Verizon, Industry Comment On Time Warner Cable PlansVerizon taunts MSO, analysts think low caps are a ripoff ( old news - 03:10PM Monday Jan 21 2008) tags: business · bandwidth · cable · RoadRunner CableAs we were the first to report last week, Time Warner Cable will be testing overage charges in one of the company's Texas markets. We've noted that Charter is also exploring metered bandwidth, and Business Week confirms that Comcast and Cox are as well. In the Business Week report, Verizon takes aim at the cable industry, suggesting that Time Warner Cable is interested in the plans because they lack bandwidth: Verizon, which has been rolling out its own high-speed Internet service across the country, has no plans to adopt a similarly tiered payment plan, says Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe. "I think this is Time Warner's response to the cable companies' problem in a shortage of bandwidth," says Rabe. "We don't think that we are in a position that we need to do that."  "I think this is Time Warner's response to the cable companies' problem in a shortage of bandwidth." -Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe |
While the cable industry suggests the move is to recoup costs incurred by heavy users, the low caps they've got planned (ranging from 5 to 40GB) are raising a lot of eyebrows. In his newsletter sent out this morning, industry analyst Dave Burstein captures what the move is really about: cashing in on the flood of video that will compete with the cable operator's core business. I believe Time Warner’s interest in bandwidth caps has little to do with its own costs and a lot to do with the emergence of movie downloads and streaming television programs over the Internet. The smart people at Time Warner are scared of people watching TV directly over the Internet. Burstein also doesn't think the numbers smell quite right: There is nothing inherently wrong in charging for bandwidth, if the charge is reasonably proportional to the costs. Time Warner's numbers don't pass the smell test, however. The markup over cost on that bandwidth is between 1000% and 1500%. . . 40 gigabytes at seven cents is less than three dollars per month. Time Warner charges over $40. That's like Starbucks drastically raising the price if you put sugar in your coffee. Any large carrier with a cap below 100 gigabytes and a price above $30 is abusing market power. Their bandwidth costs are less than the marketing budget, and the customer is profitable. Mike Masnick over at Techdirt isn't too impressed with the low caps, either: If you're doing perfectly normal things, such as watching (authorized!) online videos or doing remote backups, 5GB can disappear mighty quickly. That doesn't seem like a way to stop "excessive" use. It seems like a way to squeeze more money out of a large percentage of users. On top of that, this gives less and less incentive for Time Warner to improve their network. As you listen to justifications from the cable industry, don't forget the added revenue now coming in to many cable operators from DNS Redirection advertising, the sale of clickstream data, and behavioral advertising technology (assuming Time Warner is involved in the latter two). We're thinking money will also be saved by the new round of Philippines support offshoring at Time Warner Cable we've heard rumblings of. The idea that metered billing is financially necessary does not wash. Keep in mind that Time Warner Cable did not "announce" these plans as is being hinted by several outlets. The leaked memo obtained by Broadband Reports indicates the trials were to be conducted quietly, with the company studying consumer reaction for a broader launch if customers weren't annoyed. The largely negative press reaction to these plans may force Time Warner Cable to scrap the plan altogether.
Related:- Time Warner Cable To Launch DOCSIS 3.0 In New York
- Time Warner Caps: Behind The Numbers
- Time Warner Cable Says They're Ready For FiOS Rumble
- Time Warner Cable Confirms Powerboost Trials
- Time Warner Cable: Caps 'Make Your Internet Experience Better'
- Time Warner Cable Powerboost Hits Texas
- Time Warner Cable Using Fine Print To Foist Caps On Customers
- Time Warner Cable Powerboost Hits L.A.
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 
Yaco
Yaco
Premium
join:2001-10-13
Allendale, NJ
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Good to know Hi,
I was worried with my 20/20 connection. While I do not use file sharing that much, I do have 6 pcs/laptops going at one time. I believe some users would be crippled with the TW plan.
When I used CompuServe, PC link,Prodigy BB-S's back in the day I dreaded opening my phone bill for the per min. charges. :P
\Lee
--
"I Don't feel Tardy"
"When Clinton Lied , All that was left was a stained dress.
When Bush lied ,all that was left was 3000 + less US Soldiers.. | |
|  | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
January 21st, @08:18PM
| Re: Good to know If it's pay-by-transfer-amount with neutrality, or "unlimited" transfer with discrimination (i.e. filtering by traffic content or destination), then the per-gig pricing is the lesser evil.
The ridiculously low caps they're talking about, however, could amount to a big rate hike for even moderate users.
I think what we're seeing here is the ISPs trying to exhaust all alternatives to wring more money out of subscribers without spending on upgrades. Only when they reach the point of diminishing returns on these tactics - or face competition, whichever comes first - will they finally resort to upgrading the infrastructure for more capacity. | |
| | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Good to know said by swhx7  :I think what we're seeing here is the ISPs trying to exhaust all alternatives to wring more money out of subscribers without spending on upgrades. Only when they reach the point of diminishing returns on these tactics - or face competition, whichever comes first - will they finally resort to upgrading the infrastructure for more capacity. Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice?
Then again I was commenting to a coworker the other day about how the 99 cent bag of chips seems to be smaller than it was a few weeks ago. I think they are trying to squeeze us as well buy by making the bag appear the same size but the contents less. I didn't buy that day, but I might if everyone else goes that route. | |
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Good to know A lot of us are in areas that there are no other reasonable alternatives. Reasonable to me would be 5meg speed at sub $70/month. In my area that leaves only one company. | |
| | | | thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Endicott, NY
| said by xsiddalx :Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice? For most people, competition does not exist. It took me 4 visits from Time Warner to determine that my new home was NOT able to be serviced with cable. I then explored the options.
Wireless: Would require me to build a 50' tower to receive the signal
CellPhone based wireless: Latency and very poor signal at my house. The result would be dialup.
Satellite: Large initial investment, resulting in a sub-par and expensive internet service.
ISDN: Another fairly expensive option with lackluster results.
DSL: My CO isn't equipped for DSL.
Fiber: If I can't get DSL, this won't be around soon.
T1: Yes I considered it. I even considered starting my OWN ISP.
I lived off dialup for a year.
Eventually I paid the cost of running a cable line to my house, it just took 10 months for the cable company to get around to it and cost me a good amount.
So competition? No, it was hard for me to get anything, and I was willing to sink costs into the infrastructure to get it. | |
| | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Good to know I'm really not being a snot, really!
You have quoted 6 viable choices. None of them really optimal in my opinion, but they are choices. This is why the various regulatory entities argue competition exists. It does. Even if you have to pay an arm and a leg, you have options with regard to whom you pay an arm and a leg to.
Internet access is only worth what your willing to pay given your choices. Seems obvious, but all of us know real competition to drive prices lower...especially when some of use used to pay a buck an hour on time shares.
It sounds like dial-up is your best choice. Depending on how you use it, I have discovered that it ain't quite as bad as everyone thinks it is unless you need the ads and other shockwave junk. Tough to get into details, but even MMO games I played as well on dial up as "broadband" when I had no "broadband".
Again, I am not being a snot, it just sounds like you do have quite a bit of competition. The competition doesn't sound like they are at your price point yet to compete with dial-up...it'll come. You're willingness to sink costs into their infrastructure development will possibly make your neighbors happy if that run financed a terminal.
Then again, your neighbors will just think the build out made sense for the cable company. Did you think about talking to them to share the costs of a build out?
Out of curiosity, was it worth it? Are you free and clear or tied to a contract? If your really bold, what was the cost of the run?
FWIW, from what I have seen, some people are getting fiber based connections before DSL is made available. It depends on the telco and their current network. Sometimes FTTH is relatively equivalent or the same as deploying a DSL terminal with copper to the home. The downside is that your home can create "noise", old inside wire is old inside wire.
said by thevorpal :said by xsiddalx :Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice? For most people, competition does not exist. It took me 4 visits from Time Warner to determine that my new home was NOT able to be serviced with cable. I then explored the options. Wireless: Would require me to build a 50' tower to receive the signal CellPhone based wireless: Latency and very poor signal at my house. The result would be dialup. Satellite: Large initial investment, resulting in a sub-par and expensive internet service. ISDN: Another fairly expensive option with lackluster results. DSL: My CO isn't equipped for DSL. Fiber: If I can't get DSL, this won't be around soon. T1: Yes I considered it. I even considered starting my OWN ISP. I lived off dialup for a year. Eventually I paid the cost of running a cable line to my house, it just took 10 months for the cable company to get around to it and cost me a good amount. So competition? No, it was hard for me to get anything, and I was willing to sink costs into the infrastructure to get it. | |
| | | | | | hfosteriii
join:2007-11-15
Erie, PA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Good to know said by xsiddalx :I'm really not being a snot, really! You have quoted 6 viable choices. None of them really optimal in my opinion, but they are choices. This is why the various regulatory entities argue competition exists. It does. Even if you have to pay an arm and a leg, you have options with regard to whom you pay an arm and a leg to. Internet access is only worth what your willing to pay given your choices. Seems obvious, but all of us know real competition to drive prices lower...especially when some of use used to pay a buck an hour on time shares. It sounds like dial-up is your best choice. Depending on how you use it, I have discovered that it ain't quite as bad as everyone thinks it is unless you need the ads and other shockwave junk. Tough to get into details, but even MMO games I played as well on dial up as "broadband" when I had no "broadband". Again, I am not being a snot, it just sounds like you do have quite a bit of competition. The competition doesn't sound like they are at your price point yet to compete with dial-up...it'll come. You're willingness to sink costs into their infrastructure development will possibly make your neighbors happy if that run financed a terminal. Then again, your neighbors will just think the build out made sense for the cable company. Did you think about talking to them to share the costs of a build out? Out of curiosity, was it worth it? Are you free and clear or tied to a contract? If your really bold, what was the cost of the run? FWIW, from what I have seen, some people are getting fiber based connections before DSL is made available. It depends on the telco and their current network. Sometimes FTTH is relatively equivalent or the same as deploying a DSL terminal with copper to the home. The downside is that your home can create "noise", old inside wire is old inside wire. said by thevorpal :said by xsiddalx :Competition exists, doesn't it? Wireless companies offer internet, telephone companies offer internet, satellite providers offer internet, wisps offer internet, toss in some municipalities, power companies, how do you not have a choice? For most people, competition does not exist. It took me 4 visits from Time Warner to determine that my new home was NOT able to be serviced with cable. I then explored the options. Wireless: Would require me to build a 50' tower to receive the signal CellPhone based wireless: Latency and very poor signal at my house. The result would be dialup. Satellite: Large initial investment, resulting in a sub-par and expensive internet service. ISDN: Another fairly expensive option with lackluster results. DSL: My CO isn't equipped for DSL. Fiber: If I can't get DSL, this won't be around soon. T1: Yes I considered it. I even considered starting my OWN ISP. I lived off dialup for a year. Eventually I paid the cost of running a cable line to my house, it just took 10 months for the cable company to get around to it and cost me a good amount. So competition? No, it was hard for me to get anything, and I was willing to sink costs into the infrastructure to get it. When costs and services are not comparable, that is not competition. | |
| | 
cable user
@comcast.net
| Forward this information on to your elected members of congress. Before you blow off the idea, what can it hurt? Placing information in their hands has helped me in the past. There's nothing they can do to convince me overage charges are warranted. Please, just remove the abusers, and leave the rest of us alone. I'd be willing to pay a couple of bucks extra a month down the road, if they truly needed to recover costs because of this "video download" scare, or whatever the heck. But screw the overage charges.
I've got enough to worry about in a days time. I don't need to fret over the need to routinely check my internet usage. It's bad enough you gotta do it with your cell phone. Oops went over by a minute, got pay frickin 40 cents per minute. Yeah, that too is warranted, I suppose (40 cents per minute, whatever). | |
| 
RX8
join:2004-07-18
Marietta, GA | No surprise.. ..Just to see if they can get away with it---why not jump on the bandwagon  | |
| | | | Wraith1283
join:2002-11-30
West Hempstead, NY
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works This definitely isn't good news. I in no way want to see metered bandwidth unless its something that is reasonable. I am glad I am on FiOS as it looks like Verizon doesnt have a plan to enforce these kind of caps on people.
Dont get me wrong I believe people who abuse the network of their cable co. should have to pay more than the average downloader/web surfer but to enforce these rules on everyone simply is BS.
What about people who are avid gamers? To download demos sometimes takes about a gig or two. Not to mention downloading patches for a game and simply playing it takes up bandwidth. You can eat up a lot of Bandwidth quick without being one of these P2P "abusing" people.
It just seems like an excuse for the cable co. to get more money out our pockets. | |
| | | | | | | battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works They can and they will. If they flat out lie using the "Twice as fast as DSL" crap they will lie about the usage charges.
The cable companies have already given this a great deal of thought. They are now testing it and will eventually use this to compete with DSL's different pricing for different speeds. They don't care if they piss off the 400Gb+/mo torrent users. They would just as well prefer you take a hike. | |
| | | | | 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works With a 5GB cap, they're going to piss off more than just the 400GB/mo torrent users. | |
| | | | | | battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000 | Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works RTFA. 5Gb will be the bottom plan most likely meant to compete with DSL Lite. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works said by Skeedatl :Post links to anything showing that TW says that the 5GB plan will either be budget or geared to compete with DSL Lite. They just stated that the caps will be 5-40GB, nothing more. You have ZERO idea where the 5GB plan will be priced Per the BusinessWeek article:
Time Warner intends to offer plans priced for up to 5, 10, 20, and 40 gigabytes per month, with middle-tiered plans running roughly the same amount average users currently pay for high-speed connections. If the middle tiers will be priced around what people pay today, logic would dictate the 5GB plan would be cheaper. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works said by Skeedatl :That is what BW said, not what TW said. They're guessing, just like the rest of us are guessing. BusinessWeek is a publication, not a blog. They can't make statements like that without fact checking them, unless they preface their speculation. (ie, We believe they would keep the middle tiers the same price...)
said by Skeedatl :TW hasn't elaborated on what they're doing. They only thing they've said what is in the memo and the short damage-control follow up where they said that 5% of users consume 50% of the service. That's it so far. And as other analysts point out, the tier claims don't match the needs of fixing the latter issue. IOW, the bit caps are way overkill for what the TW spokeshole was complaining about. The two issues don't appear to be related. These "analysts" quote all kinds of uses that aren't representative of average users. Sure, online backups and movie downloads from Unboxongoflixtunes are valid legal uses of a home Internet connection .... but they're not common. Most people don't even make backups, yet alone have the presence of mind to do offsite backups. A friend of mine is doing some consulting work for Charter Communications so I recently had the opportunity to see what a CMTS usage report looks like for them. I had to page down a few times before I found the first modem that downloaded more than 2GB in a 30 day period. From the CMTS I looked at 5GB would have satisfied over 90% of the users.
Members of this site are not representative of broadband subscribers as a whole. True average subscribers just don't drive massive usage. People who join a forum just to talk about their broadband connection are the folks that are going to be more inclined to be early adopters of things like online video distribution. Assuming you work in an office-like environment, you should ask around to see hwo many people are downloading movies or pushing bandwidth intensive apps. I think it might surprise you. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Skeedatl :Members of this site are not representative of broadband subscribers as a whole. True average subscribers just don't drive massive usage. People who join a forum just to talk about their broadband connection are the folks that are going to be more inclined to be early adopters of things like online video distribution. Assuming you work in an office-like environment, you should ask around to see hwo many people are downloading movies or pushing bandwidth intensive apps. I think it might surprise you. Maybe "we, the BBR reader" are representative and talk otherwise "big bandwidth user"!
The only difference between BBR and email and usenet is the boring (2000 ish) BB setup and more "bandwidth expensive" presentation of text, which of course drives bandwidth requirements, but generally doesn't provide value.
Aren't we broadband reports readers and posters bandwidth hogs? Or is it all relative? | |
| | | | | | | | | thevorpal
join:2007-11-16
Endicott, NY
| Of course.
Lets assume you pay $30/month now for unlimited bandwidth.
Now, you get the following choices:
5gb/m for $25
10gb/m for $30
20gb/m for $50
40gb/m for $80
You know it is going to look something like that. You will get less service for more $. | |
| | | | | | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works said by thevorpal :5gb/m for $25 10gb/m for $30 20gb/m for $50 40gb/m for $80 You know it is going to look something like that. You will get less service for more $. I doubt it. The industry needs this system to be successful, and they know it. That doesn't mean you're going to see 500GB for $50, but 40GB isn't going to be $80 either. I fully expect some people are going to be pissed off about this, and I expect those people to leave TWC. (mission accomplished?) The plans they come out with will most likely appeal to the overwhelming majority of their subscriber base. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works espaeth
That does not make sense. If you assume that thier numbers are correct and 95% of their customers use less than 5gb/month then they will take a huge loss by charging them less than they are now. Lets assume they have a hundred customers:
$30x100=$3000 (right now)
$25x95=$2375(less than 5gb)
$80x5=$400(40gb plan)
$2375+$400=$2775(new 5gb +40gb)
$2775 is less than $3000 so they would show a net loss. They will almost have to charge the same amount as they are now for the base package, just to break even on the deal. This also does not take into account the huge amount of overhead that will come about in tracking/billing the bandwidth. | |
| | | | | | | | | | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works Most people sign up for a higher level of service than what they really need. Not everyone is going to gravitate to the 5GB intro plan, most people will likely opt to stay price consistent with what they already pay and go with a middle tier plan. Some will downgrade to a cheaper plan, most will stay with a middle tier plan, and they can make up quite a big of ground no the top tier + overages. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works Espeaeth
Get real, very few people are going to pay $1.00/GB overages for any length of time.
With how hard they are pushing 95% use less than 2GB, and 5GB being the cheapest plan I bet the VAST majority of those users will drop back to the $25 plan. Two and a half times your bandwidth use will be more than enough overhead for these people. Just think about cell phones. People do not get a plan with 2-1/2 the number of minute they use.
The other thing you (and the cable companies) are forgetting is that hard times are at the door. People are scared and will be trying to save money wherever they can ($5 is $5). | |
| | | | | | | | battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000
| "You have ZERO idea where the 5GB plan will be priced or what restrictions they'll have on it in addition to the beyond stupid cap. You don't even know what the speeds will be let alone what services it will be competing with."
Really? No kidding? So where did I say any of this? | |
| | | | | | | | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works RYFP | |
| | | | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Skeedatl :Nice BS conjecture there sport. Post links to anything showing that TW says that the 5GB plan will either be budget or geared to compete with DSL Lite. They just stated that the caps will be 5-40GB, nothing more. You have ZERO idea where the 5GB plan will be priced or what restrictions they'll have on it in addition to the beyond stupid cap. You don't even know what the speeds will be let alone what services it will be competing with. Better yet, how will the customer control the bandwidth?
Most people don't know what bandwidth they are using.
Most wouldn't know if they were hijacked or if their ISP was lying about their usage.
Would anyone know how much of their BW was lost to pings and random port scans?
Then again, I am guessing, and you should too, that TW is not interested in alienating the vast majority of their customers and has built into the usage model all of the above.
Most people are longing for an old-school AOL/Prodigy/Delphi/Compuserve connection, they just don't know it because they never experienced it (or they did but their cheapness led them into the "internet experience" and now complain about the "scams/spam/ads/requirement to register to web sites". This seems to be the case of the old folks that I talk to that click on and forward too many junk emails....or have kids that do the same. The "safe experience" is where the money is, but the service providers have been too dumb to provide it (though their own management are the people I refer to).
The walled garden is coming... 
Back to original BW topic...give the customer an ability to control their experience. This would include real time usage information that is under their control. | |
| | | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | The twice as fast as DSL crap is true in my market. AT&T won't give me 15/768 for $35 per month. But TWC will. And i get 14.5 download and 758upload. It makes it over twice as fast as DSL from AT&T. | |
| | | | | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works said by hottboiinnc :The twice as fast as DSL crap is true in my market. AT&T won't give me 15/768 for $35 per month. But TWC will. And i get 14.5 download and 758upload. It makes it over twice as fast as DSL from AT&T. Nice!
Now if that can be replicated...
Will your choice change if the new limits are imposed?
a GE connect might not matter if used in a day of 30, but it sounds cool with the kidz.
you don't need to reply. you likely won't likely be concerned until it's too late.no biggie, this internet access stuff is definitely a luxury...we should be paying more than cable IMO. At any price less it is a steal! | |
| | | xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Wraith1283 :This definitely isn't good news. I in no way want to see metered bandwidth unless its something that is reasonable. I am glad I am on FiOS as it looks like Verizon doesnt have a plan to enforce these kind of caps on people. Dont get me wrong I believe people who abuse the network of their cable co. should have to pay more than the average downloader/web surfer but to enforce these rules on everyone simply is BS. What about people who are avid gamers? To download demos sometimes takes about a gig or two. Not to mention downloading patches for a game and simply playing it takes up bandwidth. You can eat up a lot of Bandwidth quick without being one of these P2P "abusing" people. It just seems like an excuse for the cable co. to get more money out our pockets. Yeah, VZ is always about the customer!
FIOS' increased CapEX is about less revenue (because they love the customer)
Gamer or not, usage based pricing will likely be based on 0-90th percentile of usage, maybe 95.
Either way, good luck with moving from 1 ISP to the other if you are lucky enough to have 2 landline based ISPs. Most of the wireless types will restrict what you want to do and not make the news here. | |
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by Skeedatl :But in fairness to the cable operators, the costs of delivering service are far more than just the cost of the OC192 at the headend. Cable operators have a per channel limitation that is only address by dedicating more channels to HSI and/or limiting the use of the existing service. So those 100GB for $30 numbers don't seem entirely accurate to me given the other factors involved in delivering the service to the customer. Exactly just because 500 GB of bandwidth only cost the cable companies $35 doesn't mean that's the only cost associated with providing someone with internet service.
Some bandwidth hogs woud complain if the cap was 1 TB a month. They seem to think for their $40-$70 they should get all the bandwith they want. | |
| | |
nunyabiz
@applsys.com
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works Since they sell me "unlimited Internet" and "blazing fast 5Mb download" I should get all the bandwith I want. If I am considered a "Bandwith Hog" then tell me what defines that, and give me a limit I can see and not some magic number that I hit when they say.
(I only use about 20-30GB monthly, but since the invisible cap varies by market, maybe I am a bandwith hog?) | |
| | | | hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
 ·Time Warner VOIP
 ·1and1
| Re: Next round of web-hog ads in the works They don't advertise unlimited. Thats the key part. They never use the word Unlimited. And if they do RoadRunner doesn't; who is the primary provider for TWC's HSI; who has their own agreement with each and every RR customer. which does NOT state unlimited. | |
| SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Blowback awaits any ISP that implements this so after all the hemming & hawing about keeping the net neutral, we're all going to end up paying through the nose anyway for bandwidth because providers won't pony up and upgrade their infrastructure. We are essentially reverting back to the AOhell days of a price plan that charges online time per minute, only this time it's bandwidth. | |
| | espaeth
Misanthrope
Premium
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·Comcast
·Embarq
| Re: Blowback awaits any ISP that implements this said by SilverSurfer :so after all the hemming & hawing about keeping the net neutral, we're all going to end up paying through the nose anyway for bandwidth because providers won't pony up and upgrade their infrastructure. What incentive do they have to upgrade their networks? The big driver behind DOCSIS 3.0 isn't faster broadband speeds, but rather to get their infrastructure ready for financially positive benefits like increased bandwidth on the VOD downstream channel for more HD PPV, and switched digital video to be able to carry more channels. (and hence sell larger video packages)
Once HSI subscriber growth flattens out there is no incentive to upgrade networks at all under flat-rate billing. Do you honestly expect these companies to pump millions into infrastructure upgrades only to have the same level of revenue as before the upgrade? | |
| | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA
| Re: Blowback awaits any ISP that implements this Good point. On the other hand, I would think that they would try to avoid churn by maintaining and upgrading as well. All of these bandwidth services that many of the companies are starting to offer more of are going to create a demand for upgrades. If they don't give it up, or they try this crap, I could see lots of churn happening. | |
| | | Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Erie, PA
| Even without an increasing subscriber base demand still grows over time. Applications, OS'es, updates, webpages and their content all grow in size all the time. Whether a provider will update accordingly is anyones guess. You have to know that they will anywhere they face competition from FIoS, for instance.  | |
| | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by espaeth : Do you honestly expect these companies to pump millions into infrastructure upgrades only to have the same level of revenue as before the upgrade? I "honestly" expect providers to supply the same level of service I've been paying for on their all-you-can-eat price plan instead of looking for sneakier ways to f*ck me. | |
| | |
|
|
