It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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 Expands Internet Usage Pricing

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by lozenge
 


Sorry if you thought it was rude, I didn't intend to be and didn't think I was.

It's just that I had only a few posts earlier re-assured someone that gaming doesn't use that much bandwidth when you posted your comments. I was trying to make sure my point was clear.

Welcome to ATS, anyway! Try not to take anything personally on here, some topics can get quite heated, although they remain largely civil due to the ever present threat of the exterma-mods.

They make the G20 riot police look like pussycats




posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I try to make a point on here to hold back from posting out of anger, but this just pi**es me off so much. I have noticed that over the last year Time Warner has been dumbing their bandwidth down more and more, to the point where I think what they offer is just false advertising. Isn't that illegal?

I've noticed recently that their HD channels (besides the usual pixelated mess anytime there's any significant motion) are not even running at full frame rate anymore. What used to be 30p or 60i, now looks like some kind of random variant of 15fps. Any smooth motion (you can really tell on scrolling titles) is now a herky-jerky studdering like bad internet video. It gives me a total headache to watch any of their channels on our 46" TV.

Of course I haven't seen any TV ads from them proclaiming "hey, we just dumbed our picture quality down some more for you so we can cram more pay-per-view channels into the stream". What the heck is really their definition of HD anymore? Certainly not the industry agreed on standard that your consumer TV or camcorder work with. That's why I'm saying false advertising here.

I'm wondering hasn't anyone else noticed this? I work with video so I'm pretty sensitive to what I am seeing. If it wasn't for my roomate who is addicted to TV, I would just dump the whole thing. It the same with their internet connection. If you try to do something that takes more bandwith than just page viewing, after a couple minutes they shut the stream down to a crawl. My point here is that instead of raising their prices, I feel I should be getting a refund every month for the bandwidth they are slyly cheating me out of.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by camain
look, realistically, there is a reason for this, 90% of the bandwidth is consumed by 20% of the population. It costs money to bring a product to market, IF you like streaming video, playing wow, and surfing porn, realistically, you are going to pay more, and you should pay more, then grandma who uses it to check her email once a week.

I have no doubt though that they will roll out with a tier2 system where you get some many gigs for free, then you pay 1-2 dollars for each gig over that. This is whats realistic. Most movies you rent are 3-4 gig. That means if you downloaded a movie off the internet you would pay this amount.

I personnelly have no doubt that when they start rolling this service out, they will also roll out there centralized movie servers(what your DVR's connect to do insta-play) in a modified form, to allow yo,u for a subscription, to watch all the movies that are on that anyway. This saves them money, becuase the data isn't traversing the internet, which costs them money to supply.

The bottom line is yes it sucks if you eat up all the bandwidth in your neighborhood, but if your jo-mama, that hardly uses it, like most TW customers, you will get a discount in price. Its better for them to charge you, then to just cut you off. You'd complain about that too no doubt.

Just my 2 cents,

Camain



i still have to read the rest of the replies but i have to reply to this first


i see what youre saying and yea people who use massive amounts of gigs should pay more

and old grandmothers checking email should pay less


but its never been that way really

old granny was always paying 40-50 bucks a month for road runner just to check email

and if thats all shes doing with cable internet, shes dumb for wasting money for fast speed shes never going to use

so really if all youre doing are emails that are a couple kbs or mbs then youre insane for wasting the money for road runner


with the new high speed services they have, it makes the speeds worthless with 5 gigabyte caps

the common user has no clue about gigabyte or megabytes or how much each email uses to send back and forth


bottom line

regulation internet usage will really hurt the economy

i could go on forever listing all the business that do business online and who benefit from interacting with customers online


if this goes widespread

gone will be the days of youtube
gone will be the days of world of warcraft and any other mmorpgs
gone will be all the online gaming with wii ps3s xbox 360s

gone will be the days of people mindlessly browsing and shopping online

i could be here all day going on with all the things that will be gone or change drastically

i think we all get the point

and right now our economy already sucks, why add more strain by ending the one thing that still allows for growth

right now everything involving day to day life involves the internet in some way
limit usage and it will be another way the world is changed

i grew up with the internet
it was cool when it was in the beginning and aol charged per minute

its not the same internet anymore, and the world changed drastically when it stopped being that aol minute driven internet

i wonder what it will be like when time warner and all these major companies change things again



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Dramey
 


Dude, I've touched on the whole "gaming is going to die" thing, not going to repeat myself 3 times in two pages.

I remember what the internet was like on dial up and it wasn't good or fun. It is far better now and is only going to improve.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Dramey
 


Dude, I've touched on the whole "gaming is going to die" thing, not going to repeat myself 3 times in two pages.

I remember what the internet was like on dial up and it wasn't good or fun. It is far better now and is only going to improve.



dude 1st of all


i said i hadnt read the rest of the replies yet, i wanted to respond to that one post 1st
so i hadnt read a single one of your prophecies yet on the whole "gaming is going to die" thing


second of all no offense but just because someone on ats makes a thread saying this wont cause gaming to die doesnt really mean a damn thing to me or probably several others out there

and no one asked you to repeat yourself

i agree, it may not single handedly end internet gaming, but it will affect it and anyone claiming otherwise can go tell someone else because i dont want hear it


we both seem to remember how crappy internet was back on the phone lines in the begining, we both seem to not want to go back to those days

capping space does just that but instead of minutes its gigabytes

once a family of four gets a 5 gig cap id love to see how many parents let their kids spend the same amount of time on youtube, w.o.w. and ps3's call of duty online

itll be just like cell phones
and just like cell phones you'll have news articles about parents smashing the modem instead of the phone with a hammer


the only thing on the side of the companies is the thing about bandwidth capacity everyones screaming about

i say bs to that

we are a growing society
we are a growing community technology-wise


as our technology and our society grow, we need better infrastructure to handle higher and higher capacity, its like that way with everything

if they cant handle the capacity, grow more, expand the company, with a growing population you are going to have to eventually anyways

the only reason they should go bankrupt from not having enough bandwidth is because as our technology grew and we became more dependent on the internet, the basic technology regarding the internets infrastructure wasnt researched and upgraded sufficiently, and if thats the case, then the company deserves to fail, and the next company in line can step up and provide the service the people want, instead of all these insane bailouts that keep corrupt dumb companies alive


each day that goes by, we develop more things that involve more gigs and more bandwidth

10 years from now that technology will still be growing

in my eyes all this seems to do it stunt the growth of something that the powers that be seem to be losing control over, and the fact that its allowing the smaller people to have some small amount of power and control, they want to strap down the regulations on it

its looking at things too short term just like everything else thats going on right now


the people in defense of time warner keep screaming, oh you dont need that much to play w.o.w. all day long

ok so how do you know the next w.o.w. wont need more space

how do you know what playstation 5 is going to be like?

how do you know what shopping online will be like?

you dont. no one does


the internet evolved to the powerhouse it is today thru the use of unlimited access

would we be the society we are today without universal access? No of course not

will we continue to grow at the same pace we have been once they limit access? of course not

is that what we need right now in the economy we are facing? of course not

do the american people need one more thing that needs to be regulated on them amongst the growing list of everything else? no of course not

argue what you want
argue what you will
but making claims that this wont change the face of the internet, then youre arguing something thats very futile


i always remember the story of the 1st computer, thought a couple megabytes would be all someone would ever need, it would last them for a lifetime, 30 years later and we have petraflops and all kinds of things never imagined back then

right now with unlimited access, there are going to be words that talk about space that we at the moment have no idea of

at the rate of growth in 10 years time no one will probably have any clue what a kb is

cap the space and i guarantee we will see technology develop much slower then it has been

not just in the internet, but in every field there is, because in our level of technology today, there isnt a single thing that doesnt involve the internet, not even farming or fishing



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
stu

just to talk about your knowledge of gaming

youre right on playing online , i understand the numbers and everything you said in your earlier posts

but lets go past just playing online

lets look at ps3 and xbox and wii and even regular pc and mac games

used to be back in the day, youd just go to the store and buy the game

now, playstation and those mentioned now do things where they sell the game, then once you buy it you have to go online to purchase expansion packs and stuff like that which arent available in stores

right now they only come out once in a while, they are working towards making them more widespread

even things like actually buying items online for sims type games


how many gigabytes does a ps3 expansion game take up?

is that really so miniscule that the gaming industry wont be hurt in those areas?



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I just wanted to let you all know. There's this article on wired.com.

Time Warner Cable Earnings Refute Bandwidth Cap Economics

Basically this is what the article says, but I have no way of check the numbers. Time Warner only pays about $146 million dollars for their yearly bandwidth. They make over $4 billion in revenue every year.

So basically they're telling you they don't have enough bandwidth, but they only pay $146 million for it to generate $4 billion in revenue. Doesn't sound to me like they're running out of bandwidth at all.

EDIT: $4 billion in revenue. I said profit at first. That was a mistake.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by tinfoilman]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
I just wanted to let you all know. There's this article on wired.com.

Time Warner Cable Earnings Refute Bandwidth Cap Economics

Basically this is what the article says, but I have no way of check the numbers. Time Warner only pays about $146 million dollars for their yearly bandwidth. They make over $4 billion in revenue every year.

So basically they're telling you they don't have enough bandwidth, but they only pay $146 million for it to generate $4 billion in profit. Doesn't sound to me like they're running out of bandwidth at all.




now if this is accurate

this is EXACTLY what i was talking about when i was saying they should do the appropriate research and upgrades

if they are making that much in profit when only spending that much for bandwidth, if they arent investing in research and development to improve and upgrade their infrastructure adequately, then its not the customers fault they are using too much bandwidth, its the suppliers fault for not upgrading it and keeping up with the times, and it should be the supplier that has to eat the cost and catch up to the growing technology, rather then trying to charge the consumer even more and raise that 4 billion dollar figure even further



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dramey

Originally posted by tinfoilman
I just wanted to let you all know. There's this article on wired.com.

Time Warner Cable Earnings Refute Bandwidth Cap Economics

Basically this is what the article says, but I have no way of check the numbers. Time Warner only pays about $146 million dollars for their yearly bandwidth. They make over $4 billion in revenue every year.

So basically they're telling you they don't have enough bandwidth, but they only pay $146 million for it to generate $4 billion in profit. Doesn't sound to me like they're running out of bandwidth at all.




now if this is accurate

this is EXACTLY what i was talking about when i was saying they should do the appropriate research and upgrades

if they are making that much in profit when only spending that much for bandwidth, if they arent investing in research and development to improve and upgrade their infrastructure adequately, then its not the customers fault they are using too much bandwidth, its the suppliers fault for not upgrading it and keeping up with the times, and it should be the supplier that has to eat the cost and catch up to the growing technology, rather then trying to charge the consumer even more and raise that 4 billion dollar figure even further


Well technically it's not profit. It's revenue and I understand they have other costs like infrastructure, but if the Wired article is right something is definitely not right. Not only do they pay little for bandwidth, but their bandwidth cost has been going down. And not down per user either. Simply less overall.

So, if they have to charge per gig now because of a shortage of bandwidth why didn't they before when bandwidth was even more expensive? It makes no sense. Something is definitely fishy.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by nightrun
 


Im in rural New South Wales (around 450km west of Sydney) and the service out here is not great at all.

I pay $55 a month for a 512/128 ADSL connection with 12GB DL (and that is actually not too bad a deal).

ADSL2 only just reached the city where I live and that only does the city center, not anywhere more than around a 2 minute drive away.

It sucks that the Telco's can legally claim 95% of Australia covered by just doing the Eastern Seaboard + the Capital cities.

The saying out here is that "they don't call the mountains (just west of Sydney) the Great Dividing Range for nothing" and "N.S.W actually stands for Newcastle, Sydney, Wollongong".

[edit on 10/4/09 by GBBumblebee]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Alot of companys do this already.....

If we are going to complain, i'd like to complain about my 24MB that im paying for which is actually 1MB wooo.

[edit on 10-4-2009 by Concept X]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GBBumblebee
 


I can't tell you exactly what our plans are because they just say "max speed". I'm quite sure it's supposed to be up to 4mb/s or something, could be wrong.
Anyway,
speed test here in hamilton NZ says, 1.61mb/s download with 0.13mb/s upload, 155ms ping.
Now that's about $44NZD by itself, with the automatic payment of $11.95NZD per 10GB package and if you go over it costs $11.95 for each 10gig pack which is automatic.

Pretty rubbish deals and speeds but online games are still playable. 130kb upload speed is pretty bad for games I imagine. I forgot most of my tech knowledge.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Im in Buffalo new york and download probally 40 gb's a week. I'd hate to see time warner do this as i subscribe to their television, telephone and road runner services. if they try this i will simply demand unlimited downloads or say goodbye on all three of those fronts... this is bullsh@t, charging for gigabytes? phuck the motherphuckers...



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by redhead57
 


In Canada this has been the way for a long time, it's nothing new to us. Bell loves to gouge us every chance they get.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Everyone needs to know this:

The Internet is the same everywhere, no matter who you plug into through.
Everyone here officially has an obligation to BOYCOTT TimeWarner AND Comcast (read up on their restrictions as well).

There are PLENTY of alternatives, I am switching to Clear Wire from Comcast because whenever i go to a Torrent site they shut my internet off. Then claim they don't do it at all over the phone, the liars, court cases document their activities.


BOYCOTT



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:31 AM
link   
I wonder what they are testing in my area. I signed up for 700KB/s with TW, but since December I usually get 1.6MB/s. They could be testing to see if people will abuse the servers if they have access to such high speeds. I download about the same, its just nice to get 8gb blu-ray movies in a few minutes


[edit on 10-4-2009 by OralFixation]



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by wiredamerican
 


jeez you guys are so lucky

here in south africa, if you want a 4mb uncapped and unshaped line,it will cost you around R7000 , which would be around $700....

We have to make due with capped internet like 1gb,3gb,5gb etc

getting a 40gb for $50, bring it on


With the current internet that I have now, I pay R1200 for a 4mb line and a 10gb, so thats about $120.....


SA internet sucks....


Just so you guys know,you have it good



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Castielle
 


Yeah my stomach turns thinking of South Africa.. Ouch man, I regret my light complaining. We don't get it as good as America but at least we get it. Heck I only use the net to socialize these days anyway haha.. and read news



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


no this isn't at all accurate. Out of a $54 dollar subscription back 3 years ago, $26 went for bandwidth. Granted this was 3 years ago, and since then they have rolled out there own fiber wan network to reduce costs, but still. Overall expenses for phone support typically averaged $5 dollars per subscriber. that means for someone on there basic tier, that cost 29 dollars, there loosing money on them. However someone that is on there regular service, there only making 20 profit on them. Thats if they only have internet. if they have phone, and internet the overall costs for services goes down, but so doesn't revenues generated.

Time Warner has 13 million customers:

www.ncta.com...


This means prior to marketing expenses, as well as costs to send a person to your house, they are only making $260 million. You may say this is alot, however keep in mind, they have to pay for advertising like anyone else, and the roadrunner division, doesn't get any breaks from the local cable companies (time warner) for any services rendered. So any time the local cable company sends a tech out to look at your line, or modem for roadrunner, they get charged $50, It all eats away at this.

again, people are complaining of it costing more for there internet, it costs them money to provide the services you are getting. Now I don't necessarily agree with the tiers that they are offering, but I know why there doing it, and I can understand why.

On another thought, with Docsis 2.0, the standard that they are most often using for cable modems, the speeds are 15 meg. They lock the modem at 7 meg though. Every cable modem is on the same connection until it its the fiber/coax interface, this typically means anywhere from a couple homes to 20-30. If you have 5 people sucking up the bandwidth, it slows everyone else down, makes them angry, and costs them money on credits, and calls into support. If they kicked those people off, everyone else will go up. If they expand there fiber network, and cut the groups up, everyone goes up, but again, they are expanding and building out a fiber network.

It all costs money. While I don't necessary agree with the new tiers, I do understand why there doing it, and why its necessary for them. There only other recourse is to kick these people off for over consumption.

just my 1 and 1/2 cents,

Camain



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
i'm waiting for the Time-Warner guy now - i'm about to dismantle my pc and move it to our new apartment!

...i'll let you know what he says, but basically i signed up for the 7Mb/s download (the same i've got now), and i'll ask what the cap is and everything else he's heard about this...




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join