Austin Internet Question, RE: TW is capping internet bandwidth in Austin.

[Cheddar]

Would it help speed things along if Verizon knew we desperately want to switch over not just because it is a superior service, but also because of spite?

No.  Write your Congressman!  For serious.

[Broughden]

It should be illegal to charge me $150 for unlimited internet when I already get it for $60. I really don't understand how this isn't price fixing.

Anyway, yea, the unlimited plan is $150 a month. A depression is a great time to introduce this.

You are a bandwidth hog. You should pay more. Why is this so shocking? I understand why you are upset but I think you need to revisit your rationale.  People pay extra to go to less crowded health clubs. People pay extra to get exclusive access to a golf course. Paying a premium for "extra" is quite normal. I have a hard time believeing that your quality of life will be materially impacted by a 40GB limit. Your habits, maybe, but not your QoL.

Should people who drive more pay higher road taxes?
Or keeping it the realm of cable TV stuff....if you and I get the same package of channels, should you pay more for it because you spend more time watching them? Funny how you dont see TWC trying to implement that.

[Triforcer]

It should be illegal to charge me $150 for unlimited internet when I already get it for $60. I really don't understand how this isn't price fixing.

Anyway, yea, the unlimited plan is $150 a month. A depression is a great time to introduce this.

You are a bandwidth hog. You should pay more. Why is this so shocking? I understand why you are upset but I think you need to revisit your rationale.  People pay extra to go to less crowded health clubs. People pay extra to get exclusive access to a golf course. Paying a premium for "extra" is quite normal. I have a hard time believeing that your quality of life will be materially impacted by a 40GB limit. Your habits, maybe, but not your QoL.

Should people who drive more pay higher road taxes?
Or keeping it the realm of cable TV stuff....if you and I get the same package of channels, should you pay more for it because you spend more time watching them? Funny how you dont see TWC trying to implement that.

I know almost nothing about technology, but even I know enough to know that's a shitty example.  You keeping the TV on 24/7 doesn't affect the signal being sent to your house in any way, nor does it affect others with the same service.

Do I think capping sucks?  From a purely self-centered point of view, of course.  But many in this thread are acting like its some constitutional or sacred right to receive unlimited bandwidth.  Its not.  You are not special, this situation isn't special, its like anything else in business- you use more of a finite resource (which bandwidth is at any given moment, given others in the area and the current pipeline capacity for that area), people will want you to pay more.  You can oppose it, and I do oppose it, but pretending there is some sort of larger, divine principle that is being violated is a bit laughable.

[Salamok]

It should be illegal to charge me $150 for unlimited internet when I already get it for $60. I really don't understand how this isn't price fixing.

Anyway, yea, the unlimited plan is $150 a month. A depression is a great time to introduce this.

You are a bandwidth hog. You should pay more. Why is this so shocking? I understand why you are upset but I think you need to revisit your rationale.  People pay extra to go to less crowded health clubs. People pay extra to get exclusive access to a golf course. Paying a premium for "extra" is quite normal. I have a hard time believeing that your quality of life will be materially impacted by a 40GB limit. Your habits, maybe, but not your QoL.

Should people who drive more pay higher road taxes?
Or keeping it the realm of cable TV stuff....if you and I get the same package of channels, should you pay more for it because you spend more time watching them? Funny how you dont see TWC trying to implement that.

You know I actually agree with consumption/usage based pricing.  Unfortunately what TWC is doing has nothing to do with that and has everything to do with blocking alternative access to cable TV programming.  The current model they have in place is fair and already consumption based and consumption is restricted by speed.  Funny how the top plan they offer is the 15mbs plan with an extra gear that allows it to exceed that when bandwidth is available, if schild is consistently exceeding 15mbs then it pretty much proves that his piggyness isn't costing them anything because he is utilizing excess bandwidth that would normally just be dormant/wasted.

edit:

stuff

I know almost nothing about technology, but even I know enough to know that's a shitty example.  You keeping the TV on 24/7 doesn't affect the signal being sent to your house in any way, nor does it affect others with the same service.

True, but I watch mabe 5% of the channels TWC gives me in my base plan and do not have an HDTV yet my base cable package still costs me $45 a month, I am probably paying an extra $15 a month just to access the interactive TV guide + a shitload of content i don't ever watch. 

[Broughden]

It should be illegal to charge me $150 for unlimited internet when I already get it for $60. I really don't understand how this isn't price fixing.

Anyway, yea, the unlimited plan is $150 a month. A depression is a great time to introduce this.

You are a bandwidth hog. You should pay more. Why is this so shocking? I understand why you are upset but I think you need to revisit your rationale.  People pay extra to go to less crowded health clubs. People pay extra to get exclusive access to a golf course. Paying a premium for "extra" is quite normal. I have a hard time believeing that your quality of life will be materially impacted by a 40GB limit. Your habits, maybe, but not your QoL.

Should people who drive more pay higher road taxes?
Or keeping it the realm of cable TV stuff....if you and I get the same package of channels, should you pay more for it because you spend more time watching them? Funny how you dont see TWC trying to implement that.

I know almost nothing about technology, but even I know enough to know that's a shitty example.  You keeping the TV on 24/7 doesn't affect the signal being sent to your house in any way, nor does it affect others with the same service.

Do I think capping sucks?  From a purely self-centered point of view, of course.  But many in this thread are acting like its some constitutional or sacred right to receive unlimited bandwidth.  Its not.  You are not special, this situation isn't special, its like anything else in business- you use more of a finite resource (which bandwidth is at any given moment, given others in the area and the current pipeline capacity for that area), people will want you to pay more.  You can oppose it, and I do oppose it, but pretending there is some sort of larger, divine principle that is being violated is a bit laughable.

Do you really think the average consumer households are in danger of using up this "finite resource" as you call it? So much so that this plan by TWC is needed or should be instituted?
See bolded section? The internet is fast becoming the standard in terms of communications...mail, entertainment and business are all transacted through it. Perhaps it should be regulated just as the airwaves and telephone (early communication means) were before it, so obvious price gouging of this sort doesnt happen.

[schild]

Take that crap to politics. You two don't know how to argue outside of there.

[ahoythematey]

Today, an internet connection is about as essential as a telephone.  Bandwidth would never be an issue if the companies in charge of the infrastructure had been doing their fucking job in updating the hardware, instead of trying to sit on their thrones of Scrooge McDuck-esque profit and deign to "educate" us about how they are awesome and consumer-friendly.

I sure would love to find out what type of internet service the upper-management of Time Warner have for personal use.

[Salamok]

I sure would love to find out what type of internet service the upper-management of Time Warner have for personal use.

RR turbo I am sure, the 20mbs internet + every channel under the sun for free that all TWC employees get > the FIOS equivalent package at $150+ a month.

[naum]

Today, an internet connection is about as essential as a telephone.  Bandwidth would never be an issue if the companies in charge of the infrastructure had been doing their fucking job in updating the hardware, instead of trying to sit on their thrones of Scrooge McDuck-esque profit and deign to "educate" us about how they are awesome and consumer-friendly.

I wonder how much of the broadband market is a monopoly. 

Where I live, DSL not possible and Cox cable is my only option and thus I pay $50+ a month for a decent connection (not sure about DL speed today, but a few months back, it clocked about ~6M on average). I don't consider satellite an equivalent competitor nor the 3G/wireless cards that are prohibitively expensive for many and as stated in previous posts, silently capped…

[stray]

if i was a bandwidth pig, which i am not, i'd still not settle for this shit simply because i wouldn't have to. there are alternative services available that cater to pigs. the whole idea of going along with it is just simply being submissive for the sake of it.

[Salamok]

I wonder how much of the broadband market is a monopoly. 

I would say most of the Areas in the US have a speed monopoly type of situation.  3-6mbs DSL isn't a competitor with 15mbs cable and that isn't a competitor with FIOS.  Once docsis 3 and FIOS enter the same market the monopoly will be broken for awhile.  Not saying docsis 3 >= FIOS but rather both blow what we have out of the water to the extent that who is faster wont matter as much as who is cheaper/dependable.

FIOS will also have to overcome some of the install issues (maybe they have already?) sending a team to your residence for 1 or more days to hook you up isn't exactly cost efficient or confidence inspiring.

[Cheddar]

Today, an internet connection is about as essential as a telephone.  Bandwidth would never be an issue if the companies in charge of the infrastructure had been doing their fucking job in updating the hardware, instead of trying to sit on their thrones of Scrooge McDuck-esque profit and deign to "educate" us about how they are awesome and consumer-friendly.

I sure would love to find out what type of internet service the upper-management of Time Warner have for personal use.

 

[Draegan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20isp.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

From today's paper.

[Broughden]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20isp.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

From today's paper.

From that article, specifically for people saying those who use more should pay more. And surprisingly or maybe not from an ISP....
“All of our economics are based on engineering for the peak hour,” said Tony Werner, the chief technical officer of Comcast. “Just because someone consumes more data doesn’t mean they drive more cost.”

[SnakeCharmer]

I still can't figure out where to stand on this...

On one hand, it's a service/utility.  If I use more of a service/utility (water), I pay more.  I get that.

But it's been a long time since my internet access was usage based and I've gotten accustomed to a flat rate. 

Spoiled, I suppose.

Then again, I can't wrap my head around how someone downloading a shitton of media costs TW/Comcast/whomever any more money.  It's not like there's sweatshop of elves peddling away on some sort of bandwidth producing stationary bike.  Sure, it sucks for their neighbors, which sees their speeds plummet when Johnny is downloading the Matrix Trilogy, all the Godfathers all at once, and a couple games for good measure.

I'm all for combating piracy in any way possible.  But I'm not sure this is the best way to do it.  The minute they come out with some digital signature that transmits your name, date of birth, and what you had for breakfast that morning will be made obsolete/hacked by some 12 year old in his room 15 seconds after it's introduced.  Part of me thinks its a losing battle and the money would be best spent elsewhere.

[Draegan]

It has nothing to do with Piracy it's all about getting more money.

Plus, according to that article if I remember correctly, the cost of hardware is decreasing but cost of service is increasing?  Money grab. 

[HaemishM]

I still can't figure out where to stand on this...

On one hand, it's a service/utility.  If I use more of a service/utility (water), I pay more.  I get that.

But it's NOT a utility like water where they are selling you a physical, tangible thing that is finite in inventory, like say water. Your usage of bandwidth cannot exceed their capacity to provide it - all that happens if you hit the max is that everyone on the network slows down.

[Sky]

Which would actually begin to make a case for metered use, since you're negatively impacting users who may not have the hog needs. So I am playing EQ2, paying the same as you, but I'm getting some packet loss and slow down because you're torrenting a whole pile of shit. As a customer I would want to pay less vs the person who is degrading the whole neighborhood.

[Samwise]

Which would actually begin to make a case for metered use, since you're negatively impacting users who may not have the hog needs. So I am playing EQ2, paying the same as you, but I'm getting some packet loss and slow down because you're torrenting a whole pile of shit. As a customer I would want to pay less vs the person who is degrading the whole neighborhood.

It should take more than one neighbor torrenting a whole pile of shit to affect you, though.  As has been pointed out, concurrent usage during peaks is what produces slowdowns.  Torrents and similarly intelligent downloading software use most of their bandwidth during non-peak times since they tend to run in the background and throttle themselves down when the computer is in actual use (peak times).

[Salamok]

Which would actually begin to make a case for metered use, since you're negatively impacting users who may not have the hog needs. So I am playing EQ2, paying the same as you, but I'm getting some packet loss and slow down because you're torrenting a whole pile of shit. As a customer I would want to pay less vs the person who is degrading the whole neighborhood.

But it only has a negative impact when you hit the peak.  They do throttle bandwidth to the point where a single person isn't going to have a noticeable effect on your entire neighborhood unless they have already oversold the bandwidth in the 1st place.  During peak times I am usually (along with everyone else) doing normal web activities, I only turn the torrents on when I am NOT actively using my computer (pretty much non peak times).

[HaemishM]

And if they've oversold the bandwidth for that area, the costs seem to be rapidly decreasing to upgrade the bandwidth in that particular area. Yet the consumer price for a Net connection is increasing as our speed increases. In other words, we're getting screwed.

[Trippy]

Time Warner Shutting Off Austin Accounts For Heavy Usage

[SnakeCharmer]

Yikes.

[Cheddar]

The indication I am getting is that TW pretty much owns Austin.  Doesn't look like FiOS will be availible before middle of the next decade (if ever).

[ahoythematey]

That settles it.  Time for some property damage and vandalism.

[Righ]

I sure would love to find out what type of internet service the upper-management of Time Warner have for personal use.

You're making the mistake of thinking telecoms executives live in the same world that we do. Such concerns do not bother them while they drink gin slings on the deck of their superyacht while moored off the coast of Palma.

[Merusk]

I sure would love to find out what type of internet service the upper-management of Time Warner have for personal use.

You're making the mistake of thinking telecoms executives live in the same world that we do.

No Board-level executive for any of the home builders I've known or worked for has lived-in a home built by their company.  I imagine it's like that for plenty of other industries. They sell stuff to us plebeians, not for their consumption.  They're farr to refined for that. 

[MahrinSkel]

Please, explain to me again how foolish I was to change ISP's and dump TWC.

--Dave

[schild]

Please, explain to me again how foolish I was to change ISP's and dump TWC.

--Dave

>_<

[Triforcer]

Time Warner Shutting Off Austin Accounts For Heavy Usage

Heh.  What an appropriately pissy response.  "They can bully us into not charging you more, but they can't stop us from cutting off your service!" 

[ahoythematey]

I sure would love to find out what type of internet service the upper-management of Time Warner have for personal use.

You're making the mistake of thinking telecoms executives live in the same world that we do. Such concerns do not bother them while they drink gin slings on the deck of their superyacht while moored off the coast of Palma.

Well, my thinking was along the lines of, "Boy would it be awesome to find out that you were using a competitor's service despite having your own telecom company offering services in the same area."  That would be assuming another company didn't have a stranglehold on the area...

[Cheddar]

Well, my thinking was along the lines of, "Boy would it be awesome to find out that you were using a competitor's service despite having your own telecom company offering services in the same area."  That would be assuming another company didn't have a stranglehold on the area...

This happens more often then you think.  :)

[Cheddar]

Time Warner Cable Inc., in its first earnings report since its spinoff from Time Warner, said its profit fell 32% on restructuring costs and other special items compared with a year-ago quarter

Hahahahahaha

[shiznitz]

Time Warner Cable Inc., in its first earnings report since its spinoff from Time Warner, said its profit fell 32% on restructuring costs and other special items compared with a year-ago quarter

Hahahahahaha

The shares are up 13% today so the execs are laughing with you.

[Samwise]