-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter Redhawk
- Start date
IronBuckI
Calmer than you are.
As a fairly heavy user of torrents, other downloads, and gaming, I don't actually have a problem with paying for my amount of internet usage. I do find (like always) that the prices are too high for the services. $30 for the low limit is ridiculous and $55 for a mere 40GB is just stupid. Knock about $10 off of each of those levels and add more heavy usage tiers and I'd be all for it.
I'm just glad that I have DSL right now. It'll probably be a year or two before this experiment comes back as a success or failure for the cable companies, and that's another year or two that I don't have to go shopping for a new service provider or reduce my internet usage.
I'm just glad that I have DSL right now. It'll probably be a year or two before this experiment comes back as a success or failure for the cable companies, and that's another year or two that I don't have to go shopping for a new service provider or reduce my internet usage.
Upvote
0
rocketman
flying low
It's like we're going back to AOL in the early 90's. Progress!
Time Warner's experiment is basically creating scarcity where it doesn't actually exist. Their not charging extra for more bandwidth (which could be argued as a limited resource), their charging for using too many bits of data, an arbitrary limit set by them. Time Warner is allowed to do whatever the hell they want; their a business, operating in a mostly free country. However, in many areas (namely suburbia) they have a stranglehold on cable and/or broadband internet access. With no competition in sight, it's tough to find better options. Kinda frustrating. Maybe this is the impetus for Verizon to bring FIOS to the rest of the country, or any other competition to move in and offer a better product.
Time Warner's experiment is basically creating scarcity where it doesn't actually exist. Their not charging extra for more bandwidth (which could be argued as a limited resource), their charging for using too many bits of data, an arbitrary limit set by them. Time Warner is allowed to do whatever the hell they want; their a business, operating in a mostly free country. However, in many areas (namely suburbia) they have a stranglehold on cable and/or broadband internet access. With no competition in sight, it's tough to find better options. Kinda frustrating. Maybe this is the impetus for Verizon to bring FIOS to the rest of the country, or any other competition to move in and offer a better product.
Upvote
0
IronBuckI
Calmer than you are.
40GB in a given period of time equal to one month still fits the definition of bandwidth.
band?width (bănd'wĭdth', -wĭth')
n.
Traffic shaping has already been ruled out by Comcast and its subsequent loss in the courts. So that's out.
Peak and non-peak billing would also be a solution, but that would be more controversial than what they currently have in place.
band?width (bănd'wĭdth', -wĭth')
n.
- The numerical difference between the upper and lower frequencies of a band of electromagnetic radiation, especially an assigned range of radio frequencies.
- The amount of data that can be passed along a communications channel in a given period of time.
Traffic shaping has already been ruled out by Comcast and its subsequent loss in the courts. So that's out.
Peak and non-peak billing would also be a solution, but that would be more controversial than what they currently have in place.
Upvote
0
We could go back to leased lines. Every user has an individual contract with the company. Although that would default to what is currently in place for most people though in all likelihood....
Upvote
0
rocketman
flying low
I guess an argument could be made that they are charging you extra for each additional GB of data you download outside of 40 GB, but I'll concede that a 40 GB/Month limit is technically bandwidth.
Either way it's a terrible idea, and one that would never be successful from a business standpoint if there was actual competition in a lot of places Time Warner operates in. Big cities are a different animal, as greater population density tends to lead to more competition and more choice. Just look at Japan, for $20-40 a month they're getting 100 mbps. We pay more for a tenth of that speed.
Either way it's a terrible idea, and one that would never be successful from a business standpoint if there was actual competition in a lot of places Time Warner operates in. Big cities are a different animal, as greater population density tends to lead to more competition and more choice. Just look at Japan, for $20-40 a month they're getting 100 mbps. We pay more for a tenth of that speed.
Upvote
0
rocketman
flying low
Basically, there's no competition in the US, as with deregulation all of our cable and telephone providers have (surprise!) absorbed into an effective monopoly/oligarchy. The fault doesn't lie entirely with the providers, as there are many challenging technical hurdles to overcome in order to bring faster data connections to the masses, over the large land mass and relatively sparsely populated areas that make up most of the US.
However, lack of competition usually leads to lack of innovation, and any extra resources spent on a risky endeavor (a.k.a. developing a better, faster, cheaper network backbone) puts you at odds with the other parties in your oligarchy who simply increase the rates for their customers or cap their bandwidth.
With torrent (BP torrents or otherwise) and other online activity, I probably transfer 100-200 GB of data a month, easily. If TWC or whoever is going to cap my bandwidth to a half or quarter of that, then they should at least cut the price of my service in half or a quarter of what I'm paying now. Since they're not going to do that, I feel like I have every right to be pissed.
However, lack of competition usually leads to lack of innovation, and any extra resources spent on a risky endeavor (a.k.a. developing a better, faster, cheaper network backbone) puts you at odds with the other parties in your oligarchy who simply increase the rates for their customers or cap their bandwidth.
With torrent (BP torrents or otherwise) and other online activity, I probably transfer 100-200 GB of data a month, easily. If TWC or whoever is going to cap my bandwidth to a half or quarter of that, then they should at least cut the price of my service in half or a quarter of what I'm paying now. Since they're not going to do that, I feel like I have every right to be pissed.
Upvote
0
As on-demand services move to the PC over the next ten years, and all major sporting events, sports providers, and network stations offer free on-demand viewing or simulcasting of popular TV programs, the Internet carriers have to figure out a way to fairly limit bandwidth today, so that they'll be able to justify billing you for using your computer/Internet access as a portal to free TV tomorrow.
The concept of more bandwidth was a good idea at the time when there wasn't anything worth actually downloading outside of a few MP3s. Now that people are really using the full pipe for TV and video on an increasing scale, the providers realize they have to either roll back their offerings or start billing in tiers, which they have had (in theory) for years but almost never enforced upon home subscribers.
The corps like Time Warner have to plan a migration path from $50 for your RoadRunner + $60 for your TV + $30 for your phone to a simple/rational $150 for an IP lease +/- a Gb per day, which is the solution that will eventually drive every device you own.
Upvote
0
I just received a call from Sprint. They are revising the terms of their service. Currently they are charging $59.99 a month for unlimited downloading for their aircard and service. Now they want to charge the same amount and limit the use to 5GB a month. My son (who the card is for) is a college student and uses 6-10 GB's a month. Sprint told me that since they are altering my agreement that they will waive the early termination fee and credit my account $60 if I want to terminate. This really ticks me off since I had to buy the stupid air card in the first place and have only had it for 6 months.... I feel if I should have to honor my 2 year agreement that they should also....
Now I have to find another provider.
Now I have to find another provider.
Upvote
0