Charging for exceeding Cap

watty

I said ultimately it would have to come to let people download 1000Gbytes past their cap.

http://i.gizmodo.com/5148556/time-warner-cable-bringing-bandwidth-overage-fees-to-more-cities

J-blk

Not surprising TBH, but I've got to say that in this day and age, especially in the US, a 40GB cap is complete bulls**t. Even using Hulu or other - legal - online video streaming services (or Netflix on the Xbox), etc would easily put you over that cap. So how exactly are all these services supposed to grow then? I'm not opposed to a cap existing, but it shouldn't be at a level where even an "average" user can easily exceed it (though again, I think the "average" US user would need a higher cap currently than someone in Ireland, because of the sheer availability of content) - this just stinks of another money-grabbing move by the ISPs.

GigaByte

J-blk wrote: »

Not surprising TBH, but I've got to say that in this day and age, especially in the US, a 40GB cap is complete bulls**t. Even using Hulu or other - legal - online video streaming services (or Netflix on the Xbox), etc would easily put you over that cap. So how exactly are all these services supposed to grow then? I'm not opposed to a cap existing, but it shouldn't be at a level where even an "average" user can easily exceed it (though again, I think the "average" US user would need a higher cap currently than someone in Ireland, because of the sheer availability of content) - this just stinks of another money-grabbing move by the ISPs.

I think you don't understand what the cap is for. It give the user the choice to subcribe to a cheaper capped service rather than pay a higher price for an uncapped service. Someone who only need broadband to send and recieve emails could do with an even cheaper 5GB cap.

Sure there is people on boards.ie who can't understand why you need more than a 50GB cap.

Marlow

GigaByte wrote: »

I think you don't understand what the cap is for. It give the user the choice to subcribe to a cheaper capped service rather than pay a higher price for an uncapped service. Someone who only need broadband to send and recieve emails could do with an even cheaper 5GB cap.

Sure there is people on boards.ie who can't understand why you need more than a 50GB cap.

Check out Andews & Arnold in the UK. They have different CAPs for offpeak and peak and you can't choose your speed.

The package is priced by cap, not by speed. They're doing bitstream and they order whatever is the fastest DSL line they can get for you.

I quite like that approach, but I fear, that no customer in Ireland would understand it.

We just limit ourselfes at speed+contention, instead of cap, and won't participate in the 10, 12, 20, 24, 50 mbit/s race.

/Martin

GigaByte

Exacto Marlow! :pac:

jor el

I'd rather have 1Mb unlimited, than 20Mb with a uselessly low cap. Even a cap at peak times wouldn't bother me, I'd just let the downloads run during the day, as I always have.

Marlow

jor el wrote: »

I'd rather have 1Mb unlimited, than 20Mb with a uselessly low cap. Even a cap at peak times wouldn't bother me, I'd just let the downloads run during the day, as I always have.

Where I fully agree with you here, a lot of people don't understand that either.

A friend of mine described another ISP recently as being a "Ferrari with a very small petrol tank", where their pricing, their service and quality was reasonable, but their cap made him angry and their top-up pricing cry. He left them because of the caps and he's not a user with a lot of download, but 30 GB is just too low these days in age, especially on 8 mbit/s.

He's the type too, that doesn't want to look at his use every day to see, if he can do a download or not.

The way I think it, there will always be a type of customer (that hardly uses their broadband) for a capped product and a type of customer for an uncapped product. The problem with capped products from the ISPs side, is that you have to ensure, that the accounting is correct at any given time and the user has access to it, otherwise you end up with unhappy customers.

/Martin

PogMoThoin

I'm only with Eircom because they've not enforced their download limit so far, a hint of them starting and I'll be looking elsewhere. Then of course You have the other side of things, BT sell a package advertised as an "unlimited" service which is far from unlimited, lots of customers post here complaining of being throttled.

The way Virgin are doing it in the UK is fair IMO, a time-restrictive throttling system that throttles users back for five hours to 50-75% of their subscribed bandwidth should they cross a certain threshold during peak times. For example, a customer on Virgin's 10Mbps/512kbps loses 75% of his throughput for five hours should he download more than 1200MB between 4 and 9PM.

J-blk

GigaByte wrote: »

I think you don't understand what the cap is for. It give the user the choice to subcribe to a cheaper capped service rather than pay a higher price for an uncapped service. Someone who only need broadband to send and recieve emails could do with an even cheaper 5GB cap.

I think you don't understand the cap, as described in the article - Time Warner has been trialling a 40GB cap, with overcharge per MB for anything above it. That's not the same as giving a user the choice of a unlimited package, albeit at a higher cost, which I agree, makes more sense - those who need/want it can get it, but users who would never exceed it don't. But the issue here is that the specific ISP is looking at introducing a 40GB cap for most users - the article does mention a higher cap is in the works, but no confirmation of what that may be...

watty

It depends on what the charge per Gigabyte is.

rogue-entity

J-blk wrote: »

Not surprising TBH, but I've got to say that in this day and age, especially in the US, a 40GB cap is complete bulls**t. Even using Hulu or other - legal - online video streaming services (or Netflix on the Xbox), etc would easily put you over that cap. So how exactly are all these services supposed to grow then? I'm not opposed to a cap existing, but it shouldn't be at a level where even an "average" user can easily exceed it (though again, I think the "average" US user would need a higher cap currently than someone in Ireland, because of the sheer availability of content) - this just stinks of another money-grabbing move by the ISPs.

Its less about the ISP's being money-grabbing, and more about the Tier-1 Bandwidth/Backbone providers charging extortionate prices. Level3, Sprint, AT&T, they are all as greedy as each other. Probably not willing to increase the capacity of their networks, so they charge more.. and ISPs pass it on to the end users.

Its my reason behind why a VPS from a company in the US is costing me $45 for 20GB of disk space, cPanel, 320MB of RAM and 550GB of bandwidth. There is no VPS package from any of the Irish providers with even close to that amount of bandwidth.. and some of them are even tighter on diskspace and RAM. CoLocation hosting in Ireland is extortionate at best, but then this whole country is a rip-off, so why should our ISPs be any different.

As for TimeWarner... same problem, they are trying to save costs by paying for less backhaul, in part because of the price they have to fork out.. and in part because they are too lazy to upgrade their own network to handle the demand of all these users.

GigaByte

J-blk wrote: »

I think you don't understand the cap, as described in the article - Time Warner has been trialling a 40GB cap, with overcharge per MB for anything above it. That's not the same as giving a user the choice of a unlimited package, albeit at a higher cost, which I agree, makes more sense - those who need/want it can get it, but users who would never exceed it don't. But the issue here is that the specific ISP is looking at introducing a 40GB cap for most users - the article does mention a higher cap is in the works, but no confirmation of what that may be...

You haven't even understood the first line in the article! "with a new tier that's higher than 40GB." Now that would tell you there's 2 choice's.

you don't even know what the new cap is! :rolleyes:

paulm17781

GigaByte wrote: »

You haven't even understood the first line in the article! "with a new tier that's higher than 40GB." Now that would tell you there's 2 choice's.

you don't even know what the new cap is! :rolleyes:

From yesterday

http://i.gizmodo.com/5146985/time-warner-cable-to-expand-its-bandwidth-caps-to-additional-cities

and before that

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/2/time-warner-cable-bandwidth-caps

GigaByte

Just for you J-blk:

The options you will have with TW are 5GB, 10GB, 20GB, 40GB, and the new higher cap option. They haven't mention if they will provide an unlimited option yet.

Oh and the 6th option is a different ISP, they aren't holding a gun to your head!

GigaByte

paulm17781 wrote: »

From yesterday

http://i.gizmodo.com/5146985/time-warner-cable-to-expand-its-bandwidth-caps-to-additional-cities

and before that

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/2/time-warner-cable-bandwidth-caps

and?

paulm17781

"Tests of a somewhat-more-draconian-than-normal 40GB monthly download cap in poor little Beaumont, Texas must have gone well for TWC, because they're bringing bandwidth caps to more cities this year. Could your town be next?"

Note the more draconian than 40GB. They're imposing caps to make money. not bringing in unlimited and limited for different grade users.

GigaByte

paulm17781 wrote: »

"Tests of a somewhat-more-draconian-than-normal 40GB monthly download cap in poor little Beaumont, Texas must have gone well for TWC, because they're bringing bandwidth caps to more cities this year. Could your town be next?"

Note the more draconian than 40GB. They're imposing caps to make money. not bringing in unlimited and limited for different grade users.

More draconian than 40GB = ?

is it 50GB or 60GB or 100GB or ?

I don't know and you don't know to me draconian = 150G, whats it mean to you?

Anyway you seem to be under the impression that that is the only option subscribers in Beaumont have with TW.

paulm17781

GigaByte wrote: »

More draconian than 40GB = ?

is it 50GB or 60GB or 100GB or ?

I don't know and you don't know to me draconian = 150G, whats it mean to you?

Perhaps a dictionary would be useful for you?

Draconian means very severe, strict or oppressive.

GigaByte wrote: »

Anyway you seem to be under the impression that that is the only option subscribers in Beaumont have with TW.

That's true, I said that countless times on this thread and others. No, no I didn't. Actually I said nothing other than you misread the original article and didn't read the ones that it was related too. :pac:

GigaByte

paulm17781 wrote: »

Perhaps a dictionary would be useful for you?

Draconian means very severe, strict or oppressive.



That's true, I said that countless times on this thread and others. No, no I didn't. Actually I said nothing other than you misread the original article and didn't read the ones that it was related too. :pac:

You'er quiet right I have misread the article, I did think they where bringing out a higher cap and have realised I was wrong. Apologies to all involved.

I would have thought they would go up not down?

paulm17781

GigaByte wrote: »

You'er quiet right I have misread the article, I did think they where bringing out a higher cap and have realised I was wrong. Apologies to all involved.

I would have thought they would go up not down?

I think that's Watty's point. Unlimited cap is not feasible and bigger American operators are now using caps to gain revenue.

rh555

Alot of the cable companies in the U.S. impose low caps so you won't get your TV shows from another provider over the internet because that will kill your allowance.

So in a sense they are protecting themselfs in that way. Netflix offers videos in HD over the internet streamed to a set-top box or through the X-Box. Then there is HULU etc. etc. The more ppl watch TV online the less ppl will sign up for the TV packages the cable companies provide or at least they may not subscribe to certain movie channels etc.

Thats cutting way more in the profit margins of cable companies than the few cents they actually pay per gig of data. I read somewhere it costs the large internet providers almost nothing for data.

From what I read many DSL providers that don't offer TV don't have a cap at least not as of yet. Also Verizon with its Fiber to the home doesn't have caps yet.

Marlow

paulm17781 wrote: »

I think that's Watty's point. Unlimited cap is not feasible and bigger American operators are now using caps to gain revenue.

If you're offering 50 mbit/s speeds, they are difficult alright. If you only offer up to around 10 mbit/s NO cap is no problem.

There is always the contention anyhow.

/Martin

watty

Some providers have a Cap to limit reduce contention.

It's about 10,000x cheaper for the Cable provider/isp for you to watch broadcast via fibre/coax than download the same viewing (150Gbyte a month to over 1200 Gbyte a month per screen if people replaced TV broadcast viewing with IPTV/VOD/Streaming/Downloads.

So it's not just about protecting themselves. Besides if you are already paying for TV+BB they don't care what other methods you use to view it outside their delivery network.

Like if you have 2 x UPC digital setboxes and BB, do they care if you watch all your TV via Aerial + Freesat? No. OR if you have Sky Pay TV via Satellite do Sky care if you watch all the shows via UPC BB downloads? No.

Data does cost money. The Mobile BB charges for over cap of €200+ per Gigabyte are mad. However paying 0.5% to 5% of your Cap package price per Gigabyte excess isn't unreasonable, (the reasonableness of 0.5% vs 5% depending on the real costs).

Obviously if you have 10GByte Mobile Cap, paying €2000 for downloading another 10Gbyte (as can be the case) is suggesting either a rip off or the basic Mobile Data is sold too cheap. Given that the revenue per minute phone call is at least x400 the per minute data connection, I can see what the mobile operators are thinking.

Cabaal

I've been saying it for ages...no such thing as a unlimited ISP...all covered in the FAQ/Charter

Marlow

Cabaal wrote: »

I've been saying it for ages...no such thing as a unlimited ISP...all covered in the FAQ/Charter

Of course not. But the limit does not have to be a CAP. It's either speed, contention, cap or a combination thereof. But there's always a limit.

Was my point anyhow. We limit by speed+contention, Andrews & Arnold in the UK limit by CAP (but you can't choose speed, you get whatever is the fastest DSL they can get).

Limiting on speed+contention+cap+ maybe something else is evil.

/M

J-blk

GigaByte wrote: »

You haven't even understood the first line in the article! "with a new tier that's higher than 40GB." Now that would tell you there's 2 choice's.

you don't even know what the new cap is! :rolleyes:

Right, I didn't understand the article...

GigaByte wrote: »

Just for you J-blk:

The options you will have with TW are 5GB, 10GB, 20GB, 40GB, and the new higher cap option. They haven't mention if they will provide an unlimited option yet.

Ahem.. :rolleyes:

GigaByte wrote: »

You'er quiet right I have misread the article, I did think they where bringing out a higher cap and have realised I was wrong. Apologies to all involved.

I'll leave it at that - in the future, I would suggest you don't go opposing other peoples' opinions so strongly when you yourself have not understood the source material been discussed.

My original point was that an average cap of 40GB is pretty poor, at least in the US - if an option was given for a "fair use" unlimited (because everyone who has said so here is right: there is no such thing as a truly unlimited package) package at a cost, to users that needed/wanted it, then fair enough. By imposing the limits hard and fast on people who are pushing forward services like Hulu, Netflix, etc - they cripple growth of such services. They very well might offer a package with a higher cap, but compared to what current subscribers are paying, it seems most users will now be on the 40GB and under packages, I would assume...

Cabaal

Marlow wrote: »

Of course not. But the limit does not have to be a CAP. It's either speed, contention, cap or a combination thereof. But there's always a limit.

Indeed there is and most ISP's find it handy just to do throttle or have a FUP
previous thread I was referring to was http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58094826&postcount=11

Marlow

Cabaal wrote: »

Indeed there is and most ISP's find it handy just to do throttle or have a FUP
previous thread I was referring to was http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58094826&postcount=11

Well, I've made my point, by providing a truely uncapped service (no FUP), but obviously we still have the speed limit and the contention, which are the nature of the technology we are using.

Beyond that, the calculation is quite simple. 1 mbit/s uncapped/uncontended carrier grade costs between 6 and 50 eur + vat in Dublin. It costs between 80 and 300 EUR approx on the westcoast. That price has to be paid, one way or the other. No ISP will sell it's bandwidth cheaper to the end-user than he buys it for, full stop.

/Martin