Hawkwing Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Ok, so here's a link: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm?chan=top%2Bnews_top%2Bnews%2Bindex%2B-%2Btemp_top%2Bstory Update: http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090410/BUSINESS/90410003&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL They're doubling the original tiers. That's it. With one of the biggest company in ISPs changing their rate plans to actually cap bandwidth usage per month, this is going to put a huge cramp in the side of flourishing online media outlets. Maybe not iTunes as much, but Netflix and other online HD movie streaming sites will feel the pinch. Also, many people who surf a lot of YouTube will be hurting. Also sites like Fox and ABC which stream their shows online may lose ad revenue. Also, IM clients like AIM, Yahoo, MSN, Skype, etc may also have to start being used in moderation. Skype more than the others I assume, but not only using webcam over them, but leaving them on all night soaks bandwidth. Many people might have to end up turning their modems off at night just to be sure no bandwidth is being used. What are your thoughts an opinions? If you currently use Time Warner (Road Runner) are you going to stay or switch? And who are you going to switch to? I'm in Rochester, NY and I'm having a hard time finding another ISP. It seems that Road Runner (Cable) and Frontier (DSL) seem to be my only options. I know I will go over the 5GB cap easily, and the 10GB cap is more than what I pay for currently. My girlfriend watches Lost on ABC.com, which one episode could almost kill that bandwidth by itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red9 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 That could kill a whole lot of websites in a hurry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secret Agent Man Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I guess it's a good thing that I've decided to go with AT&T's Uverse as opposed to them then, huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhsu Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 If streaming TV shows is what's putting you over the limit, I'd consider buying/renting a DVR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airwalker Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 That's funny. I was just considering switching from DSL to Time Warner cable internet, but if that's the kind of crap they pull, no thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeCrusher Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Im actually waiting on comcast to pull this crap. They already did a 260 gig cap on us, which really only affects huge downloaders etc, but if time warner can get away with this, I see other ISPs following suit. Im glad its not in my area just yet though, cause the packages that time warner has are ass in terms of price/bandwidth. Its almost like back to the old days of ass raping dial up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahamut Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Im actually waiting on comcast to pull this crap. They already did a 260 gig cap on us, which really only affects huge downloaders etc, but if time warner can get away with this, I see other ISPs following suit. Im glad its not in my area just yet though, cause the packages that time warner has are ass in terms of price/bandwidth. Its almost like back to the old days of ass raping dial up. Comcast's current cap is reasonable, and I doubt they will change it now after having arrived at that cap from constant complaints by users. They've already taken a ton of PR beating over this, I doubt they're looking for more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustt Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I was going to say, big deal, Comcast put in a cap awhile ago. But after looking at the article and seeing that the cap starts at *5* GB and a maximum of *40*... wow... This is one of those rare times I'm glad I have Comcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schwaltzvald Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Fuck'em, just stay with dsl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekofrog Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Comcast's current cap is reasonable, and I doubt they will change it now after having arrived at that cap from constant complaints by users. They've already taken a ton of PR beating over this, I doubt they're looking for more. Comcast's cap is reasonable for one or two people... but soon I'll be living in a house with four people who use the internet constantly, whether it be for gaming, downloading, streaming, whatever. We're gonna hit 250 pretty fast. I just pray Verizon gets their shit in gear and gets FIOS out here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeCrusher Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Yeah, my apartment has 4 computers, two of which play MMOs for hours, and mine which plays TF2 and other games a lot, plus streaming videos, plus downloads etc. 250 gigs is nothing to me. I did receive a call from comcast one month cause we went through over 480 gigs in a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fusion2004 Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I guess it's a good thing that I've decided to go with AT&T's Uverse as opposed to them then, huh. If you read the whole article, it says that AT&T is conducting their own trials on capping bandwidth. I'm going to kill them if they implement it. I easily go through several terabytes in a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahamut Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 Comcast's cap is reasonable for one or two people... but soon I'll be living in a house with four people who use the internet constantly, whether it be for gaming, downloading, streaming, whatever.We're gonna hit 250 pretty fast. I just pray Verizon gets their shit in gear and gets FIOS out here. Ah I forgot some people like to split their internet...is it possible to negotiate with them about it if you have multiple people sharing the internet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secret Agent Man Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 If you read the whole article, it says that AT&T is conducting their own trials on capping bandwidth. I'm going to kill them if they implement it. I easily go through several terabytes in a month. Well I guess that teaches me to read the article before replying. Now that I've read it, I have some more to say. I guess the free ride had to end sooner or later. My concern is that once Time Warner implements this tiered system, others will do the same thing (as the article alludes to). I have no idea what my average consumption is. To be honest, I could probably stay under the caps as long as I didn't go on any major video-watching binges. I only watch one show a week on Hulu, and I don't think online gaming (e.g. TF2) contributes a whole lot to bandwidth consumption. My hope is that if something like this does happen, it will be very easy to monitor your current usage and be given ample warning if you do come close to the cap. HughesNet (AKA DirecWay)'s satellite Internet service is a joke. For $60/mo at speeds of roughly 70 kB/sec on a good day, if you go over your 200MB Fair Access Policy limit (which is a period of a little over a day), your connection is stifled to the X bits per second range for 24 hours. This makes it slower than dial-up and nigh-impossible to browse web pages, let alone do anything else. There is no easy way to monitor how close you are to reaching this cap, either. If Time Warner, Comcast, or AT&T pull a similar stunt, I will be very angry indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeCrusher Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I had wildblue satellite internet for a year. They had a 17 gig a month limit, 5 gig upload limit. If you went over either, they reduced your download speed down to 3 k/s, like you were on dial up. Plus the time was roll over time, so it didnt refresh for 30 days after the time you went over. Fucking gayest stuff ever, plus it was 70 a month. Im glad I dont live there anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reelmojo Posted April 12, 2009 Share Posted April 12, 2009 I live in a small town with no alternative to Time Warner as far as cable goes. As much as I'd like to switch companies if they implement this in my area I don't have the option to unless I want dractically slower service. I've played games on my friend's DSL connection, I don't want to do that again. Hopefully enough people do switch so that this doesn't catch on with other companies and/or Time Warner realizes they're losing too much revenue and stops it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 whoa, i never heard anything about this. do you know if they're planning to expand this to other sectors of NY? specifically, CNY? there's no one else besides time warner out here at a decent price, and if they pull this i know that i'll be screwed. between streaming videos and legal bittorrent downloads, i'm well over 40g a WEEK, let alone per month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moguta Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I hope this move is overturned far before it can be rolled out nationwide. As tech-knowledgeable publications like Ars Technica and Wired have shown, there is no real financial basis for these usage caps. Well, none besides "MORE PROFITS$$$!" And it really does serve to impede high-bandwidth uses of the internet, which will no doubt grow even higher in the future if not roadblocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Coop Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 I missed out on the early days of the Internet, and so didn't have to deal with download caps, and overage fees. The fact that history looks to be getting ready to repeat itself, does not amuse me in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHands Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Thank you, FiOS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Prower Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Come live in Australia. Our internet speeds are pretty shit. Let alone the bandwidth caps. 5 to 40 gig is normal here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkwing Posted April 13, 2009 Author Share Posted April 13, 2009 whoa, i never heard anything about this. do you know if they're planning to expand this to other sectors of NY? specifically, CNY? there's no one else besides time warner out here at a decent price, and if they pull this i know that i'll be screwed. between streaming videos and legal bittorrent downloads, i'm well over 40g a WEEK, let alone per month. I sure hope not. I live in and go to school in Rochester, where their testing the bandwidth caps, but my parents live outside of Rome, which for the rare occasions I go home I'd be afraid to use the internet and cost my parents overage fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 i guess i'm just frustrated because there's no real reason for doing this. it'd be like having landline phone companies start charging per call once you're over a minimal limit - it's just not feasible. the 25% of people that are on the bottom end are all grandparents who check their email for pictures of their grandkids, not REAL consumers of internet functionality. this doesn't limit piracy or anything like that. it just bones people who are trying to use the net like it's meant to be used. i just can't see any way that this actually benefits time warner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinewav Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Seriously. Switch ISPs. If they start losing enough customers, they'll either quit pulling stuff like this (or they'll lose a lot of money and blame it on something else). I was thinking about switching too, until I read this. The other major alternative in my town tends to be a bit unreliable (and I'm starting to wonder if they are monitoring my internet usage), but at least they don't restrict how I use the web. i guess i'm just frustrated because there's no real reason for doing this. it'd be like having landline phone companies start charging per call once you're over a minimal limit - it's just not feasible. the 25% of people that are on the bottom end are all grandparents who check their email for pictures of their grandkids, not REAL consumers of internet functionality. this doesn't limit piracy or anything like that. it just bones people who are trying to use the net like it's meant to be used.i just can't see any way that this actually benefits time warner. I might be misunderstanding how this stuff works, but doesn't it cost more for them to have customers who use more bandwidth? Grandma is probably paying just as much as everyone else, even if all she's doing is looking at cute kitten videos and forwarding chain emails. (Though not by any means do I agree with what they are doing.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirChadlyOC Posted April 13, 2009 Share Posted April 13, 2009 Seriously. Switch ISPs. If they start losing enough customers, they'll either quit pulling stuff like this (or they'll lose a lot of money and blame it on something else).I was thinking about switching too, until I read this. The other major alternative in my town tends to be a bit unreliable (and I'm starting to wonder if they are monitoring my internet usage), but at least they don't restrict how I use the web. Unfortunately, this is a major problem for most people. Many people don't have the luxury of being able to switch unless you live in a big city or the suburbs because you usually only have one choice for cable providers. If you live in a small town, you need the internet more than those in big cities because there's nothing to do. Time Warner was already one of my least favorite companies before they did this. They'll probably get away with it, too because they're so big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.