how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
392 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| translation Britt told attendees that tiers sold based on speed has become "deeply embedded in the marketplace to the point where it has become somewhat meaningless."
...translation...
We didn't realize that we should've just stopped upgrades at around 3Mbps.
Why did they (or ANY ISP) ever bother going with faster and faster speeds in the first place? I'd rather have a steady 3Mbps than "metered" pricing on something faster. What the frak is the point if it can't be used?
And as far as video is concerned, um, too late. Even a 1.5Mbps connection can handle some basic video.
Here's a clue, and it's free: It's everybody's internet. Not yours, not mine. It's everybody's. Don't mess with something that is apparently working pretty well for most people.
If there are some "bad apples" there are better ways to deal with them instead of screwing with everyone. If you want to offer a "basic" service for those who don't use the 'net much, just freaking do that already and stop lying about how bills "could" be lower for some people...
Do something intelligent instead of having more meetings to discuss more meetings to discuss more ways to screw people over while keeping your 5th house, 8th boat, and 30th car all lubed up and shiny.
Aren't most cable networks already:
1) built - and upgraded to fiber to the node
2) paid for - even most of the upgrades...
3) pretty profitable
So, even if all those aren't 100%, chances are that they're close. Bandwidth costs should also be pretty stable, if not dropping, even factoring in delivery to the premises. All things considered, if they really want to go there, an "average" residential connection should be just fine with getting several hundreds of gigabytes a month, without costing the ISP anything insane. The 250GB number is somewhat close to fair.
That's roughly 8.3GB/day in 30 days. Not a bad start.
Still, at 8.3GB/day, that equates to using your, let's say 10Mbps line for about ....2 hours.... unless my math is broken.
Although I personally don't burn through that much bandwidth, it'd still be very nice to know that it's easily possible without fearing some insane bill with "overage" charges...
Tiers are still based on speed because (most) people want something they can understand, not some hypothetically more profitable hodge-podge mess of gotchas.
One ought to be able to feel comfortable with using their connection at full blast for more than 2 hours if so desired, daily...
This is where I go back to my main point - if they can't handle that, why the frak did they upgrade to faster speeds? What is the point of having faster connections if you can't use it as often or as much?
It's a very simple question. I'd love to hear a very simple answer from them - namely:
"nevermind, we suck. here's a 'don't give a frak' tier for $15/mo. our 'joe internet' plan for $40/mo. and our 'I am the internet' plan for $100. thanks. goodnight." | |
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | I wounder if TWC thinks we are all confused. The ones who gave some backlash on metered billing. My self I don't feel the 5GB-40GB plans they was planning is fair.
My self I like streaming old tv shows off hulu. Which no longers plays on tv anymore. We all know if you watch alot of streaming videos. That tends to use alot of bandwidth. I'm not a major bandwidth hog by all means. Sofar the most bandwidth I used in a single months was like 120GB.
If TWC would give like 250GB bandwidth plan. That will be more then enough for my needs. | |
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| Agreed. If TWC would simply match the 250 Gb plan that Comcast is using (who is also way ahead of TWC in rolling out DOCSIS 3.0, Powerboost, and higher speeds in general) I don't think we would have all this backlash.
40 Gb is way too little, and even 100 Gb as the "premium plan" is simply a joke.
We have seen so many topics on the issue, and TWC has pretty much burned themselves with the way they handled things, and are now going to lose customers over it if they try again with a cap that is anything less then 100 Gb.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
