[TriLUG] OT - TWC bandwidth caps on the way?

[Warren Myers]

There already is a usage cap: it's the max (theoretical) rate times seconds
per month. It's pretty simple. Usage caps like TWC is discussing are far
more easily (and cheaply) implementable by merely throttling the connection
speed.

WMM

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Jeremy Portzer <jeremyp at pobox.com> wrote:

> jonc at nc.rr.com wrote:
> > 40GB won't endanger any VoIP carrier that I've ever heard off... VoIP
> requires continuous low latency connections, but very little bandwidth.
> >
> > Vonage: 1hr = 300Mb (max)
> > FeatureTel: 1hr = 100Mb (max)
> >   "max" means all talking all the time - no pauses (like listening to
> music)
> >
> > Vonage uses G711 codec which maxes out at 87 Kbps
> > FeatureTel defaults to G729 codec (voice only - no noise) which maxes out
> at 31 Kbps
> >
> > ===
> > On the bright-side, maybe folks will stop sending me these gi-normous
> attached documents that contain a few lines of text that I need to read....
> >
>
> I've been living in Australia where metering / bandwidth caps are a fact
> of life.  There is not a single ISP - not even dial-up - that doesn't
> have them.  Those of you threatening to go to DSL, realize that if TWC
> is successful in implementing this, the DSL carriers may be quick to
> follow.
>
> So I've seen both sides of this picture, coming from the bandwidth-rich
> USA (though not as rich as some spots in Europe or Asia).
>
> I actually don't think the TWC bandwidth caps are a horrible idea, given
> substantial limits like 40-50GB.  I think they could probably afford to
> have lower excess rates (say, $.50/GB), but there really are a lot of
> heavy users who use SO MUCH more than the average customer, that it does
> make business sense.
>
> Excess rates of $20/GB or more are typical here in AU.  Since this could
> get expensive fast, the typical thing to do for consumer plans is to
> "shape" your connection to dial-up speed when you reach the download
> cap.  This allows you to still get your email but severely limits
> browsing, of course.  You either have to wait until the month is over,
> or upgrade to a higher plan.  I wonder if TWC will at least allow this
> option for people who don't want an unexpected bill?
>
> Having a bandwidth cap - even a high one - really helps make you think
> twice about whether you *really* need to download that TV show (or
> whatever).  The bandwidth caps are high enough that you aren't really
> going to have a problem with standard web browsing, or VOIP, or remote
> access, etc., even if you're a prolific YouTube'r.  Really you can
> download plenty of Linux distributions in that limit too. It's only
> going to affect the people who download dozens of hours of HD-quality
> movies every month - a practice that TWC, being owned by an
> entertainment conglomerate, is not particularly excited about anyway.
>
> The reality is that it takes a LOT of investment to upgrade the
> infrastructure across the Internet to support the large amounts of video
> data that people want to transfer these days.  Can TWC really afford
> invest in this at $49.95/mo. (including all the maintenance costs of the
> last-mile network)?  I don't think it's realistic... but they have to
> maintain that price point for those who aren't interested in all this
> video stuff just yet.  So why doesn't it make sense to charge people
> based on what they use?
>
> --Jeremy
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>



-- 

Warren Myers
http://warrenmyers.com