[SATLUG] OT-Time Warner Download Cap

David Kowis dkowis at shlrm.org
Thu Jun 5 22:41:31 CDT 2008

Hash: SHA512

Ernest De Leon wrote:
| I see this is the cable companies making their bed and being forced to lie
| in it.  What it comes down to is this: they over sold and under delivered
| because at the time, they could get away with it.  Now that people are
| actually using what they technically paid for, the cable companies are
in a
| pinch and trying to find a way out.  I could care less what it costs
them to
| buy upstream bandwidth, they promoted these broadband packages that they
| KNEW they couldn't back.  Tough shit.  Now you either back your play or go
| out of business.
| Cable companies took advantage of the fact that 90%+ of users hardly used
| any bandwidth at all and got away with it thus far.  Now they want to
| implement a cap on bandwidth (NOTE: NOT charge by usage.)  It's still an
| unfair business practice to limit usage, because there are many people
| over paying for bandwidth they will not use.  The only fair way to
| this issue is the same way the electric company and water company approach
| it:  bill by USAGE.  There's only one problem with that, their business
| models rely on a steady revenue stream, not a variable one.  They
would have
| to 're-tool' their entire business model in order to make that happen, but
| it's the only fair way.
| The public utility companies also maintain expensive infrastructures that
| terminate at the home and employ a large and varied labor force to
| accomplish this.  The internet providers would do well to understand and
| mimic the operations of public utilities.  The end result would be a
rise in
| cost to the prolific downloaders (the majority of which are
complaining.)  I
| am in that same group and understand that my prices would go up, but just
| like any other consumable good like water, electricity or gasoline, people
| will adjust their usage if there is a budget concern.  They may not
like it,
| but they need to realize that we live in a world where resources are
| (some scarce) and there are many different types of cost to each decision
| that we make.

Here's one for thought. What if your computer is compromised, which many
id10t users are, and it's eating up the bandwdith? it's easy to prove
when someone's stealing power or water, but bandwidth isn't.

| As an end user, you either accept the fact that the business is run
like the
| insurance industry (distributing the financial load across a large
group of
| people,) and live within the limits the internet providers place, or
you go
| buy your own dedicated lines and pay the true price of what that kind of
| bandwidth costs.  I am in no way on the cable companies side, believe
me.  I
| wish they would go out of business entirely.  I believe they employ very
| deceptive business processes, especially with respect to internet and HD
| programming (but thats for another rant.)  The cable companies need to eat
| their dog food for what they've done, and the loudest of the complainers
| about bandwidth limitations need to go buy dedicated lines for their
type of
| usage and then see if the cable deal was all that bad.  I am not a happy
| camper with the cable companies, but I don't need the dedicated lines
| either.
| It becomes a matter of utilizing resources more frugally, which is
| we should all be doing.  Perhaps we will carry around that CD we burned
| Ubuntu 8.04 on instead of re-downloading it over and over again.  Teaching
| people to use anything responsibly is always a good thing.  There is, of
| course, one other course of action that would help to mitigate these
| concerns: super compression of data streams.  That is an entirely
| topic (which I've been looking at for reduction in data center electricity
| costs,) but it has a practical application here as well.  If you can
| compress a data stream 10:1, imagine what you would do to reduce overall
| bandwidth usage.  We are already using these types of compression for data
| warehousing and such, it would be a matter of modifying existing
| to fit in a new purpose.

it's not like the internet is going to dry up. There's not a limited
amount of internet.

I think that the providers have squandered their profits instead of
upgrading infrastructure and preparing for this. They've spent it on
golden parachutes and lining the pockets of their CEOs. Verizon seems to
have done it right, however. They offer their FIOS customers
10mbit/10mbit for $50 a month, unlimited. OMG. If I could get that here,
I'd switch in a heartbeat. Today, right now. Unfortunately, they don't
exist down here. Yay monopolies.

Here's something else to look at. My bandwidth usage graphs:


I started keeping them as soon as I found out about that test. I wanted
to know how much my "normal" usage would cost me. I'd be broke.
Especially with a 40gb cap. Every month, except feb, I surpassed the
40gb download barrier. Steam video games are my big one.

This is an evil attempt by the cable companies to F*^K us out of more
money. I hope that it fails miserably, because people here are used to
having unlimited service. They need to get their shit in gear and
upgrade their infrastructure. The backbones is what sucks the most right
now. At least according to the ATT techs I talked to a while back.

- --
David Kowis

www.ronpaul2008.com - Ron Paul for President!
www.sourcemage.org  - SourceMage GNU/Linux
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the SATLUG mailing list