RSSTests of Time Warner broadband cap rescheduled, debates continue
By Tim Conneally | Published April 15, 2009, 1:10 PM
Time Warner Cable's proposed trials of consumption-based billing were originally slated to begin in several markets this summer, where customers would be a part of a tiered pricing scheme. Pricing would have started at 1 GB per month for $15, and go up to 100 GB per month for $75, and include a per-gigabyte overage fee.
The public's reaction was less than favorable, and the trials in Texas have been rescheduled.
Gavino Ramos, Time Warner's Vice President of Communications told the San Antonio Express News, "What happened as we're continuing to listen was we worked in some of the comments and ideas that got sent to us. We came to the realization, let's do this in October."
Trials in Rochester, New York and Greensboro, North Carolina will continue as planned, but consumers look to be equally aggrieved. Some subscribers are planning protests of Time Warner's offices for the proposed trials. One group, called Stop The Cap, believes protests keep price hikes in check. It says, "a handful of major broadband providers are now colluding in a version of telecommunications limbo, with several watching each of the others 'experiment,' to see how low a cap they can set before subscribers and public officials rebel."
This sort of bandwidth regulation has stirred debate both about monopoly, due to Time Warner's insular presence in some rural areas and its guaranteed exclusive CATV contracts in metropolitan areas. And don't forget the ongoing debate about net neutrality, which is leveraged in this case to make the argument that all users regardless of their purchasing ability should have access to "the same Internet."
When networks are built out, the level of bandwidth consumption must be projected in advance; when those projections fall short, networks encounter serious congestion problems. Now that online gaming, streaming video, remote console and hard drive access, VoIP, and video conferencing are all increasingly common uses of the Internet, bandwidth consumption has exploded. According to Time Warner, it's exploding 40% faster than previously expected.
A passage in Time Warner's statement to the FCC on Monday (PDF available here) said, "The Commission should remind NTIA that, even under the Broadband Policy Statement, broadband providers are permitted to undertake reasonable network management practices in order to manage the ever-increasing flow of traffic over their networks and thereby address the root causes of network congestion."
Whether or not this is the cash grab that the opposition believes it to be, for now, Time Warner can cite a footnote in the FCC's Broadband Policy Statement (PDF available here) as protection while it decides how to proceed.
This is great news. Obviously you will see in the comments the clear division into two predictable camps: the cry-babies AKA "I want it all for free" and the tough-daddies AKA "take it like a man".
Naturally, the mature, intelligent, and correct way to act against ANY radical change (and this change is gonna be radical to insanely high percentage of current customers) -- is to take a stand in between. It's to fight (as a consumer) as hard as you can to get the FCC/govn't involved to protect the individual citizen's interest.
Clearly, if you only take the tough-daddies' stand, you're always gonna get a bum deal. If you do fight, you will ALWAYS get at LEAST a slightly better deal than you would otherwise. So I'm ALWAYS for fighting. I'm also ALWAYS for accepting a defeat (big or small), taking it like a man... As long as you know you did your best -- that's all that matters.
So good luck to the consumer groups fighting this. And I did like their very perceptive point: "a handful of major broadband providers are now colluding in a version of telecommunications limbo, with several watching each of the others 'experiment,' to see how low a cap they can set before subscribers and public officials rebel."
This is an extremely important point to understand. If TW customers don't fight as hard as they can, then it's VERY CLEAR Comcast is gonna take notes and slowly/gradually increase prices (or lower caps).
This is clearly a cash grab. Now the question is if the FCC can force this cash to be spent directly on the network (not on TW's content and other BS). If it can, then I see no problem with TW charging whatever they want even if there's no competition in certain scenarios. This would basically mean paying now for a FORCED NETWORK UPGRADE in the future, which is a Good Thing (TM).
Score: 0
|So this makes all downloadable content and games--oh and patches--hugely more expensive than they are. $15 for only ONE GIGABYTE??!?
The average STEAM download game is 5GB to 8GB! World of Warcraft dumps down like 14GB in data!
Score: -1
|Regardless of the technical issues this is not the time to talk about rate increases or imposing service restrictions upon your paying customers. More people are considering dropping nonessential or entertainment services than are looking to add new services. Times are tough and any forward looking company are pushing how they are giving you more values for less cost just to keep the customers they have. Likewise this is no the time to abuse your customers where there is no choice but your services or the road. There are too many politicians that are trying to prove that they're worth who will make you wish that you were still flipping burgers at the local Dairy Queen. The best of all worlds would be for TWC to offer more services at a lower cost and increase both their customer base and profits.
Score: 0
|Customers having less money doesn't lower any companies costs to provide a service. Customers have the option of scaling back, companies that are competing with other companies generally....do not.
TWC and others still offer lower tiers that are decently priced. Not all tiers cost $75 and if you cannot afford the $40 service, there's always dial-up or simply doing without. "Living within your means" does not mean companies are forced to price your services within your means. If they have decided they do not want to offer service levels below $40, they are free to do so and lose whatever customers they have that can no longer pay that amount.
Freedom works both ways, and times aren't tough for everyone (or even the majority). They keep telling us that billions have lost jobs and have lost their vehicles and homes...and yet traffic is just as bad, if not worse than before the crunch. Many industries are in fact breaking records. Not all is doom and gloom, as many would have you believe...they just know they can't get blood out of us unless they squeeze (or at least make the majority *think* we're being squeezed).
Score: -1
|The problem with Time Warner's argument is that usage caps DO NOT prevent network congestion. A far better way is to limit transfer speed, something they already do.
This I why I find it a bit ridiculous. How can you complain about increased usage when you continue to offer faster and faster transfer tiers? This ultimately contributes far more to congestion than anything else.
Let's face it -- this is a thinly-veiled attempt by TWC to generate more revenue and/or curb the increasing trend of watching movies and television online (forcing us to pay for their ridiculously overpriced cable TV services). It's interesting to note how none of the telecom DSL providers are considering such actions.
Score: 0
|"How can you complain about increased usage when you continue to offer faster and faster transfer tiers? "
Faster!= more congestion. It means they are binding more channels and possibly using a different DOCSIS standard. It has *nothing* to do with the actual amount of traffic on the network.
Think of it more like a highway...the cars are not traveling faster, there are simply more lanes to use. In that regard, offering higher "speeds" reduces network congestion because they can fit more data on the "highway"...the bits aren't actually traveling any faster.
I seriously thought this was all common knowledge... Apparently, I was completely mistaken. (First time...ever) :D
"It's interesting to note how none of the telecom DSL providers are considering such actions."
Two entirely different technologies. Their wires don't have any more "channels" to expand into. They *can't* use this technique to lower congestion, *and* it's not shared as cable signals are, so congestion isn't even that much of an issue (unless their DSLAM is overloaded).
Score: 0
|If this is the case why don't they remove the speed limiters and run the system full out? Because it would saturate their lines and bring the network to a slow crawl. While adding more "lanes" does help, it's not the end-all-be-all of traffic. You also see this with auto traffic -- no matter how many lanes they add to the highway traffic never seems to get any better. Limiting usage does not have any direct correlation to traffic, especially at peak hours when congestion is the worst.
And the point of mentioning telcos is because they have no vested interest in preventing customers from watching movies and television online, unlike cable companies.
Score: 0
|"If this is the case why don't they remove the speed limiters and run the system full out?"
Let more cars on the road? (Again, "speed limiters" = traffic lights, you're not slowing the bits down, you're delaying them from accessing the highway)
We seem to be having problems correlating speed with throughput.
@1mb/s a 3K file will transfer at *exactly* the same speed as a 3K file on a 10mb/s connection. It moves at the same speed. If they removed the "tiers", and just left it @ 10mb/s for all users, it would be like combining the traffic of Minneapolis, LA, Chicago and New York... Talk about a mess... ;-)
Score: 0
|Exactly my point.
Score: 0
|No, you'r point, as I understood it, was:
"Limiting usage does not have any direct correlation to traffic"'
Which is plain wrong. Fewer cars on the road means people are going to be able to achieve maximum throughput. Un-limiting the amount of cars on the road would make it so *no-one* got their maximum throughput.
Score: 0
|Are they going to also cap the bandwidth of television usage? Lets put this whole argument in that light. Would people just accept it if the cable companies told you they were going to limit the amount of television shows you could watch? Well this is EXACTLY what they are doing as Hollywood is finally allowing television and movies via streaming. But think about it. ITS THE SAME WIRE if you use cable internet! And its not about the rest of the infrastructure above the cable company, thats at least equivilent if not less than the satellites and such to get the TV signal.
Score: 0
|"Lets put this whole argument in that light."
We can't argue about the specific facts of this specific event, so let's make up some absurd "comparison" that might make our opinions sound at least somewhat intelligent!
T,FTFY.
Cable Internet and Cable TV may come to you over the same wire, but they are by no means the *same*, genius.
Each channel takes 6 MHZ, no matter how many people are tuning into it (all are broadcast simultaneously, regardless of whether or not you are watching them). Cable internet can be bonded to up to 10 streams/channels (DOCSIS3) and is not broadcast, but *shares* them with everyone else on the network.
...helps to have a clue what you're talking about there, sparky.
{Edit: What? Only -3? Come on...we all know that actual facts deserve at *least* -6. Come on people... get it together, will ya?}
Score: -2
|quote >"Each channel takes 6 MHZ, no matter how many people are tuning into it (all are broadcast simultaneously, regardless of whether or not you are watching them). Cable internet can be bonded to up to 10 streams/channels (DOCSIS3) and is not broadcast, but *shares* them with everyone else on the network."
Score: 0
|Nothing at all wrong with profits...
The real problems occur when there is little or no competition in a particular area - either because there is only one provider or because the market has turned into a comfortable (for the vendors) oligopoly.
Add to that a business culture where long term relationships & service have become a mantra rather than a reality & you usually have an unpleasant situation. Not a lot of real innovations either..
Score: 0
|"Cable still costs more to the company per person than internet service at this time,"
What??
*laughing*
I'm sorry, but you just *have* to post your source for that. That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. It's wrong....but funny as hell.
Score: 0
|