saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH
1 edit | [TWC] Pricing model changing soon Just found out yesterday, that RR will soon be changing their pricing model.
They will begin moving away from "all you can eat" to a pay per byte system. They are calling it "Consumption based billing"
This system will begin be tested in Beaumont, TX in Quarter 1 and apply only to New customers, eventually all customers will be included in the new scheme.
There will be a cap, but I have not heard what that will be and how generous or limited it will be.
They are working on a website for users to be able to track usage.
This smells like the same thing that they did a couple years ago, but at that time they didn't give users any way to track usage.
Keep you eyes open folks
--
Educating the masses, since about 2:15
| |
|
 69742511
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Costa Mesa, CA | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon I hope you are joking. | |
|
 |
saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon not a joke | |
|
| | 69742511
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Costa Mesa, CA | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon Provide sources then. Completely 100% hearsay until I see otherwise. | |
|
| | | keiluko4
join:2008-01-12
Garden Grove, CA | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon i dont think they would do that, they would lose so many customers that way. | |
|
| | | | 
PayPerByte
@mindspring.com | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon With Jeff Bewkes at Time Warner, that is very unlikely. Broadband cable modem is not migrating to a pay per consumption based model. | |
|
kshymkiw
join:2004-12-21
Columbus, OH | Where did you hear this from? | |
|
|
saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH
1 edit | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon . | |
|
| | 69742511
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Costa Mesa, CA | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon Man you better be joking. If they do that I'm either moving to where I can get FiOS; or going to (much) slower DSHell. I use a lot of bandwidth (forced to - I run 4 websites); so cable is my best option. | |
|
| | | 
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon You're always welcome to park your sites on my platform. I sit in a colo in LA, right on a tier 1 tap, with 1Gb/s of bandwidth. | |
|
| | | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon Only a gigabit?  | |
|
| | | | |
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon said by dentman42  :Only a gigabit? That's just our tap off a much larger pipe. We plan to go faster in the near future. Problem is our ISP (who is connected to something like 12 different carriers) would need to put in a faster switch facing us, and so would we facing back to him. That's pricey stuff. Not to mention we would need to upgrade every NIC in every one of our machines if we want that bandwidth to propogate. Keep in mind Windows won't run that kind of bandwidth anyways. We can get our UNIX and LINUX machines to do it though.
--
There is not a man in the country that can't make a living for himself and family. But he can't make a living for them AND his government, the way his government is living. What the government has got to do is live as cheap as the people.
- Will Rogers | |
|
| | | | | | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon said by bigunk :said by dentman42 :Only a gigabit? That's just our tap off a much larger pipe. We plan to go faster in the near future. Problem is our ISP (who is connected to something like 12 different carriers) would need to put in a faster switch facing us, and so would we facing back to him. That's pricey stuff. Not to mention we would need to upgrade every NIC in every one of our machines if we want that bandwidth to propogate. Keep in mind Windows won't run that kind of bandwidth anyways. We can get our UNIX and LINUX machines to do it though. Not to get off topic, but tell that to my gigabit Windows 2003 Servers. I routinely transfer 100+MB (megabytes) a second between my FTP servers. of course, they have extremely beefy internal RAID-10 arrays, but to say Windows can't do that is simply not true. My Windows machines and Linux machine both exhibit the same transfer rates, so we're likely switch/nic limited, not OS or software limited. | |
|
| | | | | | |
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon said by Matt :said by bigunk :Not to get off topic, but tell that to my gigabit Windows 2003 Servers. I routinely transfer 100+MB (megabytes) a second between my FTP servers. of course, they have extremely beefy internal RAID-10 arrays, but to say Windows can't do that is simply not true. My Windows machines and Linux machine both exhibit the same transfer rates, so we're likely switch/nic limited, not OS or software limited. Okay, you're up to 800Mb/s. Let's see you do 10Gb/s with a Windows machine. You give me the proof from a speed measurement tool that is recognized and accepted, and I will gladly change my position. I simply believe the *NIX world is faster and more efficient than Windows, and that is one of the gating factors. In other words it is the OS architecture that is to blame here. Can Windows get faster? Sure. Will it get faster? More than likely. I refer to today, not in the future (where *NIX will probably still show an edge).
--
There is not a man in the country that can't make a living for himself and family. But he can't make a living for them AND his government, the way his government is living. What the government has got to do is live as cheap as the people.
- Will Rogers | |
|
| | | | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon said by bigunk :said by Matt :said by bigunk :Not to get off topic, but tell that to my gigabit Windows 2003 Servers. I routinely transfer 100+MB (megabytes) a second between my FTP servers. of course, they have extremely beefy internal RAID-10 arrays, but to say Windows can't do that is simply not true. My Windows machines and Linux machine both exhibit the same transfer rates, so we're likely switch/nic limited, not OS or software limited. Okay, you're up to 800Mb/s. Let's see you do 10Gb/s with a Windows machine. You give me the proof from a speed measurement tool that is recognized and accepted, and I will gladly change my position. I simply believe the *NIX world is faster and more efficient than Windows, and that is one of the gating factors. In other words it is the OS architecture that is to blame here. Can Windows get faster? Sure. Will it get faster? More than likely. I refer to today, not in the future (where *NIX will probably still show an edge). I'm not arguing, just pointing out that I have Windows machines doing 1Gbps, which you said wasn't possible.
I don't have 10Gbps capability and I really don't care to debate the merits of Windows vs. Linux. I run both Windows and Linux servers, they each have their strengths and weaknesses. I will point out however that Myricom makes 10Gbps cluster gear that runs on Windows using the standard Windows IP stack and 10Gbps gear for the IBM BladeCenter line has been available for ages. | |
|
| | | | | | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| I can't find much in the way of transfer rate comparisons for Linux v. Windows at 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps Ethernet.
»www.yale.edu/fastcamac/gigabit/g···nnt.html is quite old and indicates an initial advantage to Linux.
»www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.c···/3485486 comes very close but does NOT mention the Windows performance, only that Linux got 895 Mbps. They imply, but DON'T say, that Windows was in the same ballpark.
Finally, the devil is in the details -- »softwarecommunity.intel.com/arti···1259.htm shows that interactions of the XP OS and the ext3 file system, of all things, can lead to drastic differences in measured throughput.
Oh, and as to the OP, I'm sure Verizon will be very happy to hear about this.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
| | | | | | | | | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon quote:
Okay, you're up to 800Mb/s. Let's see you do 10Gb/s with a Windows machine.
I know this is really OT on such an active thread, but I do think
Windows does seem to generally have trouble utilizing a gigabit network. I spent many hours trying to tweak and tune the performance of my server. Sometimes I can get them to transfer data at around 40gb/s, and even around 70-80gb/s "bursts" from cache, but the performance is not consistent and nowhere near the performance of the local disks. I think I've tried every single performance tuning article and adjusting every network setting there is. And these are with Intel server adapters!
Local:
DISKSPEED (C) Alexander Grigoriev, alegr@aha.ru
Test File: "R:\$$test$$.tst"
Test File Size: 512 MB
Testing Uncached New File Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 40.21 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.4%
Testing Uncached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 56.12 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.9%
Testing Uncached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 29.34 MB/s, CPU Load: -0.2%
Testing Cached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 30.18 MB/s, CPU Load: 4.1%
Testing Cached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 50.97 MB/s, CPU Load: 6.2%
Networked:
DISKSPEED (C) Alexander Grigoriev, alegr@aha.ru
Test File: "R:\$$test$$.tst"
Test File Size: 512 MB
Testing Uncached New File Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 13.16 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.2%
Testing Uncached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 6.53 MB/s, CPU Load: 0.9%
Testing Uncached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 6.49 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.1%
Testing Cached Write Speed....
Data Transfer: 27.61 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.2%
Testing Cached Read Speed....
Data Transfer: 10.16 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.7%
With GigE I should have plenty of bandwidth to get close to my local disk speed. But the results are awful. It's just fast enough to tell me that I'm not stuck at 10/100. If I reboot the server the numbers may jump up a bit for a while. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | B
Premium,MVM
join:2000-10-28
| Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon You're using a mapped drive for your test and are thus relying on NetBIOS/SMB.
I assume you've tested with lower level transfers as well (ftp et al.?).
See also the Intel link I posted above, if you haven't already seen it.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| 
Informal Test |
said by djrobx : quote:
Okay, you're up to 800Mb/s. Let's see you do 10Gb/s with a Windows machine.
I know this is really OT on such an active thread, but I do think Windows does seem to generally have trouble utilizing a gigabit network. I spent many hours trying to tweak and tune the performance of my server. Sometimes I can get them to transfer data at around 40gb/s, and even around 70-80gb/s "bursts" from cache, but the performance is not consistent and nowhere near the performance of the local disks. I think I've tried every single performance tuning article and adjusting every network setting there is. And these are with Intel server adapters! Local: DISKSPEED (C) Alexander Grigoriev, alegr@aha.ru Test File: "R:\$$test$$.tst" Test File Size: 512 MB Testing Uncached New File Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 40.21 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.4% Testing Uncached Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 56.12 MB/s, CPU Load: 2.9% Testing Uncached Read Speed.... Data Transfer: 29.34 MB/s, CPU Load: -0.2% Testing Cached Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 30.18 MB/s, CPU Load: 4.1% Testing Cached Read Speed.... Data Transfer: 50.97 MB/s, CPU Load: 6.2% Networked: DISKSPEED (C) Alexander Grigoriev, alegr@aha.ru Test File: "R:\$$test$$.tst" Test File Size: 512 MB Testing Uncached New File Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 13.16 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.2% Testing Uncached Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 6.53 MB/s, CPU Load: 0.9% Testing Uncached Read Speed.... Data Transfer: 6.49 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.1% Testing Cached Write Speed.... Data Transfer: 27.61 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.2% Testing Cached Read Speed.... Data Transfer: 10.16 MB/s, CPU Load: 1.7% With GigE I should have plenty of bandwidth to get close to my local disk speed. But the results are awful. It's just fast enough to tell me that I'm not stuck at 10/100. If I reboot the server the numbers may jump up a bit for a while. Those disk throughput numbers are terrible, I'm not surprised you have throughput trouble. My RAID arrays sustain over 160MB/sec and burst to 550MB/sec or so.
In addition, you're using a program written in 2002. You may want to try updating your benchmark tool. iOMeter or even SiSoft Sandra can test network shares if you want disk-to-disk network performance. To truly test OS level IP stack efficiency, you need something like iXChariot to test the connection by transferring from the memory of one server to the memory of another.
Anyway, sorry for hijacking your thread OP!
Perhaps a mod should split this discussion out and drop it in the network forum? | |
|
| | | | 69742511
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Costa Mesa, CA | Funny thing is, my sites are also in LA (well, Pomona to be exact); on solar powered hosting - and guess who their ISP is?
Yep, it's TW.
Business class though (of course). | |
|
| | |
| | |
| 
katgoomee
join:2002-01-01
Ashtabula, OH | If true, it leads me to believe they want to drag in some more dialup people. RR Lite then below would be "pay per use". I doubt this is across the board tier's.
Thanks for sharing though.
--
Insulin is NOT a cure... | |
|
CJ
join:2000-07-18
USA | I have been contemplating going to satellite TV and DSL here lately. This is just helping me make my decision I guess. Price is my other motivating factor. | |
|
keiluko4
join:2008-01-12
Garden Grove, CA | highly doubt it | |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Would love to see some confirmation from actual employees on this (contact me anonymously if you'd like).... | |
|
saber11
Check Six
Premium
join:2000-06-09
Clayton, OH | I would really like to hear from someone in the Beaumont division. All I know is what I posted
--
Educating the masses, since about 2:15
| |
|
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| ask your friend to be more specific, and if possible, provide a link or copy from his mail. I agree with katgoomee - the various speed-tiers will be subject to this type of billing to encourage moving to a higher one. And if- if this is true, then I'd expect that those of us on Turbo-RR will not be affected, as we are paying for the best of the best, and at up to $60 or even more in some markets, that's an enormous profit margin for TW. considering that one can't get more than 1Mbps or so (I'm at 768Kb) even if they pay more, bill-by-the-byte will sink RR in no time.
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! | |
|
| vick04
join:2006-08-06
South Richmond Hill, NY
1 edit | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon This will never happen in nyc. RR has been doing such a bad job in nyc that they know people would switch as soon as they turn the service on. People would switch to verizon dsl, which inturn will only speed up fios deployment since verizon knows that will have instant switchers. | |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Nobody at TWC I've spoken to can support this yet.
On top of that it's highly unlikely Time Warner/Roadrunner would want to be the first ISP to willfully accept the consumer backlash from changing pricing models from flat rate to metered billing.
That went over like a lead balloon in Australia. Maybe caps and overages someday, but a wholesale change to metered billing just doesn't sound likely. | |
|
| |
| | 
MacLeech
The one and only
Premium
join:2001-07-14
SoCal | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon said by Anonymous_ : i'd be the first to sue too Could you afford to? | |
|
| | | 
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs:
4 edits | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon it adds up
att
»$4,800 iPhone bill
with in 10 min's it add to 1.2mBytes
i'd opt out and get something else such as:
an open Wifi
,ATT v-dsl, WiFi internet, move and get VZ fios | |
|
| | |
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Packet that guy you hate on IRC, watch his bill go thru the roof.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Wouldn't surprise me. after all, TWC was the first to institute data caps/month. everyone followed shortly thereafter.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | 
Beachie
Stranded in paradise
join:2001-07-12
St. Pete, FL
·Bright House
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon said by dvd536 :Wouldn't surprise me. after all, TWC was the first to institute data caps/month. everyone followed shortly thereafter. I'm not sure what you're referring to, Road Runner isn't capped. | |
|
| | |
Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
clubs: | Re: [TWC] Pricing model changing soon no caps that i found yet
i use 200 to 300GB per month 60 to 100GB up | |
|
| | | dentman42
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH
·AT&T Midwest
| said by Beachie :said by dvd536 :Wouldn't surprise me. after all, TWC was the first to institute data caps/month. everyone followed shortly thereafter. I'm not sure what you're referring to, Road Runner isn't capped. I can only assume he was being sarcastic. In some areas, RR did send abuse letters to a few subs for excessive bandwidth use, but it was, uh, very poorly received and they seem to have stopped for several years. If they do go to a consumption model, I'd almost certainly dump them as I doubt they'd have a consumption model that would lower my bill. I've got at least 2 other sources for broadband here.
As has been mentioned before in this thread, I could see them offering a consumption based tier as an alternative to RR Lite, but it would make no sense for anyone on a higher tier and would be sure to cost them customers in an area with any competition. What difference does it make if they're the fastest if it costs too much to take advantage of the speed? | |
|
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| said by Karl Bode :Nobody at TWC I've spoken to can support this yet. On top of that it's highly unlikely Time Warner/Roadrunner would want to be the first ISP to willfully accept the consumer backlash from changing pricing models from flat rate to metered billing. That went over like a lead balloon in Australia. Maybe caps and overages someday, but a wholesale change to metered billing just doesn't sound likely. If the OP or the OP's source was a bit confused, this could be very likely.
Perhaps they are moving back to capped service and the website they offer will allow you to track your monthly usage? Instead of billing per byte, you can pay for blocks of overage?
This would explain how the OP's source could have referred to it as "bill by the byte", yet it's a much more plausible system for Time Warner to implement. | |
|
|
dcurrey
Premium
join:2004-06-29 | How can the tell the difference from legit packets your request like http pop3 ect from hacks/port scans to your ip? | |
|
Mr Den
Premium
join:2006-10-17
Elyria, OH | Let TW tie another noose around their necks. They seem to be pretty good at wrecking a working cable system after they took it over from Comcast in my area.
I just switched to DSL 3 weeks ago and am not looking back. | |
|
chRoniX10
Peace sells, but who's buying?
Premium
join:2004-05-22
Tarzana, CA | I doubt that this is true, but if it is I'm going back to AT&T DSL.
--
~smooth operator~ | |
|
CJ
join:2000-07-18
USA
| I hope this is not true but I am also not going to sit here and ask for proof. Saber already stated that he heard it from a friend that is still in the business, so logic would tell you that he cannot reveal his source until there is some fruition to his info. I have found Saber to be quite credible with his info in the past.
If it is possible for him, I would like at least a little more detailed info though. Without revealing anything damaging to his friend of course. Such as which tiers this might affect if not all.
Thanks for the info Saber. | |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | If they're actually dumb enough to try that, I'll switch to a local WISP or DSL and show them my metaphorical middle finger as I'm walking out the door. . . | |
|
|
|
See 30 replies to this post |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| You can't say that RR is changing their pricing model. TWC is changing their end. RR is an ISP not the operator or the biller. RR already has a limit on their bandwidth; its in their their TOS and AUP.
TWC only claims their end which is the Operator is unlimited. RR never says anything is unlimited; TWC never claims that either really. Id still be worried on the RR side of the business. | |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
1 edit | Interestingly, Time Warner would MUCH rather have you buy their $1.99 On-Demand movies than use Amazon Unbox, the Netflix Download service, the XBox Live Marketplace or the just announced iTunes HD Movie rentals.
This would help to curb that usage as well, especially with the average HD movie download being approximately 4-5GB from these services and that size doing nothing but going up.
It's much easier (and cheaper) for them to push On-Demand from your local RDC than to pay transit traffic to transfer that same movie through peers. | |
|
|
81399672
Premium
join:2006-05-17
Los Angeles, CA | It will never happen. To many choice are available to consumer for them to stay with twc
--
i am not a lawyer but I do play one on the internet | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
crunchtime
@twi.com | i will leave the same day if they try that cap crap with me | |
|
|
|
|
·
