Time Warner to Place Caps on Subscriber Bandwidth?

[Mr. Peabody]

Damn, I hope this doesn't take hold in SA anytime soon.

40GB for $55 per month: Time Warner bandwidth caps arrive

By Ryan Paul | Published: June 03, 2008 - 09:18AM CT

Time Warner Cable will launch a trial program on Thursday which will impose monthly Internet consumption caps on new subscribers in Beaumont, Texas. Following a two-month grace period, cable users will pay $1 for each additional gigabyte consumed beyond the cap.
Related Stories

* Leaked memo: Time Warner Cable to trial hard bandwidth caps

Time Warner Cable's plan to test metered service was originally revealed to the public when an internal company memo was leaked in January and later confirmed by the company. The memo indicated that the results of the trial would be used to determine whether to roll out the bandwidth-capping plan to other regions.

Kevin Leddy, Time Warner Cable executive vice president of advanced technology, told the Associated Press that the variable billing model is being adopted to address the disparity in bandwidth consumption among Time Warner Cable users. Five percent of the subscribers are consuming half of the local line capacity, Leddy says.

The caps differ depending on the tier of service paid for by the consumer. The lowest level of service is a 768Kbps connection with a 5GB cap for $29.95 per month. The high-end package will offer 15MBps with a 40GB cap for $54.90 per month. Consumers will pay by the gigabyte for consumption in excess of the established caps. Customers will be able to see how much bandwidth they have left by visiting the Time Warner Cable web site.

As we noted in our detailed look at the scheme back in January, usage caps will likely drive consumers to conventional DSL or emerging alternatives such as Verizon's much-loved FiOS service and WiMAX-based solutions. Unfortunately, many are stuck in regions that suffer from meager broadband compe ion and have few options available.

Time Warner Cable's bandwidth caps might seem like acceptable limitations at first glance, but they look a lot less attractive when one considers the growing number of important services we use that soak up lots of bandwidth. The Internet is increasingly being used as a vector for distributing software and digital video content and also facilitates multiplayer gaming, video conferencing, real-time collaboration, interactive remote desktop access, file backups, and many other bandwidth intensive activities.

Generous caps (say, 200GB a month) designed only to rein in the top 1 percent of users sound more like a fair proposition, but a 5GB cap when paying thirty bucks a month? One can get uncapped DSL from companies like AT&T (that also offers more speed) for less than this.

The software I use here to automatically track my own bandwidth consumption shows that I far exceed those caps every single month on a not-particularly-fast 3Mbps DSL line. My habits obviously don't reflect the behavior of regular users right now, but it's important to note that services like the iTunes store and Netflix's new Roku offering are going to making digital video delivery highly accessible to everyone. Time Warner Cable might find itself with few customers when these bandwidth intensive services become mainstream. In the meantime, just about every other broadband ISP will be closely watching Time Warner's experiment.

[Slydragon]

I read they were going to do this months ago and they are just starting the testing on it. If they do that I will find another isp.

[exstatic]

All the ISPs are out to over customers now. Comcast was dropping in random packets to terminate downloads. AT&T is allegely looking into monitoring and limiting your traffic.

If they're just going to allow enough bandwidth for browsing, I'll go back to dialup, and they can shove their limits up their asses.

[robino2001]

I didn't realize they hadn't started testing on this either.

That's a rough price for that little bandwidth... anyone know what the unlimited price is? A couple of HD movie downloads and you're in trouble.

[DoubtingThomas]

I doubt this will effect me since I don't download anything.

[TDMVPDPOY]

hahahahaa


man im payin aus$80 1.5mb/25gig cap

theres a few new plans out like adsl2+ 24mb connection 200gb 40-50gb peak/160gb off peak for 70bucks...ima change to that soon....

[CubanMustGo]

The major service providers have to pay for the bandwidth they consume. If customers demand more downloads, they have to go add additional circuits (or upgrade existing ones), add additional router capability, add capacity to the infrastructure supporting customers, etc. etc. It costs money and I see no reason with those who are downloading hundreds of GB monthly to actually pay for the privilege.

TANSTAAFL, people. They will no doubt come up with some 'reasonable' compromise (5GB ain't much) but the days of unlimited bandwidth are numbered given the ever-increasing richness of content and ever-increasing demand.

[JoeChalupa]

I doubt this will effect me since I don't download anything.

Me either. Other than pics I don't download music or movies. I alway end up getting some crap on my pc and Mouse has to flush it out.

[Melmart1]

The major service providers have to pay for the bandwidth they consume. If customers demand more downloads, they have to go add additional circuits (or upgrade existing ones), add additional router capability, add capacity to the infrastructure supporting customers, etc. etc. It costs money and I see no reason with those who are downloading hundreds of GB monthly to actually pay for the privilege.

TANSTAAFL, people. They will no doubt come up with some 'reasonable' compromise (5GB ain't much) but the days of unlimited bandwidth are numbered given the ever-increasing richness of content and ever-increasing demand.

What does TANSTAAFL mean? I swear, I am sick of trying to guess what the people are saying with these long-ass acronyms.

[boutons_]

melmart, sorry about your sickness. Ask Your Doctor, or:

http://www.acronymfinder.com/

[CubanMustGo]

, TANSTAAFL's been around for decades.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Courtesy Robert Heinlein.

[boutons_]

We have usage fees for other infrastructure-intensive public utilities like water and electricity. Why be surprised about (ab)usage fees for Internet?

You know the corps will jack up prices as high as possible. It's what they do. It's a "free market". If you don't like the prices, don't buy (or don't abuse).

Usually, every business tries to charge the highest price for the highest profit while delivering the smallest-input, tiest, minimal product possible (e.g., health care). And if a business can swing itself into a monopoly (MS) or join/start a cartel, even better.

Another aspect is that the USA is way behind other industrial countries in delivering high-speed infrastructure (eg, fiber to the home) at affordable prices.

For wealthiest, most kick-ass country in the Universe, WTF?

http://freepress.net/news/14939

[CubanMustGo]

<dunno why this posted twice, sorry>

[MoSpur]

That's pretty dumb. I am sure they will lose a good amount of customers if and when this happens. I usually don't download too much from the internet, but I know a lot of people do. Why place a cap? It all comes down to the $$$$

[Dex]

Well, when it comes down to it, the people downloading more than that limit are either downloading things they technically shouldn't be, or are doing processes which probably are better served for a professional level service anyway.

That being said, I'll be pissed if Suddenlink decides to start charging per bandwidth. Right now theyve got a download limit of about 2 mb/s, which is a decent enough compromise for me.

[boutons_]

"will lose a good amount of customers"

That's the whole point, and it won't be a "good amount".

The objective is to scare away (or penalize) the profit-killing 20% who are hogging/abusing bandwidth, while retaining the highly profitable 80% who DL essentially nothing other than email and browsing.

DL limits are not, eg, 2 Mb/s, but total GB/billing period.

The technology is around (used by network operators when selling to retailers) to monitor b/w and charge for the average b/w rather than total MB. If you DLed a huge e but otherwise were way under, the e wouldn't be billable, would be averaged into your avg b/w.

What the MB cap should be is another discussion.

I really would be pissed if DLing 150 MB of required Windows security updates cost me $5 for the b/w.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Well, when it comes down to it, the people downloading more than that limit are either downloading things they technically shouldn't be, or are doing processes which probably are better served for a professional level service anyway.

That being said, I'll be pissed if Suddenlink decides to start charging per bandwidth. Right now theyve got a download limit of about 2 mb/s, which is a decent enough compromise for me.

So, what about the people playing 360 or PS3 over the net?

It'd be one thing if we had an awesome high speed internet infrastructure, but what we get (unless you live in a FIOS area) doesn't hold a candle to what most of Europe has (and we're paying more for it too...).

[baseline bum]

Online gaming: nope
Youtube: nope
Windows/Acrobat/iTunes/etc updates: no
Watching TV shows @ ABC.com/FOX.com/etc.: no chance
ESPN.com highlights: no

$30 a month just to check my email and browse? LMAO, bull

[boutons_]

"360 or PS3 over the net"

I'm not a player, but my son is. Isn't the b/w used by on-line games actualy quite small? with all the high-bandwidth video created on the console?

My son used to about LLBs, low-lag bas s, who dominated games because they had fast connections and fast hops all the way to the game server, short pings. ie, the response time was paramount, no matter what or how much b/w was used.

Anyway, a quick look didn't really find any useful numbers. My guess is that game writers work very hard to reduce b/w usage so their servers are not overwhelmed.

It is funny to see people thinking their 10s of frames/second are coming to them over their WAN link, as if their game box had no video capability and all the frames came from the server.

[ShoogarBear]

What does TANSTAAFL mean? I swear, I am sick of trying to guess what the people are saying with these long-ass acronyms.

LWGASWYT.

[baseline bum]

It is funny to see people thinking their 10s of frames/second are coming to them over their WAN link, as if their game box had no video capability and all the frames came from the server.

Who was ever claiming that?

[Heath Ledger]

Trial meaning if customers don't about it, its here to stay and will spread, so you must , moan and complain, threaten to cancel your service and move to verizon f.i.o.s. thats the only hope.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"360 or PS3 over the net"

I'm not a player, but my son is. Isn't the b/w used by on-line games actualy quite small? with all the high-bandwidth video created on the console?

My son used to about LLBs, low-lag bas s, who dominated games because they had fast connections and fast hops all the way to the game server, short pings. ie, the response time was paramount, no matter what or how much b/w was used.

Anyway, a quick look didn't really find any useful numbers. My guess is that game writers work very hard to reduce b/w usage so their servers are not overwhelmed.

It is funny to see people thinking their 10s of frames/second are coming to them over their WAN link, as if their game box had no video capability and all the frames came from the server.

I've seen lag in PS3 games at a buddy of mine's, I don't know actual numbers but I was just throwing it out there as an example of valid bandwidth consumption. Would love to see some legit numbers on what kind of bandwidth consumption the consoles do suck up.

[boutons_]

http://wiki.gamedev.net/index.php/Op...Game_Bandwidth

I bet the gaming b/w isn't too bad per hour compared with DLing, but some people play many hours per week.

Anyway, I bet the Beaumont experiment goes on for months, with adjustments to the cap and charges.

Strange that Beaumont was chosen, it's a pretty poor, podunk place, even in the opinion of the people who live there.

[PM5K]

We have usage fees for other infrastructure-intensive public utilities like water and electricity.

I always thought of technology more like cellular phone service, it should get cheaper as technology gets cheaper, and faster.

the people downloading more than that limit are either downloading things they technically shouldn't be

How do you figure?

You must be the one downloading things you shouldn't.

You can download music, and high definition movies over the inernet legally using services such as Xbox Live and iTunes, add game demos, YouTube, etc and your usage can add up fast.

TimeWarner is trying to take advantage of the fact that digital delivery is the new thing, it's not that it's costing them more though...