better be by a lot. in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21872741 en Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:24:57 EDT Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:24:57 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21924454 RadioDoc : I was perfectly clear in my original post. Cable is on the way out.

No sure what you are referring to about any dual standard. I will be paying 2/3 of what Comcast was charging me even without the $23 per month rebate for the next 12 months ($67 instead of $98), but until Feb. 2010 I'll grin at my $44 DirecTV bill while I watch even more dish and OTA installations sprout in this area...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21924454 Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:30:58 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21891822 DJMASACRE : haha suckers

:(

* MLPPP and No Caps gives me Unthrottled satisfaction *

Boo ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21891822 Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:21:25 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21885063 fiberguy : The model of Satellite and cable is the same when you break them down.. so I see no difference in the MODEL. Delivery systems, however, do the horse race where one will always take the lead over the other as they leap frog. Satellite is about to see another leap by cable and the race will once again change.

As for internet and delivery.. sure, I also agree with you.. however, there are two parts to that.. 1) There is the delivery system which does get more advanced as we move forward along with what it becomes capable of. 2) the price.

If anyone expects the first part to change with out seeing a change in the way its sold (price) then they are fools for themselves. If cable and phone both turned off their main services.. (phone stopped selling pots, and cable stopped pushing video) then what you're going to see are internet connections priced out at $100.00 + per month.

And.. wait one second.. did I just see you praising a $300 promo? Doesn't that go against your rants about how cable offer promotions as well? Do I smell a dual standard?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21885063 Sun, 08 Feb 2009 19:53:23 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21884048 RadioDoc : When I see the likes of Comcast reporting record profits I have no sympathy for their whining about expenses. The entire cable TV business model is a "dinosaur" and they're only getting away with it since a large part of the population thinks cable = television and does not remember the pre-cable days when free OTA television was the norm.

These days cable is old hat and better figure out another way to survive other than interference with Internet-delivered product. Even OTA is making a comeback.

They might also take a look at the competition. I now have more channels with DirecTV than I ever got from Comcast, with two receivers delivering a spectacularly better picture than we ever got with cable, for about half what Comcast was charging. Even after a 12 month promo (which puts about $300 back in my pocket) we'll still be saving more than $40/mo. With OTA HD, Netflix et. al. on a HD TiVo and DirecTV we're still at less than what Comcast was charging. This is the brave new world. As soon as people realize what they are really paying for, one of those paradigm shifts will occur just like it did in the 80's from OTA to cable.

As I drive around here in the burbs I see a lot of brand new shiny OTA antennas and new satellite dishes. Cable is in trouble.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21884048 Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:56:21 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21880979 anon :
said by BF69 See Profile :

I bet all those in Beaumont that got overage fees on thier bills know how much 40 GB is now.
You figure somebody would be screamin bloody murder on the RR forum or to some newspaper (which would get picked up here or maybe nationally) if ANYONE actually did get charged for overages.

Since it hasn't happened, I'd bet money no one has been charged overages yet.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21880979 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 21:09:39 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21880043 BF69 :
said by dvd536 See Profile :

said by BF69 See Profile :

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.
Cox also has a puny 40gb/mo cap.
from what I hear they never enforce it so I'm not counting it yet.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21880043 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:10:04 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21878303 atigerman :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

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.
Ah, 10, 40, 80 gigs..... As the frontier rep told me. Well it's only 1-2 bucks per gig over your allowed 5 gigs. Whats the problem!

0.o]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21878303 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:52:20 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21877499 Smith6612 : Frontier is mad about the 5GB cap, however considering their size, at least they are trying to keep their DSL network well maintained. Ever since the holidays up until a few days ago, Frontier had been having bandwidth issues at night where I'd go from 3Mbps/384kbps speeds to 400-800kbps/384kbps speeds. Turns out, there's a lot of heavy DSL users in my area, as those speeds would be like that until 12:30 AM after starting to decrease rapidly at 3:30PM, where my speed would slowly come back. However, even despite the caps which I'm against as well (I used close to 200GB of data between my two connections last month, maybe more D: ), their support is good. The night I called, it was 7PM, they answered immediately and wrote a trouble ticket for me after checking the basics. Tech came out next morning during a snow storm, saw that things were fine, we talked, and 3:30 as the speeds began to fall again, called up the Frontier tech that stopped by and he said that my prediction of them needing more bandwidth was 100% right. Well, a week later, as he stated, my connection got shifted to a brand new router with new routes in the CO, and no more slow downs/high pings at night :).

I'm wondering though, since Frontier has been quiet in the news lately about their caps, I'm wondering if they scrapped the idea and started boosting their network as lately in the Frontier forum there has been one or two reports of Frontier bringing in more bandwidth to the COs for trouble areas.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21877499 Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:59:38 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21877339 dvd536 :
said by BF69 See Profile :

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.
Cox also has a puny 40gb/mo cap.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21877339 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:54:20 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876936 Lazlow : Most of those same countries have 50Mbps(plus) available for sub $50 a month and many have 100Mbps available(at sub $80) in most metro areas. I would also remind you that much of the internet backbone in the US was made with government funding (1996?).

Cable has always been shared, it is shared with D1 and it will still be shared with D3. If you follow the latest studies management compensation went from 40X average employee in the 80-90s to 4000X now. Take some of that money and split the nodes. Instead of 250 home switch to 125, you could stick with docsis 1 until the prices drop, bring speeds up to 20Mbps, and still not have any more congestion than we have currently(no caps needed).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876936 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:11:22 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876876 fiberguy : Ahh yes... BUT.. these other countries are also late entrants into the game of Broadband, many of them. A lot of these countries you speak of have two things going for them over the U.S. which is: 1) they entered upwards to 10 years after us, and 2) they're landscape is much more compact so upgrading and rebuilds come much easier and quicker than the sprawls of the United States. They also get a lot of money from the government to build out and some of them are nationalizing their infrustructure, which in the Unites States does goes against our way of life.

Case in point.. in So Cal,, the government who put money into one of the muni-systems wanted the operator to filter out anything objectionable and pornographic. As unconstitutional as that demand is/was, that was the game they play.

I'll personally stick with a little slower growth to avoid big brother, for one, telling me what I can and can't see.

..oh, and don't forget.. that 38mb was per node shared amongst users. In my city, the nodes run about 250 homes each which is on the low side compared to some systems. The former TWC system in the south metro here was running 1200 homes per node. Imagine 38mb on even a 250 homes passed node. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876876 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:57:41 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876670 joetaxpayer :
said by fireflier See Profile :

said by BF69 See Profile :

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.
You are probably right. I got a meter and three months averaged right around that 40GB you offer. So If I got Netflix streaming, I'm hosed. If I needed to download any full disc (linux distro, legit video etc) I'd be hosed. Until I added the meter I had no clue if I was at 10GB/mo or 100. Not something anyone can guess at.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876670 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:04:29 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876273 Lazlow : You are forgetting that other countries have cable too and they have had these speeds and capacity for a while. I agree with you that splitting the nodes would not have given them much of a speed increase but it would have given them a capacity increase (which is the real issue). Even Docsis 1.0 had 38Mbps speeds(down), so they had the technology available to increase the speeds (to say 20 down) years ago(euro docsis 1.0 had 50Mbps down). If they had split the nodes when D2 first came out (not necessarily switching) they could now have both the advanced speeds and the capacity to handle those speeds.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876273 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:31:25 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876140 fiberguy : Well, what DOES explain it is the technology not being available.

You have to take into consideration to be cost effective. I don't agree with any business that spends what ever it takes to upgrade, just to upgrade.

Prior to DOCSIS 3.0 you had:

Node splits: Expensive and often un-necessary not giving you more speed.

Docsis 1.1 to 2.0 upgrades. This doesn't give you MUCH more speed and, with 3.0 on the horizon, and now coming out, why invest that much money into a stop-gap measure just to upgrade? It makes no economic sense. If I were a share holder and they pulled that, I'd yank my stock.

Fiber?: Very expensive and it's not cables business. Also, it is a very expensive rebuild for cable.. in fact, a VERY expensive rebuild meaning they'd likely have to not only rebuild the entire last mile, they'd also have to invest in ONTs for every home served.. not cost effective with new technology on the horizon.

So, there are many other considerations that have to be taken into consideration.

Some people want to make this into something trivial, and I'm not saying you are.. however, these are just SOME of the things that are not taken into consideration when thinking it's a simple upgrade, still.

It's not accurate to think that they are not thinking about faster speeds and more capacity (Which is the real issue - capacity) but, they've been working towards getting to the 100+ speeds since back in 2000 that I can remember. The problem is getting to that point. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876140 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:02:07 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876111 Lazlow : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876111 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:56:31 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876051 fiberguy : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876051 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:44:59 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876041 fiberguy : 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. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21876041 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:42:41 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21874753 Lazlow : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21874753 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:43:37 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21874721 fiberguy : 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.)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21874721 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:39:03 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21874718 atigerman :
said by fiberguy See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21874718 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:38:22 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21874664 fiberguy : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21874664 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:29:35 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873906 Titus Pullo :
said by RadioDoc See Profile :

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.
--]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873906 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:31:22 EDT Re: It worked! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873427 morbo :
said by SLD See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873427 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:23:51 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873360 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873360 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:13:34 EDT Re: It worked! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873264 baineschile : Its a step in the right direction]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873264 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:57:56 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873180 jadebangle :
said by BF69 See Profile :

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?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873180 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:45:59 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873048 fireflier : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873048 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:30:00 EDT It worked! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873037 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873037 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:27:05 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873035 BF69 :
said by atigerman See Profile :

said by BF69 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873035 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:26:59 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873008 BF69 :
said by fireflier See Profile :

said by BF69 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873008 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:23:38 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873002 atigerman :
said by BF69 See Profile :

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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21873002 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:22:43 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21872985 fireflier :
said by BF69 See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21872985 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:21:27 EDT Re: better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21872770 funchords : well said! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21872770 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:41:33 EDT better be by a lot. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21872741 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21872741 Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:36:53 EDT