agreed. i can almost understand charging more for people who are flat out maxing their caps out 24 hours a day all month long but going through 5gb doesn't take long.. 25-30 is more reasonable. i mean, a gig a day is usually enough for me

4/3/2009 9:42:05 AM

Quote :

"This will not work anywhere where there is any competition ... which is why the government, obama, whoever should do everything possible to expose service providers to the maximum amount of competition. The long-lingering regional monopolies we hare are fucking stupid and are holding broadband back"

The costs of putting in new infrastructure are so high that competition can only occur in the most densely populated areas. Right now the best we can hope for is competition on the supply side causing content providers to move closer to end users. With all the hype around "cloud computing" its pretty easy to see it moving in that direction.

Previously you had a single point serving content in one location. Everyone in the world who wanted that content had to traverse whatever networks to get to the destination. In this model the end user pays for access accross the network.

As datacenters became cheaper you saw them move to multiple regional locations for both failover and better service.

In the future you'll see these datacenters push farther out to the edges, getting closer to the end user. Less distance from the end user to destination = lower cost + better service.


What you will not ever see happen (unless it becomes super cheap somehow) is verizon, time warner, comcast, fairpoint, at&t all rolling out fiber to bumfuck nowhere.

4/3/2009 9:46:51 AM

So what happens when you hit your monthly cap? Do they just penalize you with an obnoxious fee - a la some cell phone plans? Do they just throttle your bandwidth? I could stomach bandwidth throttling a whole lot easier. Oops, I hit my 30 GB limit, now I'll just get 700k as opposed to 1.5M for the rest of the month.

4/3/2009 9:56:29 AM

I'm pretty sure they start charging for it. Not sure how much, though.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:02 AM. Reason : asf]

4/3/2009 10:02:08 AM

1 dollar per gig i think

4/3/2009 10:05:40 AM

i think its $1 per GB extra.

4/3/2009 10:06:06 AM

^correct $1 per GB you go over.

That's why I like my idea of rollover GB . If they're going to make you pay out the ass each month for a certain amount of data then I would expect if I don't use I should have the opportunity to use it later. Just like a cell carrier would have for minutes.

4/3/2009 10:09:04 AM

$30 for the first 5 gig, $1 for each additional gig. Call me now for your free reading.

4/3/2009 10:13:17 AM

$1/GB is pretty cheap guys.

you'd probably spend an extra $10/mo for non-metered crappy service if was available when TWC did this, so just pay an extra $1/GB to TWC instead and get their good rock solid service.

4/3/2009 10:14:12 AM

HAHAHA rock solid service?? please tell me that was sarcasm. The whole reason I left them in the first place was because they not only had shitty service in my area but whenever I tried to call and fix it no one in support actually knew how to support the product. Everyone I know hates their service and only uses it because of lack of choice.

And how exactly is $1 per GB cheaper than $30-40 for unlimited?? unless you use less than 40GB of data, which would only be like 3 people I know.. then no it is not cheaper.

Please tell me you are being sarcastic...

4/3/2009 10:18:44 AM

^If you used 40 gb of data on the 5 gb/month plan your bill would be $65 ($30 flat fee + $35 in fees). Just pointing that out.

4/3/2009 10:24:42 AM

How is metered usage going to affect IPTV?

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:25 AM. Reason : asdf]

4/3/2009 10:25:04 AM

Good question. If ATT did metered (or some other IPTV company) they would have to somehow separate the TV data from the computer data so they could charge you properly.

Quote :

"If you used 40 gb of data on the 5 gb/month plan your bill would be $65"

My point exactly.. there's really no way I could see it being cheaper for people who really use the internet. And the number of people using the internet more intensively is growing everyday.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:29 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 10:27:19 AM

Quote :

"HAHAHA rock solid service?? please tell me that was sarcasm. The whole reason I left them in the first place was because they not only had shitty service in my area but whenever I tried to call and fix it no one in support actually knew how to support the product. Everyone I know hates their service and only uses it because of lack of choice."

4/3/2009 10:35:05 AM

The day they start this, I'll just add tethering to my Sprint service and say fuck TWC.

4/3/2009 10:40:15 AM

hmm... In 5 years of TWC usage I've only experienced one or two outages.

4/3/2009 10:41:46 AM

Quote :

"I'll just add tethering to my Sprint service and say fuck TWC."

sprint has a 5GB cap on their "unlimited" plans.

Quote :

"hmm... In 5 years of TWC usage I've only experienced one or two outages."

you're either the very rare exception or you're lying out your ass. for someone complaining about djeternal being a shill for chacha, it sure seems like you're one for TWC.

i literally do not know anyone who is satisfied with their TWC services.

4/3/2009 10:42:10 AM

FUCK

HAHA WTF MATE IS THE INTERNET COMING TO!

^ Hells yeah we need to call Guinness to validate that shit.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:45 AM. Reason : /]

4/3/2009 10:42:36 AM

^inorite?

4/3/2009 10:43:52 AM

I'm pretty satisfied with my service. But then again, I'm in maine.

4/3/2009 10:48:01 AM

Quote :

"sprint has a 5GB cap on their "unlimited" plans."

fairly certain it's only on air cards - not on phones that are tethering

4/3/2009 10:48:23 AM

PLEASE SAYS THATS TRUE I'LL GET THE BALL ROLLING AND SAY FUCK TWC TODAY

4/3/2009 10:50:59 AM

I'm very satisfied with TWC and highly recommend it to everyone I talk to who's considering broadband providers.

Then again, I don't download jigabytes of data every day, so maybe they are messing with you heavy users connections somehow.

4/3/2009 10:53:44 AM

Yeah I gotta say, everyone I know has experienced at least 3 outages a year around here. And each time it's pretty much a sit and wait scenario because they're support lines are backed up and their support personnel barely graduated high school at best.

You can't take your one personal experience and say that it must be true for everyone. I'm not. I have plenty of friends, family, and even the company I work for who have experienced outages with TWC with little to no help from them. 9 times out of 10 when you finally get the one decent support guy, they can fix it within a matter of seconds because something needs to be reset, or a crappy piece of hardware needs to be replaced. I wouldn't mind paying for good service.. but with them I have rarely experienced such a thing.

Oh, and not everyone who has had problems is downloading serious amounts of data. Many of the people I know who have experienced outages use it for only email, websurfing, and a small amount of video or picture sharing. You really shouldn't be making broad statements based on your limited experience.



[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 10:54:09 AM

^^do you only post on TWW and read news articles online? because if you do more than that then I hate to break it to you but you are downloading 'jigabytes' of data.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:55 AM. Reason : ^]

4/3/2009 10:54:55 AM

I JUST INTERNET TO DEATH, I ONLY DOWN REGULAR SHIT LIKE FREE PROGRAMS AND SHIT, SO AM I EXEMPT FORM BE CLASSIFIED AS A HEAVY USER?

4/3/2009 10:55:10 AM

Well, I can only speak based on my experience. Somehow you don't have a problem with the rest of the posts in this thread making broad claims based on their own anecdotal experiences.

I use the internet for email and maybe about 5 youtube videos a month. I also play some games online and once in a while I VNC into work... Dunno if I go over 5GB/mo, but if I did, I wouldn't have a problem paying an extra $1/GB because I'm sure it wouldn't be more than a few dollars every couple months if that.


You guys are missing the point.... TWC really wants you guys to go away and stop using them. You are not typical users, but you are right that your usage habits are becoming much more mainstream with the advent of Hulu and Netflix. And that is THE EXACT reason why TWC is instituting these metered policies now, before that usage model becomes fully mainstream, so that they can stay ahead of the tidal wave of bandwidth consumption that is heading towards them.



[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : s]

4/3/2009 11:02:28 AM

4/3/2009 11:08:01 AM

They are also setting themselves up to be left behind once new infrastructures rolls out.

Who knows even what will happen when the analog spectrum gets freed up?

It wouldn't be hard at all for a competitor to offer no caps or less restrictive caps and screw time warner.

4/3/2009 11:09:15 AM

^ well at least now they will have the flexibility to adapt because they will have pricing structures that allow them to continue making profit and potentially invest in improving their network rather than treading water as the ratio of revenue/bandwidth-consumption continues to decrease.

4/3/2009 11:14:44 AM

wireless is about the only possible competitor in less dense areas, but its going to cost the same for worse service.

You probably wont see verizon rolling out caps because they own such a huge part of the backbone that they can dictate terms for accessing other networks. What they'll probably do when coming into RR's turf is offer packages with higher caps and bandwidth at the same price as RR + unlimited plans for more $.

4/3/2009 11:15:57 AM

Quote :

"You guys are missing the point.... TWC really wants you guys to go away and stop using them. You are not typical users, but you are right that your usage habits are becoming much more mainstream with the advent of Hulu and Netflix. And that is THE EXACT reason why TWC is instituting these metered policies now, before that usage model becomes fully mainstream, so that they can stay ahead of the tidal wave of bandwidth consumption that is heading towards them."

I don't know if you are making the assumption that everyone in this thread torrents but I don't. My internet consumption is probably just as high as a torrent user because I'm constantly streaming HD video through netflix and apple TV. And by constantly I mean the only time I'm not is when my roommate and I are at work. And even then, my apple TV or iTunes is downloading shows that aired the night before since they're pre-payed. Thats not even counting my everyday internet surfing, development work (uploading downloading files), VPN to work, xboxLive, etc. I'm already paying for my tv and entertainment services. No way in hell I'll be paying even more to my service provider for that.

and I'm not even counting IPTV usage because that has its own reserved bandwidth.

4/3/2009 11:21:06 AM

It doesn't matter if your torrenting or using your bandwidth like ^.... You're still atypical but your usage model is becoming much more mainstream and will continue to become more mainstream. That is why TWC is trying to get out in front of this problem with a new pricing structure.

You tell me... If everyone on TWC started using the internet like you do, what do you think would happen to the network?

/thread.

4/3/2009 11:23:10 AM

Quote :

"You are not typical users, but you are right that your usage habits are becoming much more mainstream "

Do you have any idea how outdated your ideas are? This is nothing new, people have been working for years to be able to stream music, movies, and data files to their systems. Now that we finally have that ability someone wants to cap it and monetize it based purely on the fact that there is not another competing company to go to.

Not to mention the fact that we are still a long way out from actually eating up all our bandwidth. Face facts. TWC started what is essentially a monopoly here. and now they can't handle all the people trying to use their systems. They are a monopoly that isn't strong enough to stick around, so they try to flex their muscles and cap your bandwidth instead of upgrading their infrastructure and investing in the long term. If they were seriously investing in their future, they wouldn't be stuck with some of the crappy hardware and firmware they now have (I am of course expanding to include their outdated DVR technology).

4/3/2009 11:23:21 AM

Quote :

"It doesn't matter if your torrenting or using your bandwidth like ^.... You're still atypical but your usage model is becoming much more mainstream and will continue to become more mainstream. That is why TWC is trying to get out in front of this problem with a new pricing structure. You tell me... If everyone on TWC started using the internet like you do, what do you think would happen to the network?"

welcome to U-Verse and FIOS kthx.

/thread

4/3/2009 11:27:35 AM

Tell you what, these fucks better at least give me one of two things if they want me to even CONSIDER keeping their service:

1.) A rundown of my bandwidth usage per month for the last few months or a year
2.) Alerts when my usage gets to a certain point so that I can be warned if I'm going to go over.

My guess is that my current usage is at least at or over the 40gb mark, which is for some crazy reason the most they offer. God dammit.

4/3/2009 11:33:10 AM

With stuff like OnLive gaming and internet data backup, even a 40GB cap is going to start to hurt on even "regular" users (ie. ones not pirating movies).

and if...

Quote :

"well at least now they will have the flexibility to adapt because they will have pricing structures that allow them to continue making profit and potentially invest in improving their network rather than treading water as the ratio of revenue/bandwidth-consumption continues to decrease."

TWC had BEEN improving their network, they wouldn't need the caps. It seems they are substituting actual improvement with just raising prices.

I don't see this working out for them when ATT is laying fiber, and the analog spectrum is going to free up in another year or so's time. TWC should be ashamed that less corps in other countries are better than them at this.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ]

4/3/2009 11:34:45 AM

Time warners own network has been much improved in most places. The reason for price increases is for access to other networks. It costs money for timewarner to send data over MCI/at&t/level3(lol)'s networks. As your usages goes up, so does the cost for timewarner to service you. So you can either jump to verizon or at&t if available or suck it up.

This whole RAWR RAWR TIME WARNERS NETWORK SUCKKKKKKS is pretty much bullshit.

4/3/2009 11:42:37 AM

The fact that they have to send data over other networks is all well in good, and that may be one reason for their pricing strategy. However you can't expect people to pay more for the service they are used to having when the service itself sucked to begin with. It is a perfectly valid argument to have.

If TWC can't support sending the data(for price or any other reason) then maybe they shouldn't be sending the data, and simply go out of business. Obviously these other networks are not having the same issues or they would have been structuring prices the same way.

There is an obvious difference that people who have changed can tell you. I can pay the same or less for comparable speeds with better service, and better support. Why would I not then find TWC to be a lesser company and therefore 'suck'? seems to be a perfectly valid argument to me.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 11:52:48 AM

From twc:

With a consumption based billing plan, all customers will have access to a “gas gauge” that will enable them to track their consumption against their plan. A customer will have three months to get comfortable with the gauge before the bill hits. We don’t want our customers to have any unpleasant surprises.

4/3/2009 12:00:43 PM

^Yeah I had read about that in one of the other articles. They did it to hopefully allow people to better pick a plan that fits their usage. Unfortunately, since their plans max out at 40, none of them are even a remote possibility for me or anyone I know with the exception of my grandparents

4/3/2009 12:24:52 PM

well, once again, they'd be happy if you just left them altogether.

aw, does rejection make you feel sad?

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason : s]

4/3/2009 12:28:25 PM

^^^^ The competitors own the large tier1 networks. Thats why they dont have the problems TWC does.

If something is hosted on verizons network, it doesn't cost verizon much for a fios customer to get to it. Even if an at&t customer wants to get at something on verizons network, its not going to cost too much because verizon and at&t are so large. Even if they charge each other for peering (which i doubt) they'll end up paying each other about the same ammount and the net result is $0. For someone like TWC where they (probably) dont have any major hosts on their own backbone, theres no desire for at&t or verizon customers to get to the network. Thus they have to pay to get on at&t/Verizon.

If you have fios or uverse available thats great. I'd switch too if it were available. But this hoopla where people are whining that TWCs infrastructure is oversold or doesn't work are flat wrong.

What you all dont seem to understand is that in areas where time warner is the only ISP, theres nothing that can be done. The reason that TWC is the only isp in those places is because its so goddamned expensive for another carrier to get in there. So to say time warner is fucking its customers its not entirely accurate. Yes price is going up for the same service, but its because costs have gone up.

The only options for time warner would be to cap people or go out of business. In the places where timewarner is the only isp or its them vs dsl it would be awful for consumers.

Once time warner expands its backbone it will be in a better position to dictate pricing with the top tier providers. No idea how long thats going to take them.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason : a]

4/3/2009 12:28:33 PM

Quote :

"well, once again, they'd be happy if you just left them altogether. aw, does rejection make you feel sad?"

Well I suppose its only fair to say TWC is for the dial-up type of users.

4/3/2009 12:51:20 PM

Quote :

"well, once again, they'd be happy if you just left them altogether."

Do you even read previous posts before writing crap? I said many posts ago that I had dropped them. I do not use them for tv or internet. I have never been happier that I did change as I pay less and get the same service elsewhere, from people that can answer support calls and give me real help in a timely manner.

Quote :

"Once time warner expands its backbone it will be in a better position to dictate pricing with the top tier providers"

That is true, except that they have never been interested in expanding or updating its systems for the very reason you mentioned.. they are the only ones there, therefore they don't care how good your service is because what are you gonna do about it. And there are always other options depending on you area. I know people who have gone to satellite internet to avoid TWC.

Quote :

"TWCs infrastructure is oversold or doesn't work are flat wrong"

If it works so well then why do so many people in the area have random outages and lags? If they are concerned about their infrastructure then why do they always use the cheap option when picking hardware and software to run their infrastructure?

4/3/2009 1:18:44 PM

My biggest beef with this is that metering does not charge you for bandwidth you use. Metering charges you for data transfer over a (in this case) one month interval, which is completely independent of the amount of bandwidth.

Tiered pricing (RR lite, turbo, business class) charges you for bandwidth that you (can) use.

Once I've put down the infrastructure for carrying my bits around the overhead for using different amounts of bandwidth is effectively the same.

As an analogy, the city charges you a basic fee to connect your house to the city water system. Then on a monthly basis, they charge you for the amount of water you use. The water flowing through those pips is a finite resource and every drop of water has an inherent cost to the city (supply/demand, water treatment, etc.)

RR charging for the size of the pipe, infrastructure access, or whatever you want to call it makes sense. the bits that move from one place to another have no inherent cost to them nor are they a finite resource.
Charging for bits that are moving in and out of your house is squeezing more money out of a captive audience. For most of us, there is little to no competition to run away to.

If they really want to make the heaviest users pay the most, they should look at the segment of users with the highest average transfer RATE over a time delta. That will target the users that have their connections constantly torrenting, etc.

4/3/2009 1:22:21 PM

Quote :

"they should look at the segment of users with the highest average transfer RATE over a time delta."

if they took that over a month. it would be the exact same as what they're doing now.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM. Reason : or should i say about to do in greensboro]

4/3/2009 1:28:47 PM

I dont think you understand what I mean by backbone. Its their routing network for getting traffic from one part of the country to another. Its effects are region wide, not local suburb wide.

example: previously if i wanted to get to google i'd be sent to new york on rr's network and then from there to google via level3 or verizon. Now it goes from new york to google via rr's backbone.

I'd be curious if one of you maybe in greensboro or nearby could post a traceroute from you to google.

Quote :

"If it works so well then why do so many people in the area have random outages and lags? If they are concerned about their infrastructure then why do they always use the cheap option when picking hardware and software to run their infrastructure?"

I've never had this issue with rr. Neither here in Maine nor when I was in NC. Then again, individual time warner offices operate more like franchies than one single business. Bad luck for you I guess.

4/3/2009 1:34:00 PM

^^

durr, yeah i clearly didn't pay much attention in my statistics class.

rather than average, perhaps the set of users who max out their BW for the longest sustained periods of time? I dunno, but i think it's fairly clear what i'm trying to say.

4/3/2009 1:45:07 PM

Charge the people who use Bittorrent more than everyone else. There, problem solved.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 1:52 PM. Reason : wtf]

4/3/2009 1:47:14 PM