Time Warner and Comcast to implement bandwidth caps?

F

FUDie

Regular
From http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20080603/bs_nf/60098.

So check it out. They want to offer a 15 megabit connection with a monthly bandwidth cap of 40 GB. That means less than 6 hours(!) of sustained downloads. That's not very much at all.

What do you folks think? What are the odds that other providers will start to do the same?

-FUDie
 
They'll definitely be taking note of the results that Comcast and Time Warner get. At least the overage charges don't seem to be overly draconian (ala some cell phone plans).
 
I certainly hope it sinks like a rock.

It is darn expensive too. What is the point of high speed internet when you cannot do anything that high speed internet is good for like streaming video etc...
 
you guys could not see this comming
its common in the uk
even the unlimited service isnt really unlimited
 
yeah, same in australia. I pay $100 AUD a month ( about 96 USD) for ADSl2 which syncs at about 5mbit/1mbit with a 55gig download limit...... :cry:
 
Oh no, and I thought it was bad for getting banned for 2 days on Comcast for using 1TB last month :(
 
I was considering trying Comcast's 50M service since I just moved into a new apartment, but now I may just have a second look at Qwest DSL instead.

What horrible choices. It's like choosing between a turd sandwich and turd soup.
 
They want to charge for every byte, and they want to kick off the people that take them up on their "all you can eat" marketing.

I think they'll find that people who just want to do some emailing and web surfing won't pay for the top rates. Sure, they'll get rid of the heavy users, but they'll end up with no one willing to pay for anything more than the lowest rate for the lowest service - and there arn't enough of those people around to make much money out of.
 
Some of you are taking a rather pessimistic view of this.

The 95% of people that stay well under the cap are currently subsidizing the usage of those 5%. With competition, we're going to see lower cost plans with caps. Maybe not strictly lower cost than today due to all the loss-leading promotions, but lower than they would have been if everyone bought the same unlimited plan.

It's the same thing with cell phones. Competition eventually brought some very good per-minute prepaid plans. I now save hundreds of dollars per year by not having to sign a contract (even the minimum plan).
 
Mintmaster said:
Some of you are taking a rather pessimistic view of this.

The 95% of people that stay well under the cap are currently subsidizing the usage of those 5%. With competition, we're going to see lower cost plans with caps. Maybe not strictly lower cost than today due to all the loss-leading promotions, but lower than they would have been if everyone bought the same unlimited plan.

It's the same thing with cell phones. Competition eventually brought some very good per-minute prepaid plans. I now save hundreds of dollars per year by not having to sign a contract (even the minimum plan).
Click to expand...

What competition?

Most markets (in the U.S. at least) have one cable provider and one phone provider that service any given area of that market. There may be more than one provider available in the market per given broadband technology, but that doesn't mean users have a choice (unless they move).
 
Mintmaster said:
Some of you are taking a rather pessimistic view of this.

The 95% of people that stay well under the cap are currently subsidizing the usage of those 5%. With competition, we're going to see lower cost plans with caps. Maybe not strictly lower cost than today due to all the loss-leading promotions, but lower than they would have been if everyone bought the same unlimited plan.

It's the same thing with cell phones. Competition eventually brought some very good per-minute prepaid plans. I now save hundreds of dollars per year by not having to sign a contract (even the minimum plan).
Click to expand...

But likewise, the small number that use their connection a lot are using "spare" bandwidth that the majority aren't using anyway. But because of the monolithic approach of most ISPs, their business plans revolve around overselling available bandwidth and hoping nobody uses it too much, yet trying to ensure all their infrastructure is utilised to maximum capacity as often as possible.

In other industries this would be considered a dishonest bait and switch tactic of selling a product or service that you cannot possibly supply to everyone you've sold it to.
 
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
But likewise, the small number that use their connection a lot are using "spare" bandwidth that the majority aren't using anyway. But because of the monolithic approach of most ISPs, their business plans revolve around overselling available bandwidth and hoping nobody uses it too much, yet trying to ensure all their infrastructure is utilised to maximum capacity as often as possible.

In other industries this would be considered a dishonest bait and switch tactic of selling a product or service that you cannot possibly supply to everyone you've sold it to.
Click to expand...

You mean like in the airline industry?
 
ShaidarHaran said:
What competition?

Most markets (in the U.S. at least) have one cable provider and one phone provider that service any given area of that market. There may be more than one provider available in the market per given broadband technology, but that doesn't mean users have a choice (unless they move).
Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem even in fairly large markets there is no competition at all. It is ridiculous.
 
ShaidarHaran said:
You mean like in the airline industry?
Click to expand...

Much worse. At the same time they advertise "media rich everything" that you should get more internet for, and upgrade headline speeds for marketing purposes, knowing they can't support it if even even a small fraction of their customer base actually wanted to use that service at full speed at the same time.
 
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
But likewise, the small number that use their connection a lot are using "spare" bandwidth that the majority aren't using anyway. But because of the monolithic approach of most ISPs, their business plans revolve around overselling available bandwidth and hoping nobody uses it too much, yet trying to ensure all their infrastructure is utilised to maximum capacity as often as possible.
Click to expand...
It's only "spare" because broadband adoption still has a long way to go. They're not overselling, they're trying to maximize the customers served without incurring additional expense. It would be stupid to expect a company to do anything else.

In other industries this would be considered a dishonest bait and switch tactic of selling a product or service that you cannot possibly supply to everyone you've sold it to.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but that's a different matter. At the moment it looks like the caps are being targetted at new users. Later on they might make similar changes to existing customers, but there's no law that says a service has to be provided at the same price with the same quality for perpetuity.
 
I'd like to know my monthly usage over the past year before I have a proper input on this. 40GB is too low but I'm sure 250gb would be fine. However, going forward with HD movies set for downloads and such and perhaps even the next gen of consoles offering full games for download, plus everything else out there, even 250gb a month could be a bit light.

Hopefully not a significant number sign up for the 40gb offer. That's quite low and will only shrink going forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top