|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » ComCast, Time Warner Are Testing D/L Maximums |
| 1-26 of 26 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 06-15-08 09:42pm - 5996 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User  Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
ComCast, Time Warner Are Testing D/L Maximums Here's a link to the complete article. MSNBC Part of the article: Consumers in Time Warner Cable's test region will be offered several levels of service. A $29.95 per month plan for slower speeds of 768 kilobits per second and a 5 gigabyte limit would let users send and receive nearly 350,000 e-mails, play 170 hours of online games, or download more than 1,380 digital songs per month. At the high end, a $54.90 monthly fee for a 15-megabit-per-second service and a 40 gigabyte monthly limit would allow subscribers to watch 124 hours of standard-definition videos or download 11,070 songs. Not a wonderful prospect. | |
|
||
| 06-15-08 11:52pm - 5996 days | #2 | |
|
mr smut (0)
Active User  Posts: 107 Registered: Dec 27, '07 Location: Germany |
This is something we carefully have to watch. Weird enough it's those who have the content that want us to use pay-per-view services but on the other hand they don't want to support this with flatrates for downloads via the Internet. | |
|
||
| 06-16-08 12:08pm - 5995 days | #3 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 01:56pm | |
|
||
| 06-16-08 12:29pm - 5995 days | #4 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User  Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
A 40 Gigabyte monthly limit? Are they insane? I would burn through that in a few weeks with my Netflix Watch Instantly usage alone. Hell, all of those Youtube addicts out there could burn through the basic level 5 gigabyte limit in days. That is a terrible idea. I don't care if some Grandmother gets a slightly slower connection for her weekly email check, those of us that actually use the service shouldn't be punished because of a bit of a slowdown for the other users that don't fully understand what this "interweb" is about. If cable puts in this download limit, I'll switch back to DSL. It is as simple as that. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 06-16-08 02:09pm - 5995 days | #5 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
The link in my original post failed. Try this one. MSNBC | |
|
||
| 06-16-08 04:37pm - 5995 days | #6 | |
|
runefist (0)
Unverified User Posts: 3 Registered: Jun 16, '08 |
I hate this, I play alot of online games and download a healthy amount of movies, porn, and music (all leagally, I swear!) and this SUCKS!!! what are we supposed to do? put a meter on our computer to make sure we dont go over our limit?!?!? I'm with toadsith, I'll go to DSL before I give in to this ass-raping! | |
|
||
| 06-16-08 06:56pm - 5995 days | #7 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
For us old farts who remember the dark days 18 years ago with AOL's "nickel minutes" ($3.00 an hour of on line time when connecting through their modems via dial-up at about 28-32kpm maximum speed), this dimwitted idea will last about as long as AOL's scheme; especially after their inbound modems all crashed creating a massive DOS (denial of service). Cable modems have one major advantage, no contract. DSL, on the other hand, even with an annual contract can be cheaper and better. This "ass-raping" as runefist correctly calls it, won't last very long. Count on it. | |
|
||
| 06-17-08 11:41am - 5994 days | #8 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 01:56pm | |
|
||
| 06-17-08 06:34pm - 5994 days | #9 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I've had broadband internet since day one. It's through my cable provider. The price was pretty reasonable, and I had unlimited downloads. Late last year they implemented the 100G maximum download before they surcharge you. Let's say that the surcharge gets real expensive. For those who might think that 100G is a lot remember that many sites want to go HI-DEF. Just compare a scene with standard definition and that same one in Hi-Def. That's one of the reasons why I haven't been too happy with the move toward Hi-Def. Add to that that studios want us to start downloading movies straight from the internet. Call me paranoid, but I smell colusion between internet providers and studios. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-18-08 04:19pm - 5993 days | #10 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
I agree 100 GB is nothing. Hell I am bringing in 32 GB per day! Embarq has been very good about not implementing download limits. Another one of those things that I say get it while the gettin is good. There are some pretty fast DSL connections out there, I am satisfied with my service, I only wish they could get just a little more out where I am to get me to the next tier. All of a sudden Reality Kings 15 GB per day download limit does not sound too bad. I did have verizons internet card that gave a mere 5 GB per month before they wanted another $60 to keep going. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview Edited on Jun 18, 2008, 04:31pm (badandy400: cant spell) | |
|
||
| 06-18-08 07:37pm - 5993 days | #11 | |
|
TheRizzo (0)
Active User Posts: 44 Registered: Jun 11, '08 |
Seems a lot of cable companies are starting to try and pull this move lately. I don't understand how they can say 100 gigs is a fair cap in today's internet with the quality of videos out there that are legit. Not even talking about the pirated stuff out there. I watch tons of television shows that are streamed from the network sites etc. And the quality of the movies that we can get in adult sites now creates some pretty large file downloads. I hope they don't get away with this or we get a better alternative very soon. DSL usually doesn't cap but then you get slower speeds. | |
|
||
| 06-19-08 05:54pm - 5992 days | #12 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
In my case, my cable provider did get away with it. When I originally joined them. I was using high speed internet with about a 30G limit. After a couple of months, I had to go to ultra high speed because I was always over the limit and at the time that bandwith gave you unlimited downloads. At least I'm luckier than some, because I got a couple of years out of it. You can imagine the people that switch providers because of the unlimited download option and oveenight being told too bad. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 06-19-08 05:54pm - 5992 days | #12 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
In my case, my cable provider did get away with it. When I originally joined them. I was using high speed internet with about a 30G limit. After a couple of months, I had to go to ultra high speed because I was always over the limit and at the time that bandwith gave you unlimited downloads. At least I'm luckier than some, because I got a couple of years out of it. You can imagine the people that switch providers because of the unlimited download option and oveenight being told too bad. Since movie studios, TV stations and cable providers are all owned by the same people. You can be sure that they will gadly screw us over. I read somewhere that TV stations want to offer people for a small fee the ability to download their TV shows. Now they'll charge you for the show and make money with us going over our limit. Long live the Brown Coats. Edited on Jun 19, 2008, 05:59pm | |
|
||
| 06-20-08 07:33am - 5991 days | #13 | |
|
asmith12 (0)
Active User Posts: 79 Registered: Oct 17, '07 |
I think that it's a pretty big chance it will be there. The reason is simple: ISPs are looking a way to increase their profits, and eventually they came out with quite an obvious question: "we're ok when "some Grandmother" who uses 1M/month paying $30, it makes us a lot of money, but why we can't charge more from the guy who uses 1000G/month?" And personally I would even pay them more if it would reduce oversubscribing and provide promised 15MBit/s all the time (which obviously isn't going to happen). And for those who says "we'll come back to DSL": if it will become "industry practice", DSLs will likely follow the suit (they just won't be able to pay for all the traffic if ALL high-volume users will switch there). And IMHO it has quite good chance to become "industry practice" especially if ISPs will drop prices for "some Grandmother" a bit (face it: number of high-volumers is very low compared to number of "some Grandmothers", so it is Grandmothers where the next wave of price wars will be concentrated on). PS Did you know than in Europe they're still paying fees per minute of LOCAL phone call and nobody's complaining? Motto: "All niches except for boring one!" | |
|
||
| 06-20-08 01:44pm - 5991 days | #14 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
I find your defense of the practice interesting. On the one hand, cable, today, has no contract. DSL, on the other hand, has a one year contract that auto renews. I cannot speak for others but my DSL contact never specified any variable rate structure for volume. Theoretically the cannot legally change the auto-renew contract to add penaltes for volume. If/when the trend suggests that volume penalty pricing will be the future, it pays to switch to DSL before the change hits cable. And how does the fact that Europeans pay by the minute for local calls apply to this subject? | |
|
||
| 06-20-08 08:37pm - 5991 days | #15 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Money. That's that this is about. Either the competition will turn this into a selling point for themselves or they'll provide a slight margin over the Comcast offering and try selling that way. It's ridiculous. $30 for 768Kbps? Absurd. The US has always been more expensive than much of the rest of the world in per unit cost of bandwidth and now this scheme is coming out to squeeze us even more! Why here? It's not that way in Japan or Korea or a number of European countries. Corporate greed! Guess we haven't had enough of that! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 06-21-08 04:34pm - 5990 days | #16 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 01:57pm | |
|
||
| 06-21-08 05:47pm - 5990 days | #17 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
This is spot on point. Here in LA where Comcast and Time Warner both have markets, our extortionist City Council decided to go for a protection racket approach. If Comcast and Time Warner would agree to collecting a 10% tax on all cable services the City of LA would grant exclusive rights to each of the two companies to the geographic areas of their choosing and would also permit each company to establish whatever rates they chose. (After all, 10% of $50.00 yields more taxes to the City than 10% of $40.00, doesn't it? Result, in my area Time Warner has added a bunch of extra charges to our cable service bill so that for basic low speed cable plus over the air TV on cable, I am now paying $110.00 per month, and we've been notified that basic cable TV will be going up another $5.00 (plus $0.50 tax) in September. Ain't anti-competitive Socialism wonderful? | |
|
||
| 06-22-08 10:01pm - 5989 days | #18 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
It's also actually a good example of corporate feudalism and how it operates. The major corporations and governments (local to national) get into cahoots with these kinds of deals and guess who they're both riding? The government is supposed to be serving us, but we aren't making these juicy deals. Then we'll suffer through another election campaign, more lip service, more BS served high on a silver platter, and then after it's over, more business as usual. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 07-01-08 12:33pm - 5980 days | #19 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 01:57pm | |
|
||
| 07-24-08 08:15am - 5957 days | #20 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
Here's more on the issue... "...In its Beaumont test, Time Warner Cable offers subscribers four tiers of service based on transfer speed and on usage caps that range from 5GB to 40GB. For $30 per month, for instance, Time Warner promises users a download speed of 768 kbps and imposes a 5GB monthly cap; $55 fetches downstream transfers at 1.5 mbps with a 40GB cap. Customers who exceed the usage limit must pay $1 per additional gigabyte..." PCWorld 7/14/08 Here's the full article...Bandwidth Limits Make a Comeback | |
|
||
| 07-25-08 09:39am - 5956 days | #21 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
This really sucks for any of their customers in those "test" areas. Pay-per-view or pay-per-bit is a really stupid idea for something like the internet. I would rather find another service (though many of these providers operate almost as monopolies) than waste my time and money worrying about whether or not I have reached a ridiculously low DL limit. This is all because these companies want to make more money without investing in any significant upgrades to provide better service. Consumers have very little say in the matter as all the "throttling" and "capping" is legal and becoming the norm. Other users have noted that this is all controlled by a few companies making up the rules as they see fit (profitable) and small companies have no practical way of becoming competitive due to the costs of providing services to relatively large areas. I understand this is just how business works but whatever happened to the customer is always right, or at least trying to maintain a loyal customer base? "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 07-25-08 10:49am - 5956 days | #22 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
The problem here in LA is that our city council cut a deal with the cable companies where, in exchange for exclusive territories (that means monopolies) assigned by the city if the cable companies would stop their objections to assessing a 10% city tax on all cable services. That has`resulted in an environment where my cable service, Time Warner, has cut back on all customer service operations, discontinued their 2 hour time windows for service calls and have changed to an 8 hour window, and virtual elimination of all discount deals. AT&T (the old Pac Bell) has finally figured out that there's a ripe market for their (overpriced) DSL out there and they are looking into providing TV feed in lieu of cable tv, so there may be some hope on the horizon. You guys who live in areas where government supported monopolies do not exist are likely to be the last to have limits placed on your download activity. | |
|
||
| 07-28-08 06:40am - 5953 days | #23 | |
|
Monahan (0)
Active User Posts: 348 Registered: Jan 17, '07 Location: SF Valley, CA |
Looks like the good guys won the first round! Today's Wall Street Journal FCC to Rule Comcast Can't Block Web Videos Decision Could Set Precedent In Debate Over Internet Traffic By AMY SCHATZ July 28, 2008; Page B1 Washington -- Federal regulators are set to announce this week that Comcast Corp. wrongly slowed some of its customers' Internet traffic, in a victory for consumer groups and high-tech companies that have fought to keep Web traffic free from interference. The Federal Communications Commission will rule that the cable giant violated federal policy by deliberately preventing some customers from sharing videos online via file-sharing services like BitTorrent, agency officials said. The company has acknowledged it slowed some traffic, but said it was necessary to prevent a few heavy users from overburdening its network. The decision, expected Friday, would set an important precedent in the continuing fight about how far phone and cable companies can go to make more money from their Internet networks. Cable and phone companies are experimenting with new ways to deal with people who use a lot of bandwidth, including "Internet metering" -- charging customers for the amount they use. The FCC decision is likely to be challenged in court; if upheld, it would affirm the agency's right to play online cop and make sure Internet providers don't interfere with online traffic. FCC officials have grown more concerned about the issue as consumers watch more online videos, which take up growing chunks of bandwidth. On Friday, a majority of the five FCC commissioners voted in favor of finding that Comcast violated federal policy by slowing some Internet traffic. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in a statement that he believes it's important that all consumers have "unfettered access to the Internet." The FCC will require Comcast to stop blocking or slowing traffic and better disclose its practices to customers. Comcast has already done most of what the agency is asking, and won't face a fine. But the FCC's investigation has had a chilling effect on other providers' efforts to find ways to make more money from their networks, such as providing faster service to commercial partners. The FCC's action stems from a complaint filed last November that accused Comcast of blocking subscribers from using some file-sharing services. Comcast said it has to do something about the small percentage of subscribers who swap large files on peer-to-peer networks because they use a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. Comcast said it didn't violate federal rules and argued that the FCC doesn't have the authority to enforce a set of "net neutrality" principles it passed in 2005. "We continue to assert that our network-management practices were reasonable, wholly consistent with industry practices and that we did not block access to Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services," said Sena Fitzmaurice, a Comcast spokeswoman. Edited on Jul 28, 2008, 06:43am | |
|
||
| 07-28-08 11:47am - 5953 days | #24 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 01:57pm | |
|
||
| 09-14-08 07:57am - 5905 days | #25 | |||
|
asmith12 (0)
Active User Posts: 79 Registered: Oct 17, '07 |
Just run into this reply of yours, sorry that answering that late :-).
Correction: I don't defend it or attack it (what's the use?). I'm just trying to understand mechanics and based on it predict how it will be.
Maybe, but only as a temporary measure, as they can easily enforce this for all new contracts, and in just a few years majority will start paying :-(.
I've just meant that something which looks "universal" from customer perspective is not really universal at all, and as such can change quite easily. Motto: "All niches except for boring one!" | |||
|
||||
| 1-26 of 26 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
