dslreports logo
 story category
Time Warner Cable Eyeing Overage Charges?
Memo says trial will determine national deployment...

Time Warner Cable may be exploring the possibility of implementing overage charges for its RoadRunner cable broadband service. According to excerpts from a leaked internal memo obtained by Broadband Reports, the company will be testing a usage-based system in the Beaumont, Texas market. The system is aimed at gaining additional revenue from "5% of subscribers who utilize over half of the total network bandwidth." The trial will determine whether it's practical to deploy such a system nationally.


The memo claims new customers in the Beaumont market will be placed on metered billing plans where overage charges will apply. Those customers will be given a special website allowing users to track their bandwidth consumption and upgrade to faster tiers if they consistently use more bandwidth than allowed for their tier. Existing customers will be able to track consumption, but will remain on flat-rate billing. An excerpt from the memo:
quote:
The introduction of Consumption Based Billing will enable TWC to charge customer based upon usage, impacting only 5% of subscribers who utilize over half of the total network bandwidth.

The trial in the Beaumont, TX division will apply to new HSD customer only, will provide a destination for customer to track usage for each month and will enable customers to upgrade from one tier to the next to avoid payment of overage charges. Existing and new subscribers will have tracking capability, however only new subscribers will be charged incrementally for bandwidth usage above the cap.

Following the trial, a determination will be made as to whether or not existing subscribers should be charged. Only residential subscribers will be impacted. Trial in Beaumont, TX will begin by Q1. We will be testing technical backend as well as Marketing and Messaging to customers. We will use the results of the trial to evaluate results for possible future nationwide rollouts.


It is rumored that Comcast has also conducted such tests, but never implemented the system because they were afraid of consumer backlash. We recently spoke to several ISPs and an industry analyst, all of whom shared those same concerns. ISPs are under pressure from investors to gain more revenue from higher-consumption users, but have had great success marketing the "all you can eat" business model to consumers.

Since many ISPs don't want the marketing disadvantage of being seen as bandwidth curmudgeons, the alternative has been to embrace mystery caps and application throttling, in many cases terminating very high-consumption users. This while maintaining the illusion that the bandwidth buffet is open all night long. That's probably not going to last, and while true per-byte billing may never come to the U.S. market, overage charges are a very real possibility.

The problem has been that such systems haven't proven particularly reliable. Canadian provider Rogers has some very low caps in comparison to U.S. providers, ranging from 10GB to 75GB per month. They've been trying to charge customers cap overage fees, but haven't been able to implement reliable tracking mechanisms. U.S. satellite ISP-based bandwidth monitoring has proven equal measure unreliable and unpopular.

Time Warner Cable is known to have caps they track internally, but they currently are not enforced. The company historically has had varying policies on bandwidth from market to market based on congestion. They've been known to offer faster tiers or capped service in one market, while leaving service alone in another. Last summer, a public relations screw up led to one market accidentally publicizing plans to employ p2p traffic throttling. Insiders believe the public attention subsequently put those plans temporarily on hold, but Time Warner Cable officially denied any such plan existed.

We spoke to several Time Warner Cable employees, none of whom had heard of the trial. Calls to Time Warner Cable public relations for comment so far have not been returned, but we'll post any statement from the company when we have it. Update: Time Warner Cable confirms that the memo is legitimate, and the caps they'll be testing will range from 5GB-40GB monthly.

digg:/business_finance/Time_Warner_Cable_Eyeing_Overage_Charges
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

Someone2
@pacbell.net

1 recommendation

Someone2

Anon

Dark Ages

Remember when dial-up was per-minute billing?

Per-byte billing with broadband is a bad idea. ISPs should just state their useage cap clearly and hold people to it.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 edit

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Dark Ages

said by Someone2 :

ISPs should just state their useage cap clearly and hold people to it.
That is what this billing model would bring except it adds the option to buy more usage rather than terminate accounts like, say, Comcast does.

Cjaiceman
MVM
join:2004-10-12
Castle Rock, WA
(Software) pfSense
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO

Cjaiceman

MVM

Re: Dark Ages

said by Dogfather:
said by Someone2 :

ISPs should just state their useage cap clearly and hold people to it.
That is what this billing model would bring except it adds the option to buy more usage rather than terminate accounts like, say, Comcast does.
But Comcast does not state what their usage caps are. If they were to state that I think people would get off their backs, but I also have heard from an insider that I know that the caps differ from area to area based on how much bandwidth they have per node...

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Dark Ages

Comcast should do what Cox does. Blanket caps that are SELECTIVELY enforced.

Then in areas where Comcast is seeing a capacity crunch, they point to their AUP and the stated caps so subscribers know exactly what they need to do to avoid termination of their account. In areas where there isn't, they turn a blind eye and ignore people going over their caps.

Cjaiceman
MVM
join:2004-10-12
Castle Rock, WA
(Software) pfSense
Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-AC-PRO

Cjaiceman

MVM

Re: Dark Ages

said by Dogfather:

Comcast should do what Cox does. Blanket caps that are SELECTIVELY enforced.

Then in areas where Comcast is seeing a capacity crunch, they point to their AUP and the stated caps so subscribers know exactly what they need to do to avoid termination of their account. In areas where there isn't, they turn a blind eye and ignore people going over their caps.
I like that idea cause I'm in an area that would be looked over *evil grin*, honestly though, I only do about 250-300GB TOTAL traffic (in+out). Comcast has not said a single word to me about it. My friend stated that in my area they really won't take notice till about the 500-600GB level because the average traffic in my area is 120-150GB a month. I live in a townhome complex where the average age is about 27, so lots of heavy users here.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK to Dogfather

Premium Member

to Dogfather
Cox's caps are ludicrously low. If they try to enforce them on anybody, they should just exit the market. Being a "Broadband provider" that says U can't use 40GB a month is just retarded. Hate to tell these companies something, but bandwidth usage will only go up as more and more people start using streaming services like Netflix's movies over IP service etc. Billing by the byte or even the meg? Forget it.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

3 edits

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Dark Ages

There are new DOCSIS deployments on the horizon, SDV, ditching analog among other things will help free capacity to dedicate more channels to HSI (in addition to the more throughput per channel). But between now and then, you simply have a tiny minority of users hosing the network just 'cause they can.

The people I know who use BT in this fashion are grabbing stuff (usually illegal) off BT, then just let their machines seed it in violation of their TOS/AUP. They're doing it not because they're actually using it, they're doing it just 'cause they can. It's similar to the game image collectors of the Usenet. They download crap just 'cause it's there whether they really want it/use it or not.

By having some overage fees, people will only be doing this (high monthly usage) when they have to or at least REALLY want to. The charity of seeding "just because" will largely be curbed bringing network traffic back to a more manageable level while the deployment technology catches up.

Cox's caps are ludicrously low to US, but at the current time not to the majority of their users. Most people aren't using BT or throttling the usenet 24/7. Most people are buying the occasional movie, downloading songs or other stuff with most of that stuff being surfing and email, some streaming video (eg MySpace and Facebook type crap).

When the AVERAGE user starts using like that (40+GB a month) they will certainly have to increase capacity and likely raise prices to do it. OR the rate of speed increases will slow so that you will simply not see too many cheap tiers going over 6-8Mb.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Dark Ages

said by Dogfather:

When the AVERAGE user starts using like that (40+GB a month) they will certainly have to increase capacity and likely raise prices to do it. OR the rate of speed increases will slow so that you will simply not see too many cheap tiers going over 6-8Mb.
That's what I am saying. No doubt there are a small minority who use a large amount of traffic--- but the usage of even the regular users is going to keep increasing. With such a low Cap, Cox is going to find that many regular users start going over that Cap soon. If they are not prepared, they will lose customers.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Dark Ages

I agree. Cox will simply continue to not enforce their caps (at least I haven't gotten a nastygram since the @Home days), or will quietly revise their numbers upward.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Dark Ages

The question is: Are they ahead of the curve on network upgrades, or will the average user reaching these caps means their nodes start to choke.

They'd better not....

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 edit

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Dark Ages

The nodes themselves aren't the choke point really. The nodes can use as many channels as they're assigned (from what I understand). It's the number of upload and download channels the operator uses that determines the real choke point with each channel doing 40Mb down and 30 or whatever Mb/s up.

I think they're ahead of the curve for the most part. Comcast is targeting BT traffic as is Time Warner. It's a singular very bandwidth intensive task that is putting the hurt on them at the moment.

And to meet the competition from the likes of Verizon (in both HSI and HD video), cable providers are having to get off their ass and deploy bandwidth saving/capacity increasing technologies like DOCSIS 3 and SDV.

If not for BT, I think cable operators and especially Verizon would have more residential HSI capacity than they would know what to do with. And in the absence of the killer app we would have seen competition causing even higher ramp ups in speed.

Cable speeds of 15Mb+ would likely be the basic tier if not for the bandwidth crunch caused by BT usage.
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx to KrK

Member

to KrK
said by KrK:

Cox's caps are ludicrously low. If they try to enforce them on anybody, they should just exit the market. Being a "Broadband provider" that says U can't use 40GB a month is just retarded. Hate to tell these companies something, but bandwidth usage will only go up as more and more people start using streaming services like Netflix's movies over IP service etc. Billing by the byte or even the meg? Forget it.
Just to be a devil's advocate, if Bandwidth is so cheap netflix can afford to stream to the home, why hasn't all radio and TV jumped on the model? Is it hype? Are the others foolish? Don't the others generally control what Netflix distributes via direct/indirect ownership of content?

It's an interesting tug-of-war.

The ISPs either charge more to their customers (us) for increased sustained bandwidth usage or they begin caching &/or charging companies like netflix for the downstream sustained usage that the ISPs aren't charging their customers.

Which company acting as an ISP has a model that can accommodate an unlimited broadcast model over wires (both loop and interconnect)? Not saying it can't happen, but I'm thinking as a business, we are resistant to upgrade for things "before their time". There is a reason our pricing is generally much less than fixed circuit prices.

The ISP could certainly charge by the hour, byte, gig or connection...pricing models have a lot of room for change.
They only need to change the pricing model that would be palatable to the vast majority of their customers that profits the ISP and offloads the heavy users to their competitors. The problem is that most of us do not monitor our usage enough, if at all, to get excited of caps until we go over them. We just click on the "accept new agreement" button.

Off topic comment on your Sig:
You do realize your Kennard quote seems silly given he created the Sandwich Isles franchise and related egregious USF draw while later joining Carlyle and trying to petition the FCC that their decision (under his chairmanship) was incorrect! He does sound like Martin

while taking a new position

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

Re: Dark Ages

said by xsiddalx:

Just to be a devil's advocate, if Bandwidth is so cheap netflix can afford to stream to the home, why hasn't all radio and TV jumped on the model? Is it hype? Are the others foolish?
I'm not sure about your market, but the stations here do stream their content. The TV stations less so, but they are catching on.
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx to Someone2

Member

to Someone2
said by Someone2 :

Remember when dial-up was per-minute billing?

Per-byte billing with broadband is a bad idea. ISPs should just state their useage cap clearly and hold people to it.
This "could" be a good thing.

The same price/cost model exists as in the dial up market.

Some people nailed up connections, some didn't.

AOL went flat rate and they are essentially a dead business model. The new business model seems to be the old business model, telco/wireless "flat rate or pay as you go". The cable folks, well...they could charge a premium for a loop that was already built out. Not sure they can sustain those "cadillac, or whatever Brian Robertson thinks himself" prices.

Then again, the days of "internet access" as it were in the dial up days are very much heading toward the model of the buggy whip in the US. Competition today is the telephone companies, cable companies, wireless (generally telephone companies) and satellite, with a few wisps thrown into the mix and some resellers of any of the above.

It's sorta competition, at a cost, certainly not walmart or your local quickie mart type.

I remember 20 bucks for 20 hours on the old sprintlink networks combined with delphi's online service over the old 2600 baud network. It was such a deal I signed on two accounts!! lol

If a company announced tomorrow they were heading back to the old model like AOL, I think I'd buy up some stock. Tons of people I talk to that would like a "safe" internet experience and that will only come from a walled garden for the average internet user with little kids. Give it time, it's coming.


tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Gulfport, MS

tc1uscg to Someone2

Member

to Someone2
said by Someone2 :

Remember when dial-up was per-minute billing?

Per-byte billing with broadband is a bad idea. ISPs should just state their useage cap clearly and hold people to it.
No better yet. State the cap limits. If your a bandwidth hog, when you reach your "limit", your speed is dropped to 512k till the next billing cycle and you get hit with a 10.00 service charge for the drop.
whocares0
Premium Member
join:2003-07-26
..

whocares0 to Someone2

Premium Member

to Someone2
THATS seems like its going to be more expensive to use R.R./TW and if no contract expect a lot of pple to say good by T.W.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

Looks like they're looking to cap and then charge overage fees.

Depending on what the pricing is, seems logical to me so long as the terms are VERY clear and provided up front.

If it's too bad, they'll lose customers to competitors, especially in their larger markets like SoCal where they're competing head-to-head with Verizon's FiOS.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

But you know if they start with caps down the road you'll have service for $34.99 with a cap. Over time that cap will be so low that most users go over it. I'm afraid they'll just use it for a price hike across the board.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

Then they'll lose customers to competitors. By then, cable operators will have DOCSIS 3 being deployed, increasing their per channel capacity, allowing them to raise the caps for the 95% of the user base who still won't be running their stuff wide open 24/7.

Corehhi
join:2002-01-28
Bluffton, SC

Corehhi

Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

In my case there are competitors and I can't be the only one.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

said by Corehhi:

In my case there are competitors and I can't be the only one.
That's true for many markets like SoCal which has a huge FiOS footprint overlaying Time Warner's.

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

1 recommendation

en102

Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

Really - I haven't seen much FiOS (or even Verizon) in the L.A. area. My inlaws are the only ones that I know that even have Verizon - and thats in North Hills. There's a ton of AT&T out here. Santa Clarita is all AT&T

antdude
Matrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US

antdude

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

said by en102:

Really - I haven't seen much FiOS (or even Verizon) in the L.A. area. My inlaws are the only ones that I know that even have Verizon - and thats in North Hills. There's a ton of AT&T out here. Santa Clarita is all AT&T
I am in Verizon and I can't get DSL (20K ft. from the CO), FIOS (unavailable), etc. I can go back to dial-up but it only gives me about 3 KB/sec even on 56k modems (the phone lines SUCK). I am not rich enough to get a T1 or something fast. WISPs don't exist here. Forget satellite services (too slow esp. online gaming and expensive). So what else can I get? :P
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx

Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

said by antdude:

said by en102:

Really - I haven't seen much FiOS (or even Verizon) in the L.A. area. My inlaws are the only ones that I know that even have Verizon - and thats in North Hills. There's a ton of AT&T out here. Santa Clarita is all AT&T
I am in Verizon and I can't get DSL (20K ft. from the CO), FIOS (unavailable), etc. I can go back to dial-up but it only gives me about 3 KB/sec even on 56k modems (the phone lines SUCK). I am not rich enough to get a T1 or something fast. WISPs don't exist here. Forget satellite services (too slow esp. online gaming and expensive). So what else can I get? :P
Is it possible to investigate creating a WISP? It sounds like a market opportunity, or at the least, free internet access for you!

antdude
Matrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US

antdude

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

said by xsiddalx:

said by antdude:

said by en102:

Really - I haven't seen much FiOS (or even Verizon) in the L.A. area. My inlaws are the only ones that I know that even have Verizon - and thats in North Hills. There's a ton of AT&T out here. Santa Clarita is all AT&T
I am in Verizon and I can't get DSL (20K ft. from the CO), FIOS (unavailable), etc. I can go back to dial-up but it only gives me about 3 KB/sec even on 56k modems (the phone lines SUCK). I am not rich enough to get a T1 or something fast. WISPs don't exist here. Forget satellite services (too slow esp. online gaming and expensive). So what else can I get? :P
Is it possible to investigate creating a WISP? It sounds like a market opportunity, or at the least, free internet access for you!
How? Wouldn't FCC say just use cable?
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx

Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

said by antdude:

How? Wouldn't FCC say just use cable?
The FCC might.

I was just asking if you have thought of it. I've thought about it in the chicago market. We don't have competition here...it's either ATT (the old SBC) or Comcast (the old ATT)
or wireless ($$$$$ and restricted) or satellite ($$$$$$ and latent and restricted).

Screw what the FCC says...WISPs generally do not require licenses. It depends on the spectrum you are using in my recollection.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to Dogfather

Member

to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:

Then they'll lose customers to competitors. By then, cable operators will have DOCSIS 3 being deployed, increasing their per channel capacity, allowing them to raise the caps for the 95% of the user base who still won't be running their stuff wide open 24/7.
Who DSL that is 1/3 to 1/2 the speed?

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

Or FiOS which is equal or faster and will be in 50% of Verizon markets within the next 3 years.

And for the hogs, it's consumption as much as speed. They'll take all you can eat with 1/2 the speed.

Where they would go isn't a concern for the cable operator. It's keeping the other 95% of users happy (and paying their HSI bill) that is the concern for the cable operator.
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx to patcat88

Member

to patcat88
said by patcat88:

said by Dogfather:

Then they'll lose customers to competitors. By then, cable operators will have DOCSIS 3 being deployed, increasing their per channel capacity, allowing them to raise the caps for the 95% of the user base who still won't be running their stuff wide open 24/7.
Who DSL that is 1/3 to 1/2 the speed?
Don't you mean Bandwidth?

Other than BT, what does BW have to do with Latency (perceived speed)? From what I've seen using dial up with an ad blocker, it's sorta all the same as long as I'm not doing ftp or pic uploads.

Gpon, DOCSIS 3

lol .. who doesn't love throwing around acronyms!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

KrK to Dogfather

Premium Member

to Dogfather
Assuming sufficient competition. Here, if you burn Cox, then all you have is at&t. Burn them, and you have nothing.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

2 recommendations

88615298 (banned) to Dogfather

Member

to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:

Looks like they're looking to cap and then charge overage fees.

Depending on what the pricing is, seems logical to me so long as the terms are VERY clear and provided up front.

If it's too bad, they'll lose customers to competitors, especially in their larger markets like SoCal where they're competing head-to-head with Verizon's FiOS.
The cusotmers they'll lose are the one costing them money so why would they care?

I think most people here that are getting upset really don't have a clue how much bandwidth they are using and probably use MUCH less than any potential caps.

This could actually lead to lower price for the majority since ISPs would not have to charge the bottom 95% extra for the bandwidth the top 5% use. 300-400 GB is plenty for most people for those that need more, well they can pay for it.

The main problem for ISPs is that they need to let customers know what the cap is and have reliable monitoring so the customer can tell how much he's using. Until an ISP can do that they need to hold off on the caps.

•••

tad2020
join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA

1 recommendation

tad2020 to Dogfather

Member

to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:

If it's too bad, they'll lose customers to competitors, especially in their larger markets like SoCal where they're competing head-to-head with Verizon's FiOS.
I live in SoCal, what competitors? I barely have TW.

FiOS is in an exremely limited foot print here. Last time I checked nearest availably to Orange is small area on the other side of Irvine.

AT&T (exPacBell) isn't going to service my side of town with DSL any time soon, let alone FTTN ever. The CO is too far away, these old neighborhoods are all low or fixed income SFUs.

TW is the only option for broadband and with only the 5/384 @ $44.95/m tier. I think that's the only tier they offer in the whole city too. There is no discount for having TV services too; basic cable is another $45/m.

Usually I would say "If they do, I'm outta here" to these threads, but there is absolutely no other service provider here.
I do like TimeWarner, when my cable modem dies (a twice a year thing), I just have to go to their office in downtown and exchange it in person. To do that over the phone takes 2 weeks minimum. I really hope they don't take that away when a state wide/national franchise bill eventually passes.

antdude
Matrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US

antdude

Premium Member

Re: Doesn't look like 'real' pay per byte billing

said by tad2020:

said by Dogfather:

If it's too bad, they'll lose customers to competitors, especially in their larger markets like SoCal where they're competing head-to-head with Verizon's FiOS.
I live in SoCal, what competitors? I barely have TW.

FiOS is in an exremely limited foot print here. Last time I checked nearest availably to Orange is small area on the other side of Irvine.

AT&T (exPacBell) isn't going to service my side of town with DSL any time soon, let alone FTTN ever. The CO is too far away, these old neighborhoods are all low or fixed income SFUs.

TW is the only option for broadband and with only the 5/384 @ $44.95/m tier. I think that's the only tier they offer in the whole city too. There is no discount for having TV services too; basic cable is another $45/m.

Usually I would say "If they do, I'm outta here" to these threads, but there is absolutely no other service provider here.
I do like TimeWarner, when my cable modem dies (a twice a year thing), I just have to go to their office in downtown and exchange it in person. To do that over the phone takes 2 weeks minimum. I really hope they don't take that away when a state wide/national franchise bill eventually passes.
Exactly! I wished there were competitions and not darn monopolies!
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

B04

Premium Member

Back to their old tricks.

Nah, ISPs should provide the bandwidth they advertise, without visible or invisible restrictions. Their job is to provide the plumbing and get the hell out of the way.

Fittingly, it was AOL/Time Warner who was one of the last online services to finally loosen their death grip on per-minute charges for dial-up.

-- B

•••••••••••••••••••

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo

Member

bad idea


it seems like a good idea (make those that consume the most pay for their consumption) but this ignores the "ALL YOU CAN EAT" marketing done by cableco as well as the more insidious motivation behind this move: charge more to everyone.

it's being fed as a the solution to the bandwidth hogs, but it is clear that this is a money grab by cableco. users that aren't hogs will pay more, unless TW plans to drop prices??

right.

••••••••••••••••••••

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

It's not THAT bad of an idea.....

But then your base-fee should be something like $10, just like with a electricity, water, or gas subscription.

The biggest issue in implementing this properly is however...

Who pays for some Korean hacker that decides to bombard your IP address with data for a few days from a big University broadband connection in Seoul?

I just downloaded Fedora, Ubuntu and Debian DVD's within about 6 or 7 hours on my 10 Mbit/s connection, each being roughly 4 Gb in size. That's 12 Gb right there.

If some malicious person in a foreign country decides to bombard your IP address with a HEAPLOAD of data, which you may or may not discover until you wake up in the morning, or when you come back from your weekend trip..... who will be paying for that?

You did not ask for the data for starters. How does it differentiate between data that you requested, and data that is delivered all the way to your firewall, and then dropped there because you rejected it?

••••••••

BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11

1 recommendation

BabyBear

Member

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

Wonder if the "usage page" page will have a bunch of high bandwidth ads on them! You know some marketing guy pitched it. "Just think it a page they'll have to visit dozens times a month to check usage then bam we hit the suck err customers with a couple of video ads which in turn moves upward toward their overage fees! Brilliance shear brilliance! Oh and we can add a ban of ad-blockers to our TOS too."
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

ugh

Why dont the bigger companies follow cablevisions lead. create a docsis 2 or draft docsis 3 network and have that the highest bandwidth and unlimited. This way the high users can go to that and be on their own and not screw with the users who use less of their connections.

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium Member
join:2001-08-02
La Porte, IN

ztmike

Premium Member

Poor RR users

I bet people on RR are shaking their heads right now..

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

Dogfather

Premium Member

Re: Poor RR users

Only the top 5%. "Most" users won't even notice it just like most Cox users don't notice that Cox has usage caps.

supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

supergirl

Member

Re: Poor RR users

My Cox cap is 60gigs a month but I go over that at 100gigs a month. Cox told me, "If you download at night when no one is on, we don't worry about that part. We worry about people doing up/dl 24/7. Even just browsing and watching YouTube 24/7 will never be a problem."

Also, if you have all 3 services--they don't care here--because, as they told me, we don't want to lose your phone, cable, and HSI.

Upload is the problem not downloading. I upload maybe 5 gigs a month.

Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17

Sabre

Member

How much do I use?

Without taking a position for or against this particular question, let me ask one of the network gurus here.
How can I monitor how much bandwidth I'm using on my connection at home, just for (at the moment at least) my own personal reference? It would be very useful to know this so I and others could argue this question from a more informed viewpoint. Are there any fairly simple network management tools I could play with to find out? (Linux or Windows)

•••
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

amungus

Premium Member

one word

MESS. Maybe "Catastrophe" would be better...

I am so glad to have been left alone by Cox for all these years... Only ever heard of a couple people that got bugged by Cox for being "hogs" and they never actually got shut off.

Only one person I know has ever been shut off completely, but it was due to having their computer(s) sending massive amounts of spam traffic... Cleaned infection(s) and they were back on within a day.

Besides, with dynamic IP addresses, what happens if yours changes randomly and suddenly they think you just had a few weeks of massive usage??? How can you prove that it wasn't you? Worse still, what if you keep logs and they differ from their records???

Whatever.

My roommate and I will continue to download LEGAL recordings of live music, I grab the occasional Linux distro, and I'll watch as much Netflix as I want, stream Rhapsody as often as I like, and surf randomly.

Thank you for leaving me alone Cox. I try to do the same unless there's something really wrong

I feel sorry for those of you who will be bothered by this new RR policy...

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: one word

said by amungus:

Besides, with dynamic IP addresses, what happens if yours changes randomly and suddenly they think you just had a few weeks of massive usage??? How can you prove that it wasn't you? Worse still, what if you keep logs and they differ from their records???
Have you noticed that your cable modem always downloads the correct service profile that matches your paid level of service. Weird, eh? Don't worry about the dynamic IPs, that's not how the cable company identifies you.
said by amungus:

My roommate and I will continue to download LEGAL recordings of live music, I grab the occasional Linux distro, and I'll watch as much Netflix as I want, stream Rhapsody as often as I like, and surf randomly.
Great -- and people with RR will be able to do all those same things without any fear of being cutoff or having to deal with abuse (unless there are DMCA complaints). When you reach a certain level of bandwidth consumption would you rather be cut off and treated like a criminal, or be allowed to continue as much as you like as long as you're willing to pay for it?
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

Already Capped

Anyone who is on the RR side of the business with any Operator is already under a cap. Nobody around here looks at anyone but Comcast when this comes up. RR has had this in their TOS / AUP for some time now. It affects ALL RoadRunner customers not just ones on the Time Warner side of the business. RR customers have 2 TOS and AUPs. One from the cable operator and the other set from RR. Read your TOS from the ISP not the cable operator.

•••••••••••

telcolackey5
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA

telcolackey5

Member

De ja vu

Karl,

Can you copy this entire thread and just post it to the bottom of your weekly pay-per-byte news thread? Same arguments, same FUD, getting boring.

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

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: De ja vu

said by telcolackey5:

Karl,

Can you copy this entire thread and just post it to the bottom of your weekly pay-per-byte news thread? Same arguments, same FUD, getting boring.
The frequency of these news items just indicate that some form of billing/byte(whether overages or some other system) is coming. The P2P users and Bittorrent and ever increasing movie downloads has guaranteed it.

NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

NOCMan

Premium Member

Stupid Stupid Stupid

Do they realize that the users that eat all the bandwidth are doing it because they are stealing movies, music, and computer programs. Probably 1/10 of 1% of them could actually afford the junk they steal.

This will screw things up for the rest of us who are using legal music and movie download services.
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx

Member

Re: Stupid Stupid Stupid

said by NOCMan:

Do they realize that the users that eat all the bandwidth are doing it because they are stealing movies, music, and computer programs. Probably 1/10 of 1% of them could actually afford the junk they steal.

This will screw things up for the rest of us who are using legal music and movie download services.
To be fair, the only way they were able to "upgrade" dial up providers was to sell broadband. The only thing than made broadband "sensible" was free crap, or people that had money to burn on faster email downloads. Broadband sales were based on Napster (and equivelents), Usenet (never been an equivalent) and lastly Bittorent (not really the broadband driver napster was imo).

Legal music and movie download services haven't driven broadband, it has been a result. My suspicion, is that they are still not driving broadband. Those businesses are evolving "around" the current connectivity. The service providers are pricing at what they think they can pull in based on highest prices charged vs market share desires. We haven't quite met a competitive market where price drives customers choice. Once we are at the bottom barrel price competition, "legal or non-legal" downloads will finally meet the same demise...pay per byte.

On the other hand, you produce an argument that value has a price and legality has a role. To that I say, should your phone call cost more if two ceos are cutting a deal vs two peons talking about american idol or real houswewives of some town ?

Bits are bits....it ain't about content or perceived value yet, the telcos are hoping so, the cablecos are hoping the telcos do so.

If it gets to be about perceived value, it will get interesting, maybe bittorrent type stuff will be more value than the pay per view stuff, but then the telcos and cablecos will struggle with the idea that they are giving away content that they can sell on their cable/telco tv networks. Does the internet start looking more like a television station on cable or a station on the sat radio?

Does YouTube become another junky channel on Tv? Ot do the Big Telcos/Cablecos cache the internet and provide a searchable YouTube using "Google technology" so that we only look at what we currently look at, but via a closed/walled garden internet that is safe to the masses.

Very interesting times.

Funny that you think because you pay to receive something you are are getting screwed...back in the day, usenet subscribers were seen as the pain the ass..especially the binaries groups.

Are you paying for all the web sites you visit? e-mail you download? Youtube/myspace/facebook crap you watch/visit? ebay sites/auctions you visit? Oh but maybe some of us do pay for some of those places you visit but don't pay for.

Some of us pay for some web sites.
Some of use pay for email.
Some of use pay for "social networking sites".

It sounds like you think because you pay for something you stand the moral high ground. On the other hand, if that small a percentage could afford the stuff they "steal", chances are they wouldn't be a customer in the first place.
Imagine all those people in the 70's and 80's buying the stuff they taped off the radio...buncha thieves!

What the heck, let's throw in netflix....they've been around
what several years? netflix is well known as the place to get video on demand via dvd-r....their business model is/was based on queing vids and digitally recording and sending back as soon as possible to get the next vid. I've never used em myself, but the business model made sense to me if I were a video junkie. In retrospect, I was a fool, the cable companies want to commit me to a 3 hour time slot for what used to be a 2 hour movie which was sort of 1.5 hours.

Netflix charges me a mere fraction of the cost of cable/satellite and the few ads that unfortunately come with most DVDs.

And people on BBR bitch about 10% DSL overhead!

How will they screw up your downloads NOC?

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

2 edits

Anonymous_

Premium Member

they will lose a lot of customers

i have many choices for Broadband and would switch

such as:

ADSL,VDSL,WiFi internet,Open Wifi access poin

i'd hit an 75GB cap in an week

•••••••••••••••

wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH

wruckman

Member

I will cancel

I have Time-Warner, and fortunately I have alternatives. If they try this crap with me I will cancel their service on the spot!
kd6cae
P2p Shouldn't Be A Crime
join:2001-08-27
Bakersfield, CA

kd6cae

Member

My fear if this goes national

Some of us do such things as download linux CD's or DVD's, or stream internet radio and no doubt in the future, stream and/or download HD video. I would hope usage caps will increase to acomidate the new uses of high speed lines, otherwise it'll be a disaster. I wonder how our ISP's provider builds the ISP for their connection to the backbone? In other words, how for example, is RR build by Level3 for whatever connection RR has to level3's network? Is it in fact a metered line, hence all the talk of caps and all this, or does Level3 bill RR a flat rate for whatever OC class connections they have in to the network? Just curious.

•••

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

roc5955

Premium Member

RE:Time Warner Cable Eyeing Overage Charges?

It doesn't matter that they don't properly maintain their equipment,(ie: replacing batteries on upses on repeaters) or oversell their bandwidth with too many people on their network, for a given location. Noooo, they just keep giving the execs higher pay, and expect us to keep their crappy service. Yeah, for some of us, they are the only game in town, so as they have the monopoly, they should be required by law to maintain their network, just as the phone company has to, or open themselves up to competition.

I know that I don't have a choice in the matter, it's either cable, or dialup. So like drug dealers, they are going to give us the good bandwidth for a while, for a decent price, then once we get hooked, raise the rates so that we can no longer afford what we had. There are already QOS issues in my area in the Hudson Valley. I had a phone call with their tech support, who insisted that I had to be there to have their tech replace a thirty year old cable that was not replaced when they changed me over. You should have seen the old thing.

I say that if they want to charge people for going over their 'limit,' they should be required to pro rate their service, and any fraction of bandwidth that is not being delivered to their customers, should be refunded. If I get 80% of their advertised 10 MB service, I should pay 80% of their charges. It's only fair, and should be pro rated for each twelve hour period that there is any degradation in service. Sorry, I will not buy the "bad weather," or "you did have SOME service" excuses. There should be new laws written in this age, so that the cable companies do not go and rip people off, with advertising promises that cannot be delivered.

scrummie02
Bentley
Premium Member
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA

scrummie02

Premium Member

Re: RE:Time Warner Cable Eyeing Overage Charges?

I think this will be the first time and might be the only time I will ever agree with you.

While I don't agree with the government mandating laws, having them open up competition would help. Also if I use 80% of my bandwidth I should only pay 80%. I have QOS issues as well, I see it when I'm gaming on-line and my ping times go up.

I pay a lot of money for my service, if I have downtime I should be compensated however with no competition (FIOS will be here soon though) the cable company is in no position to provide good customer service.

Ben
Premium Member
join:2007-06-17
Fort Worth, TX

Ben

Premium Member

Caps Are Bad

Firstly, there's the argument about hackers.

Even if traffic/data transfer reaches your firewall, and is denied, it still counts as data transfer used, though it's useless for the user. One has no control over this.

Another argument is this: Do you really know the size of the various websites you visit? Even if you know today, you won't know tomorrow. The home page of this website is undoubtedly different every time I visit it. I use YouTube, and I have no idea how large the videos are.

There's yet another argument: The heaviest users are probably power users. Power users are the people others consult with regards to technical type stuff. They're the people that others ask for referrals ("Which ISP is better?").

So, if one power user refers five "normal" or "low-usage" users to the same ISP, that ISP still wins.

I know I would be mad if there was a cap. Given the price I pay and the lack of an SLA, I know that a cap would absolutely enrage me.

•••
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Bismarck, ND
Asus RT-AC68
Ubiquiti NSM5

travelguy

Member

Speed Bandwidth

The problem is that cablecos and telcos are using speed as a proxy for bandwidth. It wouldn't be that hard to come up with a business model that combined a monthly byte count with an hourly/daily peak limit.

Speed then becomes a secondary factor...
neufuse
join:2006-12-06
James Creek, PA

neufuse

Member

If you want this to work...

first off you need a set number... that way people KNOW they wont be charged for something they didn't want to be... I wouldn't want to be told "Oh this month you own us $40 more because we said you are at the top 5% oh and by the way we wont tell you how you got there or how we determined you where there... so just pay up"...

after you have a set number! then say ok each 100 GB over that will be $20 more... or something like that... none of this $5 per gig over crap that has floated around before... give a larger number... 100GB for $20 seems like a good deal for me if say you get 200GB per month to start with...
xsiddalx
join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

xsiddalx

Member

Re: If you want this to work...

said by neufuse See Profile
after you have a set number! then say ok each 100 GB over that will be $20 more... or something like that... none of this $5 per gig over crap that has floated around before... give a larger number... 100GB for $20 seems like a good deal for me if say you get 200GB per month to start with...
[/BQUOTE :


Why is 100gb for 20 gb sensible to you?

What is the grandmother argument? (I'd like to explain the price hike to my grandma)

(seriously...)
page: 1 · 2 · next