Bandwidth Caps.. continued

2009-04-07 16:22:10

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6903|132 and Bush

I warned you guys about this when Comcast began experimenting with it 7 months ago.
Well it seems the idea has spread since. AT&T soon followed suit with a 150 gb cap. This I believe is the way the cable companies are combating the boom of new media. They profit on their abilty to sell you channels and premium packages. They know sites like HULU and certain torrent providers are making ppl double think their cable subscriptions. Their solution? Cap your bandwidth. Because nothing say bandwidth like some 1020p H.264 action. HD media is almost certainly their target.

Time Warner Monthly Data Caps Detailed

We'd heard about Time Warner Cable's test run of consumption-based billing in Beaumont, Texas, back in January, though details were scant. Now they're plentiful. The plans (for new subscribers only) start up on Thursday, but thankfully they're not as bad as we imagined—the overage fee is only $1/GB and is waived the first two months. Plans start $30 for 768Kbps downloads and a 5GB cap, and go up to $55 for a pretty sweet 15Mbps downstream and a 40GB cap. Not egregious, but we still hate it, especially since you'll probably be seeing this in lotsa places, sooner than you'd expect.

Designed to thwart hardcore data slurpers (and soon HD video downloads that'll in time seriously compete with cable's offerings), consumption-based billing throws us back to the days AOL—sure, it's more data, but the principle is effectively the same, and it'll to regular consumers sooner than the cable industry would have you believe, especially once online video actually gets rolling. While Time Warner emphasized to us it's just a test, we don't expect this to stay in Texas for long, especially with Comcast mulling over similar plans. Long live internet in the US.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-04-07 16:24:03

#2

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7064

So if you use massive amounts of room, shouldnt you pay more than those who dont?

2009-04-07 16:25:58

#3

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|6973|UK

so if you're a humongous cunt and use more oxygen to breathe you should plant more trees.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2009-04-07 16:26:05

#4

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|6001

I hope someone will find a way to combat this.

2009-04-07 16:26:36

#5

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7064

m3thod wrote:
so if you're a humongous cunt and use more oxygen to breathe you should plant more trees.

well thats up to whomever owns oxygen i guess

2009-04-07 16:27:44

#6

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

usmarine wrote:
So if you use massive amounts of room, shouldnt you pay more than those who dont?

Considering that most of the current infrastructure used by cable companies began as publicly funded infrastructure, no.

Considering the fact that it doesn't really cost them anything more that you're using the full bandwidth, no.

This is clearly an abuse of power by an industry that is highly oligopolistic and spends more on lobbyism than any other industry.

2009-04-07 16:30:03

#7

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5888

That sucks for whoever's wireless I use for my torrents. But they are just going to lose customers who jump into the company that decides they could make a bunch of money by blasting those other companies for bandwith caps while [the blasting company] decides to offer limitless internet.

2009-04-07 16:30:45

#8

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

12/f/taiwan wrote:
I hope someone will find a way to combat this.

There are ways. Certain programs are designed to slip past these schemes but they are often hard to come by and require some tech knowledge to utilize.

Thankfully, I have a lot of friends that are techies.

The average person is gonna get raped by this though.

2009-04-07 16:31:46

#9

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:
That sucks for whoever's wireless I use for my torrents. But they are just going to lose customers who jump into the company that decides they could make a bunch of money by blasting those other companies for bandwith caps while [the blasting company] decides to offer limitless internet.

The problem is that it looks like nearly every ISP is jumping on the cap bandwagon. FIOS might be next.

2009-04-07 16:33:16

#10

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6903|132 and Bush

usmarine wrote:
So if you use massive amounts of room, shouldnt you pay more than those who dont?

Room.. whose room?

See the Japan example .. $20 for unlimited and 100 gb down. It doesn't cost them that much.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-04-07 16:33:58

#11

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
That sucks for whoever's wireless I use for my torrents. But they are just going to lose customers who jump into the company that decides they could make a bunch of money by blasting those other companies for bandwith caps while [the blasting company] decides to offer limitless internet.
The problem is that it looks like nearly every ISP is jumping on the cap bandwagon. FIOS might be next.

Then we've got problems...
<---grrrr

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-04-07 16:35:22

#12

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Heavy consumer protection regulation would fix this problem, but that's probably not going to happen.

Telecoms have a shitload of power in Washington.

2009-04-07 16:36:17

#13

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Macbeth wrote:
That sucks for whoever's wireless I use for my torrents. But they are just going to lose customers who jump into the company that decides they could make a bunch of money by blasting those other companies for bandwith caps while [the blasting company] decides to offer limitless internet.

Usually when a cable company installs a router they protect it. If someone installs it after the fact they could be just be idiots though. When they start getting their bills I bet they'll figure out what needs to be done.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-04-07 16:39:42

#14

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5888

Kmarion wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
That sucks for whoever's wireless I use for my torrents. But they are just going to lose customers who jump into the company that decides they could make a bunch of money by blasting those other companies for bandwith caps while [the blasting company] decides to offer limitless internet.
Usually when a cable company installs a router they protect it. If someone installs it after the fact they could be just be idiots though. When they start getting their bills I bet they'll figure out what needs to be done.

Ok that sucks. Wait this may sound extremely stupid and I know a bunch of people are going to call me a dumbass and retard but if we could steal cable with illegal boxes and such we can't we steal internet? It's all wires and shit right?

2009-04-07 16:39:53

#15

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Heavy consumer protection regulation would fix this problem, but that's probably not going to happen.

Telecoms have a shitload of power in Washington.

It's essentially price fixing. This is being done in sync with the other providers.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-04-07 16:44:10

#16

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
That sucks for whoever's wireless I use for my torrents. But they are just going to lose customers who jump into the company that decides they could make a bunch of money by blasting those other companies for bandwith caps while [the blasting company] decides to offer limitless internet.
Usually when a cable company installs a router they protect it. If someone installs it after the fact they could be just be idiots though. When they start getting their bills I bet they'll figure out what needs to be done.

Not necessarily. I know for a fact that I can use my neighbor's internet with a laptop (I live in an apartment). Presumably, they could do the same with mine.

The point is... in an age of Wifi, this cap idea is ludicrous and seems almost intentionally vulnerable.

My brother and I thought of some typical situations where families would get billed ridiculous amounts for things as simple as watching youtube videos. Basically, all streaming media is highly inefficient in its use of bandwidth, so you'd hit the cap relatively quick from even watching youtube a few hours per day.

With few consumers being tech savvy enough to even know how to determine how much they've used, this is basically a disaster waiting to happen.

ISPs are essentially taking the same strategy as cell phone companies now.

2009-04-07 16:45:24

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Heavy consumer protection regulation would fix this problem, but that's probably not going to happen.

Telecoms have a shitload of power in Washington.
It's essentially price fixing. This is being done in sync with the other providers.

It just goes to show that capitalism isn't that different from communism when the proper regulations aren't in place. In communism, the state controls everything, but in pure capitalism, oligopolies form and control everything.

2009-04-07 16:46:57

#18

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6869|NYC / Hamburg

The ISPs are far behind on upgrading their networks but sell much more bandwidth than is actually availible. Networks cost money, so it's easier to scam the users out of the bandwidth they paid for instead of upgrading them. Also more and more people use the internet for entertainment instead of buying cable TV packages. Limiting the internet usage might push some users back to TV. Every other company would get busted for fraud but the telcos seem to be above the law

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2009-04-07 16:52:23

#19

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
That sucks for whoever's wireless I use for my torrents. But they are just going to lose customers who jump into the company that decides they could make a bunch of money by blasting those other companies for bandwith caps while [the blasting company] decides to offer limitless internet.
Usually when a cable company installs a router they protect it. If someone installs it after the fact they could be just be idiots though. When they start getting their bills I bet they'll figure out what needs to be done.
Not necessarily. I know for a fact that I can use my neighbor's internet with a laptop (I live in an apartment). Presumably, they could do the same with mine.

The point is... in an age of Wifi, this cap idea is ludicrous and seems almost intentionally vulnerable.

My brother and I thought of some typical situations where families would get billed ridiculous amounts for things as simple as watching youtube videos. Basically, all streaming media is highly inefficient in its use of bandwidth, so you'd hit the cap relatively quick from even watching youtube a few hours per day.

With few consumers being tech savvy enough to even know how to determine how much they've used, this is basically a disaster waiting to happen.

ISPs are essentially taking the same strategy as cell phone companies now.

I imagine a few angry phone calls from consumers consistening of "Hey you dumb ass, I only surf a few web pages and check my email.. what the fuck is this!!. Cancel my service!!". That will hopefully get the cable companies "tech savy" people involved and investigating what is going on. The cable companies response once it takes them about 2 seconds to figure it out? "Hey you dipshit cunt linking idiot!, put a key on your router. .. ahh fuckit, we'll do it for you."

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-04-07 16:54:21

#20

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
I imagine a few angry phone calls from consumers consistening of "Hey you dumb ass, I only surf a few web pages and check my email.. what the fuck is this!!. Cancel my service!!". That will hopefully get the cable companies "tech savy" people involved and investigating what is going on. The cable companies response once it takes them about 2 seconds to figure it out? "Hey you dipshit cunt linking idiot!, put a key on your router. .. ahh fuckit, we'll do it for you."

But that's the problem. They have to know this is going to happen.

They seem to be intentionally setting this up to make exorbitant amounts from fees.

Clearly, regulation is needed, but again... lobbyists run the show.

2009-04-07 17:23:15

#21

Aries_37: arrivederci frog; +368|6877|London

OFCOM here just made it illegal to advertise falsely

2009-04-07 17:34:41

#22

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6903|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
I imagine a few angry phone calls from consumers consistening of "Hey you dumb ass, I only surf a few web pages and check my email.. what the fuck is this!!. Cancel my service!!". That will hopefully get the cable companies "tech savy" people involved and investigating what is going on. The cable companies response once it takes them about 2 seconds to figure it out? "Hey you dipshit cunt linking idiot!, put a key on your router. .. ahh fuckit, we'll do it for you."
But that's the problem. They have to know this is going to happen.

They seem to be intentionally setting this up to make exorbitant amounts from fees.

Clearly, regulation is needed, but again... lobbyists run the show.

.. They're trying to cutoff the creep into the TV market. That much is clear.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-04-07 17:37:35

#23

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6707|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
I imagine a few angry phone calls from consumers consistening of "Hey you dumb ass, I only surf a few web pages and check my email.. what the fuck is this!!. Cancel my service!!". That will hopefully get the cable companies "tech savy" people involved and investigating what is going on. The cable companies response once it takes them about 2 seconds to figure it out? "Hey you dipshit cunt linking idiot!, put a key on your router. .. ahh fuckit, we'll do it for you."
But that's the problem. They have to know this is going to happen.

They seem to be intentionally setting this up to make exorbitant amounts from fees.

Clearly, regulation is needed, but again... lobbyists run the show.
.. They're trying to cutoff the creep into the TV market. That much is clear.

Yep. And if they succeed in their goals, even consumer complaints won't mean much.

Imagine what would happen if sites like youtube and hulu died off because of these caps, and the only sources you could get HD from involved the packages that they sell?

The problem is that this plan probably will work. It's very clever (and frankly evil, in my opinion).

2009-04-07 17:55:07

#24

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6967|NT, like Mick Dundee

Mmm... Download caps. We have them already. Right bastard. Then again my speeds make it hard to hit my download cap.

Our current government recently said a big fuck you to the telecom industry here. I'm hoping they sit up and listen this time.

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2009-04-07 17:55:40

#25

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7064

Turquoise wrote:
usmarine wrote:
So if you use massive amounts of room, shouldnt you pay more than those who dont?
Considering that most of the current infrastructure used by cable companies began as publicly funded infrastructure, no.

Considering the fact that it doesn't really cost them anything more that you're using the full bandwidth, no.

This is clearly an abuse of power by an industry that is highly oligopolistic and spends more on lobbyism than any other industry.

its doesnt cost cell phone companies anything for text messages....ever go over your limit? i dunno. it happens all over i imagine.

BF2S Forums Bandwidth Caps.. continued

m3thod wrote:

usmarine wrote:

12/f/taiwan wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Board footer