| reply to fiberguy
Re: Stupid Time Warner said by fiberguy:Finally, you say that it's a conflict of interest. I STRONGLY disagree with you. These providers were voice/video providers prior to bringing the internet to the home. Somehow you think they should be precluded from carrying competing services?? .. with who? Vonage comes alone and wants to offer a phone service that uses another provider's network? and now that very network is the one that has a conflict? The very content providers for video that SELL their service to a provider now wants to use that providers network and push out free services (hulu) to degrade their other relations and the provider is the one with the conflict? Way too long buddy. But this is the dumbest paragraph ever. You are literally claiming that because the cable company is providing the internet they get full control of what goes over the connection and should be allowed to stifle competing services. An action they only want to take because of the conflict of interest when you have the cable company also be the ISP.
Eventually video services will probably have to be separated from ISPs. Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. If cable companies never tried to leverage their ISP side to protect their cable side, there would be no talk of splitting these companies up. They had a chance to be fair and clearly they demonstrated they cannot. The guise of profits they don't deserve are too great for them to resist.
And to claim data hurts a network more because it's video instead of webpage traffic or program downloads is a joke. Data is data. From an ISP standpoint data needs to be treated as one thing and not classified into separate types of data. |
|
| said by insomniac84:[Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. People quote this as truth when I've not seen a shred of evidence that this is the case. Did Comcast started doing this years ago for the eventual arrival of then non-existent Hulu? There is no tobacco memo from TWC et. al. saying they are doing this because of video stuff. It's hearsay and conjecture.
Video is just the latest thing to latch on to as a talking point. Everyone is ignoring the vastly larger and much more bandwidth intensive app, piracy. For every one person on Hulu watching Family Guy, there are three or five more downloading the same video via BitTorrent. And the BitTorrent people don't stop there, they then seed it sucking down more bandwidth.
Yeah, TWC could upgrade, but why should they? Is anyone out there really going to stand up for the pirate who downloads crap 24x7? Don't act like it's big bad TWC trying to stifle competition in the online video arena. Piracy and stupidity with bandwidth brought this upon ourselves. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by psx_defector:said by insomniac84:[Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. People quote this as truth when I've not seen a shred of evidence that this is the case. Did Comcast started doing this years ago for the eventual arrival of then non-existent Hulu? No, but Comcast's actual cap (as it were) is well above 250 GB, too (the actual cap is being one of the top 1,000 users systemwide twice in six months).
Clearly Comcast's cap is not about stifling anything except for the heaviest users. You can watch TV all day on Comcast HSI and not hit the real cap.
Can't say that about these sub 100GB caps.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
 goldy
join:2000-11-14
Augusta, GA | reply to psx_defector
I am amazed that Microsoft hasn't said anything. After all
a 1 gig cap could mean an end to their updates. Imagine trying to reistall xp or vista with a 1 gig cap. Are you going to spend the $75 bucks to upgrade on top of what you already paid?
--
Never chase a dragon with a butterfly net. It annoys the dragon and will probably get you burnt! |
|
| reply to psx_defector
Want a shred of proof? Take a look at their bottom line! Are they taking massive losses? NO! They are posting record profits! |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to goldy
Get your updates on CD like in the old days. |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to ComWhat
said by ComWhat :
Want a shred of proof? Take a look at their bottom line! Are they taking massive losses? NO! They are posting record profits!
"Record profits"... are adjusted for the current time? Competition also costs money. It takes money to compete and it also takes money to reinvest into the network. Right now, there is a massive rebuild going on to deliver DOCSIS 3.0 speeds to people that want and demand it. It's not cheap.
Besides, it's still not a crime to post profits in this country. Posting profits are a good thing.. when there is no profit, they're either losing money or posting no growth which isn't good for the economy.
So what would you rather have? |
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:No, but Comcast's actual cap (as it were) is well above 250 GB, too (the actual cap is being one of the top 1,000 users systemwide twice in six months). Clearly Comcast's cap is not about stifling anything except for the heaviest users. You can watch TV all day on Comcast HSI and not hit the real cap. Can't say that about these sub 100GB caps. When I was with August Associates, a local ISP here in Dallas, we had metered billing. I had an 80GB cap that I never hit, even with a lot of piracy being done. Only time I ever went over is when my roommate decided that the internet was for pr0n, and downloaded 100GB in a matter of days.
I paid a lot more for the privilege of metered billing. Probably because of the fact that the backbone to the internet was through Internap, the lowest latency/high class backbone. Almost no one got anything less than 30ms across the network.
Are the caps reasonable? I don't know, at first blush I would say no. I would prefer a higher cap like Comcast. But if Time Warner parlays that with a high class backbone, it might be worth it. As it stands, that is not the case. |
|
