[SATLUG] Time Warner Corralling bandwidth use

Robert Pearson e2eiod at gmail.com
Thu Apr 9 14:37:17 CDT 2009


On 4/9/09, Henry Pugsley <henry.pugsley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Alan Lesmerises
>  <alesmerises at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>  > I agree with the first part of you comments completely.  They have been
>  > taking our money for Internet service for years, but not plowing enough of
>  > it back into the infrastructure to upgrade it and expand its capacity as
>  > usage has increased.  Instead, they've pocketed the excess in the name of
>  > short-term profits and expect us to pick up the tab for their
>  > short-sightedness.
>  >
>  > However, I disagree somewhat with your last statement.  They still need to
>  > state download speeds, otherwise you could be forced to wait an hour to
>  > download something that takes only seconds now.  Our time (and time for the
>  > computer) costs us money, too.  I sure don't want to go back to dial-up ...
>
>  Yeah, they really need to state both and explain the difference.  The
>  problem with high throughput and low transfer is people will user
>  their allocation without realizing it.  If you have a 10GB cap on a
>  20Mbit circuit, you can blow through that in a couple hours at full
>  bore.  It might be better if people actually had to wait because then
>  it would remind them how much they are transferring.
>
>  The real problem is that the ISPs have been using throughput as the
>  metric of how good their service is for years, but now they are going
>  to start penalizing people for excessive transfer.  I have friends in
>  Australia, and their ISPs sell Internet packages based on transfer,
>  not throughput.  If you exceed your transfer limit for the month, you
>  either can't use the service or get throttled to something like
>  512kbps until the month resets.  There is going to be a huge consumer
>  backlash when they change paradigms because the average Joe doesn't
>  know or care about the difference .. they just want fast Internet that
>  they don't have to worry about.  Guess we're all a bit spoiled when it
>  comes to Internet service.
>
>  -Henry
>

You are right on about this.
However, it is a ploy to drive prices and revenues up.
Give away the service for $14.95 a month, which is basically just a
connect charge to the user, and throttle them where it hurts; in the
use of the connect.
You will be able to get your old fast service back... for a price

I'm not sure what kind of a backlash will happen. I see younger people
thinking a $300 a month cell phone bill is nothing. They would rather
pay the cell phone bill than their rent.
First it was Long Distance, now cell phone revenues are dropping. How
are the RBOCs and ILECs to pay for bloated management and
super-structure? Internet revenues!

The same people who screwed you on POTS service by leasing you your
plain black dial handset for 40 years and charging you minutes on your
cell phone when someone calls you
and who control the Information infrastructure superhighways still
have no imagination and no idea how to make a profit. Kind of like the
oil companies...

I really like what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is doing with the
Defense budget. It means he won't be around much longer. Too bad. His
reforms are long overdue.


More information about the SATLUG mailing list