 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI | Personally... I love caps.
Just kidding, but i know this subject riles people up more than any other on this site.
100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Personally... said by baineschile:100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. Even Tw business class has caps of the same usage. so how would business class help again? | |
|
 |  |  rawwhidePremium join:2000-09-03 The Sticks 1 edit | Re: Personally... Business wouldn't help any. Caps are nothing but a money grab. If these companies wanted metering as they claim, there would be one price per gig with no limits. That is true metered billing. Imposing caps is just to prevent the mass exodus of video users moving over to internet ONLY. Leaving there old business model of 190-300 channels of junk you don't really want to see. In some cases you don't even get that many channels of television to watch. -- To talk much and arrive nowhere is the same as climbing a tree to catch a fish. | |
|
 |  |  AVonGaussPremium,MVM join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL | said by hayabusa3303:Even Tw business class has caps of the same usage. so how would business class help again? Time Warner business service does not have a stated cap that I am aware of. | |
|
 |  |  |  Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Personally... said by AVonGauss:said by hayabusa3303:Even Tw business class has caps of the same usage. so how would business class help again? Time Warner business service does not have a stated cap that I am aware of. Not right now they dont but there will be soon if this cancer keeps growing it will.
In the long run they will have caps, on business class so they can put the screws to them also. | |
|
 |  |  bencPremium join:2007-06-17 Glen Carbon, IL Reviews:
·Charter
| said by hayabusa3303:said by baineschile:100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. Even Tw business class has caps of the same usage. so how would business class help again? Oh?
As far as I know there's no such thing as "business class" that also has caps. However, I could be wrong since I not aware of the offerings from every single last company.
I thought the idea was that customers would be faced with these choices:
- Use "Residential class" Internet, which has caps and makes heavy use of video impossible. - Plus use cable TV to get the video.
OR...
- Don't use cable TV. - Use "Business class" Internet, which has no caps and costs more. - Viola! The company gets your money anyway.
Now, faced with those choices I think using the "Business class" without the cable TV is still better, since it means more control over what you see. Plus it means that there aren't restrictions that the "Residential service" has, making it more flexible.
But....I think it's pretty much the money, or trying to raise the ARPU. | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Personally... i agree why i added that in there  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  AVonGaussPremium,MVM join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL | Re: Personally... The business service offering currently having no stated cap comes from TWC themselves in response to the "chatter" the last two days. | |
|
 |  ropeguruPremium join:2001-01-25 Grafton, WV | said by baineschile:100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. Really?? Lets see, 4GB per movie on average gives a family around 25 movies per month not including anything else they might want to download. So a family that likes to watch different movies at the same time, like to play online games which require large downloads at times, and do web browsing and maybe upload pictures of the family to a web site should be on a business class account or they are just pirates stealing from others.
I like your thoughts. NOT! Maybe you should go to work for these crooked companies. I am sure they would love to have you. | |
|
 |  |  Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Personally... said by ropeguru:said by baineschile:100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. I like your thoughts. NOT! Maybe you should go to work for these crooked companies. I am sure they would love to have you. Then when there numbers go down so much between disconnects and non payments for over usage they will FIRE HIS ASS and say we made a mistake. | |
|
 |  |  | | said by ropeguru:Really?? Lets see, 4GB per movie on average gives a family around 25 movies per month not including anything else they might want to download Streams from Netflix et. al. are NOT 4GB of data. Even in HD.
4GB is what you get after you rip a DVD, with all it's extraneous "extras" that don't contribute to the movie itself. And if the stream contains that data, it's grossly misconfigured.
More than 100GB, even in a "busy household", has a lot of piracy involved. Don't kid yourself. | |
|
 |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  | | Re: Personally... But 2GB-3GB != 4GB. There is a difference. Using the example, that makes 50 movies a month that you can watch. Being that Netflix barely has that many movies, that's re-watching the same thing over again.
People keep quoting that 4GB like it's divinely guaranteed or something. And people keep quoting that adding a bandwidth cap is in order to kill the online streaming competition. All this means is that content providers need to be more selective about what they stream and how they stream it. Do you REALLY need a 2Mbps stream of a movie, sucking down 2GB of data? There are codecs that reduce the size considerably, look at the DiVX rips of DVDs clocking in at only 600MB or so. Yeah, it might not be "perfect" but what can you expect from a stream? You would think the content providers would appreciate the added revenue stream, while forcing people who want to get a "good" copy to buy the DVD or Blu-Ray disk.
We got into this metered bandwidth stuff precisely because people were getting stupid with it. I remember when the first hints of Comcast booting people for bandwidth stuff, one guy was complaining because they booted him. Turned out he was slurping down four or five audio streams, 24x7, sucking down almost 500GB a month. And, to add to that, he was not even listening to the stream, he was just recording it and storing it.
South Park had it right, over-logging is going to cause problems. No more mindlessly surfing while watching TV. And limit your pr0n consumption to twice a day, tops. | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | said by ropeguru:said by baineschile:100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. Really?? Lets see, 4GB per movie on average gives a family around 25 movies per month not including anything else they might want to download. 4 GB? SD is closer to 2 GB and HD is closer to 6 GB. 25 movies in a month at $4-$6 a movie = LOTS OF CASH TO BURN. | |
|
 |  n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by baineschile:100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. Unfortunately, arbitrary caps are are just that. 100GB is good for you and someone else might be happy 10GB meaning you are going to have to pay. Another person might prefer 250GB and wonder how you can justify 100GB. Just picking random numbers out of a hat is not going to please everyone. -- I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
 |  |  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Personally... Because normal internet activities wont ever take the average user above 10 gigs/month. 100gigs is being generous to the sling box/netflix users. | |
|
 |  |  |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Re: Personally... said by baineschile:Because normal internet activities wont ever take the average user above 10 gigs/month. Are you high? I don't do anything outrageous and I use 25-30 GB a month. So does my son. Also so when I get my MLB.tv subscription and I watch the 26-27 Rays games per month and since they are in HD I will use 100 GB in a month, I am not engaging in a "normal" activity? Watching baseball and just ONE game a day at that is unusual? | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| said by baineschile:I love caps. Just kidding, but i know this subject riles people up more than any other on this site. 100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. why not give us a choice of say 5.00 a month metered 1 dollar per gb or 19.95 a month unlimited? with metered method i'm sure they would make a lot more money *major scam* the way they like it. metered doesn't suit most of us! | |
|
 |  morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 | 10-100GB caps?? unbelievable.
anything less than 250GB caps that are adjusted upward annual (for usual increase in consumption) is a complete money grab by these corporations. | |
|
 |  | | said by baineschile:I love caps. Just kidding, but i know this subject riles people up more than any other on this site. 100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. My grandpa only uses 100 meg a month, and he says above that you are either a pirater, or need the business class. | |
|
 |  Frankis chillingPremium join:2000-11-03 somewhere | said by baineschile:I love caps. 100gigs and above is reasonsable for a cap. Above that, you are either a pirater, or need the business class. you sound like bill gates when talking about ram
"640K ought to be enough for anybody"
or how about this one from ken olsen, founder and ceo of DEC
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home".
just because YOU cant fathom of a way to legally use up more than 100GB in a month does not mean that this is the case for everybody  -- At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  | |
|
 |  |  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI Reviews:
·Comcast
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: Personally... I never said that it shouldnt be looked at and evaluated eventually. But 100gigs/month is plenty for this day and age. I can fathom lots of ways to use it; I myself have a slingbox, play on xbox live a lot, and use the netflix streaming service. I also use iTunes, but not as much as I used to. I work from home 3 days a week and connect to my works VPN, and send a lot of data files over the POP server. I consider myself a moderate to heavy user, and in a HEAVY month of mine, I use about 40-50gigs.
I can fathom downloading all recently released blurays, a few times from any one of the torrent trackers, but that doesnt mean I choose to. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | Re: Personally... Well there you go Frank, Baineschile has spoken and so it is so.
Moderator, you can now lock this thread as the discussion is over. | |
|
 |  |  |  | | said by baineschile:I never said that it shouldnt be looked at and evaluated eventually. But 100gigs/month is plenty for this day and age. I can fathom lots of ways to use it; I myself have a slingbox, play on xbox live a lot, and use the netflix streaming service. I also use iTunes, but not as much as I used to. I work from home 3 days a week and connect to my works VPN, and send a lot of data files over the POP server. I consider myself a moderate to heavy user, and in a HEAVY month of mine, I use about 40-50gigs. I can fathom downloading all recently released blurays, a few times from any one of the torrent trackers, but that doesnt mean I choose to. Sorry.. 40-50 gigs a month IS NOT a heavy user. | |
|
 |  | | maybe 100gigs is enough for you. with my netflix streaming service and xbox 360 live account game demos and online play. plus normal usage I go over 100gigs every month easily without any piracy.
I'm just glad I'm on cablevision and they won't dare go to metered billing unless verizon fios switches to it. Which isn't expected.
Just because the cap is within the average user range does not mean the charges are justified. It's just a money grab, and they want to crush competators like netflix, etc plain and simple | |
|
 |  | | I have an Xbox360 with a Live Account and Netflix on it, a PC with a Steam account that I have bought all my games through (up to 36 games total), catch up on my shows online through the hosting channels website (in HD), I also have a couple people in my house playing online video games pretty much all the time, ontop of that we are constantly streaming music from a couple different online radio stations. How much bandwidth do I use? No idea but I can bet it's more than 40GB. I think it would be safe to say I use well over 100GB because the internet is being utilized all the time. Now I can't imagine any the other house like mine in my neighborhood isn't using the same amount as me or close to it. We are a society that has grown accustomed to having everything at the click of a button and all of sudden people decided to take that away. Now we will have to check to make sure before we click that link or watch that video, or buy another video game/movie.
psx_defector and baineschile, your messages couldn't be anymore of a sale pitch towards tiered bandwidth if you tried. Yes, there are codecs out there but we're streaming the material not creating the DivX files. So you're pointing your argument to the wrong person, in an essence you are blaming the providers of the material. You are blaming them for hogging all the bandwidth. You're blaming Netflix, Youtube, Microsoft, Steam, iTunes(where you can get more than just music), Online Radio feeds, etc for using all the precious low-cost bandwidth. Boy if that isn't hindering innovation I don't know what is. I guess we're just a bunch of bandwidith hogging pirates. | |
|
 |  |  PeteC2Got Mouse?Premium,MVM join:2002-01-20 Bristol, CT kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: Personally... It's an old story here...and as always, the "truth" is in the middle.
Any usage number that one might quote will be too little, too much, or "just right"...based on the individual! Nothing new there, right?
I do not intrinsically have an issue with some kind of sliding scale based on usage, as long as those very light users pay much less than they pay now..."average" users pay about the same, and those "heavy" bandwidth users, pay a reasonable amount more. The issue, which IMHO is totally fair based on the indutry's track record, is "Will this be done in a non-rapacious way?" Frankly, if the answer is yes, then I would have no problem. Unfortunately, that has not been the paradigm that these companies have operated by...
Now, I am not so sympathetic with those who just download tons of stuff constantly, not even ever using or viewing but a fraction of what they download, because in some cases, it is the acquisition of content in and of itself that is their real "goal"! I think that there is a reasonable placement point for caps in a properly tiered system. For example: What is wrong with a price point with say a 100gb cap, and the next "level" at 250gb (and so on)?
I think that a legitimate problem is that some "average" users are paying too much, while some very "heavy" users are paying too little. It does not bother me that someone may want to download tons of content...not at all! But, I do think that they should be carrying a correspondingly larger part of the voerall cost. -- Deeds, not words | |
|
 |  |  |  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI | Re: Personally... Well said. | |
|
 | | vote with your money. Disconnect and tell them to goto hell. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |
 atuarreHere come the drumsPremium join:2004-02-14 College Station, TX | RE I think in a situation where a company is going to metered, where someone will pay overages, they ought to give residential users at least, the option to enable additional bandwidth if they exceed the cap instead of just switching to overage charges or we will see situations like in the wireless industry where users go over the cap and get the bill and then are shocked and refuse to pay. | |
|
 |  dsldude08Premium,VIP join:2008-01-03 La Crosse, WI kudos:2 1 edit | Re: RE I agree. If it's going to happen, they need to follow the wireless model for minutes used on cell phones (different tiers, i.e. 100GB, 200GB, 300GB, etc for so much per month). But, look now, they are starting to go with Unlimited. But wait, so, cell phone companies are jumping ahead on voice minutes being unlimited (giving the option), but ISP's and others are going backwards here...doesn't make sense. Money grab. **Voice only with the wireless example though** | |
|
 |  |
 |  |  cacoPremium join:2005-03-10 Whittier, AK | Re: RE Wouldn't the website be responsible for that not the ISP? | |
|
 |  |  |  |

thumbs down from: ThrowDemsOut 
| Not a money grab? Right... Blatant money grab. Not everyone likes being turned upside down and shaken for their pocket change. | |
|
 |  See 6 replies to this post |
|
 Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
| The prices of the tiers make this even more of a horror Also keep in mind the pro package is 74.95 a month. Mix that with over charges and using something like 120 gigs a month would cost 94.95 a month plus Canada has 13 percent tax on that!
So Cogeco wants us to pay 107.24 for using 120 gigs a month. That is just way overpriced.
Don't get me wrong though, this is much better then what they did before and just terminate your service if you go over and no questions asked. That was a bastard thing to do. | |
|
 |  | | Re: The prices of the tiers make this even more of a horror said by DrunkenClam:Don't get me wrong though, this is much better then what they did before and just terminate your service if you go over and no questions asked. Accord to what's been posted in the Cogeco forum that can still happen under these new rules. | |
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Cable TV subsidizes cable internet
said by Karl Bode:Charging per gigabyte is more forced migration than natural evolution -- the impetus originates with investors and executives who fear the impact Internet video will have on TV revenues. Imposing such low caps in the age of HD video -- and charging users $1-$5 per gigabyte for bandwidth that costs a carrier pennies -- is a money grab, and it's only made possible by a lack of sustained, viable competition and napping regulators. The problem with the above claim is that it neglects the fact that Cable TV revenues greatly subsidize internet costs. If the cable companies don't react to video watching migrating to the internet from the TV channels without replacing the lost TV revenues, than the cost to provide internet service rises drastically.
So cable companies have to start charging for the real costs of providing internet access as the subsidizing TV revenues start to dry up. And the method they rightly have chosen is to start charging users by how much bandwidth they consume. The best set of rates and charges to do that will have to be worked out as the users continue to drop Cable TV.
SO it is NOT a money grab, but it is a way to continue to cover the costs of providing infrastructure to millions of users. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
 |  See 13 replies to this post |
|
 | | smaller isp in canada is growing i think smaller canada isp is offering unlimed access is growing daily. i think canada more choice than usa. i check canada broadband daily. everyday a new isp is born and no caps . | |
|
 |  prodyn join:2003-08-20 Orchard Park, NY 1 edit | Re: smaller isp in canada is growing said by davidbugs :
i think smaller canada isp is offering unlimed access is growing daily. i think canada more choice than usa. i check canada broadband daily. everyday a new isp is born and no caps . This is basic economics you are experiencing. Presuming a free-market, the most efficient producer of a product people want will attract the most profit.
With competition, the quality of that product will increase while the price of the product will be reduced.
So if A offers higher price and low caps, while B offers lower price and high or no caps, B will be the better choice. -- -- Prodyn | |
|
 matteiModerated, now muzzled join:2001-03-19 Canada | Cogeco does not sell Internet access Cogeco, for as long as I can remember, has insisted that they offer a "Web service", not Internet access. The AUP/TOS weasel words have been plentiful for years.
Next up, value added "upgrades." You know, things like VPN. | |
|
 | | ... One thing I do like about their metered billing is it has a reasonable bill cap. The user is not in danger of getting a multi-thousand dollar bill like we see with cellular. | |
|
 | | Goodbye Cogecrap
Hello Techsavvy. On hearing this news I have canceled my Cogecrap connection and made arrangements to switch to Techsavvy where there is no cap on their premium plan (which is around $5 less per month by the way) Given that I have NEVER reached the advertised speeds and the high ping times to what I would consider local networks, this has been a long time coming. Hopefully this will force an exodus of Cogecrap customers to the little guy offering the best deals and superior customer service. Hopefully, Cogecrap will wake up and stop treating their customers like they are all idiots. | |
|
 | | Hmmm quote: "While transit may appear cheap, the reality is a network like this takes continual maintenance and upgrades to get the transit to and from you," she says, adding that this is "just a natural evolution of the technology" and "not a money grab."
Transit has been getting cheaper and cheaper, yet metered billing is just now coming into the picture. So, does this mean that the "natural evolution of technology" is actually a devolution of the technology? If companies are being "forced" to charge a 2000% mark-up for bandwidth, how does this equal an "evolution of technology?" When technology evolves it gets cheaper, not the other way around.
Krispy = fail | |
|
 |
 | | I would say... monkey see, monkey do... but that would be an insult to monkeys.
Just say no. | |
|
 Lazlow join:2006-08-07 Saint Louis, MO | ISPs do not pay by the GB This is what is so silly about the entire cap thing. In no way and on no level do ISPs pay by the GB, they pay by peak Mbps. Virtually all commercial transit bandwidth is bought by the 95th percentile method (just google it), which essentially means they pay a rate based on the peak Mbps during the month. The same goes for the hardware. They have to have enough hardware to handle the peak load(Mbps). Gbs downloaded during off peak hours cost the ISPs (HSI side) absolutely nothing extra. The hardware has to be in place to handle peak times (no extra cost here). The transit links have to be in place to handle the peak times (no extra cost here either). So where are these mysterious extra costs?
The ISPs who are capping have to face the fact that when they increase tier speeds (Mbps), they also have to be able to handle the load. | |
|
 | | welcome to the scam disabled...screwed poor( the rest of yuou recessioned people)....screwed
BILL-c61 here it comes and this time there wont be a face book revolution
ever think thats the plan to get everyone off the net and make draconian laws in canada
After all there will be far fewer peopel to goHEY this is wrong. Fewer = OH see they came round to OUR side a thought. Net neutrality in canada died the moment we gave control to these AIG NORTH SCAMMERS | |
|
 | | ... If it was not a money grab by ISP's they would offer the users who only use their connection for things like checking their email once a day better rates as they barely use any bandwidth at all.
There seems to be an association with someone who uses a lot of bandwidth as being a pirate. The fact is that more and more people are streaming video/music from places like YouTube and news/sports sites everyday. This adds up, especially with the HD streaming kick thats going on currently.
Also, if you ISP's have the need to rate limit customers using certain protocols (ie. bittorrent) which is pretty popular these days, it is likely only a small percentage who are really using the biggest portion of your bandwidth overall. So why punish everyone when only some people are offending? And what about the legitimate uses of bittorrent (or whatever protocol you decide to limit) ?
There is value in having DPI in your network to use it to educate and partner with websites that your customers are hitting to better their experience, its just sad that the people making the decisions are blinded by dollar signs or to nontechnical to realize this. | |
|
 |  | | Re: ... My bandwidth usage is all upstream. I'm videographer who shoots HD stock footage. Each 20-second clip that I upload to aggregators like RevoStock is about 200MB in Apple Quicktime Photo JPEG. So my upstream is nearly 24/7 saturated with transferring my clips to the aggregator sites. I certainly don't want to see caps come to DSL or any other system. It would have a bad impact on my profession. | |
|
 | | they work for US! we all need to remember that these companies work for us! we are their source of income. if we come together we can stop this. if we wanted to go against time warner for instance we could have everyone call their support centers once a day and complain. eventually they would get sick of the calls or lose thousands of customers. in this economy a customer is worth its weight in gold. so odds are they will change things. we are more powerful then corporations and the government. they need to realize that they are here to serve us and make some money. we shouldn't let them tell us how its going to be. thats not very good customer service. i work in a Wyndham Vacation Resort. if i were to tell every guest that stayed with us that they had to pay $10 to use the pool, $5 to use the gym and $5/towel, i dont think that would go over very well. they would all complain and the policy would be revoked. corporations will find every way they know how to nickle and dime us. if we let them, then they get more of our hard earned money and we get less. most of that $ probably goes into corp executives paychecks anyways. not on actually improving things. i wouldnt mind paying a wireless company a $.25 charge for some bullshit if it actually went into making things better. we are the people and they would be nothing without us. lets remind them of that. im just so sick of corporate america. they already have enough $ for gods sake! just my rant/opinion... | |
|
 |  prodyn join:2003-08-20 Orchard Park, NY | Re: they work for US! Paragraphs are your friend if you want to relay your thoughts.
The large picture is we are all producers and consumers. The "companies" work for us and we also work for "companies". When you purchase something from that company, you are directly consuming that product but indirectly producing employment for that product to be created.
Your rallying cry seems to be "if we come together we can stop this." By stop this I am presuming you mean stop higher prices, lower cap rates, or both. That answer is simple. Create a competing company that offers lower prices and higher or no cap rates.
Competition lowers prices of a product and creates better quality of a product. -- -- Prodyn | |
|
 Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| cable companies are sabotaging free video demand eventually, customers will see this for what it is.. a preemptive strike against video downloading. the only answer to such a policy can be to CANCEL THE ACCOUNT. If you don't buy the service on those terms.. then you can pretty much go to a provider who WILL give you what you want. that's the way the capitalist system ideally works... but if you have a monopoly/duopoly provider(s) that do the same thing (money grab) then it's time to create a 3rd carrier and build fiber last mile into the communities to give the people what they want.
If your a broadband provider supplying more than 50+mbit symmetrically (who doesn't cap).. you supply the capability for customers to do: voip, video streaming/downloading and regular browsing & file transfers as a value added proposition.
Consumers should be getting pretty sick and tired of being hit up for rate hikes all the time for video and phone service. The simple fact is that smaller providers seem to have a much easier time at chipping away at the major carrier's market share, so that means they're trying to slam the gates shut by creating aggregate data caps as punishment (first, in NON-COMPETITIVE MARKETS as precedent). Though, the sad fact will end up being, if they don't end up giving customers service on terms they like.. eventually they will walk away compeltely from that ISP... then the whole house of cards comes down due to their protectionist greed. | |
|
 |
|