The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Time Warner to punish gamers, other internet users.

By on April 3, 2009 10:20:14 AM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums External Link

MottiKhan

Join Date 04/2007
+152

Time Warner Cable is going to start charging its customers extra to download games, watch videos or even update your games.  This is going to adversely affect any internet based business, regardless of actual cost to the customer.

Percieved pricing will prevent some customers from using services like Impulse and Steam. 

Imagine downloading a "free" 8 GB HD movie and having to pay $8.00 just for downloading it?  Yep, it's $1.00 per GB.

Time Warner did a test run of the price gouging effort in a few cities and is now poised to widen its grip nationally. 

Locally, a city council member has spoken out against Time Warner, but to what avail?

Leffingwell said not only will the plan have a significant effect on families who use the Internet to watch videos, download music or other activities that take up significant bandwidth, he’s also worried about the impact it would have on business owners, particularly those who work in the high-tech and creative services industries who need continued access to broadband Internet.

  Leffingwell chastises Time Warner for Internet pricing plan 

There's a loophole for some of us.  Even though Time Warner has the monopoly on cable and dsl internet service where I live, a secondary provider that uses Time Warner's infrastructure doesn't have to apply the same pricing scheme.  I got word from Earthlink this morning that they have no plans to copy Time Warner and that their customers are safe from the price increases.  A time Warner customer can simply switch over and still use the exact same infrastructure as before and maintain peace of mind while using the internet. You don't even need to change your cable or DSL modem. 

Hopefully, more customers will be able to find secondary providers like Earthlink.  I'd suggest that any TW customers switch to whatever secondary provider is in their area before this hits the fan.

 

Locked Post 177 Replies +1
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 5:49:11 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Solam,
I'm in Quebec Canada and here my service provider is Videotron and since they've had Braodband they've had caps. I pay 30$ a month for 20 gig. I can get unlimited but it's like 60$ a month.

 

So no big surprise for me I'm already used to it.

 

one good point though to this system is that my quality of my internet connection is garanteed. My connection is A1 all the time.

 

Hope you guys won't get hammered to much.

My provider (in Canada) also went to a 20GB monthly cap. Since the cap went into effect here, the speed and reliability of my internet connection has become flawless. According to my ISP, (prior to the limits) 10% of their customers were using 90% of the total bandwidth. (I question the validity of those numbers, but it's what they wrote in their monthly advertorial.)

The news about bandwidth limits elsewhere doesn't surprise me. Since "traffic shaping" has proven unlawful in some courts, ISP's have no choice but to set cap limits to control bandwidth costs. I'm sure the music, movie and software industries do not mind this buisness trend either.

 

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 6:08:08 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Honestly, this is the biggest threat to Stardock's business model out there right now.

Indeed. So this actually makes me think TW is inleague with EA.

Seriously though, I really hope this doesn't have any kind of signalling effect to the european market.

Here providers are actually throwing flat rate offers at ya like foul tomatoes. One cheaper than the other with bandwiths up to 16 GBit/s and no download limits at all.

But then Warner is well known to be a greedy bunch of asswipes anyway...

 

I'm sure the music, movie and software industries do not mind this buisness trend either.

Is that so? In the lights of i.e. Microsoft Open License programme having switched to a no CD/DVD policy which forces you to download applications like MS Office 2007 that seems highly unlikely...

Also it would really hurt i.e. iTunes and pay per view movie download services and the likes, wouldn't it?

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 8:32:30 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

The problem is the pro consumer regulation, not a pro business government.  As with any regulation, unintended side effects are numerous.

 

When, you require a company to sell their network to others at cost, you discourage further advancement of that network.  The investment costs cannot be profited from in such a situation.  You're unable to compete with your own network, the scenario demands minimal margins.  It's far cheaper to use someone elses at cost than it is to build your own, so you discourage the creation of competing networks as well.  In the end, the consumer gets the shaft when the infrastructure falls far enough behind that it's no longer functional, as Time Warner's cable network has been for several years now.

 

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

 

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Requiring a company to sell a service they do not wish to sell, in this case uncapped bandwidth, is forcing the owners into involuntary servitude.  Will congress to violate the rights of an "evil corporation" at your own peril, it will come back to bite you.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 8:49:29 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

The only thing (okay, the most important thing) wrong with your argument is the idea of "uncapped bandwidth".

There is no such thing as "uncapped" or "unlimited" bandwidth.  The maximum you can get is 24/7/365 downloading at your maximum thoroughput.  For a shoddy 768k connection like the one I'm on, that's on average about 240GB/month.

For something higher up the line, say a 6Mbit connection, you're looking at 1.92TB/month, give or take.

Granted, that's more than you or I probably need.  But it's disingenuous at best to call it uncapped or unlimited.

Since latency != bandwidth and bandwidth != latency (although they do have some marginal bearing on each other), if the companies don't want to provide "unlimited" or "uncapped" service, then they should cap the service rate.

But then of course they couldn't institute stupid overage charges, and you can't honestly tell me that there's an ISP that wouldn't want to.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 9:05:06 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

You being an idiot doesn't make my argument wrong.

 

I don't want to wait six hours to download a one gig file just so some moron doesn't have to read his terms of service.  Neither do any of the Time Warner users that are already using less than that cap will provide them.  My connection, if the actual bitrate were to match what I can download in a day before hitting the cap, would be completely useless.  I'd have to start twenty minute 380p video streams ten hours in advance and restrict myself to only using services with unlimited buffering.  When a game were updated on Impulse, I'd get to spend a few hours waiting for the 40 meg download to finish.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 9:12:38 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

-6mbit is by no means the top of the line.
-6mbit is ~2.6GB/hr.
-Your assumption of an institution of a bitrate cap that would lead to a 20GB/month cap is...dialup.  8KB/s.  (Feel free to correct my numbers, as you may have a different cap-that's the only number I recall seeing in this thread.)
-Find me a company that doesn't have a helluva lot more infrastructure than that.
-Find me a user who actually uses that little and does something other than check their email.

Bottom line: The cap is too low, and "unlimited" means nothing.

It seems you don't want a solution, either, and just enjoy being an asshole-but I guess we already knew that.

Please address the question in the final line of my last post.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 9:33:38 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Wow, it's amazing how socialist the world is these days.  If a company wants to charge more or change their pricing scheme they are more then welcome to in my opinion.  Having the government price fix or force them to use a certain pricing model will just result in one of two things.  Either they will go bankrupt because they are unable to support themselves as a company or they will raise the prices for everyone, so those top 10% can exploitively use 90% of the bandwidth.

Most of the people that frequent a forum like this are in the top 10% so sure, it sounds great.  The other 90% of the people who aren't using far more than what they paid for (in fact, they are using far less) will come out way ahead with pricing plans like this because either their rates will go down, the quality of their service will go up, or competators will enter the market and do one of those two things.

For the 10% that are sucking down most of the bandwidth (I'm definately included in that), start paying your own way instead of expecting the other 90% to support your bandwidth usage.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 9:37:24 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Please address the question in the final line of my last post.

I don't see a question...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 9:45:07 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Quoting Micah,

Please address the question in the final line of my last post.
I don't see a question...

My bad; I'll restate it in the form of a question.

What ISP wouldn't want to charge massive overage charges on a cap that is easily reached?

-

I don't mind paying more for more.  What I mind is arbitrary limits and overage charges.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 9:56:43 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

If customers really want no overage a company will eventually do it.  For example, perhaps a better business model is one where instead of charging extra, you just stop service, or shape service until the following month.  Consumers may like that more in which case a company doing that will end up with more customers.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 10:15:18 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Quoting Micah,
If customers really want no overage a company will eventually do it.  For example, perhaps a better business model is one where instead of charging extra, you just stop service, or shape service until the following month.  Consumers may like that more in which case a company doing that will end up with more customers.

I have this crazy idea that I should get what I pay for.  Maybe I'm not paying enough.  Then maybe someone should try increasing their prices.  If I still think it's a good deal, I'll stay with them.  I just don't want the company playing games with me, and that includes arbitrary limits, overages, packet shaping, and stopping service, among others.  (If you look around a bit you can see my rant when Sprint decided the best way to resolve their dispute with Cogent was to block access to/from Cogent's piece of the Internet, effectively screwing over any Sprint customers who tried to access Cogent-hosted sites-as well as vice versa, but screwing over your customers is never a good business decision.  If I had another option, I'd take it, and as soon as I move, I will.)  I'm sure you can find other practices they indulge in that I wouldn't approve of as well.

Again: I don't have a problem paying more for more.  I just want to get what I pay for.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 10:39:20 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

They are charging you more.  You can choose to pick a package that has a higher bandwidth cap instead of using a lower-end package (cheaper) that has a 5GB limit.  Plus, you can over your cap, you just have to pay more for it.  While I do agree that they need a wider range of options, beyond just 40GB in the biggest package, in almost all cases 40GB / month is plenty (even for someone who watches TV on the internet and digitally downloads their software).

What people in this thread are suggesting is not that they pay for what they use but rather that other people pay for what they use.  By paying per GB, the higher bandwidth users pay more than the lower bandwidth users, which is perfectly reasonable (in fact, it's far more reasonable than the current system).

Some other features like Rollover bandwidth would be nice, so I can burst some months and perhaps some feature additions where I can pre-purchase an extra 10GB for some amount of money.

However, saying that they are doing something morally wrong or illegal just doesnt' make sense.  If you are OK paying for what you use then I suggest you provide them with feedback such as what you would like to see (that makes you pay for what you use) such as more badwidth options (ex: 100GB/month) and perhaps rollover bandwidth options.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 10:49:39 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Quoting Mooster,
Not only companies are charging outragous prices for simple internet service, they are also doing bandwidth shaping.

 

OMG NO, you mean Americans finally don't have a bottomless download pit ? Welcome to the rest of the world.

Shaping!? How evil. Welcome to 1999.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 10:56:42 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting psychoak,
The problem is the pro consumer regulation, not a pro business government.  As with any regulation, unintended side effects are numerous.

 

When, you require a company to sell their network to others at cost, you discourage further advancement of that network.  The investment costs cannot be profited from in such a situation.  You're unable to compete with your own network, the scenario demands minimal margins.  It's far cheaper to use someone elses at cost than it is to build your own, so you discourage the creation of competing networks as well.  In the end, the consumer gets the shaft when the infrastructure falls far enough behind that it's no longer functional, as Time Warner's cable network has been for several years now.

 

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

 

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Requiring a company to sell a service they do not wish to sell, in this case uncapped bandwidth, is forcing the owners into involuntary servitude.  Will congress to violate the rights of an "evil corporation" at your own peril, it will come back to bite you.

 

This is a regulated industry for a reason. It's not treated the same as some of the less regulated industries. Where I live, there is one cable company and its going into bankruptcy, and so far the only regulations I am aware of on cable companies has been on basic cable, not internet and not digital cable and still Charter manages to offer crapy service at terrible prices and still not make it. My favorite part is how they are telling customers not to worry, business as usual for us... oh great, the usually bad service at outrageous prices.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 10:59:30 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

-6mbit is by no means the top of the line.

This is relevant why?

-6mbit is ~2.6GB/hr.

Congratulations, you can do arithmatic.

-Your assumption of an institution of a bitrate cap that would lead to a 20GB/month cap is...dialup.  8KB/s.  (Feel free to correct my numbers, as you may have a different cap-that's the only number I recall seeing in this thread.)

Would you like dial-up speed instead of a 20 gig cap on a 6mbit connection?

-Find me a company that doesn't have a helluva lot more infrastructure than that.

Which one would you like?  Pick a cable company, none of them can do anywhere near the bandwidth they are pretending to sell you.  If everyone actually used it, the entire national grid would collapse from the strain.

-Find me a user who actually uses that little and does something other than check their email.

Nearly everyone.  I use less than 20 gigs a month quite frequently myself.  I have a 1.5mbit satellite connection with a daily cap of 465MB and a free period between 1am and 6am where the cap is disabled.  I only come anywhere near the 20 gig cap because I hate watching network television, too many really fucking annoying commercials.

 

Bottom line: The cap is too low, and "unlimited" means nothing.

Says the voluntary customer that is willingly paying for a service.

It seems you don't want a solution, either, and just enjoy being an asshole-but I guess we already knew that.

The solution presents itself!  Don't buy it.  Or, you could just make life easier for the rest of us and kill yourself now since you'd rather the government control your life than actually have to decide not to use a product you don't think is a fair deal.  If you actually accomplish your goals, we'll all be better off dead.  Yes, I do enjoy being me.

Please address the question in the final line of my last post.

Moo.  Now that I've addressed your question, I'll ask an equally irrelevant question of you.  Would you like to wish in your left hand or your right?  Your answer will determine whether you're in your right mind or not.

 

Edit:

This is a regulated industry for a reason. It's not treated the same as some of the less regulated industries. Where I live, there is one cable company and its going into bankruptcy, and so far the only regulations I am aware of on cable companies has been on basic cable, not internet and not digital cable and still Charter manages to offer crapy service at terrible prices and still not make it. My favorite part is how they are telling customers not to worry, business as usual for us... oh great, the usually bad service at outrageous prices.

 

No one wants to rent a shitty grid, makes perfect sense to me.  This shows your problem.  Until 2005, there was no incentive for Charter to improve their grid, all it would lead to was someone else renting it from them and stealing their profits.  There was also no incentive for anyone else to bother putting up a grid, as the same thing would happen to them.  If a competitor came in and killed them off with a superior service, they could probably have made more money renting the opposing grid than they were using and maintaining their own.  When there is no profit to be made, there is no investment made.  You're out of luck until someone notices they can make a killing off your area.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:06:33 PM from Sins of a Solar Empire Forums Sins of a Solar Empire Forums

Says the voluntary customer that is willingly paying for a service.

This only works as long as there is competition. Having only one option for high speed internet isn't entirely "voluntary" and "willingly". It's voluntary in the sense that nobody is requiring you to have high speed internet, but the alternative is not really fit for a gamer.

So those who just check email have their option that doesn't affect them much, but those who like watching movies online, or prefer digital downloads for games/software are more or less choiceless.

It's not really that TW is using this pricing scheme, which on its own does make sense in many ways. At least my issue with it is that in a lot of areas, they're basically a monopoly. Where everything else works on competition, there is none here so anyone who wants high speed internet has to adopt whatever they come up with. And that's the main problem.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:08:13 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

I'm curious... How much are you (Anyone) paying them and what speed are you getting now?

 

Also, competition doesn't always improve things much. Where I am, there's three choices. One is fairly new. Before, it was between Qwest and Charter. Charter... even after 'fixing' the line averaged about 20 hours of downtime per week. During the days, randomly.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:08:44 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

I average 60-80GB a month, and that's on a 768kbit connection.  On a connection that wasn't so easy to max out the rate of, I'd probably average 2-3 times that, but that'd be about my limit, regardless of connection speed.

If you can find me an ISP that would prefer to do things for the good of the consumer rather than make scads of money, I'm interested.  I'm perfectly fine with paying for what I use, but overage charges are, have always been, and will always be ludicrous, especially in comparison to the charge rate for the plan itself.  We're talking about TWC here, which has a history of doing some not very kind things to its customers with regards to their bandwidth, and I'm talking about Sprint, which I'm horribly unimpressed with.

The cap and overage method isn't designed to have people pay for what they use; that's just a side effect.  It's designed to generate massive revenue because no one reads the fine print on their ridiculously low caps, and incidentally will result in a huge loss of customer base.

It's yet another instance of businesses choosing short term profits and long term losses over short term losses and long term gains.

Rollover bandwidth is a good idea, particularly as usage isn't going to be constant across months, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I'm not saying what they're doing is illegal.  I'm not even necessarily saying what they're doing is immoral.  All I'm saying is I personally refuse to give a company my business, assuming I have a choice (and right now not having internet is not an option), if they do these kinds of things.

I really don't believe Sprint would listen to a plea for more options, but I'll give it a shot.

-

psychoak: I didn't say they could do the bandwidth they promised me.  I said they can do a lot more than dialup.  There's a difference.

Also, you haven't addressed my question.  Again: What ISP wouldn't want to charge massive overage charges on a ridiculously low cap?  Not because it's a good idea (it's not), but because they think it's a good idea.  Actually, think may be too strong of a word...

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:23:26 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

Since the cap went into effect here, the speed and reliability of my internet connection has become flawless.

Until, of course, you hit the cap.

-Find me a user who actually uses that little and does something other than check their email.

Talk to your neighbors much?

My mother, my grandmother, my father, half the kids at the college I go to, several of my aunts, uncles, and cousins, the list goes on . . .

 

Anyways, I personally think I'd rather see a rate cap when I hit some point rather than totally dropping it or giving me a bigger bill.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:23:42 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Currently I have Time Warner cable internet and am paying around $35 a month for (optimally) 8mpbs connection though it rarely goes over around 7mbps.  I don't really know how much bandwidth I use but if I had to guess I would say it's well over a hundred gigs per month.  I have 3 computers (2 of them power users) and 1 Xbox 360 streaming hd tv shows from netflix fairly regularly in my house, so we burn through bandwidth quite fast.  Also, Annatar11 is correct, in my area this is basically my only option for high speed internet (not even DSL is available here).  That's why I said earlier that while I don't want to go back to dial-up, I will do so if this capping is implemented in my area where there is no competition to choose from.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:23:53 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

I'm curious... How much are you (Anyone) paying them and what speed are you getting now?

Mine is testing out at 2.0 MBit according to CNet tonight.  $29.99 (USD) on Earthlink.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:35:29 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

In the long-run, you'll have plenty of options because you'll have 3G (and soon 4G) options, your cable company of course, and others will come in if there's a market.

Right now, the problem is that the cable companies business model has fallen apart.  For years, they sold $50 cable modem connections knowing that 90% of their users were using trivial amounts of bandwidth per month (some surfing, email).

But not anymore.  Now people have game consoles, streaming netflix or Xbox 360 movies. Lots of people use Bit torrent, use iTunes for movies and music, etc.  

So now a LOT of people are using a LOT of bandwidth.  And the cable companies haven't figured out how to adapt yet.

My personal preference is to have it based on speed.  You want a 1MB connection, it's $X.  You want 5MB? It's $4X, 10MB? and so on.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:36:31 PM from GalCiv II Forums GalCiv II Forums

-Find me a user who actually uses that little and does something other than check their email.

Talk to your neighbors much?

My mother, my grandmother, my father, half the kids at the college I go to, several of my aunts, uncles, and cousins, the list goes on . . .

There's also the fact that in my above estimates of my bandwidth consumption I neglected to consider either the bandwidth my father consumes or the bandwidth his ex-girlfriend (don't ask) consumes.  With all three of us, I'd imagine we're quite close to the throughput cap.  (As mentioned, this is on a 768kbit DSL connection, as it is, quite honestly, the only option in the area.)

I bring this up only because I would assume that most households we're speaking of have at least 2 or 3 people sharing a connection, whereas the bandwidth caps as implemented are on a connection basis rather than a user basis.  So that 20GB/month limit is really closer to a 7GB/month limit, etc.

The other posts mentioning other electronic devices in the household that consume bandwidth (Xbox, etc) would factor into this as well, but perhaps not as much as an additional person.

For what it's worth, I seriously doubt that half the kids at the college you go to use less than 20GB/month.  That's less than 700MB a day, average-that would be about 80 minutes of AVI/WMV, and although FLV is more efficient, even Youtubing/etc is going to take up a significant portion of that.

I really think we need to be clear on something here: How much bandwidth you use is not equal to how much you "download", which will obviously be (in some cases far) less.  Plenty of shit is kept in a temporary directory or RAM and deleted after use, but you sure as hell pay for that bandwidth usage, too.

My personal preference is to have it based on speed. You want a 1MB connection, it's $X. You want 5MB? It's $4X, 10MB? and so on.

Assuming $x is a decent value to begin with, such that people can have a connection for cheap, although it won't be a good connection, sounds good to me.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:39:21 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

My personal preference is to have it based on speed.  You want a 1MB connection, it's $X.  You want 5MB? It's $4X, 10MB? and so on.

This would also be my preference, I would gladly step down to a 3mbps connection as long as the latency doesn't change (meaning as long as I could still play games with minimal lag).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
April 3, 2009 11:43:56 PM from Demigod Forums Demigod Forums

Right now I get about 300 kB/sec with Verizon 3G on my computer

and with my Comcast I get about 24 mB/sec.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #101114  walnut1   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0000328   Page Render Time: