BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | better be by a lot.
with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | well said! |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| reply to BF69
said by BF69  :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. I agree with you BF, unfortunately that assumes "most people" even know what the cap is, and understand its relevance.
I bet if you told the average joe he had a 40GB cap he'd have no idea how it would or could impact him.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
atigerman
join:2002-01-19
Tigerton, WI
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. Fishy, huh?!
Can the big three, Please! Slap some sense into Frontier? The days of having to live with a 5 gig cap is fast approaching! |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to fireflier
said by fireflier :said by BF69 :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. I agree with you BF, unfortunately that assumes "most people" even know what the cap is, and understand its relevance. I bet if you told the average joe he had a 40GB cap he'd have no idea how it would or could impact him. I bet all those in Beaumont that got overage fees on thier bills know how much 40 GB is now. TW just doens't want a national version of that clusterfuck. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to atigerman
said by atigerman :said by BF69 :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. Fishy, huh?! Can the big three, Please! Slap some sense into Frontier? The days of having to live with a 5 gig cap is fast approaching! the best you can do is for you and everyone you know is to cnacell service. Yeah I know it will hard to do without or have to use dial-up( by the way with dial-up you could download 17 GB a month ), but that's the only way they will lsiten to you. When they lose subscribers by the boatload they'll up those caps. Unfortunatle too many people won't bite the bullet and will just bend over and take it. |
|
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
1 edit | reply to BF69
It worked!
See, TW now has people *happy* by raising their paltry caps because they set them so low in the first place. Now people aren't focused on the fact that there is a cap, but rather, how it is increasing. |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
| reply to BF69
Re: better be by a lot.
They probably do, but I bet if you ask them what did it most of them couldn't tell you.
They probably won't consider the usage that accompanies OS and other software patches, firmware updates, map updates (as in GPS) and other things such as on-line gaming, browsing, IM, video IM, applications calling home, virus scanner updates, etc.
They were simply told by the advertisers, "with 40GB/month, you could download a whole sh~tload of pictures*, days-worth of streaming music**, and hours of streaming video***"
Fine Print:
* Assuming typical photo resolution of 320x240
** Assuming typical streaming audio quality of 64Kbps
*** Assuming over-compressed MPEG-4 format with 320x640 resolution.
Then they get the overage bill and wonder what the heck happened. Of course, by then they're locked in to a contract with ETFs and are basically screwed.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
 ·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
 ·Comcast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :with Comcast having a 250 GB cap, Charter having a 250 GB cap and at&t having a 150 GB cap TW had no choice but to up thier caps because 40 GB seems fishy to most people. Not fishy. Unfair 
The canadian isp implemented cap to do two things
1. reduce your usage
2. make more money
the user are super screwed and the isp make more money
wonderful concept? |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to SLD
Re: It worked!
Its a step in the right direction |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to funchords
Re: better be by a lot.
He almost blew their cover with this statement:
quote:
"It's clear to us that customers want online video, which requires substantial investment in the network," says Dudley. "We're willing to make that, and we're trying to find an equitable way to distribute the cost of that investment."
If you change "an equitable way to distribute the cost of that investment" to "a profitable way to recover the loss of pay per view and premium channel income" the truth becomes visible. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to SLD
Re: It worked!
said by SLD :See, TW now has people *happy* by raising their paltry caps because they set them so low in the first place. Now people aren't focused on the fact that there is a cap, but rather, how it is increasing. good point. a case study in managed expectation of consumers. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to RadioDoc
Re: better be by a lot.
said by RadioDoc :He almost blew their cover with this statement: quote:
"It's clear to us that customers want online video, which requires substantial investment in the network," says Dudley. "We're willing to make that, and we're trying to find an equitable way to distribute the cost of that investment."
If you change " an equitable way to distribute the cost of that investment" to " a profitable way to recover the loss of pay per view and premium channel income" the truth becomes visible. It will soon equate to cable TV in general at our current rate of economic decline.
Talking to people (I know some find that scary) at stores, gas stations, etc, tells a dire tale of cutbacks - and cable TV is on that list while internet seems a keeper to people making tough decisions. If you asked your kid(s) which they'd rather have, cable TV or HSI, I think the answer is obvious.
-- |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to BF69
AT&T at 150gb? I thought they too were testing 5gb caps in Nevada? .. or did that change?
Also.. I'm going to step in and say this about TWC, Frontier and the rest.. just becuase they're "average user" consumes upwards to 5gb a month doesn't mean they need to set their caps at such levels. It's obvious that consumers have gone above 5gb before and they aren't being harmed, financially. To impose a cap at the average consumer level IS in fact a cash grab on the company as it will raise, most likely, (and I'm pulling this number out of the air) 10% (or more) of their customer's bills.
Its true they need to define what they consider to be excessive usage.. that's what people asked for, and that's what people will get. But, it also doesn't mean they NEED to charge the overage fees either! For example, comcast has a 250gb transfer bucket with their service. If someone goes to 260, they don't need to charge for the overage especially while many are using 5gb a month. That tells me that another user's consumption was FAR below the 250 and the guy that went to 260 should be able to dip into the 255gb that one customer didn't use.
Having the caps/limits/transfer/buckets, what ever you want to call them, defined is a good thing and I applaud that. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean you need to enforce them either. Enforcing them is good when you have a node, for example, experiencing a slow down and someone's hitting the 1tb mark. If the node is being affected, you can stand behind your 250gb cap.. however, if someone is running 1tb from a node where most people use 5gb or less a month, and he's not impacting the rest, you look the other way. To be honest, this is how it was done PRIOR to the crying from users being cut off and caps being implemented. The only thing Comcast and other ISPs who cut people did wrong is they never gave a number that they "reserve the right to terminate" customers with.
I'm sorry to tell the AT&T, Time Warners, Frontiers, etc. of the ISP world is.. that if Comcast has 250gb, they had better be pushing their caps up as well.. ESPECIALLY AT&T and Verizon (should verizon decide to express caps) becuase the phone companies tout their dedicated last mile network which then goes into their backbones they got from AT&T and MCI. (ie: they own them)
The games are getting a little sick here. To be honest, and I can't believe I'm saying this, the ONLY player out there that is making an effort, to some degree, to operate their network correctly is Verizon.. I'd include Qwest but I don't think they will be around for the long run anyway even though Qwest has pretty much always ran their network on the notion that they sold a connection to the user... so use it as you need. |
|
atigerman
join:2002-01-19
Tigerton, WI
| said by fiberguy :Also.. I'm going to step in and say this about TWC, Frontier and the rest.. just becuase they're "average user" consumes upwards to 5gb a month doesn't mean they need to set their caps at such levels. The thing is..... Frontier claims that the "average user" uses about 1 gig a month, so the 5 gigs a month they claim is more then enough. I use 10 gigs a month at the least. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
PPV loss was bound to happen; they charge too much for the service. Premiums.. man, when are they ever going to learn how to operate a business? There are two ways to get more business.. quality, and quantity.
Quality: Charge more for the service, but have less customers. (in this case that is) So you charge $20 for a channel,.. pack in 5 more just like it showing the same crap and be okay with people paying $20 for the stuff.
OR!
Quantity: (And, in this economic time, they SHOULD think VERY hard about this one) DROP the price of premiums like HBO & Showtime down to something reasonable.. say $10 per month for them.. get MORE people to subscribe to them and make more money. With services like HBO/Showtime, it's consignment. It doesn't cost more to show that network to 100 people as it does 1 million people... the show must go on.
The studios should realize that in this economy, people are looking to be entertained on less money. Making their service, which the costs are set, more affordable and attractive to people who are already subscribed to the cable / satellite service to the home, will most likely mean higher subscriber rates. This only leads to more revenue to the studios.
If they did this, there would be no need to look at other product lines to get more money out of it to shore up failing product lines. Businesses need to keep revenue at a certain level, that's no secret.. but, they can do it with out pulling these games of fees and excessive charges if they CHOOSE to make the right decisions. (Besides, dropping their rates WILL stimulate the economy in the long run)
However, they always all look towards other product lines to subsidize their other operations.. ie: cramming down fees on HSI to prop up video. Bundling phone services to raise the monthly rate in order to make more money on HSI. etc.
The dinosaurs in business need to die, .. die quick, and turn to oil and help out rising energy costs. (at least they'd be doing SOMETHING right for once.) |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to fiberguy
Fiberguy
I am right there with you on doing something about people who are dragging down the node during high volume times and ignoring users who download heavily during non peak hours (11om-8am?). Punish the ones who are actually causing the customer's issues and not just everybody who downloads a lot.
I do believe that this entire thing is about protecting their video business. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| I think there is more than one thing going on. Are they wanting to protect their business model? sure! Is it a perfect model? Hell no... not in the least. I posted about quality and quantity and I mean it. They want more money from less customers instead of putting a product out there that more will buy at a lessor price giving them more money.. but I digress.
However, I've also long called for the end of caps, period. What I DO advocate, and think is the best method is to throttle customer back on over all speed for a period of time, during peak, if they are utilizing too much at any given time. (ie: if they have the 16mb tier and are abusing the network, cut them back to 1.5 or 3mb for a period of time until the node slows down. You're not impacting anything major to the end user anyway.
I also believe that demand is out growing the capacity expansion on the last mile. Comcast and TWC have been on a buying spree. They just ate up Adelphia, as we know. Many of those systems were neglected. There are also other systems they've purchased that were neglected. (There is a reason why so many were never upgraded, becuase smaller companies can't afford to upgrade them. They'd have to charge too much and satellite was a sure competitor for them which forced their rates down. To be honest, getting purchased by a big boy shows WHY the strength in side mattered here.)
Everyone SHOULD know that you can't just turn on a dime and upgrade a network. I think two or three years for a complete rebuild, which is an AGGRESSIVE rebuild effort, is reasonable in time. However, it's much easier for someone like Amazon, for example, to simply throw in some servers, connect to the net, and start serving up bandwidth intensive content. Like I said, it takes YEARS to rebuild a plant to handle it.
So, personally, I think there are far more things going on at one time. Meanwhile, the consumer is quickly finding more and more and more to throw at their connection, want more now, and get antsy when they don't get it. It's amazing how 2 years can feel like an eternity when you're waiting for something. Add in a horribly down economy and money issues affecting everyone, and you have network management taking the front page. Just as it's easy for an i-net provider to throw up a video service in a matter of a few months, it's easy for Comcast to implement controls to compete in the race.
Things are going to improve.. and I think we'll see a reduction in caps over time.. but right now, people want definition.. they got it.  |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to atigerman
They say 1gig? are they ma'ad? Personally, the 5gb is true for many casual users.. but, casual has gone to the past. 5gb will become 10, then 40, 80.. and so on. Personally, in one data back up, 1 gig is gone.
I consider myself on the high end of heavy users. There are 4 people in the house and I won't even begin to say how many computers I have hooked up. (And my servers run on DSL, not cable) .. but I think we're using about 60 gig a month. I don't need to download distro's over and over all the time and I don't download movies.. not at this time. |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to fiberguy
Fiberguy
I agree that it takes time to rebuild a network. BUT it is not like no one knew the direction and speed that this was headed. It was obvious (to most countries) where we were headed years ago. Rather than reinvesting a significant amount in their infrastructure, the companies spent the money on bonuses and dividends.
While I am not a fan of throttling, it would be better(only during peak loads) than any cap.
The demand outgrowing last mile capacity MIGHT be explained as you describe on those systems that have been purchased in the last few years, but that does not explain why the rest of the systems are in the same boat. |
|
