Time Warner Cable: Caps 'Make Your Internet Experience Better' > I doubt that TW will keep

I doubt that TW will keep

What is wrong with some of you people that you think caps are good idea? Why would you want to go backwards instead of forwards?

reply to JusticeDun
Do you have a better solution ?

Pick your poison:

1. Caps
2. Filters / traffic shaping
3. Price increases

Personally - I wouldn't mind seeing a 'time of day' rate decrease if they had capacity issues. Since I suspect that they're more 'out for money' attempting to make a better profit margin on use, I don't think that it would fly.

Since this is most likely a management/business problem, rather than a technical problem, its easier for upper management to implement a scheme that is simpler for them to see direct results and cost management. Eg. A change to X results in a cost benefit of Y.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

You know, I used to agree with this line of thought, but in light of what Bell Canada was saying about network congestion vs. the actual figures the CRTC forced them to release, perhaps we ought to find out just how squeezed TWC is before endorsing this approach wholeheartedly.

Although I hardly expect the FCC to take even the same minimally-pro-consumer stance that the CRTC did, especially since MSOs here don't resell access wholesale like Bell Canada does.
--
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

reply to Rick
"By comparison, Comcast's 250 gig caps are very generous."

Actually, I think delivering me what I paid for the way I paid for it to be delivered is very generous. No, on second thought, doing so is sort of a requirement. Giving me MORE than I paid for, delivered more efficiently, is when we start to enter the realm of generous.

reply to en102
This poison is that we may have to suffer because of companies overselling a product and not improving the product to keep up with demand.
--
We will always be much more human than we wish to be.

reply to en102
i have a better solution its called throttle p2p... most of p2p downloads in the usa are for illegal purposes... if isps filtered torrent sites ie: legaltorrents, and p2p based video streaming this would eliminate most of the congestion on their networks... most of the people here complain about torrents being filtered cuz none of you pay for shit and you only know how to get your files via torrents i hope for my sake comcast and sandvine find a way to throttle you torrent kiddies and do not institute caps...

reply to Cod

reply to tr1pp1n87

reply to en102
The best solution is a simple rate increase and price the internet where it really should be and be real about it.

The "fast" internet services should be priced at about $80 or more a month. This would be, for example, Comcast's 16/2 service. A $40 a month service would resemble more of the lines of a 3/512 service.

If people want to use the internet to "casually surf" the internet, then a 3/512 line should be just fine and $40 a month is reasonable. They are less likely to download videos/movies, or use the service for anything in high demand. If people want to have this level of service and also try to download larger files such as movie rentals, or VOD services from Satellite or apple, and it doesn't work for them.. well, too bad.

If people are wanting to use the internet as an "application backbone" for getting things from NetFlix, going to download large patches and want them faster and so on, then they should be paying for a bigger/larger access line to the internet. THEN they can expect to use the service for what it is designed for.

It is the PEOPLE that need to be reasonable about what they should EXPECT for what they PAY FOR... it is NOT reasonable for people to expect it all for nothing.

A simple shift in attitude of the ISPs will be enough of a change to balance the internet out. They would also need to price that higher tier properly and not worry about those that "use too much"... they need to price it for what they know is going to be average use by that level user. Right now, they are over selling many, and under selling others.

And finally, people need to stop using a residential service for what they KNOW is considered business type use. IE: running mail servers, web servers, or hosting files for others. No matter how much they want to believe they are not violating the agreement they accepted, they are.

It's sick to know that a very small percentage of smug users who have no morals are the ones causing these caps, traffic shaping, and other control methods being put in place today while the rest of us have to now deal with it. You users know who you are... it's the "It's my line, I pay the bill, and I'll use it how I want" people.

reply to Jaghar

reply to Cheese
No.. why don't we mandate that companies like Blizzard run their own data centers and use their own bandwidth. Blizzard is a commercial entity, right? They are using p2p for distribution, right? What method is being used? Last mile internet services of RESIDENTIAL users.

By using the P2P method, they are asking people to distribute files for a commercial purpose (money is made in the distribution of these files) over a residential service. I see that clearly as a violation of the AUP of most ISP's. While the end user of the P2P is not a commercial entity, by making the files OF a commercial entity available, they are then proxies of the commercial entity and abusing their service.

Just the same as music on hold is a benefit to a business owner (ie: people are more likely to wait on hold if there is music and a company is more likely to make the sale) so is the end user of last mile internet connections.

I have NEVER agreed with Blizzard using P2P for distributing their updates - especially at the size they are.

By blizzard using their own resources, sure the price of the game will rise. But who cares.. those who play need to pay.

Because of "legal" commercial traffic taking place over residential lines, people like ME get to pay more so your blizzard patches don't raise your monthly gaming costs. I personally don't care to subsidize a 'game' that others want to play.

Just try to argue that one.

reply to fiberguy
huh? Doesn't Blizzard already pay for datacenters to run bnet off of? If you ban p2p for legal commercial traffic, you're going to put p2p in a tough spot to defend against piracy claims. Just a thought. I mean seriously, you're complaining about a bnet patch being offered thru p2p? What about your next door neighbor downloading every episode of BangBus thru p2p slowing down your node?

reply to Cheese
Ok.. let me repeat - even though it's above in plain text.

Blizzard's costs would rise if they operated their own data distribution centers and pushed out those 400 meg patches on their own dime. What happens to their costs if they ran their own data center? You'd have to pay more as well.

Because Blizzard likes to offset their costs onto the last mile users to do their work for them, saving them money, and that kind of traffic is going to cap my service and potentially cost me more money, then YES, people like me and others ARE in fact subsidizing people who play WOW by taking the hit so that blizzard can gain customers at a lower price and or keep them.

Further, people like me are also subsidizing those with DirecTV subscriptions where they want to offer a VOD download service over the high speed internet connection. It's this heavy traffic that is also causing caps. Why? Because a satellite service wants to offer a service to end users which is going to stress capacity causing the ISP to put a cap on my service; someone who doesn't abuse the service.

Therefore, I still support a tiered service level. If you want to use more... pay more. Simple. In the mean time, my service is still going to see a cap becuase of other people's greed.

reply to watice
My official position on P2P is that it doesn't need to be out there AND I still believe it violates the TOS of most cable operators. I believe that part of the P2P software is a server which offers a client server which grants access to clients requesting files automatically to the anonymous user. Just because it doesn't say Linux or Windows doesn't mean it's not serving.

Just as Blizzard should be pushing each and every patch from it's own data center to the end user, I also believe that if end users want to spread files, they should do so by putting that content on a web or ftp server in a web hosting data center and pay for the bandwidth. The reason people don't do that is because they don't want to pay the bill with a host and probably know that they couldn't afford it.

So, in the mean time, this greed and lack of respect for others - no surprise coming from many Americans these days - is the reason that we are seeing ISPs capping their services. If people want to distribute files to any Joe blow and they are legal ones, what's so hard about pushing them out to the included web space they get with their internet account? That's what it's there for.

reply to Rick

reply to fiberguy