Time Warner Caps: Behind The Numbers - Prices company propose 'don't pass the smell test.'
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Time Warner Caps: Behind The Numbers
Prices company propose 'don't pass the smell test.'
(old news - 10:09AM Thursday Jun 05 2008)
tags: competition · business · bandwidth · cable · RoadRunner Cable
While the debate over caps rages on for some, I still believe that Time Warner Cable's efforts to impose metered pricing are primarily a way to take a pre-emptive swipe at competing video operations. I also continue to believe that the shift toward low caps and per-byte billing opens the door to anti-competitive (VoIP or content) abuse and price gouging in this, a marginally competitive and poorly regulated market.

My friend Om Malik, a long time industry journalist, would seem to agree. This morning he e-mailed me his piece dissecting the numbers behind the caps TWC is considering, which range from 5GB per month for their 768kbps tier, and 40GB per month for their 15Mbps tier.
If you bought the monthly 15 mbps/40 GB transfer option for about $56 a month, you’d get about 40 hours of standard definition video along with enough bandwidth for your normal browsing and surfing habits. That’s just over 75 minutes of SD Internet video every day - two or three shows at best - which means you might need to continue buying the “video connection” in order to watch more television. Sure you can slice and dice the data transfers with other online activities, but this is all about video.
What better way to ensure that AppleTV doesn't eat your lunch down the road, while pleasing your investors. And pleased they should be, given the profits on the proposed caps, should they be deployed nationally, would be stunning. I think Dave Burstein probably put it best in an e-mail after I first broke the story last January:
There is nothing inherently wrong in charging for bandwidth, if the charge is reasonably proportional to the costs. Time Warner's numbers don't pass the smell test, however. The markup over cost on that bandwidth is between 1000% and 1500%. . . 40 gigabytes at seven cents is less than three dollars per month. Time Warner charges over $40. That's like Starbucks drastically raising the price if you put sugar in your coffee. Any large carrier with a cap below 100 gigabytes and a price above $30 is abusing market power. Their bandwidth costs are less than the marketing budget, and the customer is profitable.
The markup over cost on that bandwidth is between 1000% and 1500%
Of course the caps set forth in the Time Warner Cable trial aren't set in stone. They may be set intentionally low to trigger and test per-byte billing and tracking mechanisms. They may ultimately find that consumer backlash and FiOS pressure doesn't make the plan worthwhile. They could also bump the caps closer to Comcast's more reasonable 250GB mark. I personally think the caps as set are market seppuku, but time will tell.

I still don't see any real, documented evidence that the shift from flat-rate pricing to metered pricing is necessary. ISP execs have done a good job convincing us that a bandwidth apocalypse looms -- one that cannot be fixed by capacity and throttling alone. Yet they do not release actual network data that supports their argument.

This, combined with healthy profits under the flat-rate model (made consistently more healthy by new revenue streams like the sale of clickstream data, behavioral advertising and DNS redirection advertising) suggests to me a manufactured crisis. A crisis tasked with getting you to pay more for less, while keeping video competitors at bay.

Related:
  1. Time Warner Cable Beats Back AT&T, Verizon
  2. Time Warner Cable Will Increase Caps
  3. Time Warner Cable 'Delays' Texas Metered Billing
  4. Time Warner Cable Protests Planned
  5. Time Warner Cable Metered Billing Will Return
  6. Time Warner Caps Go from Ugly To Invisible
  7. Time Warner Cable Broadband Revenues Jump 11%
  8. Customer Battles Time Warner Overages
Links: New Topic
Forums »
page: 1 · 2
anon @ 5th Jun 10:10AM:
market seppuku?

Only if there is competition. Where I live the cable companies have divided the city. You are either in a Cox area or a Comcast. The only option you have if you want another provider is to move.

As long as monopolistic cable contracts are allowed by cities, you will never see competition.
reply
odog @ 5th Jun 10:12AM:
they aren't going after the legal stuff

by a large for every appleTV user or Hulu user.... you've probably got 100+ hardcore BT users eating 100+GB per month.
reply
Phil @ 5th Jun 10:14AM:
Right On!

I'm glad Karl Bode has brought this to the front-page. These caps only serve to stifle competition as I've said HERE and HERE. If Time Warner had proposed something reasonable, similar to Comcast's cap of 250GB people wouldn't be making such a stink about it.
reply
Julio @ 5th Jun 10:15AM:
I'll drop TWC

the instant they do this in NYC.
reply
iansltx @ 5th Jun 10:17AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

Maybe at this very minute you have two or three, not 100+, BT users for every Hulu viewer, but soon the ratio will be reversed. And actually video streaming isn't nearly as hard on the network as BitTorrent. So yes it's still anticompetitive, despite your antiquated notions of what people do online.

I've used BitTorrent for some stuff, like when Hulu doesn't have all the Episodes of 24 on their site. Of course, if everything was on Hulu I'd just use my internet connection to stream that way. Oh wait, that would mean racking up a ginormous bandwidth bill :/
reply
Phil @ 5th Jun 10:17AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

Only because these technologies are just emerging and with limited scope. As I've said elsewhere, if Netflix made their entire movie library available online I would stream ALL my movies versus getting the physical DVD via snail-mail. Time Warner's caps would not allow me this freedom.
reply
fireflier @ 5th Jun 10:18AM:
Re: Right On!

said by Phil :

If Time Warner had proposed something reasonable, similar to Comcast's cap of 250GB people wouldn't be making such a stink about it.
Agreed, on the condition that they also include a clause that doesn't preclude the possibility of upping the cap as the internet matures. 250GB seems good now. In 10 years, it may not be. I would hope providers will recognize that.
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com
reply
danclan @ 5th Jun 10:19AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff..NO they aren't

said by odog :

by a large for every appleTV user or Hulu user.... you've probably got 100+ hardcore BT users eating 100+GB per month.
no they arent going after the illegal stuff thats a straw man arguement, a ruse, a ploy, an EXCUSE

ITS ALL ABOUT THE CONTENT and what they can charge for it. Since any number you hear about torrenting traffic is pulled at random from the air these caps are all about keeping video revenue local. Its about having you use their PPV or VOIP and not Apple or netflix or any other VOIP/Video provider.

Thats it. Period. Anything else is just hot air.
reply
33591094 @ 5th Jun 10:22AM:
Wow

What a bunch of Time Warner news lately....

What's up with that? ;)
reply
K Patterson @ 5th Jun 10:23AM:
There's more than transit

I agree that seven cents is a reasonable price to purchase transit, but there are other costs to maintain the bandwidth to the peering point.

The pricing model which electric companies use for commercial and industrial customers is a way this has traditionally been handled. The meter measures two things - demand and consumption. The demand is averaged over a 30 minute interval, and in Columbus is $6.80 per kilowatt The electricity used is billed at $.0936. As you become a larger customer, the demand charge goes up and the KWH charge goes down.

Maybe this is the model that cable companies should use. Actually, it kinda is. One could view the monthly fee as the demand charge, and the new fees as the KWH charge. That doesn't make the present number reasonable, however.
reply
Matt @ 5th Jun 10:24AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by odog :

by a large for every appleTV user or Hulu user.... you've probably got 100+ hardcore BT users eating 100+GB per month.
They are using those users as an excuse to head off the exodus of users to services like the DirecTV Roku, Amazon Unbox, Hulu, Vongo, etc.

They don't want to hemorrhage subscribers like the Telco's did when VoIP blew up. If they learned anything from the decimation of the POTS industry and their subsequent domination of the VoIP industry, it was to nip potential problems to their core business in the bud.
reply
gimme5 @ 5th Jun 10:24AM:
Way too low

Yes, those caps are way too low. Someone using 5 gigs a month is hardly hurting the network.

40 gigs is also too low. I don't download a lot of stuff, but the way the web is today, it does add up and I think I might be getting kinda close to that every month. I think, ultimately, if those caps went in effect at my provider, I'd have to switch to *gasp* Embarq DSL.

My guess is that it won't happen. They'll run their trial and will not implement the caps nationwide. At least not these caps. Perhaps fair caps, like what Comcast is doing.
reply
banditws6 @ 5th Jun 10:26AM:
I think this is why people in the U.S. fear usage caps...

While the concept of paying for what you use does make sense, I think people (in the U.S., at least) resist this model because they fear the ISPs will impose caps that are too low and overage charges that are inflated. And the limited competition in most markets means that if your ISP's charges are unreasonable, you may have no choice but to pay them, if you want or need broadband service -- that's why they're unreasonable in the first place, because you're stuck with them.

According to this, Time Warner isn't doing much to soothe those fears. In fact, they are just fueling them, setting caps that protect their own business interests first and foremost.

By contrast, Comcast's proposed 250GB usage cap is much more reasonable, and one I would not have any complaints about in the present environment.
--
"I'll follow the law until it's just stupid." -Ted Nugent
reply
fireflier @ 5th Jun 10:28AM:
Re: I'll drop TWC

Same in my area. My alternatives aren't as good as Fios but at least one alternative doesn't have such a ridiculously low cap.

Combine that with their recently implemented DNS re-direction, the fact that my speeds keep declining, their upload remains at a paltry 384 kb/s and it's really starting to p!ss me off. Don't even get me started on their draconian POP3 retrieval if you're off their network or the fact they still haven't gotten many their Adelphia "acquirees" integrated into their system so we'd at least have dial-up backup for broadband outages.

A money-grab low cap rollout and I'm walking too.

In retrospect, I'd rather have Adelphia back. . .
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com
reply
JSRoman @ 5th Jun 10:32AM:
T R I A L

5. a tentative or experimental action in order to ascertain results; experiment.

Wait until the trial is over before you go cuttting your wrists.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil
reply
Dampier @ 5th Jun 10:36AM:
Don't Fall for the Cable Industry's Invented Narrative

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1fCgca9ZNk


Once again, people writing on this issue should stop accepting the false premise that there is sufficient justification to impose usage caps, "reasonable" or not. The cable industry has hired lobbying firms, working with well-connected, biased public policy institutes and equipment manufacturers to create, advance and suggest panic about an impending bandwidth crisis in the United States.

It's a "crisis" not apparent to their competitors, which continue to deploy (at a faster rate than ever) profitable broadband platforms with an all-you-can-eat business model. Make no mistake, no publicly traded company would permit such an investment if there was a crisis as the cable industry would suggest.

When you argue on their playing field, it creates a de facto acceptance of the legitimacy of their argument, which is advanced with absolutely no independent verification (the data they use to build their narrative is conveniently unavailable to neutral analysts 'for competitive reasons.')

Time Warner's mobile broadband-like usage caps only illustrate a fumble in the public relations campaign underway to get consumers to accept capped usage without ANY corresponding decrease in the price they pay for access. Suggestions that cable may move to consumption-based pricing is just that, a pie in the sky suggestion. Behind the scenes, the entire pricing model of broadband by the cable industry depends on uniform pricing and they actually resist pay-per-byte pricing much the same way the cable industry resists a-la-carte video programming packages.

If one reads the trade magazines for this industry, they are signalling to the cable corporate heads that:

a) Bloggers are crazy people outraged and insane about the very concept of capped pricing. Multichannel News is using publicity stills of Jack Nicholson in The Shining on their site to depict angry bloggers.

b) Time Warner bungled the PR game in the effort to build a narrative to push capped usage on consumers and needs to better manage PR if they wish to be successful at convincing customers this is a good thing.

The evidence of the lobbying effort and getting consumers to support things against their own interests is in plain view when you read the trade press. Pitting customer against customer on some invented stereotype of a bandwidth hog picking other people's pockets (despite no promise to LOWER prices for anyone, cap or not) is part of the plan.

It's a real shame that those who have made their livelihood out of covering such things have apparently not come to understand the fundamentals of the cable industry and their history of involvement in public policy. The path to their high profits, partly enabled by their lobbying efforts, is a well-worn one, and they are following it yet again.

Construct a narrative.

Gain support for it by hiring lobbying firms to find "independent" analysts with ties to the industry to support the premise they raise.

Refuse to release raw data for independent verification for "competitive reasons."

Co-opt consumers into fighting against their own best interests by constructing fictional us vs. them arguments based on plausible stereotypes and making promises about reduced costs or better services without ever implementing them.

Seek media attention where reporters are willing to accept the premise of a cable-forwarded narrative and then rely on reporter laziness to simply grab response quotes from both sides without ever bothering to challenge the premise.

Appeal to lawmakers to address the narrative they have constructed with no corresponding regulation, or as a potential golden bonus, using public money to help build the necessary infrastructure to "relieve the crisis."

Advance the potential positive outcome of their public policy lobbying to shareholders to increase shareholder value.

Obtain the results desired and never implement promises made to consumers (or never market them) of cost savings that would supposedly result from victory.

It's the same story again and again. It has been since the 1980s when cable began building enormous clout on Capitol Hill. The only question is, when will people who claim knowledge of this industry demonstrate it by being willing to never accept a premise or narrative that is clearly being engineered by well-paid lobbying efforts with absolutely no independent verification.

That's what is REALLY behind the numbers. Stop playing on their field.

You can read more about the background of this entire effort here: »Some Facts to Consider (Was Er, no.)
reply
fireflier @ 5th Jun 10:37AM:
Re: T R I A L

I think most people are taking a wait-and-see approach. I and others have commented if they implement it in our areas we're outta there.

But that also doesn't preclude people making it known that they don't agree with the parameters being imposed in the trial. Wait and see is one thing. But I wouldn't expect people to sit silently by while a trial runs with numbers that they feel would be unreasonable if implemented outside of the trial area.

In fact, I think it NEEDS to be discussed before, during, and after the trial. There are a lot of parties interested besides those involved in the trial.
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com
reply
gaforces @ 5th Jun 10:38AM:
Re: market seppuku?

Yep, around here comcast and charter have the county divided, only choice is dish or to move.

Looks like TW is jealous of the oil industry's gouging and want to do some of their own.

It's my party and I can gouge if I want to, gouge if I want to ...
--
There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison
reply
TKJunkMail @ 5th Jun 10:40AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by odog :

by a large for every appleTV user or Hulu user.... you've probably got 100+ hardcore BT users eating 100+GB per month.
You aren't drinking the koolaid. Don't you know that 99% of bittorrent users are only downloading legal content like Linux distros and game patches. ;)
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
TKJunkMail @ 5th Jun 10:41AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by Phil :

Only because these technologies are just emerging and with limited scope. As I've said elsewhere, if Netflix made their entire movie library available online I would stream ALL my movies versus getting the physical DVD via snail-mail. Time Warner's caps would not allow me this freedom.
Yes it would. You would just have to pay more for the content is all.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
reply
NOCMan @ 5th Jun 10:46AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

What would be the point? Just buy it from the cable company. No need for pesky companies like Netflix.

Once they drive out the competition we'll all get what they want us to have. AOL all over again.
reply
Phil @ 5th Jun 10:47AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

Having to pay more is financial limitation, not a freedom in this sense. No bargain.
reply
anon @ 5th Jun 10:55AM:
Re: CAPS

Apparently the same people that run/moderate this website are directly related (or involved) with the people that run/own the ISP's invoking this greedy strategy.

I view the forums....I visit with several neighbors throughout my large neighborhood and I just have to ask....where is the mass of complaints that is warranting this change in strategy?

What's next $5 gal. water overages? Electric/gas overages? Landline overages?

Stop the non-requested boosts in my speed, drop me back down to 5mbps and (whether they're 1gb or 10tb's) shove those caps.
reply
Dogfather @ 5th Jun 11:07AM:
Re: Wow

That's what happens when you screw up what was a great service...you make news.
reply
Dogfather @ 5th Jun 11:09AM:
Bring back the web hogs

Verizon PR guys have to jump on this. Instead of trying to explain that cable claims of fiber are BS, run back to the web-hog ads. They were very effective and forced cable to explain themselves.

All Verizon has to do is play the HD video card in terms of iTunes Video rentals or XBL video rentals and how you can only rent a couple of movies a month before blowing through the cap or how you can blow through your cap with just a few hours of use.

With Comcast traffic shaping show those speed wheels grinding to a halt (since Comcast depriorities traffic during peak times).
reply
Dampier @ 5th Jun 11:13AM:
Re: CAPS

said by give_me_more_ :

Apparently the same people that run/moderate this website are directly related (or involved) with the people that run/own the ISP's invoking this greedy strategy.
For me, I think it's a lack of information about the whole picture of this industry and how it works which is responsible for some of the naive reporting I've been reading these last few days. There are a lot of puzzle pieces missing. However, I do agree that the apparent acceptance of the premise by the site owner and agreeing to argue on the cable industry's playing field is a fundamental mistake and bad judgment call. It's exactly what the industry needs to forward its argument, and they will absolutely use the acceptance of the need for a cap as a strong justification for their position. After all, "even the 'crazed blogger sites' understand there needs to be a cap."

I'm willing at this point to try and educate instead of simply calling someone a shill, but with a few more editorials along the lines of what I've read these past few days, and I'd join a chorus of folks suggesting perhaps it's time to consider a different home to advocate for the consumer's position, because that does not currently get the same exposure as front page headlines on this site.

But the time we have to resist these things is short, so at some point people either have to get on or off the bus.
reply
rec9140 @ 5th Jun 11:26AM:
Re: T R I A L

said by JSRoman :
5. a tentative or experimental action in order to ascertain results; experiment.

Wait until the trial is over before you go cuttting your wrists.


An uncontested trial becomes policy.....

This trial needs to be cut off before it gets off the ground.

Don't fight this now, it spreads. It needs to be stopped dead, in its tracks from the get go.

The more bad PR they get the better be it TWC, comcrap, crax or any one else.
--
Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex./ »www.nobcs.net
reply
hottboiinnc @ 5th Jun 11:31AM:
Re: Wow

Thats because Comcast doesnt have anything to say recently.
reply
Promode @ 5th Jun 11:36AM:
A comment from afar

I have to say that the recent talk about caps in the US is particularly interesting for me. For a long time I was quite envious of all the options available to people in the US. Broadband in Poland was for a long time weak and all the ISPs metered access.

About two, three years ago they started to move away from caps and increased speeds. This has been progressing steadily and now I can get 20/2 or 10/1 speeds without any caps, filtering, etc. What fascinates me is how US companies try to motivate their actions. Equipment is getting cheaper, bandwidth is getting cheaper and yet many of them are trying to raise rates.

That's it really, I don't have any witty remark, I'm simply slightly amused by the situation.
reply
SilverSurfer @ 5th Jun 11:48AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by NOCMan :

Once they drive out the competition we'll all get what they want us to have. AOL all over again.
+4 - Exactly. AOhell all over again and a zillion IPs on the Net with the same content of TV programming.
reply
djrobx @ 5th Jun 11:52AM:
Re: T R I A L

said by JSRoman :

5. a tentative or experimental action in order to ascertain results; experiment.

Wait until the trial is over before you go cuttting your wrists.
National outrage is perfectly valid test data in this experiment.

Personally I'm waiting until it hits Los Angeles before I cancel all my TW services. That gives them a chance to see the error of their ways, and also will make it 100% clear to them why I'm leaving.
reply
maartena @ 5th Jun 11:55AM:
Re: market seppuku?

said by gaforces :

Yep, around here comcast and charter have the county divided, only choice is dish or to move.
Your TV won't be capped. This is about internet.... You could move to DSL for instance. I would much rather have a 6/768 (the maximum DSL I can get) with no limitations then my current 10/1 line if they decide to cap it.
reply
Anonymous_ @ 5th Jun 11:57AM:
Re: T R I A L

i will also be gone

soon it will be worth moving to an Verizon area

*willing to move 4 better interweb*
reply
maartena @ 5th Jun 12:26PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by odog :

by a large for every appleTV user or Hulu user.... you've probably got 100+ hardcore BT users eating 100+GB per month.
You're right on that. But you should also look at the bigger picture. These days, an average American family has 2 to 3 PC's, sometimes even more. With the way the web has been developing over the last few years with online gaming, youtubing, iTunes, and newer services such as the Netflix download service so that you can download you movies instead of waiting for them by mail.... and the fact that simple OS updates are getting bigger and bigger, not only on Windows. The amounts of data that an average family transfers, without even touching on the more shady side of internet, is ever increasing, and with the TV networks now placing full episodes online on their websites, HDTV finally breaking through, 12 Megapixel DSLR camera's (6 Mb per picture) becoming more affordable, VOIP services getting more popular, I don't see only an upwards curve in the amount of LEGAL data we transmit.

Add to that IT professionals such as myself. Last week alone I downloaded three Linux distros on DVD because I wanted to decide which would be best on my laptop. That is 12+ GB right there, and since I used torrents because they are often much faster, I also upload, so say 15 Gb of traffic. Then I downloaded Exchange Server 2007 SP1 from my MSDN subscription, a 5.5 Gb download. I also downloaded OS disks for Server 2008, another 3 Gb right there. Just in 1 week time, because I want to do some testing (I plan to bring online my first Exchange 2007 server, until now I have only done 2003's and I needed to test it first before I order the production software for my client), I have transmitted 25+ Gb of data.

And the rest of this month? Well, OpenSUSE 11 is about to be released, that's 4 Gb right there. But I think I also want the x64 edition, so make that 8 Gb. Oh, and to save everyone's bandwidth I always use torrents on Linux distros, so say 10 Gb because of uploading.

And that's just business, I haven't even started on pleasure yet.....

And did I mention I often have a Dutch TV station streaming into my office?

Time Warner Cable is wanting to cap at 40 Gb. I think that is total bull and that many, many users using 2008's internet will surpass that without a sweat and doing anything illegal.... 100 Gb would be more realistic.
reply
anon @ 5th Jun 12:29PM:
Prepaid vs postpaid...

If this was a prepaid option that does not "expire" every month I think I would be in line to switch to this model. With postpaid pricing model this is ridiculous.

I use internet every day for work and pleasure and VoIP and my monthly traffic is usually between 2GB-10GB.
reply
BetaTron @ 5th Jun 12:31PM:
Re: I'll drop TWC

said by Julio :

the instant they do this in NYC.
QTF
reply
hottboiinnc @ 5th Jun 01:12PM:
Re: I think this is why people in the U.S. fear usage caps...

well everyone on here has been wanting usage caps from the providers. they start to say what they'd be and now everyone on here bitches because their too low. People on here need to make up their damn mind. If the want them they want them. If they don't then they need to keep their mouth shut.

People even bitched about Comcast's 250gig per month cap. Which people said was toooo low. cry cry cry. The only ones that bitch about this is the ones that post on this website. generally most people have no clue whats going on.
reply
anon @ 5th Jun 01:16PM:
Re: market seppuku?

There are only 2 reasons for TWC's plan for caps:

1. eliminate any competing video competition online.

2. profit, profit, profit!

As was stated in the article above... 40 gigs of bandwidth is 2-3 dollars *at most*, in actual cost. Comcast's proposed number (250GB) is *MUCH* more reasonable, and just goes to show that bandwidth, while a variable cost, is still quite cheap.

How else can you explain the explosion of video content sites now on the internet. The whole reason Youtube, and all the other video sites out there now exist is because bandwidth costs dropped to the point where it's profitable to stream video online.

If there is any issue with bandwidth overload it has more to do with local node congestion rather than the capacity and cost of service back at the headend. Docsis 3.0 is going to fix some of the current throughput limitations of the current Docsis spec, so local node congestion should be eased, and that's right around the corner, assuming cable companies are willing to upgrade (and I don't just mean competitive areas!)

In the end, it's really hard to feel bad for TWC, as with most broadband ISP's, they are making very comfortable profits. Just look at the front page... TWC is cutting off newsgroup access, they are just cutting off all their arms and legs to save a penny here and a dime there. It's all a mad run for money, but of course they aren't going to tell you that.

I'm certainly not endorsing reckless bandwidth consumption or anything of the like... but if you really knew how much TWC stands to gain in profit on your behalf of using bandwidth, you would probably be upset too. It would be the same as me telling you that gasoline only costs 20 cents a gallon to refine, transport, market and sell... so why are you paying $4.00 a gallon for it?
reply
supergirl @ 5th Jun 01:22PM:
Re: Don't Fall for the Cable Industry's Invented Narrative

Why talk here? Justin, DSLReports.com's owner, has approved caps and overages. And, he conveniently ignored: 1. A foolproof program to prove you used that bandwidth. 2. Are ADs, spam, popups, etc. counted? 3. Will they charge you less if you only use 10% of your cap? 4. Will the overage charge per gig be reasonable? 5. Why are ISPs still advertising "unlimited" or insinuating "unlimited" with "always on connections'? Isn't that fraud if you have a cap and don't enforce it let alone enforce it? You bet it is. 6. Violation of Interstate Commerce Laws. Any website owner pays bandwidth fees to reach a customer. When it loses customers, that is violating Interstate Commerce laws. 7. Guess Net Neutrality is only available to the rich now. 8. Won't this destroy freedom of speech and freedom of religion? 9. Will they charge you bandwidth using their online tools for their phone service? Sounds like a unlawful extra charge and a PSC violation to me.

Justin didn't figure out much in his "Australian colored opinion."
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl
reply
halfband @ 5th Jun 01:25PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff..NO they aren't

If the primary purpose is to limit competition for video content it will be time to split the pipe from the content providers.
--
Registered Bandwidth Offender #40812
reply
richardak @ 5th Jun 01:34PM:
Re: market seppuku?

said by maartena :

said by gaforces :

Yep, around here comcast and charter have the county divided, only choice is dish or to move.
Your TV won't be capped. This is about internet.... You could move to DSL for instance. I would much rather have a 6/768 (the maximum DSL I can get) with no limitations then my current 10/1 line if they decide to cap it.
I'm tired of you people that think DSL is always an option. DSL is only an option if you live close to a CO. As the OP said, it's either COX or TW for them (or the crap offered via satellite, which can't really be considered an option).
reply
djrobx @ 5th Jun 01:48PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by odog :

by a large for every appleTV user or Hulu user.... you've probably got 100+ hardcore BT users eating 100+GB per month.
What I find ironic is that ISPs have been putting up with bandwidth-hostile P2P applications that are predominantly used for piracy for almost a decade now. When Napster first came out, I thought for sure that all those PCs maxing out their upload around the clock would surely prompt ISPs to start charging by the byte to put a stop to it. Didn't happen.

Now, that we're finally getting reasonable, legal repalcements for those activities (DRM-free music and legal online video rental), they're cracking down on bandwidth usage.
--
Laser eye surgery rocks! I love frickin' laser beams.
reply
BF69 @ 5th Jun 02:14PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by odog :

by a large for every appleTV user or Hulu user.... you've probably got 100+ hardcore BT users eating 100+GB per month.
MLB.TV allows you to watch basbeall games live on your comuter. If you use their highest settings( and why wouldn't I on a 15 Mbps conenction ) they stream at 1.4 Mbps. The average MLB team plays 26 games a month. If you watch all 26 games that 48 GB a month. This is LEGITIMATE use. And I'm paying $120 for this. Why should I have to pay more?
reply
djrobx @ 5th Jun 03:23PM:
Re: Don't Fall for the Cable Industry's Invented Narrative

Justin is entitled to share his opinion, however unpopular it may be. He doesn't appear to be using his powers to stop Karl, so I don't feel there's any wrongdoing here that would lead me to stop participating on this site.

reply
JamesPC @ 5th Jun 03:28PM:
Re: market seppuku?

Fix your network if you cant give what you promise. Or just give us what you can actually deliver. I have a 10mbps D but if you cant do that then give me 7mbps and don't cap it. This is ALL about "eliminating video competition".
reply
JamesPC @ 5th Jun 03:30PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

In the future 20 AVERAGE houses are going to demand more bandwidth than the entire internet does today. This is a cash grab fueled by IGNORANCE.
reply
JamesPC @ 5th Jun 03:35PM:
Re: There's more than transit

NO, because it does not cost anything to create data. Just like there is a unit cost for electricity, the same does not apply to data. This is why broadband is not a utility.
reply
JamesPC @ 5th Jun 03:42PM:
bust

BUTLLSHIT. I have TWC, its a bummer the tv cable is bleeding into the broadband. They better be ready for people to leave if they impose 40GB caps. I use MLB.tv and watch many shows online, steam Kroq and sirius, etc.
reply
insomniac84 @ 5th Jun 03:48PM:
Re: market seppuku?

The hell it won't. Comcast is already lowering the bandwidth(CAPPING!) of HD channels to cram more channels in.
reply
K Patterson @ 5th Jun 03:53PM:
Re: There's more than transit

Actually, there is a very real cost to create data, but that is not the issue. Since the ISP's don't create it, the only issue is what it costs to transport it, and that is the issue.
reply
Pizz @ 5th Jun 03:58PM:
Good Read Karl

Very interesting! keep up the good work.
reply
JamesPC @ 5th Jun 03:59PM:
Re: There's more than transit

The electricity that powers the servers and routers (switches,hubs,etc). Which is paid for, what are the costs of the transit? The only cost is investment and maintenance, see teh way it works is TWC builds the network with big capital investment for a certain amount and that network is made to handle a certain load. There is no difference in cost if you are not using the network or are maxed out 24/7. Everything is still powered the same weather using 1mbps or 20mbps. And if we talk about POP transit then we are talking .4 cents or close of gig transit cost.
reply
TransitMan @ 5th Jun 04:02PM:
Beaumont, Texas - The Test.

Come on TWC, if you really want to assess your proposed caps on the public, do it in a city that has a larger population than Beaumont, Texas.

From Wikipedia, the city had a population of 113,866 as of the 2000 U.S. Census. And how many of those are really really going to be signed up as "New" users?

If you want to judge the real world usage of the internet today, pick on a city that has a larger population, of which more folks who would be on-line and using the internet, for legal and in some cases, illegal reason. From that test, you would see that the proposed CAPS are so low that they hearken the days of dial-up metering whereby you got charged by the hour for every hour you were on-line.

Beaumont, Texas in not the right place to this testing, but then again, any city you chose with the low CAPS you propose would not be the right city.
Come up with something more reasonable, starting at 250GB per month for the 2 lowest tiers and go up from there, and maybe, I maybe, people wouldn't pitch a bitch so much.
--
PROUD TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CRUNCHENSTEIN ASSOCIATION AND THE HOST OF CRUNCHENSTEIN #2
reply
Dampier @ 5th Jun 04:05PM:
Re: Don't Fall for the Cable Industry's Invented Narrative

As I have written elsewhere, the original author has had to endure the Australian broadband experience, which is among the most dismal in the entire developed world. Telstra, the incumbent phone company, maintains a 50% market share providing poor service at incredibly high prices. It has become so bad that the Australian government is now able to make the case its hurting the country economically in the new Internet marketplace, and that changes to increase competition are in order.

An Australian citizen, respectfully, is at high risk of misunderstanding the American broadband experience over the past decade in an unregulated, price competitive marketplace. For Americans accustomed to expanded speeds and services at prices that remain highly profitable for the providers (and have literally remained unchanged in most instances for more than a decade), a draconian cap such as the one contemplated by Time Warner is an act of war against consumers and poses incredibly serious threats to online commerce, equal access to information have's and have not's, and to our global competitiveness. It all comes packaged as an argument that includes absolutely no independently verified evidence, backed by individuals and companies with a direct financial interest to the cable companies arguing the point.

Justin may be surprised by the intense blowback his editorial provides, but people should be informed that he's hardly being paid off by cable interests to support their position. His perspective comes from his experiences as an Australian living under the kind of online experience that has kept his fellow countrymen years behind those of us in North America, Europe, and significant parts of Asia.

I appreciate his perspective, but I think his arguments are dramatically undercut by his literal distance to the current situation on the ground in this country.
reply
insomniac84 @ 5th Jun 04:06PM:
Double dipping.

Normally with a metered service you would pay what you used and maybe small fee for the service itself. In this case if they wanted to charge per gigabyte, they should offer services like 5 bucks a month for 5gb + 10 cents a gigabyte after that. But they are setting the base price at an outrageous level like 50-60 bucks a month and trying to cap the service and implement a large fee for additional bandwidth. For 50-60 bucks a month you definitely should have unlimited bandwidth. No way to argue otherwise. The costs just are not there. The money they are making off of 60 bucks a month for an internet connection + expanding into the phone business has to be astronomical. Internet access is going to have to be protected because clearly companies are not willing to offer services at a reasonable price.
reply
espaeth @ 5th Jun 04:22PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by maartena :

But you should also look at the bigger picture. These days, an average American family has 2 to 3 PC's, sometimes even more.
According to Census bureau in August 2000 only 51% of US households had one or more computers, and only 41% of households had Internet access. Granted it's been 8 years, but do you think the other half of the country went out and bought not just 1, but multiple computers *AND* high speed Internet in the last 8 years? (In an economy that has been struggling with the costs of a war and lackluster economic growth)

Source: »www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
reply
Red Dawn @ 5th Jun 04:24PM:
Wrong

I lived in Japan for a year, and that place is populated beyond scope with people who are very tech savvy. While there, I had a 20/5 line that I paid for, that always hit the numbers, and paid only $35, and that's U.S. dollars. That was low end in Japan. Everyone you would talk to had blazing speeds and was on the net 24/7 it seemed like, yet I never heard of pricing models like here in the states. I could have gotten a 40/10 line, that would have only cost me $55 per month, no discount, a few different price packages to pick from, fiber connections, you name it, they had it before FIOS and others started here. One of the reasons I believe Japan got it right, was government investment in the infrastructure, and REGULATION.. Here in the states, we bought the idea of de-regulation, and how that would open up competition and the like, yet all it does is allow this crap. Large companies buying everyone, then saying your going to pay this or else. Most cities only have a choice of 1 real provider for broadband, so how is this choice, and fair, when that 1 sole provider charges whatever they want, and the service isn't all that great. I strongly believe everyone should write their congressman about this, the industry is getting out of hand, with an FCC watching over them like a wolf would watch over a chicken, nothing good comes out of it. Sometimes de-regulation does work, with the voip boom, it seems the telephone companies now lower almost everything and have large packages for nice prices, all a great benefit for the consumer, but sometimes it doesn't work, and in this case, I know it doesn't.
reply
espaeth @ 5th Jun 04:31PM:
Re: There's more than transit

said by JamesPC :

The electricity that powers the servers and routers (switches,hubs,etc). Which is paid for, what are the costs of the transit?
All of the helpdesk call center agents, field techs, network engineers. This increases the base cost of providing the service.

said by JamesPC :

The only cost is investment and maintenance, see teh way it works is TWC builds the network with big capital investment for a certain amount and that network is made to handle a certain load. There is no difference in cost if you are not using the network or are maxed out 24/7.
Ok, so where does the money come from if you need to upgrade capacity on the network? Under flat rate billing if usage is low there is sufficient margin to fund expansion efforts like node splits. The situation is coming about where demand is outpacing supply, and dollars aren't following to increase the supply.
reply
JamesPC @ 5th Jun 04:39PM:
Re: There's more than transit

maintenance = "All of the helpdesk call center agents, field techs, network engineers."

The money comes from investors and you are acting like it is cheaper to run the network when usages is low rather than high. This is not true, you still have to "maintain"(see above) the network, electricity costs the same. Its very simple they are taking us for fools, if they are having supply demand problems then don't offer 25mbps connections. HELLO! The ISP(for competing video services) need to get over the fact that people are actually using the network.
reply
Mr Matt @ 5th Jun 04:54PM:
It seems like this situation happened a long time ago.

:( This seems to be an repeat of what went on between businesses, consumers and the Railroads in the late 1800's. The Railroads were abusing their power by employing unfair practices and rates to discriminate against various industries and to support other favored industries.

Please see this article from Wikipedia describing the reason for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate···erce_Act

We need an agency to regulate the ISP's in the same way that the land telecommunications industry is regulated. Although the broadband business is not a monopoly in most areas it is an oligopoly with one or two factors offering service in any physical location.

Although it might not be a popular proposal it might be time to allow ISP's to charge commercial content providers such as Netflix fees for carrying their traffic. This is nothing new. When the Bell System was broken up the Long Distance Carriers were required to pay the Local Telephone Companies for carrying their traffic. We need a form of regulation such as the one that exists to regulate the land line telecommunications industry to guarantee that the ISP's receive a reasonable return on their investment while offering the use of their network at a reasonable rate. The broadband subscriber should not be subject to CAP's. The content providers should help fund the expansion of the ISP's networks.
reply
espaeth @ 5th Jun 04:59PM:
Re: There's more than transit

said by JamesPC :

maintenance = "All of the helpdesk call center agents, field techs, network engineers."

The money comes from investors
People invest money because they expect a return. Maintenance is a cost, not a profit center.

said by JamesPC :

you are acting like it is cheaper to run the network when usages is low rather than high.
No, I'm saying it's cheaper to run the network when you have capacity on your existing plant to meet the demand. As soon as demand requires you to start to perform another round of upgrades, then you need capital to fund that infrastructure. I'm also saying the cost you pay today only goes to cover the infrastructure that exists today; if broadband is going to continue to grow and advance, that situation needs to be corrected.

said by JamesPC :

Its very simple they are taking us for fools, if they are having supply demand problems then don't offer 25mbps connections.
The reason they are supplying high *RATE* connections is that the networks are statistically muxed. Say you're going to download a Linux ISO; the size of that content is fixed. If downloading that at 5mbps takes you 50 minutes, then by bumping the speed to 25mbps you should be able ot get the same content in about 10 minutes. The benefit here is that demand is random - you and your neighbor aren't likely to go retrieve content at exactly the same time. By shortening the duration of transfers you reduce the likelihood that multiple large transfers will be hitting at the same time.

Of course this model doesn't work for P2P or streaming, as both applications are based around a constant flow of data.

That's where the disconnect is.
reply
Matt @ 5th Jun 05:16PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by espaeth :

said by maartena :

But you should also look at the bigger picture. These days, an average American family has 2 to 3 PC's, sometimes even more.
According to Census bureau in August 2000 only 51% of US households had one or more computers, and only 41% of households had Internet access. Granted it's been 8 years, but do you think the other half of the country went out and bought not just 1, but multiple computers *AND* high speed Internet in the last 8 years? (In an economy that has been struggling with the costs of a war and lackluster economic growth)

Source: »www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
Actually, yes. Dell, HP, IBM, Lenovo and Apple have all reported record growth and minus the past couple years, record sales.
reply
nasadude @ 5th Jun 06:23PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by TKJunkMail :

Yes it would. You would just have to pay more for the content is all.
EXACTLY!

let me see...download the netflix movie...wait, crap I'm close to the cap.

...may as well get it from TW on pay-per-view.
reply
JamesPC @ 5th Jun 07:02PM:
Re: There's more than transit

Agreed, longer transfers are worse for networks but when you are talking about capacity. More people want to use there connections at the same time.. They cannot rely on "statistically muxed networks" even tho they do, the whole internet does (MONEY). The people that don't use there internet are money in the pocket. They see the future of internet driven media (HD video, video phone, crazy games, etc), this is just the traditionalist at TWC wanting to cash in as long as they can on there cable "TV" network. After all that what it was built for.
reply
openbox9 @ 5th Jun 08:34PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

Or continue your Netflix delivery via the USPS.
reply
nydwarf1 @ 5th Jun 09:12PM:
Re: market seppuku?

Maybe the people should decide to enact a law that if you own a cable company you cannot run the internet side. You will have to sell this to another operator.
reply
dvd536 @ 5th Jun 09:38PM:
Electric bill

Should be billed like electricity.
$10 base fee then per gigabyte charge.
to charge the full blown price then set a low cap so you can rape and gouge is sooooooo wrong.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee
reply
supergirl @ 5th Jun 10:03PM:
Re: Don't Fall for the Cable Industry's Invented Narrative

said by Dampier :

Justin may be surprised by the intense blowback his editorial provides, but people should be informed that he's hardly being paid off by cable interests to support their position.
Then Justin should prove it by saying he's not towing the ISPs ridiculous argument(s). His "opinion" was ill-informed since Australia is now even seeing the light. The Internet is becoming a huge commerce component of the U.S. If Justin is just mad about his own country's lack of consumer protections, he shouldn't want to bring that crap here. The Net has already revolutionized the music industry. If a company doesn't have a web presence, potential employees ignore them and so do potential customers. Or, maybe Justin should just read our laws. Australia's laws aren't as freedom-oriented as they are here. He might also understand being anti-consumer here is akin to blasphemy in the United States, and very bad for his "website". Maybe Karl is just allowed his opinions to assuage the backlash Justin's getting. If it smells like astroturfing, it probably is. I know people in tech I emailed his article to have a negative opinion of this site now.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl
reply
espaeth @ 5th Jun 10:03PM:
Re: It seems like this situation happened a long time ago.

said by Mr Matt :

Although it might not be a popular proposal it might be time to allow ISP's to charge commercial content providers such as Netflix fees for carrying their traffic.
This is where the net neutrality argument started. Why should content providers like Netflix, Amazon, and Apple all have to pay more because broadband providers screwed up on how they bill their customers?
reply
espaeth @ 5th Jun 10:04PM:
Re: Electric bill

The base cost of providing the service is much closer to what you pay now than it is to $10.
reply
espaeth @ 5th Jun 10:07PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by NOCMan :

Once they drive out the competition we'll all get what they want us to have. AOL all over again.
What? When did AOL *ever* take over the Internet?
reply
espaeth @ 5th Jun 10:10PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by Matt :

Actually, yes. Dell, HP, IBM, Lenovo and Apple have all reported record growth and minus the past couple years, record sales.
Many of those sales were to both business and personal customers that already had a computer to begin with. You don't honestly believe we went from an average of 0.5 computers per household to 2+ computers per household in 7 years, do you?
reply
kamm @ 6th Jun 12:04AM:
Re: I'll drop TWC

M2, m8! :)
reply
NetAdmin @ 6th Jun 01:44AM:
Re: Electric bill

said by espaeth :

The base cost of providing the service is much closer to what you pay now than it is to $10.
Because that base cost ALREADY includes an expected amount of usage... The base cost of providing the connection, without usage, is in the $10-$20 range.
reply
rec9140 @ 6th Jun 07:44AM:
Re: Don't Fall for the Cable Industry's Invented Narrative

said by djrobx :
Justin is entitled to share his opinion, however unpopular it may be.


He is most certainly entitled to his opinion.... BUT.....

As the owner and operator of this site, which is HIGHLY PREDICATED on HIGH SPEED INTERNET....his opinion carries a large amount of weight, like it or not.

His opinion and post I am sure is on some PRsleazer desk right now being used to support this crap.

There are times when your PERSONAL opinion and the BUSINESS opinion are not in agreement and in those cases you should keep your personal opinions to yourself. Want to voice your opinion then you quit that position. You can say this is my personal opinion etc. all you want, it still is going to be tied to the business you are connected with, like it or not.

His editorial has the potential to do great harm to HSI customers on all services and technogolies. My opinion is it has done a great harm to the HSI user community already, one that needs heavy, and quick action to correct in the form of "beating down" the TWC trial to a pulp.

ISP's should be just that, and ISP. A link to the internet unfettered, unmolested. You want to offer other things like VOIP, VOD, streaming video or what ever else then you COMPETE in the MARKETPLACE, FAIRLY....

Unfortunately the definition in use by business today of fairly = MONOPOLY.

I don't have crapble for video for a reason, I despise with a passion crapble companies. I've had first hand experience with them from a local cable board point of view. The only way to keep them in line is REGULATE THEM TO DEATH, WATCH EVERY BREATH THEY TAKE every second of the day. You practically need to have a cable board memeber in each tech's truck, at every desk in every office to watch these sleazeoids.

Unfortunately due to the screwed up HSI marketplace there is only one choice available for HSI, crapble. Which right now is acceptable, I am not thrilled with dealing with a crapble company but its crable or dial up. Fios would be available, actually I its maybe 500 feet away, but its only wired for the schools in my area for some reason. Need a trench VZ? ?? NO PROBLEM! You let me know when and it will be ready.

Every one is entitlted to their personal opinion, unfortunately in the busines world some times you need to keep your opinions to yourself when they don't match up with your business.
--
Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex./ »www.nobcs.net
reply
Matt @ 6th Jun 09:25AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by espaeth :

said by Matt :

Actually, yes. Dell, HP, IBM, Lenovo and Apple have all reported record growth and minus the past couple years, record sales.
Many of those sales were to both business and personal customers that already had a computer to begin with. You don't honestly believe we went from an average of 0.5 computers per household to 2+ computers per household in 7 years, do you?
I personally know 4 households that did. Mine went from 1 to 3, so yes.
reply
espaeth @ 6th Jun 09:46AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by Matt :

I personally know 4 households that did. Mine went from 1 to 3, so yes.
Again, I'm not saying things aren't improving, but we're not to a household average of 1+ computers yet in the US. Heck, according to a study done this year about 20% of US head of households have never sent an email.

Source: »newsroom.parksassociates.com/art···_id=5067
reply
BF69 @ 6th Jun 09:48AM:
Re: It seems like this situation happened a long time ago.

said by Mr Matt :

Although it might not be a popular proposal it might be time to allow ISP's to charge commercial content providers such as Netflix fees for carrying their traffic.
A) Nextflix et all already pay for their bandwidth. Now you expect them to pay TWICE? You do realize the only reason why people want to use the ISPs pipes is that there is content to be consumed. No content then the "tubes" can be as big as they want and no one will use them. ISP should be GRATEFUL companies like Netflix made the internet so popular that people want to pay $50 or more a month for internet service

B) do you think companies like Netflix are going to eat this cost? No they will pass this onto the consumer. So if it's your assumption that by charging these companies a fee and thus this will mean you won't have to end up paying like you would with a cap and overages you are greatly mistaken.

C) I find it ironic ISPs like at&t are all for wanting to charge companies a fee for using their pipe, but right now they pay ESPN money to carry bandwidth hogging espn360.com. Does that make sense? So not only is espn360.com using up a lot of bandwidth per every at&t user that accesses it, at&t is paying for that "privilege". That would be kind of like the toll booth operator paying me to use the tollway. Why should I trust the opinions of a company that says it wants to do one thing and then does the exact opposite?
reply
Matt @ 6th Jun 09:50AM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by espaeth :

said by Matt :

I personally know 4 households that did. Mine went from 1 to 3, so yes.
Again, I'm not saying things aren't improving, but we're not to a household average of 1+ computers yet in the US. Heck, according to a study done this year about 20% of US head of households have never sent an email.

Source: »newsroom.parksassociates.com/art···_id=5067
What does 20% of households never sending an email have to do with whether the average number of households with more than 1 computer has increased?
reply
Mr Matt @ 6th Jun 10:34AM:
Re: It seems like this situation happened a long time ago.

:hmm: The internet is evolving. It was not designed to carry streaming traffic. What I am proposing is a way to allow the ISP to recover the cost of upgrading there networks to support the increased traffic. I propose that the ISP's be paid to carry the streaming traffic without increasing the cost to subscribers not using commercial streaming services. If the content providers pay the ISP's to carry their traffic the revenue can be used to finance the necessary upgrades. On the other hand I believe the fees should only be applied to commercial usage that requires significant upgrades to carry the traffic that usage requires. I also propose that prices be regulated to prevent the ISP's from applying predatory pricing that would make it financially impractical for content providers to use the internet to deliver content. On the other hand defining what is considered a commercial service may be a major issue. The Internet industry has to start working out these issues sooner or later and I believe it should be sooner. Subscribers and Service Providers should take their heads out of the sand and work out these issues.
reply
dentman42 @ 6th Jun 06:55PM:
Re: they aren't going after the legal stuff

said by espaeth :

said by maartena :

But you should also look at the bigger picture. These days, an average American family has 2 to 3 PC's, sometimes even more.
According to Census bureau in August 2000 only 51% of US households had one or more computers, and only 41% of households had Internet access. Granted it's been 8 years, but do you think the other half of the country went out and bought not just 1, but multiple computers *AND* high speed Internet in the last 8 years?
Source: »www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
Bought? Not necesarilly. Some did, prices have come way down since 2000. But what do you think has happened to all of the computers that have been replaced during that time? Many have been given to friends or relatives who didn't have a computer. I know plenty of people on welfare that have 3 or 4 computers (including laptops) and broadband internet. (And we'll leave the issue of whether welfare should pay for brodband for another topic). And in most cases, those 3 or 4 computers are all better than what I had in 2000 (after all, a 1 GHz machine is pretty well considered obsolete now, but was the top end in 2000).
reply

Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC