baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
 ·Verizon Wireless B..
1 edit | reply to Anonymous_
Re: metered billing means
Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold.
Until Broadband becomes a utility, we have to deal with a competitive, capitalistic market; which means that if a company want to do caps and overages, thats what we will have to deal with (or go to a different company)
Also, your claim that it was to deter internet video; if that was the case, why would FiOs even bother having TV service if broadband and IPTV is the future? I will give you that no company has supported data that shows they SHOULD have caps; but that doesnt mean the sole reason is to deter competition. |
|
Luminaris
join:2005-12-01
Winchester, VA
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| Well, I think what Karl means is, given a household has a 40 Gig cap per say, that cap is still there. Most households, (at least in my area) have smaller kids that will eventually use their internet which means, more of it used. Plus with the amount of video, ads etc. on each page, people don't realize just how much they actually download.
So in essence, yes, it does effect most or all households in a way. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile  :Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold. Time Warner's caps were as low as 5GB with a $1 per GB in overage charges. They were taking their unlimited tiers and capping them at 5GB, 10GB, 20GB and 40GB. 40GB (until the backlash) was the highest tier they offered - for a whopping $60 a month.
After the backlash they offered to cap overage charges, which means if you pay $150 a month you can have the same product you have right now for $45 or so. They then offered a 1GB tier with a $2 per GB overage. Nice. |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
1 edit | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold. 1. Most internet users are still below 40GB huh? Your statistics to support this can be found where? I'm not a a constant video downloader/gamer/traffic user but my router shows I'm hitting 40+/month. If your definition of "most" internet users are grandmothers who check email, then your claim could be correct but the definition is not. Remember, part of that 40GB consists of various OS patches (along with patches for endless numbers of software packages), Game system updates, etc. And if a person has multiple PCs with similar configuration then it's a x2, x3, x4 scenario. Many households do have more than one PC now.
2. 40GB was TWCs HIGHEST tier at one point in their "suggested" new pricing structure unless you wanted the uber supermondoall-you-can-eat tier for a ridiculous $100 or so a month. 5GB per month for the lower tiers WILL affect MANY households which will force them to higher tiers. It will also become a bigger problem to people as additional bandwidth-using apps appear. I didn't see anything from TWCs spin doctors claiming they'd promise to raise those caps as needs required.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Time Warner Cable
·Time Warner VOIP
2 edits | said by fireflier :said by baineschile :Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold. 1. Most internet users are still below 40GB huh? Your statistics to support this can be found where? I'm not a a constant video downloader/gamer/traffic user but my router shows I'm hitting 40+/month. If your definition of "most" internet users are grandmothers who check email, then your claim could be correct but the definition is not. Remember, part of that 40GB consists of various OS patches (along with patches for endless numbers of software packages), Game system updates, etc. And if a person has multiple PCs with similar configuration then it's a x2, x3, x4 scenario. Many households do have more than one PC now. 2. 40GB was TWCs HIGHEST tier at one point in their "suggested" new pricing structure unless you wanted the uber supermondoall-you-can-eat tier for a ridiculous $100 or so a month. 5GB per month for the lower tiers WILL affect MANY households which will force them to higher tiers. It will also become a bigger problem to people as additional bandwidth-using apps appear. I didn't see anything from TWCs spin doctors claiming they'd promise to raise those caps as needs required. heh but if you got more then one person using it you can use upto 400GB permonth
cable modem Noise Traffic is 5GB to 6GB all ready |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Until Broadband becomes a utility, we have to deal with a competitive, capitalistic market; which means that if a company want to do caps and overages, thats what we will have to deal with (or go to a different company) So your against higher speeds, and corporate competition for customers, in favor of a government run, non -competitive, market ?
--
They Live... We Sleep...
“Spreading the wealth around” never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction.
|
|
Metatron2008
join:2008-09-02
Stockbridge, GA | reply to baineschile
I'd love to see actual graphs on how much people use. I'm willing to bet the majority of users are 3 times higher then 40 gig. |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold. Clearly this is a troll post. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by morbo :said by baineschile :Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold. Clearly this is a troll post. Why. He tells the truth. Just not a truth you want to hear or let be heard. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to Anonymous_
said by Anonymous_ :cable modem Noise Traffic is 5GB to 6GB all ready The noise traffic is broadcast traffic, and shouldn't be counted against the unicast byte counters per associated MAC on the CMTS. I've had some "drive time" on the Cisco uBR CMTS in the lab, and that traffic is definitely excluded from the reported individual modem/MAC byte totals on that platform. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | said by espaeth :said by Anonymous_ :cable modem Noise Traffic is 5GB to 6GB all ready The noise traffic is broadcast traffic, and shouldn't be counted against the unicast byte counters per associated MAC on the CMTS. I've had some "drive time" on the Cisco uBR CMTS in the lab, and that traffic is definitely excluded from the reported individual modem/MAC byte totals on that platform. And if it was counted, the background noise runs about 10 kbps based on my router WAN statistics. That comes to about 3.24 GB/month »www23.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=···000+bits & not 5 or 6 as claimed.
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to fireflier
said by fireflier :1. Most internet users are still below 40GB huh? Your statistics to support this can be found where?
These statistics can be found various places. The MINTS project, for example, cites approximately 5GB per capita on average in the US for Internet traffic.
said by fireflier :If your definition of "most" internet users are grandmothers who check email, then your claim could be correct but the definition is not. The median traffic usage level for most ISPs in the US and Europe is somewhere in the 2-5GB/mo range. That means that at least 50% of the subscriber base is using 2-5GB/mo or less. These numbers have been published in closed-data sources like those from Comcast, open statistics from major ISPs in Japan, and by research groups like MINTS.
You have to realize that as a member of this site, you're not representative of most broadband customers. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | reply to TKJunkMail
Its not the truth, just a speculation. |
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| said by JamesPC :Its not the truth, just a speculation. The statistical data is on his side that most people use far less than 40GB.
I'm not saying that some (maybe even as much as 10-15% of subscribers) don't use more, but the data simply doesn't support the position that average usage is over 40GB/mo. Even in South Korea where Internet traffic growth has been explosive, they are still only looking at about 20GB/mo per capita for Internet usage. Clearly there are folks that use a vast amount more than that, but they are more than offset by the massive number of people at the low-end of the usage spectrum. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| True, even though most of the statistical data is not accurate or could be manipulated.
With all that is said on both sides, why limit growth? And in my opinion this will kill the internet. But I dont think the consumer will let it happen unless the broadband companies want to go out of business. As soon as they try this in my market, bye TWC. This is nothing more than greed of a corporation. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to espaeth
So then if the best interest of the consumer was in the mind of the cablecos...then why not price ala carte? That would drop those 5gig users to about $8 a month and those vicious bandwidth hogs would be on the hook for what they use!
The more they pay the less they use...then the cablecos would reclaim some of that precious bandwidth they're supposedly losing. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile :Way off Karl. A 40 Gig cap does not affect ALL households; as most internet users still are way under that threshold. A) Doesn't affect them NOW. Usage per household is growing exponentially. Within a few years 40 GB will be nothing for most.
B) TW caps were as low as 5 GB and that DOES affect most households.
Until Broadband becomes a utility, we have to deal with a competitive, capitalistic market; which means that if a company want to do caps and overages, thats what we will have to deal with (or go to a different company) That would be nice if there was an actual free market. There isn't and if you think there is you're deluded. Just because I own the only gas station around for miles doesn't mean I can legally charge $100 a gallon for gas.
Also, your claim that it was to deter internet video; if that was the case, why would FiOs even bother having TV service if broadband and IPTV is the future? I will give you that no company has supported data that shows they SHOULD have caps; but that doesnt mean the sole reason is to deter competition.
Sure it does. Say if I decide to cut my cable and go with watch all TV thru Hulu and other legal internet sources. Now say I want to watch them in HD. The average person watches 151 hours of TV a month. 151 hours at 2 Mbps stream is 130 GB a month and that's if you're a 1 person household and don't have any other internet useage( which is doubtful ). Now you have a 40 GB cap so you are 90 GB over which TW will charge you $90. Well that's more expensive than cable. So the incentive to cut cable is now gone. If that isn't deterring internet video I'm not sure what is. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :And if it was counted, the background noise runs about 10 kbps based on my router WAN statistics. That comes to about 3.24 GB/month » www23.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=···000+bits & not 5 or 6 as claimed. [att=1] And if you have a 5 GB cap that's 65% of your cap. |
|
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
2 edits | reply to BF69
Ya, like my MLB.tv. Which i watch alot of different games legally.
The best part is that we talk about it likes it costs them alot for bandwidth. There marketing budgets are more than there bandwidth costs. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :These statistics can be found various places. The MINTS project, for example, cites approximately 5GB per capita on average in the US for Internet traffic. And of course it will stay 5 GB forever. Um have you noticed the ads for Hulu on TV a lot? What happens as more and more peole start using that. I have a subscription to MLB.tv where I can watch live games on the internet. They even have them in HD at 3 Mbps stream. Watching my favorite team play their 26 games a month will use 100 GB. I wouldn't consider watching 1 baseball game a day excessive.
You link also eldues to a 50% yearly increase. Within 5 years that's 38 GB per month average. Within 8 years it's 128 GB average. Within 12 years it's 649 GB average.
By the way how come no cap on TV watching? How much bandwidth am I using when I'm watching that average 151 hours of TV per month? |
|
