
40GB for $55 per month: Time Warner bandwidth caps arrive - nickb
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080603-40gb-for-55-per-month-time-warner-bandwidth-caps-arrive.html
======
LogicHoleFlaw
Those caps seem pretty draconian. Key points:

    
    
      * 768Kbps connection with a 5GB cap for $29.95 per month
      * 15MBps with a 40GB cap for $54.90 per month
      * Customers will be able to see how much bandwidth they have left by visiting the Time Warner Cable web site.
      * $1 for each additional gigabyte consumed beyond the cap.
    

I worry that this won't scale well as streaming services become more and more
common. That's bad news for startups expecting their customers to have flat-
rate access.

~~~
noonespecial
Its expensive but its _fair_. The connection I have now is _as much as you
want, until its too much, in which case we'll just cut you off without
warning._

I believe I might actually prefer the expensive and fair model.

~~~
dime
5GB for $29.95 is hardly fair. Web hosting companies have found ways to
increase bandwidth and keep plan prices at same or lower levels. Why can
telcos do the same? $5.99 per GB is a ripoff. I have already called Time
Warner Cable and warned them that if they implement bandwidth caps in my area,
I will discontinue their service. I have other options in my area like
Speakeasy or wireless internet providers.

------
ssharp
Sadly, this is years from effecting the masses. Although depending on the
popularity of AppleTV, the Netflix box and other streaming TV boxes that
timeframe could narrow. TWC also has to consider how it's OnDemand content is
going to be affected in the long-run. And how long is it before the internet
starts streaming cable programing with unlimited channel selection and HD? The
cable infrastructure is poor and I guess they are seeing what they can do to
hold onto their market share until a radical shift happens. Although, since
they already do have a large market share, you'd think they'd be more
interested in figuring out how to leverage the internet to deliver more
content instead of just stifling their users.

They are doing this knowing that high bandwidth customers are likely to leave
and they either a) don't care or b) are doing this specifically to lose the
high bandwidth users. Cable is already pushed to its limits and providers are
spending a lot of money to keep up with satellite's HD offerings.

Unfortunately for TWC, there are plenty of options and eventually this model
will cannibalize their entire broadband business.

------
gustaf
This is happening at a time when 100Gbps is becoming standard in Swedish
homes.

------
noonespecial
40 gigabytes in a 30 day month looks like a continuous transfer rate of about
128 kbits/s. A little more than twice dialup.

Heh, watch out for bittorrent clients on your network!

~~~
attack
No no. Dialup was 56KB/s not 56kb/s.

~~~
ivank
56 kbps = 7 kilobytes / second

~~~
attack
40GB/month = 15KB/s. Put that all together and you'll see his error.

~~~
noonespecial
Ok, Ok, 128 was just a hipshot. Lets do it right

40 GB = 42,949,672,960 bytes

1 month = 2,629,743.83 seconds

40GB/1month = 16,331 bytes/second

8 bits per byte -> 16,331 * 8 = 130,648 bits/sec

So round about 131 kilobits / second.

Dialup was 50 kilobits/second practically _so_ almost but not quite 3 times
the speed of dialup.

~~~
attack
Dialup isn't 56KB? Ah, my lying network monitor.

------
ojbyrne
The 40GB number made me think, hmmm, you could ship a person a hard drive full
of stuff every month cheaper than that. It could be like a netflix meets
bittorrent business model ;-)

~~~
dcurtis
You mean Netflix meets Bittorrent meets the US Government.

~~~
ojbyrne
Well, yeah. The smiley was a stand-in for the feds.

------
terpua
This kind of thinking is the _major_ reason why America is behind in the
mobile access market and true broadband access.

Ridiculous.

~~~
pmjordan
On the other hand, DSL and cable connections in Central Europe have had these
kinds of limits for ages, and the flat fee and "fair-use" style contracts have
only been offered on a broad scale for the last 2-3 years or so. (my parents &
sister were on a 2.5GB/month contract until about 1½ years ago)

I suppose it's not held up the massive expansion of broadband as much here
because the alternative, dialup, is even more expensive, at generally between
€0.01 to €0.015 (~$0.015-$0.02) per minute. We've always been used to paying a
premium for internet access, so when something comes along that's better value
for money, more people jump on board.

The capped or pay-per-megabyte contracts are still the norm on mobile (EDGE,
3G/HSDPA/HSUPA) internet access though. But mobile communications contracts in
general already have pretty draconian terms in my experience. (minimum runtime
24 months, small print overload, etc., at least you aren't charged for
_receiving_ calls/texts these days anymore)

------
wave
They will probably offer exception to websites owned/affiliated with Time
Warner. This will encourage/force people to download streaming media using
Time affiliated sites.

~~~
tx
This is illegal to do. Content comapnies aren't allowed to merge or enter
agreements with "delivery providers", unless there is a loophole.

~~~
gojomo
Reference to the law making this illegal?

ESPN360 (from a 'content company') has been only available to users of ISPs
('delivery providers') who've paid licensing fees to ESPN. [1] This
arrangement has existed for a couple years, at least. That would seem to
undercut the claim such agreements are illegal.

[1] [http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-espn-opens-broadband-
ac...](http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-espn-opens-broadband-access-
beyond-certain-cable-isp-subs-to-mil-edu/)

------
dreish
The one positive thing I can think to say about this is that it will sting
people whose Wintendos have been zombified by spammers.

But mostly it reminds me of why I cut all ties to the local cable monopoly
last time I moved.

------
krschultz
I don't mind tiered pricing based on consumption, but their pricing scheme is
the ridiculous part. So long as the whole internet and all protocols are
treated evenly, fine. So long as the limits are there clearly fine. Right now
I have Optimum Online "unlimited" and I have been cut off twice for going over
bandwidth limit. I was seeding 1 torrent for about 48 hours straight (Debian
Etch) and they cut me off for "setting up a server". I don't know exactly how
much I use in a month, but probably 50-100GB? 5 wouldn't last me 3 days.

~~~
mynameishere
Read your user agreement. Any kind of server is typically forbidden for non-
business lines, regardless of the bandwidth.

For what it's worth, I haven't had a moment's trouble with verizon, despite
being firmly among the top 1 percent of users.

------
vaksel
This will never work, and thank god. There is a reason they are releasing in
the boonies where there is no competition.

Why would I pay $29.95 with a 5GB cap, when I can get 1.5mb/s DSL for $19.95
with no cap

Why would I pay $54.90 for 15MBps with a 40gb cap, if I can get 20MPps FIOS
for $39.99.

~~~
josefresco
I live on Cape Cod, not exactly the boonies, less than 2 hours from Boston and
have ONE choice for broadband. No FIOS, no DSL, just Comcrap cable (with
rising rates every year). They have me by the balls and if they capped my
Internet there's nothing I could do.

~~~
dcurtis
There are a couple of things. Satellite and EVDO. Both are downgrades, but
better than a 5gb bandwidth cap.

------
poppysan
Am I wrong, but didnt Time Warner pay 40 million for access to bittorrent last
year with plans on distributing high quality movies online? This goes against
what their goals are with regard to populating the web with high quality
video. Maximum Suck!

------
redorb
I say its fair, but only if you charge fully by the GB or not at all; having a
standard then add-on is trying to get the best of both worlds.

------
sant0sk1
Welcome to the suck :(

