It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Time Warner Cable Tries 'Metering' Internet Usage!

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by ixnay
Australia does not have unlimited internet access outside of dial-up.

We have caps and data fees only. Rudd was looking to give us unlimited high speed broadband but now it seems he doesn't want that.

Good to see the world trying to join Australia in having no highspeed (ADSL or above) internet access that's unlimited.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by ixnay]

How is that good in any way? Some websites have streaming video embedded into them for either ads, game trailers, and so on - these take up a surprising amount of bandwidth. There is so many things that people would not be able to do online any more if this happens. I enjoy watching movie trailers, videos on youtube, and visiting my websites in high-bandwidth mode.

The more advanced technology becomes, the more bandwidth we unknowingly use up weather it be just visiting websites with a lot of content, visiting image hosting websites such as image shack, or pretty much any of the things we do online. Think of how much bandwidth was used ten years ago vs today. Think of how much more we will be using in five years.

When they start limiting bandwidth, they also better be getting rid of unnecessary ads, pop ups, and other things that are unnecessary to what we are viewing and take up much needed bandwidth.

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:48 PM
Did you ever wonder why the logo for Tim Warner Cable is an eye? It's because the government owns the company is going to crack down on any customers by commercializing on the unclaimed territory.

No one owns the Internet and the information contained in cyberspace is unlimited. If every single computer in the world were to be destroyed the internet would still exist and that information would still be there.

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by parry noid

Actually thats not the case. The internet is a network of computers, if you destroyed every computer in the world.. well.. there would be no more internet, just a lot of extra wiring. Every time you connect to a website, you are connecting to a computer that has the content stored on its hard drive.

Also, the amount of information stored on the internet IS limited. It is limited by the amount of hard drive space available to every computer currently connected at that time. Eventually, we will run out of IP addresses and the internet essentially will not be able to add any more computers. This is why they are working towards moving from IPv4 based addressing to IPv6. This would allow for more than ten billion billion billion times as many addresses as IPv4 supports.

From Wikipedia :

Estimates as to when the pool of available IPv4 addresses will be exhausted vary widely, and should be taken with caution. In 2003, Paul Wilson (director of APNIC) stated that, based on then-current rates of deployment, the available space would last until 2023.[7] In September 2005 a report by Cisco Systems reported that the pool of available addresses would be exhausted in as little as 4 to 5 years.[8] As of November 2007, a daily updated report projected that the IANA pool of unallocated addresses would be exhausted in May 2010, with the various Regional Internet Registries using up their allocations from IANA in April 2011. [9]

The internet is not endless, nor would it retain information after all computers were destroyed. Just had to clarify this.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by deadline527]

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:05 PM
oh hell no.

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:15 PM
This is nothing new..... unless you never used dialup. My service has been doing this for as long as I can remember.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Dulcimer]

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by deadline527

Thank you, I didn't realize this. I have been led to believe that cyberspace was an invisible force on a higher frequency much like radio. Being beamed around via satellite, but didn't physically exist. But thank you for en lighting me! Much appreciated!

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 05:16 PM
This is pretty much how the Internet started. AOL almost every other dialup Internet Company charged by time when surfing the Internet. This was back in the very early 1990's. That all changed because of competition. Companies offering better rates to beat their competitors. If a company starts trying to charge by hours or bandwidth again they will just end up losing customers to the other companies that decide to cut deals. That's how capitalism works.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:21 AM
Oh noez, not a dollar a gigabyte!

That's like .. $2 for an entire pirated copy of the latest and greatest computer game or office software suite out today, if your allowance has already been used up that month by downloading 20 or 30 pirated copies of the latest and greatest software for absolutely free. Otherwise, hey! The data'z on us!

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:24 AM
HHHmmm...this sounds an awful lot like when AOL was $3.50 an hour when it first came out. I've been online since then, when minimum wage was $3.35 an hour then here in Florida.

I say no way, not going to happen.

I'll just switch to another Internet Provider.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Well I remember paying by the hour or for a block of hours every month, but I rarely went over the hours because there wasn't nearly as much to see or do. The reality is we've paid less and less for more content and more bandwidth every year due to competition. Remember when the greedy phone company's had a monopoly, and now they can't even get half the people to pay for a dial tone anymore. The came out with DSL only because the Cable companies forced them too.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:43 AM
im sorry they will loose me as a customer very soon.

cable tv .telephone..water..electric..gas.. all are home use

i pay for my phone unlimited local calls ....they can't up and say sorry now its unlimited..up till 60 minutes of calls a month.

or you pay for cable tv...but only allowed to watch 40 hours a month or you have to pay 1 dollar extra each hour you watch.

i have made up my mind already to shut my time warner net off the second they enforce this in my state.

i personally stream movies and watch them on the web...
700mb a least 1 or 2 a day favorite cartoon sites ect...
i eat 8gb a day easy in way am i going to pay..extra to surf the web..time warner is only making money of others hard work....
inDependant's movies..atom films ect....

not to mention this forum alone take 2 to 3 mb to load..all the ad' embedded ect...
it will eat bandwidth in item for us to even post..

even online game like halo..lord of the rings online ect...
minimum req for the game is a broadband connection ..
so basically..256kbs a sec to play..thats alot of bandwidth ...alot of people will stop playing mmorpg's online..WOW ect.. will start to loose customers..

at least for lower income family's in America.
if people don't start fighting these company's eventually Americans.
should just shut up about everything
even take away our bill of rights..there right to vote..
even the right to smoke a dam cigarette in public in your own dam car.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:15 AM

Originally posted by Rook1545

Originally posted by Tuebor

Its already a reality in Ontario.

I've received a pop up message the last 2 months from Rogers that I am very close to going over my limit for the month.

I'm not happy about the extra charge but at least they give me a heads up!

In Alberta, Telus has had this since they brought in DSL. $1/Gb is actually a really good price we were being charged close to $50/Gb at one point, my parents were none to happy about some of those bills.

I think you're parents are trying to make you go outside
Telus doesn't charge for overage, you will get bumped from the cheap ADSL lite to the next one up though. I think you mean $50 a month hehe. Rogers does for sure though, as does Shaw.

I don't support metering but as a network engineer, I can see why it being implemented. The fiber infrastructure in the states, frankly, sucks. The only well put together portion of it runs down the west coast from Canada, the rest is a fairly random assortment of patched together networks of varying capacity and speed.

The main issue besides the poor backbone connectivity is that everyone is using shared coax cable which is impossible to traffic shape on a user level basis. If everyone switched to DSL tomorrow you'd find a lot of this would go away, each user gets the segment he pays for as it should be.

Cable companies have a gold mine on their hands, their infrastructure stays the same but they keep cramming more and more people onto it. They make up for it by metering, then they can cram in ever more and say it's your fault for downloading too much lol gimme a break you pay to rent a sliver of their fiber! It's like renting a house and having to pay the landlord every time you have to goto the bathroom

Bug your mayors to lay down some fiber, fiber to the house is cheap, its the initial install thats $ unless your community comes together to split the bill which a lot are doing here now.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:33 AM
download caps are a reality just about most places outside of the usa - the caps themselves are quite resonable - you pay for the transfer rate you expect to use;

so if your a `light` user and browse , check emails etc - then a low limit of say 2gb would be enough - and there are packages where that level is actually free - or very very cheap

most people have a higher limit - say 40gb - and the arguement is , what are you downloading to fill 1/2 or 1/4 a hard drive - everymonth? and again for nearly everyuser that limit is more than they would use - browsing , streaming a movie or 2 or 3 , playing games etc.

its only the heavy users , who do download/upload hundreds of gigs per month they want to get.

but for the average user you won`t notice any difference at all.

you get what you pay for.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:20 AM
to all those who think 250Gb is a bunch, do you remember when you got that 6gb HDD and thought that was more than you would ever use? I've got an 8GB flash card for my camera now. This stuff changes daily. And to the poster who asked if the internet had helped in my day to day life, it is how I make my living, so yea.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 08:30 AM
I hate Time-Warner! A few years ago I realized I was paying $50-plus a month for a limited, rigid set of channels at mediocre technical and content quality. Plus I was not allowed to choose what I could watch. I called to cancel and later I got a call to sign up again at a reduced rate. When I refused the salesman hung up without another word. I avoided cable when it came time to get broadband and chose AT+T DSL. Eventually I got a bill from T-W for 20 cents (I sent a check for a quarter so they'll owe me a little. Maybe they will discover it one day and pay me plus interest.
) I suspect they can tell when you have the coax connected to a set, and detected that I disconnected it 5 minutes after I called to disconnect. If my company imposes caps I'm screwed. I download much video and audio and when I'm not using the bandwidth for personal use I enable my Onion Relay. This allows my PC to be one in a chain of computers that allows people to use the Interweb anonymously. I see this just as a way to use the explicitly promised 3.0 Mb/s bandwidth I pay for. Here's a link:

The TOR Project

Here's a related conspiracy theory: Maybe the media companies and their advocate organizations (Sony, RIAA, MPAA etc.) take a cut of proceeds ISPs gather from their customers to gather some profits from peer-to-peer and other downloads of audio and video. Thus these distribution methods are viewed as alternate ways of "selling" movies and songs. The prominent lawsuits against individuals are a smokescreen meant to keep the populace afraid and maintain the illusion that they don't want people to d-l movies and such over peer-to-peer networks.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 08:44 AM
I used to work for time warner, back in my days of being a support tech. (I really don't miss those days).

The ability to meter your bandwidth on time warner networks is nothing new. We used to regularly check on your Cable modem statistics to see how well it's performing. We could see exactly how much you had downloaded, how long you had been online, the internal temperature of the cable modem, the number of communication glitches it experienced and why... the list went on.

But we always knew how much bandwidth you had used. It's not hard to imagine that they'd implement a policy for going over it.

Time warner used to be a good company when I worked for them... but since then, from what I've heard, they've declined down the old conglomerate spiral.

There were a few rival companies out there who competed with us... join them if we haven't already bought them out.

Up here in Canada, (yes, I did your support from Canada) we have a a few options. I get my internet through Cogeco. I've been impressed with them so far... their networks seem more reliable than I remember TW's networks were... and they haven't thrown anything hidden into the mix yet when it comes to billing.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 09:04 AM
I think that this unfortunately will be the direction that the internet will take us and a major reason is that the current architecture in place in the US simply can't handle the expansion in bandwidth that some analysts are predicting. I've read reports (I'll see if I can find links) that suggest that the internet speeds may come to a crawl the next few years because of a massive increase in the number of people downloading, uploading and streaming video and audio and especially HD content. The major ISPs don't want to pay the money to overhaul their systems, so they're introducing these caps to deter people from using so much bandwidth. This is basically a way for these companies to put off overhauling their systems.

Here's a bit of an excerpt from an article I stumbled across a while back. I found it rather interesting.

His first words are “The United States has fallen to 16th in the world in broadband adoption. Americans pay more for slower connection speeds than people in other countries. Too many Americans, especially those in rural areas or low-income households, aren’t connected.”

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), states something very similar: “The United States is currently the only industrialized nation without a national policy for promoting broadband.”

Here's a little something regarding to what I was typing about earlier:

Today it is happening. We estimate that in the U.S. by 2015:

* movie downloads and P2P file sharing could be 100 exabytes
* video calling and virtual windows could generate 400 exabytes
* “cloud” computing and remote backup could total 50 exabytes
* Internet video, gaming, and virtual worlds could produce 200 exabytes
* non-Internet “IPTV” could reach 100 exabytes, and possibly much more
* business IP traffic will generate some 100 exabytes
* other applications (phone, Web, e-mail, photos, music) could be 50 exabytes

The U.S. Internet of 2015 will be at least 50 times larger than it was in 2006. Internet growth at these levels will require a dramatic expansion of bandwidth, storage, and traffic management capabilities in core, edge, metro, and access networks. A recent Nemertes Research study estimates that these changes will entail a total new investment of some $137 billion in the worldwide Internet infrastructure by 2010. In the U.S., currently lagging Asia, the total new network investments will exceed $100 billion by 2012.

Technology remains the key engine of U.S. economic growth and its competitive edge. Policies that encourage investment and innovation in our digital and communications sectors should be among America’s highest national priorities.

Originally posted by Dulcimer
This is nothing new..... unless you never used dialup. My service has been doing this for as long as I can remember.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Dulcimer]

I remember those days, but AOL changed all of that when they introduced their unlimited usage flat rate dial-up service. I think it was sometime in the mid 90's if I recall correctly

[edit on 4-6-2008 by zephyrs]

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by zerotime
If a company starts trying to charge by hours or bandwidth again they will just end up losing customers to the other companies that decide to cut deals. That's how capitalism works.

Unless there's a bit of collusion in the works here as I suspect there may be. Also, Time Warner may only target areas in which they have a broadband monopoly. So basically, it'll come down to paying them or getting flung back into the Stone Age with dial-up

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Hi all. well over here in the UK we pretty much just
have BT and Virgin media as far as isp's go. I use BT
and it works out at about $50 a month roughly by my
calculation,I am on the fastest option which is supposed
to have no usage cap apparently (doubt thats really true )
but the speed is restricted at peak times ,the 2 lower options are restricted/capped
at 8 and 4 gb per month plus the peak time restriction
any usage above bringing extra charge at a certain (extortionate as usual) rate .
They have a so called fair usage policy they like to quote a lot .

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 04:17 PM
the mega gigabyte users, like gamers and video freaks. are the ones that have set the price for us (the great multitude of fastideous internet users)

if it weren't for these megabyte hogs (similar to SUV gas guzzlers)
the basic fee for internet, high speed connect would be 10-30% less than the exhorbanant fee the ISP ream outta us right now !!!

there ain't no free ride or free lunch...but the gamers and video watchers should be assessed a much larger share of the server/router load.
Quit punishing us (the silent majority) of high-speed interconnects...
make tiers of anticipated usage-> and punish the gluttons!
dont try to recoup the costs on us average joes/janes !!!

i'm about fed up with the B.S.


here's a 'for instance'.......

6 months ago, our municipal water service was charging a minimum
of $40. per month for a basic 10,000 gal of water per service connection.
But, in the wisdom of the city/county councils (as they computed they could Profit!)
they changed the fee-for-service equasion, and started charging water useage by the actual gallon useage....

my water bills have went down to an average of $17.00 per month for the actual water useage--- meaning the city was reaping in at least $23.00 per month in excessive profit each month under the former syatem of billing!

pretty much just what's going on with my internet ISP (earthlink @ $41.)
as opposed to TWC @ $54.+...a whole bunch of average joes/janes gettin ripped-off by the preordined ISP monopilies that are being allowed to flourish !!

[edit on 4-6-2008 by St Udio]

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in