approval from:
hobgoblin 
thumbs down from:
dentman42
SoCalDude
| What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? Everybody complains how low these caps are, but is there any sort of 3rd party statistics showing how much bandwidth the average person uses to compare against the tiers?
You'd figure TWC got their bandwidth cap amounts by analyzing their own subscriber usage and calculating what would drive some percentage goal of customers to tier upgrades/overages, while not exceeding some predefined amount of expected and acceptable customer losses. This sort of calculation is done EVERYTIME some price increase is passed on. It's what bean counters at these companies are paid to do.
TWC obviously wouldn't make the caps so low as to force a majority of their users into upgrades/overages as that would also drive huge subscriber losses. Bad for quarterlies, bad for stocks, ain't gonna happen. It would wipe out any financial gains and get some people looking for a new job in short order.
We REALLY need data to back up the complaints of how low these caps are. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | said by WhatsNormal :
TWC obviously wouldn't make the caps so low as to force a majority of their users into upgrades/overages as that would also drive huge subscriber losses.
Most areas of the country have at best a duopoly on providing high speed internet to residences. AT&T has already stated it is also interested in caps. IOW TWC is banking on most of its internet subscribers having little choice but to accept the caps. This isn't just about numbers, it's also about gouging consumers and limiting competition. |
|
| As posted in the TWC forum, TWC allows other ISPs on their network. Earthlink, Localnet, and NYCT.net now, Juno and AOL when those companies offered it. Those companies don't have caps.
Maybe more ISPs should push to get on TWCs network and not have caps. |
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to WhatsNormal
said by WhatsNormal :
TWC obviously wouldn't make the caps so low as to force a majority of their users into upgrades/overages as that would also drive huge subscriber losses. Bad for quarterlies, bad for stocks, ain't gonna happen. But thats exactly the path they are going down with these ridiculous caps. 40GB a month?? In my household, I've got 2 laptops, PS3, iphone, and dish network DVR all on my network with RR internet. After taxes, my bill is $54 a month for 7mb down. Between web browsing, online gaming, streaming internet radio, modest online video watching & uploading & downloading everyday files (pics, demos, etc) I am averaging around 2 gigs a day. That would put me way over the limit and this is normal everyday stuff I've been doing for years!
Bottom line is Time Warner is scared out of their minds about online video. Its now getting to the point that the quality and ease makes is a viable alternative to traditional cable TV and thats the whole reason this has come about. Set insanely low caps to kill internet video and protect their current TV biz (which in my opinion is a conflict of interest).
Like another poster said, make it a 250Gb cap... all this uproar disappears and most will be willing to accept this reasonable cap. |
|
|
|
Cod
join:2000-07-05
Kernersville, NC Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to WhatsNormal
said by WhatsNormal :
As posted in the TWC forum, TWC allows other ISPs on their network. Earthlink, Localnet, and NYCT.net now, Juno and AOL when those companies offered it. Those companies don't have caps.
Maybe more ISPs should push to get on TWCs network and not have caps.
Is this correct? The info I got is the ISP's piggybacking on RR infrastructure would all be affected by caps also... I have no idea myself. |
|
| I can't speak for any others riding the TWC network (I didn't think there were any?), but Time Warner Cable has stated that Earthlink will also be imposing caps. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to Cod
It's really funny when you look at it. The same thing happened to telecom companies once VOIP leached away half of their subscriber base. Once video goes digital, they KNOW they will lose in the same fashion.
cw |
|
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode:Time Warner Cable has stated that Earthlink will also be imposing caps. Where? Got a link? |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| reply to WhatsNormal
said by WhatsNormal :
Everybody complains how low these caps are, but is there any sort of 3rd party statistics showing how much bandwidth the average person uses to compare against the tiers? There is NO WAY for a third party to get these stats. There are only two sources the stats could come from.
1) Time Warner Cable.
2) Users themselves.
Obviously, the users that are going to report it on forums like DSLreports or other media outlets, are most likely the users that use MORE than the average, thus skewing the data.
I would be willing to bet that over 70% of users downloads less then 20 Gb a month, and that only about 30% exceed that, and probably only 5% ever exceed the 100 Gb.
That being said, even though not everyone will download as much, no one likes to be limited. It would be similar to saying "You can only drive 250 miles a day". The fact is, that besides roadtrips, 90% of people don't drive more then 100 to 150 miles a day in their PERSONAL vehicle. (I'm not talking delivery truck drivers here). They drive to and from work, they go out to dinner, they bring their kids to baseball practice, they go shopping, etc, etc.
Even though 90% drives 150 miles per day or less, pretty much EVERYONE would scream in agony if we were all over sudden to be limited to driving no more then 250 miles, and then charged $1 per extra mile.
No one wants to be charged $1 extra a mile for the 500 mile fishing trip they do every summer, and going to the ski resort in winter that is 500 miles away.
This is why the 250 Gb softcap of Comcast is so much better. It was accepted by most users, there was no major outcry, and best of all it is a SOFT cap, meaning that if you go over the cap once because you were an idiot and a trojan got onto your machine that uses your box as a data relay, and because of it you generate 400 Gb of traffic where you normally generate 30-35ish.... you won't be punished with a HUGE bill of overages.
What some ISP's in Europe use is throttling the line. Say you have 15 Mbps down, and 2 Mbps up, and you reach the cap.... then your line is automatically switched back to say 1 Mbps down and 256 kbit/s up until the end of the month. This also accomplishes TWC's goal and keep massive amounts of traffic of the network, but without having to charge the user extra money. |
|
| said by maartena:There are only two sources the stats could come from. 1) Time Warner Cable. 2) Users themselves. 3rd party = other ISPs, other service providers (Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.), maybe software bandwidth trackers could aggregate statistics, maybe 3rd party router firmware could anonymously collect and aggregate statistics, maybe a hired firm to collect it. Lots of options are possible.
This isn't specific to TWC, but it's internet users in general. A web census of sorts to put actual numbers to what most people have no clue about. |
|
| Hell why not have Stopthecap collect statistics some how? From user reports at least. Then use it to build a usage calculator of sorts where users can choose what they do, and how often, and it'll give a ballpark figure of bandwidth usage for the month.
They have sob stories from people scared they're going to get hit with overages, yet when they list out their internet use it's obvious it's really not that much and they're no where near overage territory. The VAST majority of people have no CLUE how much bandwidth they consume and until SOMEONE OTHER THAN THOSE CHARGING for bandwidth comes up with statistics nobody will believe how much or little is being used.
I didn't break 30 GB a month until I started downloading ALOT of TV shows and movies. Before that most people I knew thought I used the internet alot more then they did....so I'm sure they're way below 30 GB of usage. |
|
maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·DIRECTV
| reply to NSA_CIA
said by NSA_CIA :said by maartena:There are only two sources the stats could come from. 1) Time Warner Cable. 2) Users themselves. 3rd party = other ISPs, other service providers (Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.), maybe software bandwidth trackers could aggregate statistics, maybe 3rd party router firmware could anonymously collect and aggregate statistics, maybe a hired firm to collect it. Lots of options are possible. This isn't specific to TWC, but it's internet users in general. A web census of sorts to put actual numbers to what most people have no clue about. But it would be an almost impossible task to actually generate something that is useful. Most of my traffic comes from these two places:
1) me running 5 OpenTTD servers. +/- 30 Gb a month
2) online video streams from a Dutch TV company that has streaming stations. +/- 15 Gb a month
3) me uploading a backup of my stuff to an online backup host. (+/- 30 gb a month)
Perhaps we could get the Dutch TV company to really tell us how much a Dutchie in the US uses in data transfers, but for my game servers you are going to have to rely on what I tell you, because there is noone else that has the data specific to that.
Online backup providers are usually quite reserved about giving statistics like that. They may give a running total but it really doesn't work to say "Our company has 5 TB of monthly traffic from TWC IP's" and then divide that number by ALL 6 million customers TWC has.
It's just not going to work.... the only entity that have the most reliable figures are TWC themselves, what goes in, what goes out etc.
They should make the data counter available to everyone, so we can actually SEE what we transfer. Not take it for their words and then see them raking in the cash of charging overages. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to WhatsNormal
said by WhatsNormal :
Everybody complains how low these caps are, but is there any sort of 3rd party statistics showing how much bandwidth the average person uses to compare against the tiers? There isn't much in the way of public data for US ISPs, but there was a published study of utilization in Japan where 100mbps fiber access is extremely prevalent.
Average data usage works out to less than 26GB/mo. If you look at the scatter graphs on slide 14 clearly there are people using vast amounts more than that, but the average overall is still well below the 40GB tier that's been proposed. (Everybody likes to cite the 1GB tier without noting that it's the $15 entry tier)
The Japan data is here: »www.caida.org/workshops/wide/080···ffic.pdf
The problem is that talking about the fairness of a cap on a site dedicated to broadband enthusiasts is like arguing the fairness of higher taxes for people making more than $250k at the yacht club. |
|
| reply to NSA_CIA
said by NSA_CIA :said by Karl Bode:Time Warner Cable has stated that Earthlink will also be imposing caps. Where? Got a link? »www.news-record.com/content/2009···ing_plan
All Triad Time Warner customers will be affected, including those getting service through providers such as EarthLink who use Time Warner’s cable. Existing customers will have to choose a capped plan at the end of current contracts.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
