Time Warner Cable to Test Tiered Bandwidth Caps 591
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to a leaked internal memo, Time Warner Cable is testing out tiered bandwidth caps in their Beaumont, TX division as a way to fairly balance the needs of heavy users against the limited amount of shared bandwidth cable can provide. The plan is to offer various service tiers with bandwidth fees for overuse, as well as a bandwidth meter customers can use to help them stay within their allotment. If it works out, they will consider a nation-wide rollout. Interestingly, the memo also claims that 5% of subscribers use over 50% of the total network bandwidth."
Good (Score:1, Interesting)
Ultimately, paying in proportion to traffic is fair. Use less, pay less. Use more, pay more.
ISPs have historically been reluctant to do that, because consumers don't want it. People hate having to pay in proportion to use, and would happily pay flat rate per month for gasoline if they could. But nobody will offer it. Maybe reality is finally coming to wires.
Time Warner customer (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Defined limits, overlimit fees, and prices for tiered service
2. Monitor software to show customers where they're at
I'm curious about the monitor software. Will it have options to shutdown internet access based on time frames and activity? This would be useful for people that want to budget their internet usage. Also it could useful if the computer is infected.
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just it! They DO have the infrastructure in my area. I never experience slow downs due to TW's pipes getting flooded.
This is merely a money grab!
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Also as downloading movies and web-based apps become more mainstream, they need to be reasonable with bandwidth "tiers" and tiers should certainly grow over time. I wouldn't consider usage "heavy" at the present time until data transfer is >20GB/month.
They tried it in Norway (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, it is all about the marketing. You don't say "we degrade your connection if you exceed this quota", you say "In addition you get EXTRA HIGH SUPER SPEED for the first 20 gigabytes (ZOMG!!!! thousands of songs) each month". You then proceed to sell "top-up packs" at your website where users can pay for extra quota, and then offer an optional service by which quota... err... extra-bandwidth-top-up-packs
Re:Possible problem... (Score:2, Interesting)
There's one dishonest company that is charging people 15c/megabyte for excess usage on a 200mbyte plan. There have been people with $20k internet bills.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=862549 [whirlpool.net.au]
http://users.bigpond.net.au/Ice_Cold/BPbill01.JPG [bigpond.net.au]
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure it isn't ideal but anything bar a REAL flat rate isn't ideal.
hard cap vs overusage fees vs bw restriction (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the fair way to deal with heavy users is to give everyone the same fast rate for their first twenty gigs or so per month. If they exceed the cap, there are three things that can be done:
The first option is bad for customers because they don't want to have their connection cut off abruptly. The second is bad because it leaves open the possibility of getting a surprise bill for hundreds or thousands of dollars. The third option, imposing a bandwidth cap once users exceed their monthly limit, solves the problem and is much less intrusive: their internet still works (just not as fast), and they don't get any surprise bills. If they want their service to be fast again, they can pay a fee. (note: to avoid congestion, the payment cycle would have to be staggered so that everyone doesn't have their caps lifted the same time each month)
Another approach ISPs would like to use is to target specific applications (bittorrent, youtube) rather than users, but this is just a short-term remedy that doesn't address the real problem - users who don't care how much bandwidth they use.
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
This statement is utterly stupid. It is harder to develop backbone capacity than last mile capacity, and ISPs have a very limited amount of backbone capacity. If they can supply a 10M last mile to 1000 customers and only have 1G of backbone, it still makes a lot more sense to give everyone a 10M line than to give everyone a 1M line, because not everyone's going to use it at once and this allows a lot more efficient allocation of bandwidth to whoever's demanding it at any given time. I think that in some instances they could do a better job of this allocation, but this is exactly what they are trying to do with a market solution, and it's no reason to choke off everyone's last mile.
Even if the technology was available to give ISPs a blazingly fast cheap backbone that would let everyone saturate existing last-mile technology, in such a case it would be likely that better last-mile technology exists as well, and you run into the same problem. If you're really so concerned about being able to saturate your line 24 hours a day, you can get a line with a higher SLA (and pay the true market value of the bandwidth). Alternatively, you could exercise some courtesy and just not leave BitTorrent downloading 24/7.
Re:Good (Score:1, Interesting)
I already pay TimeWarner $45 a month for 5mbps. There is no statement regarding how much of that I'm not supposed to use even though I'm paying for it. And to be technically correct, I can't go over my bandwidth (5mbps) without tampering with my modem. What I can go over is the amount of data I download every month, however as I stated above, TW has not specified what that limit is and neither has any other broadband provider that I know of (but I don't know the details of every provider). With the current situation, if TW doesn't want me downloading at 5mbps every second of the month then 1 of 2 things need to happen: they build out their network so that users who pay for that level of service are not penalized because they actually use it or TW needs to lower the 5mbps if their network can't support their customers using what they are buying.
For the record, I've been generally happy with TW's service. It has gotten bad recently however, specifically their news service. After they outsourced it a little over a year ago I had to adjust but it wasn't bad (except they never told anyone, the techs know nothing about changes like that) but for the last couple months bandwidth to the news service is horrible, almost useless. Connections to the server aren't closed on their end properly and then I get errors saying I'm over my connection limit. And since it is outsourced anyone at TW knows nothing about it.
Time Issues (Score:2, Interesting)
I am on a metered system, and this is more fair (Score:5, Interesting)
I am very happy with this system, but to be clear, the reason why I am happy with this system is my ISP has provided choices. If Time Warner fails to provide similar choice then it will be awful.
Re:Competition is good (Score:2, Interesting)
What is the norm?
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
In Europe, you can get a service that offer phone (VoIP) + TV (over IP, with HD and DVR) + internet (up to 20Mbps/1Mbps) for 30 euros/mo.
No restriction on the amount of DL.
Then again, they have a weird thing in that domain: actual competition. All operators are actually trying hard to earn your money. But shh... Europe is communist, we all know that...
Truth comes out (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:hard cap vs overusage fees vs bw restriction (Score:4, Interesting)
I've experimented with PAYG Internet using a couple of wireless data cards (GPRS/3G networks). Once you start being billed by the kilobyte, it's straight back to text only browsers (those advertising banners, corporate logo frames that fill the entire screen and flash intro's are real bandwidth munchers).
Re:I am on a metered system, and this is more fair (Score:3, Interesting)
eclipse have been good to me in the past. bethere.co.uk are even better. They're not capped, I get a static IP and the speed is 24Mbps (sure, I only get 12 or so, but it's better than anyone else is able to give me). All for 19 quid a month.
Yes, they have a FUP, no, I haven't been called on it yet despite frequent torreent traffic.
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does the cable charge more for digital cable than analog if they want analog cable to go away?
got it in one (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in '02 Internode http://www.internode.on.net/ [on.net] introduced Flat Rate plans, whereby you could download as much as you wanted while the network wasn't congested, however when utilisation reached 100%, those with the highest downloads over the last 28 days (rolling period) would be progressivly slowed down, to as low as dial-up speed. Once the network was less congested, your speed would ratchet back up (again depending on network congestion and your priority based on your downloads).
Those that only occassionally downloaded large files would get full speed pretty much all the time, those that downloaded continuously would see their downloads slow during peak periods.
It wasn't rocket science, but that 28day rolling period and how it worked was a confusion that eventually forced the cancellation of these type of plans - which is too bad, as they essentially gave everyone a fair go depending on how much you downloaded. No excess charges, just a flat fee and as much GB as you could squeeze out of the link.
It was a great system and I was sorry to see it go. I'm sure the developer of the software was dissapointed in much larger ways - this system could have made bandwidth provisioning & customer charging a lot easier to predict and manage.
More info in an FAQ http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/1037 [whirlpool.net.au]
Re:They tried it in Norway (Score:2, Interesting)
It's perfect because there's no huge overage fees, ever. Nobody's access is ever completely cut off; just slowed; you'll practically always be able to get email. Virus-riddled spam zombies will see their connections soon slow to a crawl, and their owners will be accountable. Everyone can choose the exact amount of money they want to spend on Internet service and get service exactly appropriate to their needs. Gamers and P2P users will be able to get the highest speeds available subject only to hardware limitations.
However, the biggest benefit is this: suddenly it's in the ISP's best interest to get their customers to use as *much* bandwidth as possible. P2P users go from being an ISP's worst customers to their *best* customers, the most profitable ones. This will cause ISPs to start standing up to the copyright cartels, and gives them incentives to improve their networks so they can increase the speed and get more money. It also helps with Net Neutrality, because a neutral net uses more bandwidth than a closed one with walls everywhere.
So many problems with the Internet today can be traced back to problems with the ISP business model; this model would solve all of them. Instead of fighting with the ISPs and viewing them as the enemy, we just need to get their interests aligned with ours, and this business model does that perfectly. How can we get the ISPs to adopt it?
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Analog cable isn't going anywhere. Analog Broadcast TV may be going away (that story isn't finished yet), but analog cable to the home will be around for quite a while. The cable companies and their customers are going to very quickly realize that the cable company can serve as the Digital Converter box. All those old sets just need a cable connection and they will live a new life in the digital TV era. No need for all the subscribers to buy separate converter boxes. The cable company does it for you when they shove the signal down the line.
That will be an interesting time. All broadcast will be digital. The cable company will convert some of it back to analog, ship it plus scrambled digital to you, then charge you (again) for a digital converter box to descramble the digital portion of the cable signal so you can see it all on your TV.
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:3, Interesting)
If you are speaking of FIOS you are most certainly wrong. There is indeed a fiber pair that is ran to your home and terminated at an ONT. The location on the ONT is either inside or outside your home. Inside the ONT there is an Ethernet port for internet, an F connector for "cable" TV and four RJ-11 for POTS. Unless my home is considered a curb, FIOS is true fiber to the home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_FiOS [wikipedia.org]
Re:WTH is wrong with you people? (Score:2, Interesting)
Billing by full-capacity hours used? (Score:1, Interesting)
First question: How might the limited upstream limits for a cable line get worked into this plan in a consumer model?
Second question: Under such a system, am I interpreting these usage scenarios accurately?
1. News (RSS feed, social net site, and 8 web sites loaded simultaneously). Easy, I'm guessing ~45-60 seconds of downstream congestion per shot.
2. E-mail (download 40-50 spams and 20-30 desired e-mails. Then, upload 10 e-mails with 400kB-1MB files in tow intermittently over the next ten to twenty-five minutes). The first part's easy -- one to three minutes of downstream saturation. I have utterly no clue what would happen with the second part. Does the plan track my usage by the second, or does it gobble precisely ten to twenty-five minutes of peak time?
3. Web surfing (download 6-12 sites over an hour, complete with graphical UI elements and ads freshly loaded for each). A downstream version of the previous e-mail scenario. Assume each site takes 10 seconds to load; is the user charged for 60-120 seconds of peak usage, or for 6 to 12 distinct "blocks" of peak usage time?
4. Gaming (1 hour with a mid-quality VoIP client chatting to 4-6 people). Yet another spiky usage graph. Lots and lots of bursts that might bounce over 1Mbps, but fairly low total data transfer. Could be less than 5 minutes real "peak" usage, but blocky time units could turn it into an entire hour of usage.
5. Usenet retrievals (say, 24 hours chugging along at a modest 50kB/s). Presumably, this doesn't get counted at all, even though it could account for over 120 GB of transfer in a month.
6. Large file, high transfer rate (Netflix movie, software updates, whatever, say 400-800MB at full download). Big, solid, "peak" downstream usage for 30-120 minutes. Easy, but maybe relevant when compared to...
7. Medium file, medium transfer rate (say, 15 minutes of flash video from YouTube). Probably fast enough to break the 1Mbps barrier, but nowhere near most current downstream caps. I'm predicting this will eat peak time for however long it takes to download -- effectively charging more per MB than would be true with a faster transfer.
8a. BitTorrent, plan A (60 minutes or so at >95% up and down saturation, THEN several hours "seeding"). Here's the one everyone gripes about. Obviously, one hour usage for the download. However, what might this plan do with seeders? Maybe the user downloaded 1GB in an hour at ~300kB/s. However, seeding a full copy at ~50kB/s takes another 5-6 hours. Is the user hit for 1 hour or 6?
8b. BitTorrent, plan B (6 hours self-regulated to 50kB/s down with negligible upload, then finishes seeding at sub-peak). Does the user duck peak usage entirely?
9a. Non-botnet spyware (always on, sending bursts intermittently). Yes it's bad, and no, I don't think I have any. That said, depending on how traffic is tracked, it could eat up many customers' peak usage while not actually causing hairy problems for the network.
9b. Botnet (always on, busy traffic). This one seriously calls for some sort of intervention, but as botnet recruitment is a malicious attack from the outside (and isn't always preventable or immediately repaired by average users), should an unholy usage charge (what would a >200 hours peak usage penalty look like?) be levied against the (probably somewhat computer-illiterate) user?
9c. Direct malice (I'm not good here. I'm thinking some sort of bulky, direct DoS stuff...ping flood? Port scan? Mass redirection?). Even barring actual infiltration, if someone starts flooding the user's access point and the router DOESN'T happen to be intelligent or well-enough configured to ignore all such requests, does the user start losing peak time to network "overhead?" Or, worse yet, does the penalty apply even if the user is running a network that's as unresponsive as Stonehenge?
Understand that I actually find a peak-capacity-hour proposal somewhat attractive, but am simply unsure about some of the finer details.
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:1, Interesting)
In order to keep the bandwidth caps from becoming oppressive, we need a large number of competitors. If we have too much consolidation in the industry, the need for caps will become the excuse for making the Internet a crippled shell of what it once was.
To the extent that old-world telcomm providers are now ISPs, they would like nothing more than to restore the old "long distance" cash cow to its former glory. They want to put a meter on various aspects of the service in order to smack a surcharge on customers who depend on it the most.
I would go so far to suggest that all of the support that Cisco and others have provided to the Chinese government is simply a testing ground. Various interests want to find out how much of the Internet can be effectively monitored for the purpose of breaking it down into as many individual services as possible. Then they can have different charges for each. Start with overall caps, then maybe different "in-network" and "out of network" caps (because the peering connections are overscribed as well). Then add different countries (with a different cap for each, of course). Maybe caps by protocol -- basic service is web only, with a nifty fee to "add" (meaning uncripple) other ports.
Similar to healthcare, where the cost of insurance "managed care" is often the primary cost of providing medical services, it would be cheaper to simply provide the bandwidth than to "manage" it. But the ability to charge seperately for something will always create the revenue stream to measure it. The internet was fun while it lasted.
What we really need is a $5000 fee per message for Blackberry devices, but only when used on a golf course.
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WTH is wrong with you people? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
I've got to say that I prefer the idea of capping the total bandwidth used over the course of the month to capping the maximum speed.
I'm on PlusNet at the moment and their caps seem to work generally quite well. You get emailed when you exceed about half your quota, then emailed again later, and they progressively throttle certain stuff down as you get perilously close to the cap (once you hit the cap you get severely throttled). The caps and throttling only apply during "peak times" though (ISTR 16:00 - 00:00). Of course, when they initially implemented the caps there was outcry from all the torrenters and quite a lot of them canceled their accounts (needless to say, this was quite good for the service as a whole
Re:A new approach to limiting usage is needed (Score:3, Interesting)
More to the point, who gives a shit? If they can provide me the speed that I need I don't really care if it comes into my house on fiber, coax, twisted-pair or tin cans with string.