is just gouging, and I am utterly disappointed that Justin would write such a long editorial without his specific thoughts on what Time Warner is proposing. |
|
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
It is obvious that justin was paid off to write this editorial.
First of all, as the owner of the top site dedicated to all broadband related issues, he should know better. The cable and telco companies are not here to help us, they are here to nickel and dime us as much as possible. One look at their long history of this should make it obvious.
Everyone with half a brain knows that Time Warner Cable is not implementing these caps to allow them to lower prices for their users who barely use any bandwidth - these users are how they make such high profits.
Lastly, he should be an advocate of fast, reliable, and unlimited bandwidth Internet networks at a reasonable price. You know, like Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Norway all have thanks to those countries' investments in fiber. Users there can get access to 100 Mbit/s fiber connections with no bandwidth caps or throttling... for less money per month than we pay here in the United States. And no, that's not 'socialism'... all of these companies are making a profit in their respective countries. THAT is a model we should be following.
Just hop on any torrent. Who do you see at the top of the swarm? That's right: bredbandsbolaget.se |
|
PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | reply to MacLeech
said by MacLeech:So you're willing to pay a little more to suck down unlimited bandwidth faster, overload their system quicker, and increase support costs... I don't think that is what they had in mind. a) I am not sucking down unlimited bandwidth faster, I am not downloading torrents all day and night and in reality, my usage could very well be under their average.
b) Packages -- everything is relative right? I don't really need the 7 megs down that I get today but I would like more than 500k up I am currently alloted. I would be willing to trade download speed for upload speed or paying a nominal increase for better upload rates.
c) I currently pay for a dedicated server that I use for a few small sites. If TWC had a decent business class service (that allowed servers) with a decent upload rate, it may be a more cost effective option for me to consider. I would likely have this in addition to my residential account.
So your attempt at trolling here is pathetic. This isn't about abusing the system but paying a fair rate for a fair service and in addition, I am willing to get them NEW business at a much higher price point than their residential plans offer BECAUSE -I- dont want to abuse the system.
Lastly, if I am a paying customer and Time Warner should ensure that their network has the capacity to meet growing demand in the market place and the support in place to take care of it. That has to do with their business, not my contracting and paying for a service that they offer.
Next? |
|
