dslreports logo
 story category
Checking Out the Time Warner Bandwidth Usage Meter
Company will expand trial into four markets this year...
As we were the first to report, Time Warner Cable is conducting metered bandwidth trials in Beaumont, Texas, where users must stay under 5-40GB caps, or risk paying significant overages up to $1 per each additional gigabyte. A user in the market e-mails the Consumerist to note how quickly he ran into the 20GB per month cap on his 7Mbps connection (using completely legal video services), and to show off the snazzy usage meter Time Warner Cable is using in the area. As we've noted previously, Time Warner Cable says they have plans to expand these trials into four additional markets sometime this year, though the company tells us they'll be making the caps higher in line with user complaints.
view:
topics flat nest 

Chris 313
Because It's Geekier
Premium Member
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA

1 recommendation

Chris 313

Premium Member

Agreed!

I've already done a little over 30GB this month and it's mostly from Netflix service and a few Xbox downloads.

TWC's current capping scheme is way too low. At least Comcast got it right, even if they don't have their meter out yet.

jadebangle
Premium Member
join:2007-05-22
00000

2 edits

jadebangle

Premium Member

Re: Agreed!

said by Chris 313:

I've already done a little over 30GB this month and it's mostly from Netflix service and a few Xbox downloads.

TWC's current capping scheme is way too low. At least Comcast got it right, even if they don't have their meter out yet.
Yes higher cap would make you happier
6gb to 41 would make more sense!
/sarcasm

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to Chris 313

Member

to Chris 313
What is comcast 250g? If TW did that, I would be happy. My usual usage is 60-100gb. The first month I got it I used 250g, but have not used that much since. If their cap is 20 or 40gb, I would be forced to find a new service. It's not worth paying an extra 60-80 dollars a month for the same exact service I have now. I have a bundle that is cable and internet for 75 bucks. If you split the services down the middle as 37.50 each, then this is a 200-300% price hike on the internet service just for normal usage. Considering the price of bandwidth even at 37.50 they are making a steal.

But their real reason for such a low cap is that 200-300% increase in price. That is free money to them since they will be charging for what is already included in the service while they make a profit. They will be basically introducing the mess of metered billing that we see from wireless services into the land land services. It's a big loss for consumers.

aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
Asus RT-AX89

aaronwt to Chris 313

Premium Member

to Chris 313
I did 30GB within a couple of hours on friday night with my FIOS 50/20 connection. I couldn't imagine having a 20Gb cap like that. I use beteeen 1TB and 2TB each month now.
20GB
is a crazy cap with a 7mbs internet connection.
said by Chris 313:

I've already done a little over 30GB this month and it's mostly from Netflix service and a few Xbox downloads.

TWC's current capping scheme is way too low. At least Comcast got it right, even if they don't have their meter out yet.

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84

Member

Re: Agreed!

20GB / (7mbit / 8 bit / 1024MB/GB) / 60 / 60 = 6.5hrs

Their cap only allows you to use your service for 6.5hrs in a month.

6.5/720(hrs in a month) = .9% of the time in a month. So your 40-60 dollar a month fee that used to get you 100% usage for a month will be reduced to usage that amounts to less than one percent of the time in one month. That's a huge service cut.

7mbit / 8bits / 1024MB/GB * 60seconds * 60minutes * 24hrs * 30 days / 1024GB/TB = 2214.84 GB max download in one month.

That means with full usage your bill which was previously 40 dollars a month is now (2214.84-20GB)*1$/GB + $40 = $2234.84 a month. That is a price increase of 5,487.1%.

If you used 250g a month your effective bill goes from $40 to $270 a month. An increase of 575%. Unlimited business class service is cheaper than that.

Oh and they are charging you 2 dollars a gigabyte for the first 20 just to really rub it in.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

Mele20 to Chris 313

Premium Member

to Chris 313
When TW first started the Texas trial, I got NetMeter and set it to 20GB monthly "limit" to see how I averaged each month. My usage varies widely and some months I'm under 20GB but this month it is just the 9th of March and I've already used 18GB. Am I supposed to just turn off the computer for the rest of the month (if the caps were place here)?

No DSL where I am and ever since we got "PowerBoost" a couple of weeks ago, my speed has dropped DRASTICALLY (from close to the cap of 5ms down to below 3ms) and I have never seen any "PowerBoost" on downloads (except for the speed tests that are fooled by it). I'm wondering what the point is in having broadband.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind



The above from the bill.

I always thought that 27.56 - 20 = 7.56

But, evidently TWC has their own unique math system where
27.56 - 20 = 9.59

The TWC accountants must use fuzzy math & fuzzy logic where outcomes can be in a range of values, instead of based on discrete values. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu ··· hematics

swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME

swintec

Premium Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

1 edit

NetAdmin1

Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

said by swintec:

I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process.
If that's case, it would not be that far off. For there to be that big of difference between the bits number and the bytes number, you would have to be talking about much more than 30GB.

swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME

swintec

Premium Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

said by NetAdmin1:
said by swintec:

I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process.
If that's case, it would not be that far off. For there to be that big of difference between the bits number and the bytes number, you would have to be talking about much more than 30GB.
From the Consumerist story:

Here's how their math works - their definition of gigabyte for your cap is 1 GB = 1000 MB = 1,000,000 KB, = 1,000,000,000 Bytes

However, your usage was measured using 1 GB = 1024 MB = 1048576 KB = 1073741824 Bytes

so, anyway, by their definition, you used up 27.56 GB * 1024^3 (GB / Btye) = 29592324669 Bytes. Then they subtracted your allowance of 20000000000 Bytes, and converted back using 1000^3 Bytes / GB to get an overage of 9.59 GB. It's the whole 1024 vs. 1000 issue that's shown up in all sorts of various memory rating areas (like why your 250 GB hd isn't really 250 GB)


So it looks like they also round up to the nearest GB to, at a dollar a gig.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

Where there is another carrier... call and complain. If they won't do anything about it - switch carriers.
iria64
join:2003-04-14

iria64 to swintec

Member

to swintec
So they are using two definitions of GB for the calculation.
This smells ripe for some sort of suit.

Based on this above calculations the actual cap is 18.62GB, 2x10^10 / 1024^3.

If calculations posted above are correct when the usage meter show 19gb used you are already over the cap.
TACSPEED
Premium Member
join:2001-04-14
Tacoma, WA

1 recommendation

TACSPEED to swintec

Premium Member

to swintec
Then why are they not using 20 GB * 1024^3 (GB/Btye) = 21474830000 Bytes?

Giving an overage of 8.12 GB

Seems they should be consistent.

Rogue Wolf
An Easy Draw of a Sad Few
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY

Rogue Wolf

Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

Because consistency doesn't make them as much money as fuzzy math does.
Corydon
Cultivant son jardin
Premium Member
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO

1 recommendation

Corydon to swintec

Premium Member

to swintec
Ugh....now cable companies are using that sneaky "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" definition? It was bad enough when the hard drive manufacturers started in with that.

Can't we please, PLEASE settle on one definition? Ideally the traditional definition which applies the prefixes to exponents of 1024? Running with two separate definitions ON THE SAME BILL is just plain stupid, and the discrepancy just gets worse as storage and cap sizes increase (the billion byte GB shortchanges you by more than 70 MB and a trillion byte TB shortchanges you by more than 92 GB or over 9%)

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

1 recommendation

RARPSL

Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

said by Corydon:

Ugh....now cable companies are using that sneaky "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" definition? It was bad enough when the hard drive manufacturers started in with that.

Can't we please, PLEASE settle on one definition? Ideally the traditional definition which applies the prefixes to exponents of 1024? Running with two separate definitions ON THE SAME BILL is just plain stupid, and the discrepancy just gets worse as storage and cap sizes increase (the billion byte GB shortchanges you by more than 70 MB and a trillion byte TB shortchanges you by more than 92 GB or over 9%)
I agree about the usage of two different systems (but calling both GB) is wrong. If you want to define the caps (and short the customer) by using 1000 based counting (as oppose to the correct 1024 based system) then the usage and overage MUST be measured and displayed using 1000 based math also.

BTW: GB is 1000 based in ALL cases since if you want 1024 based it is supposed to be shown as GiB.

NetAdmin1
CCNA
join:2008-05-22

NetAdmin1 to swintec

Member

to swintec
Okay, wow, that is just super fscked up.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

Yes it is. Somebody, sue them NOW.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to swintec

Member

to swintec
said by swintec:

said by NetAdmin1:
said by swintec:

I think it has something to do with the bits / bytes conversion process.
If that's case, it would not be that far off. For there to be that big of difference between the bits number and the bytes number, you would have to be talking about much more than 30GB.
From the Consumerist story:

Here's how their math works - their definition of gigabyte for your cap is 1 GB = 1000 MB = 1,000,000 KB, = 1,000,000,000 Bytes

However, your usage was measured using 1 GB = 1024 MB = 1048576 KB = 1073741824 Bytes

so, anyway, by their definition, you used up 27.56 GB * 1024^3 (GB / Btye) = 29592324669 Bytes. Then they subtracted your allowance of 20000000000 Bytes, and converted back using 1000^3 Bytes / GB to get an overage of 9.59 GB. It's the whole 1024 vs. 1000 issue that's shown up in all sorts of various memory rating areas (like why your 250 GB hd isn't really 250 GB)

Nope the math is still off. The bill is just plain wrong. besides it doesn't matter if you say a GB is 1 billion bytes or 1,073,741,000 bytes. The limit, amount used and overage are all using the SAME method of calculating useage so it shouldn't matter. The cap says it's in GB not bytes. the overage fees are per GB not bytes. The cap is 20 GB. His useage meter says he used 27.56 GB. So his overage is 7.56 GB. It doesn't matter how it's calculated. besides if they were going to base the cap on 1000 and the useage on 1024 that is slightly illegal.
shadow700
join:2004-08-05
Collegeville, PA

shadow700 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out:

20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes
27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes

29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes

9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

said by shadow700:

If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out:

20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes
27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes

29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes

9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB
That''s illegal to do by the way.

swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME

swintec

Premium Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

said by 88615298:
said by shadow700:

If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out:

20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes
27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes

29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes

9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB
That''s illegal to do by the way.
have you taken notice of how hard drives and other memory devices are sold? Do you know what a GB is broken down into, in it smallest form?

It isnt "illegal" in any sense, marketing at its finest? Yes. I challenge you to provide the law that says it is illegal.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: TWC must use fuzzy math instead of the regular kind

said by swintec:

said by 88615298:
said by shadow700:

If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out:

20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes
27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes

29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes

9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB
That''s illegal to do by the way.
have you taken notice of how hard drives and other memory devices are sold? Do you know what a GB is broken down into, in it smallest form?

It isnt "illegal" in any sense, marketing at its finest? Yes. I challenge you to provide the law that says it is illegal.
it is illegal. Selling a HDD is different. They are caping you with one definition and metering you with another.

say your electric company had a cap. you could use up to 1500 kilowatts a month at 10 cents per kilowatt then you get charged $1 per kilowatt. Your 1500 kilowatts and your overgae is based on 1000 watts per kilowatts but your meter was based on 1024 watts per kilowatt. I'm 100% sure you would NOT be ok with that. And I'm 100% that electric company would have the governemnt on their ass.
88615298

3 edits

88615298 (banned) to shadow700

Member

to shadow700
said by shadow700:

If the "Total Gigabytes Allowed" and "Gigabytes Over" are defined as a "marketing" gigabyte (1,000,000,000 bytes / GB), but "Gigabytes Used" is defined as "real" gigabytes (1,073,741,824 bytes / GB), then the math works out:

20 marketing GB = 20,000,000,000 bytes
27.56 GB = 29,592,324,669 bytes

29,592,324,669 - 20,000,000,000 = 9,592,324,669 bytes

9,592,324,669 bytes = 9.59 marketing GB
Al the guy has to do is take it to court and I can guarantee you 12 normal people on a jury are NOT going to side with TW. They'll see 20 GB cap 27.56 GB useage and see that overage is 7.56 GB. Pretty simple. You can't cap based on 1000 and charge overage based on 1000 then meter based on 1024. You CAN NOT do it. It HAS to be the same. If they want to base thing on 1000, fine. If they want to base things on 1024, fine, but the base has to be CONSISTANT.

By the way the caps are based on GIGABYTES not BYTES unless you can show me otherwise. 27.56 GB ( whether it's based on 1000 or 1024 doesn't matter ) - 20 GB ( once again doesn't matter what it's based on ) = 7.56 GB. The overgage is based on GB not bytes. It says $1 per GB not $1 per billion bytes. Once again unless you can show me otherwise.

REALquestion

Anon

How MUCH was the bill?

For all the bad math... WHAT WAS THE FINAL BILL?

Did the overage count or is this still just being tested?

If it didn't cost any extra, I'd say it was still being tested. If the overages were billed, it's a whole different story.

swintec
Premium Member
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME

swintec

Premium Member

Re: How MUCH was the bill?

The customer was given a "courtesy credit" for 10 bucks. If he didnt call, he would have had to pay. He was told using Netflix caused a "bottleneck" for all his neighbors.

winsyrstrife
River City Bounce
Premium Member
join:2002-04-30
Brooklyn, NY

1 recommendation

winsyrstrife

Premium Member

Re: How MUCH was the bill?

said by swintec:

The customer was given a "courtesy credit" for 10 bucks. If he didnt call, he would have had to pay. He was told using Netflix caused a "bottleneck" for all his neighbors.
"Rest assured customers, that TWC's own brand of broadband delivered video content will cause

no such problems whatsoever!! "

insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN

insomniac84 to swintec

Member

to swintec
Wow. If they are claiming netflix causes a bottleneck, they are either lying(most likely the case) or they are offering speeds their shared network is not designed to handle. So their are either trying to create a content tax to keep you using cable tv for everything or they are fraudulently advertising a service they cannot meet.
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: How MUCH was the bill?

You could have 500 customers using a full 20GB per month on a cable system before running at full capacity, assuming the usage was spread out. In a worse case, probably 250 customers.

Netflix, which is 2 Mbps unless it's HD content, shouldn't give TWC's network the sweats, unless they have a crappy nettwork. Which I wouldn't put past 'em...
LurkerLito
join:2004-06-08

LurkerLito

Member

Time Warner Internet now only barely better than useless

Call, petition, and beg Verizon to roll out FIOS in your area. No caps on Internet services. If they are capping you, you might as well be on dial up or DSL. No caps and slow is better than low capped and fast IMO. What good is High Speed Internt if you hit the cap in a week or over a weekend? This isn't wireless telephone internet garbage, it is for home networking. If there is a cap it should be at MINIMUM 50% of the largest hard drive available for consumers to purchase that quarter (ex today it would be 50% of 1.5TB or 750GB per month).

20GB is pathetic. I used well over half that just with one Steam weekend sale not including the Hulu and netflix stuff I regularly watch.

v35_pilot
Whoops, there goes another AMU
Premium Member
join:2005-12-12
Fayetteville, NY

v35_pilot

Premium Member

Re: Time Warner Internet now only barely better than useless

said by LurkerLito:

Call, petition, and beg Verizon to roll out FIOS in your area. No caps on Internet services.
As a current Verizon FiOS customer, I think that it is just a matter of time before FiOS introduces caps. Sure, not now since the lack of caps is yet another characteristic to win over customers. But, do you really think a company as large as Verizon is not internally salivating at that potential revenue stream once FiOS has a larger market share?

••••••

jjoshua
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ

jjoshua

Premium Member

Sheeple

Reminds me of something out of the Simpsons.

We're instituting caps. Booo!

But, we'll give you a nice usage meter for free. WooHoo!

•••••••••••

capsux
@rcn.com

capsux

Anon

go with someone else

1 more reason to go with a competiting provider like rcn, att, or verizon.
vinnie97
Premium Member
join:2003-12-05
US

vinnie97

Premium Member

Re: go with someone else

AT&T is implementing cap trials also. Some 3rd-party (Covad) naked DSL is starting to sound pretty good right now.

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

i can see it now

bill comes in from little johnny and susie playing youtube 190 bucks over cap. Parents disconnect service, TW shit out of money now. Parents tell Tw where to go with there caps and disconnect.

Caps might look good on paper but when the number add up how many will you lose before it sinks.

There meter is a joke get real.
deadzoned
Premium Member
join:2005-04-13
Cypress, TX

1 edit

deadzoned

Premium Member

Industry Wide

This will soon be the norm as I expect all of the Telecos and Cablecos to follow suit and implement metered broadband with useless caps and a sprinkling of throttling thrown in for good measure. You know, because of the "Bandwidth Congestion".

It's all about protecting the TV side of their business from all of these competing VOD/Streaming offerings that are available now. Nothing but a blatant and anti-competitive move by a bunch of cable and telephone monopolies.

Welcome to the Brave New World. You will pay, no matter what you try and do to lower your bills some, when it comes to Broadband/TV.
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

1 recommendation

amungus

Premium Member

these aren't the internets you're looking for...

This is not the internet America wants, or needs.

It is a HUGE step backwards.

If providers are so freaking picky about this, here's a thought...

STOP UPGRADING SPEED if people can't even freaking use it on any reasonable basis...

I'd rather have a consistent 3-4Mbps than 7-10Mbps if that means it won't be "capped" after a pathetically small amount of usage.

At best, caps are evil. At worst, they're a craptastic excuse to rip people off in a major way.

Who on earth cares if you have that ~10Mbps pipe if you can only use it for less than a day in a month at full blast?

With a 20GB/month cap, that's 666(.666)MB per day, right?
Wow. Maybe that's plenty for some folks, but we're rapidly approaching the day where that's a small amount for an "average" household...

If you had a solid 1MB (yes, MegaBYTE) per second throughput, and could sustain it, you'd be over the cap in 6.66 hours.

6.66 hours of (theoretically 1MB/sec) full blast internet - per month? What?

Granted, I'm using some very loose numbers here, but even if you account for variances in plans/caps, it's soberingly disturbing to think of just how little they really want to let people have...

Thank you Cox, for not being so anal about your caps.
Feel sorry for ANYONE having to put up with this "trial" run of "metered" service.

Even FULL T-1 service is (very probably) cheaper per day than this crap would be... this should certainly be illegal. Somebody else feel free to do that math, I'd bet it's FAR more reasonable than what TW would charge a home user if they used their connection at full speed for more than ~20 minutes a day.

Caps with overages that are blatantly above actual costs ought to be completely illegal.

And again, if they're going to be this freaking picky, I'd rather just buy 3Mbps service - take me back to 2003 or so, before this idea took hold with such insanity... I'd rather have slower speed with zero worry about some arbitrary cap that gets computed at some mixed up rate by some bean-counting machine, programmed by some poor human who probably cried while writing the code...

jadebangle
Premium Member
join:2007-05-22
00000

jadebangle

Premium Member

Re: these aren't the internets you're looking for...

said by amungus:

This is not the internet America wants, or needs.

It is a HUGE step backwards.

If providers are so freaking picky about this, here's a thought...

STOP UPGRADING SPEED if people can't even freaking use it on any reasonable basis...

I'd rather have a consistent 3-4Mbps than 7-10Mbps if that means it won't be "capped" after a pathetically small amount of usage.

At best, caps are evil. At worst, they're a craptastic excuse to rip people off in a major way.

Who on earth cares if you have that ~10Mbps pipe if you can only use it for less than a day in a month at full blast?

With a 20GB/month cap, that's 666(.666)MB per day, right?
Wow. Maybe that's plenty for some folks, but we're rapidly approaching the day where that's a small amount for an "average" household...

If you had a solid 1MB (yes, MegaBYTE) per second throughput, and could sustain it, you'd be over the cap in 6.66 hours.

6.66 hours of (theoretically 1MB/sec) full blast internet - per month? What?

Granted, I'm using some very loose numbers here, but even if you account for variances in plans/caps, it's soberingly disturbing to think of just how little they really want to let people have...

Thank you Cox, for not being so anal about your caps.
Feel sorry for ANYONE having to put up with this "trial" run of "metered" service.

Even FULL T-1 service is (very probably) cheaper per day than this crap would be... this should certainly be illegal. Somebody else feel free to do that math, I'd bet it's FAR more reasonable than what TW would charge a home user if they used their connection at full speed for more than ~20 minutes a day.

Caps with overages that are blatantly above actual costs ought to be completely illegal.

And again, if they're going to be this freaking picky, I'd rather just buy 3Mbps service - take me back to 2003 or so, before this idea took hold with such insanity... I'd rather have slower speed with zero worry about some arbitrary cap that gets computed at some mixed up rate by some bean-counting machine, programmed by some poor human who probably cried while writing the code...
This is what 3rd world country do to make more money and restrict usage

America is becoming 3rd world thanks to these retards finding shady, deceptive, misleading ways to make money while forcing user to use less of their broadband connection!

ATT,COMCAST,RR are all crooks, greedy,lazy AND LACKING any intelligence.

roc5955
Premium Member
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY

roc5955

Premium Member

Bass Turds!

20GB is unrealistic.
It's just a way for them to make more money, while failing to maintain their system. I remember when they first came to my area about 7 years ago, and it was excellent. As time goes on, they don't do routine maintenance on their concentrators, or the lines. I know, because I asked one of the linemen who were trying to repair one. It took him three days to get parts and finally get it done.
So now they try to boost the bandwidth on this aging infrastructure, and then they find that they are not reaching their profit growth projections. So now they want to charge for the amount of bandwidth that one uses. How long before they charge per phone call for their VOIP, or per program for cable (sorry, I guess they already do that on pay per view). Just more money for the fat cats in the office who do nothing but push pencils for a living.

••••••••

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

The end of All You Can Eat Internet is at a near

Why ? Because ISP's want to make more money, and increase their revenue (all companies want this).
Don't shoot the messanger!

Facts:
1. Subscriber growth is slowing (duh - nearing saturation)
2. Prices have seen little growth in years - 1.5Mbps/384kbps _was_ 42.95/month + modem fee and required TV (or would be more) back around 1998-2001
3. Data usage in general was low(er).
4. Current typical rate (cable) is ~6-10Mbps for $45/month and requires TV, or the fee is a bit more.

Since companies don't want to just increase rates, they'll tack on a fee for usage.

When the business was booming, it was easy to promote higher data rates as an OPTION. Since these companies are hitting the limit of what they can deploy (with Docsis 1.x/2.x), they'll make money by limiting usage (this reminds me of old Dialup days with online timers).

This is similar to purchasing a new car, living near a freeway, then only to find that they're putting in Toll Booths every few miles.

••••••

unhappydurham
@windstream.net

unhappydurham

Anon

trying to bail

I've been trying to bail to verizon dsl of all things. A couple of my neighbors have it, but whenever I make an inquiry I get told that there is no capacity in our neighborhood. As verizon is putting zero into dsl infrastructure and will likely never roll out fios to 27704 I'm hosed.

vv1r3d
@mchsi.com

vv1r3d

Anon

how to fix is retarded problem

the real solution is for every consumer to call and tell them you are switching, and then ACTUALLY DO IT.....

If they lose more than 20% of their over all subscriber base they will change their minds quickly.

tphillips
Premium Member
join:2009-02-04
Apopka, FL

tphillips

Premium Member

Im Stuck

I stuck with Brigthouse no other Option...yet. But no caps for now
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

megabit pricing

lets go unlimited a minute
1 megabit unimited = 200GB
so time warner says you should pay another 160$ for 1 megabit unlimited

and 200$ per megabit speed increase there after
you do the math what 5 megabit unlimited is

compared to what you had and why greed and the amrican way is destroying the earth

gfdg
@rr.com

gfdg

Anon

Re: megabit pricing

said by 33358088:

... had and why greed and the amrican way is destroying the earth
Capitalism has done more good for all the people of the world and the environment than any economic system in history, you tool.
dentman42
Premium Member
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH

dentman42

Premium Member

Re: megabit pricing

Capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is the government-condoned monopoly that until recently prevented any other company from buidling their own infrastructure so there is no competition. Competition is essential for capitalism to work.
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

just try it in NY Metro

Yeah, just try it in NY Metro or even Philidelphia, Pa, let's see how fast you have about 10 customers left. All grandmas who just check e-mail!

rasmasyean
@rr.com

rasmasyean

Anon

I think they want you to use thier TV

I think it's more about them trying to "convince" customers to shy away from NetFlix and Hulu and stuff like that and opt for their cable TV programming.

Because if you start going for "cheaper" video entertainment while using thier internet connection to deliver it to you, they feel they are loosing out and perhaps ultimately, can't keep up with "other company's demand". That was probably what the "experiment" was all about. The bottom line. I'm sure they will lose customers, but will they make money in the process (or loose less money)? That is the determining factor of whether they implement the bandwidth cap.

POBAR1379
@rr.com

POBAR1379

Anon

bad idea 4 them

well that means two things massive costumer loses and more than likely going back on there word because everyone has had no limit before WHY now it is the most stupid thing they could have done apart from charging for everything by the minute and capping you to 100mins. personally i will switch to fiber optic and pay the same amount of cash as i would with them...period

TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA

TechyDad

Premium Member

I really need to install a bandwidth monitor

I'm stuck on Time Warner Cable's RoadRunner service. FIOS isn't out by my house yet and reports are that Verizon is ignoring their DSL service to focus on FIOS.

I've been meaning for awhile to get a bandwidth meter installed to check on my usage levels. My problem, however, is in my setup. I have a desktop computer connected directly to my router. This is used for downloading some log files, as a file server, and not much else. My wife has a laptop that she uses via a wireless connection. I have a laptop that is used both at work and at home. Obviously, I wouldn't want the "work" bandwidth being counted by my bandwidth meter towards my "total home" count. I'd also need a product that would work across three systems and compile the logs into one set of results. Anyone know of any freeware that would do that?

••••