Timewarner ready to roll out 5GB/mo "data" caps.

[GreyGeek]

http://stopthecap.com/2012/08/02/tim...vrbox-changes/

August 2, 2012

But the nation’s second biggest cable operator reports it has several initiatives under way for subscribers which they feel will boost earnings and subscriber numbers:

....


• The company will introduce IP-based set top boxes and home gateway devices by next year. The newest gateway is a combination DVR, DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem, and a video transcoder that can convert QAM-based video to IP for devices including game consoles and new IP set top boxes. Time Warner’s newest DVR will include the capability of recording five shows at the same time while watching another and 1TB of storage.

Install it yourself.

• Time Warner Cable’s TV Everywhere service will expand to include video on demand and the possibility of watching certain networks while outside of the home. The current service only works when you watch over your home Wi-Fi network.


• The cable operator’s Internet Essentials offer, which includes a 5GB monthly usage cap, will move beyond Texas and reach everywhere the cable operator serves by the second half of next year. When a usage meter shows up on your My Services page on Time Warner Cable’s website, you will know this new, optional plan is on the way.


...

Greedy plan. In economically depressed times, when a good and reasonably fast internet connection is a necessity in order to find a jog, they are going to squeeze their customers into limited plans (Internet Essentials) with limited but costly features. When the hapless consumer trips over the 5GB cap I am sure TW will be only too happy to asses service charges and "fees" for those overages. To avoid the throttling of bandwidth and/or extra "hog" charges they'll introduce plans which allow for more "data" and privileges,but at much higher costs.

I was looking at TW's "Basic TV & Internet" plan for $49.95/month. That's about 20 local TV channels and 20Mb/sec down, 768Kb up of "turbo" Internet bandwidth. There are additional monthly charges for "Cardbox" and "outlets". For two TVs my house would require four "outlets". IF I wanted a Wifi it would be an additional $2/mo. With "taxes and fees" which, for some strange reason they can only computer AFTER you sign up, I suspect that the final cost will be around $75/month. But, after 12 months you are no longer eligible for their "intro" plan and your rates get jacked up to $75/mo, plus "taxes and fees". You'll end up paying in the vicinity of $100/mo for basic TV and "20" Mb/s bandwidth. That's in quotes because the biggest complaints I read about the 20Mb/s "Turbo" connection is that it rarely tests out above 10 to 12 Mb/s, and usually settles in on most testing sites at between 6 and 10 Mb/s.

It's about time we get our $300 Billion back for the Fiber Optic they were supposed to have buried around the nation 20 years ago, but merely pocketed the money and ignored the rest of the legislation because it had no enforcement teeth in it. It doesn't take too many guesses to figure out why that legislation had no enforcement clauses in it.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the "DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem, and a video transcoder that can convert QAM-based video to IP for devices including game consoles and new IP set top boxes." will be IPv6 stuff that will allow TW to keep track of and control EVERY IP enabled device connected to their cable ... and charge for each individually as well. Gone will be the days when TW and other ISPs were just pipes to the Internet and where you got an RG59U cable connection in your wall and out of it you could plug any IP enabled device you wanted, as long as you were willing to accept the drop in performance for each device as you plugged more in.

[SteveRiley]

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the "DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem, and a video transcoder that can convert QAM-based video to IP for devices including game consoles and new IP set top boxes." will be IPv6 stuff that will allow TW to keep track of and control EVERY IP enabled device connected to their cable ... and charge for each individually as well. Gone will be the days when TW and other ISPs were just pipes to the Internet and where you got an RG59U cable connection in your wall and out of it you could plug any IP enabled device you wanted, as long as you were willing to accept the drop in performance for each device as you plugged more in.

I'm not so sure... a router capable of full IPv6 can NAT everything behind it just like an IPv4 router can. My Comcast modem sees precisely one device: my RV220W router. That, in turn, is connected to a SG300-10 switch running in layer 3 mode. The subnet between the router and the switch is distinct from the subnet the switch uses for my home LAN. No way can Comcast count the number of devices on the network.

[GreyGeek]

Comcast for sure, but the plans to increase profit envisioned by TW is to use IPv6 hardware only, as I read between the lines, in order to be able to track each device on its system, regardless of networking or sub-networking. I suspect that they will also be the vendor for those devices, and those devices will contain firmware that assures they work only with TW. The way the ISP providers have split the market, despite the "watchful eye" of the FCC, they DO NOT compete with each other in the same market area. I cannot get Comcast or any other broadband provider in this area. ANY ISP that provides service in Lincoln, besides cruddy DSL service associated with phone companies, must ride on TW's cable and hardware. My ISP, Earthlink, does that, and TW sends me the bill for Earthlink's service. I pay $52/mo for 15Mb/s/mo of UNCAPPED bandwidth. That is a rate and price which TW will not match. I suspect, however, that when TW converts to their new infrastructure Earthlink's service will be canceled or modified.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/w...-the-governme/

[SteveRiley]

NAT64, DHCP6, and IPv6 privacy extensions will afford the same ability to construct a private LAN than you can do right now in IPv4-land. One could even choose to remain IPv4-only on a home LAN yet still participate completely in the move to IPv6.

The issues with comms monopolies are indeed a problem. Cable is used to a franchise market, in which cities promise exclusive access to homes. These franchise agreements often have very long terms, sometimes decades. A city choosing to break the agreement might be saddled with massive fines.

Telco never enjoyed city francises, and indeed, there was an attempt over a decade ago to accomplish exactly the kind of loop unbundling mentioned in the article you linked. But whereas it worked in the UK, where the government was willing exercise strong regulatory enforcement, it failed here because our telcos simply have way too much political power.

[HalationEffect]

Yeah, local loop unbundling has made for a very competitive broadband landscape here in the UK, at least for DSL.

However, if you're a non-business user wanting faster than ADSL2+'s "up to" 24Mbit speeds (and if you live very close to the exchange you might get that speed) then there are only really 2 games in town: Virgin Media cable internet (up to 60Mbit), and BT's 'Infinity' fibre service (up to 38Mbit, or 76Mbit with the 'Infinity2' service)... if they happen to have cabled up the area where you live.

Having been a customer of both Virgin and BT in the past, I'd rather have burning strips of bamboo inserted forcefully under my fingernails than deal with their customer service teams again.

(Edit) Hmm, having said that, I just went and checked the latest pricing from BT, and I could get the 76Mbit down / 19Mbit up uncapped service for only slightly more than I pay right now for 20Mbit down / 1.3Mbit up... I might be tempted to put up with a moderate amount of burning bamboo for that...

(Edit 2) Further reading shows that BT are being required by law to offer competing ISPs wholesale access at regulated prices to their fibre optic network, so I'll probably simply wait until my current ISP gets on board with that.

[SteveRiley]

My buddy in Singapore pays about $25/mo for 100mbps. LAN-speed Internet: sooper-jealous!

[Snowhog]

My buddy in Singapore pays about $25/mo for 100mbps. LAN-speed Internet: sooper-jealous!

Yeah, Internet speed here in the good 'ole US of A is generally, and in most places, slower and more expensive than most of the rest of the industrialized world. Go figure.

[tek_heretik]

We have had caps here for a while now, where I am moving in a month...$50 gets me 20Mbps + 80GB cap PER MONTH, their reasoning is to control the abusers, like heavy upload/downloaders and people who like to pay domestic and use it as a business service. I bought a D-Link DSR-250, small business grade, lol, have to hook up the gf's computer to it too.

[whatthefunk]

Here in Japan, I have a 100 mbps fiber optic connection with a 30GB per day limit for around $50 US. Not too bad I guess.

[GreyGeek]

Yeah, Internet speed here in the good 'ole US of A is generally, and in most places, slower and more expensive than most of the rest of the industrialized world. Go figure.

Yesterday I researched comparative figures and found that the US ranks 16th, on average, world wide. The average download was less than 5Mb/s and the average upload was less than 750Kb/s. That puts the US on par with most 3rd world countries. You can put it all down to the greed of our cable and telcos who pocketed the $300 Billion they were given 15 years ago to install Fiber Optic cables around the country in exchange for local, state and the federal government not "competing" with them. Now they are trying to maximize their profits on Copper wire by creating artificial scarcity and forcing users into tier systems, reserving the large bandwidths for the premium "services" at exorbitant prices.

When one considers using burning Bamboo rather than suffering with their "service" departments -- I'd rather insert those burning Bamboo sticks into another orifice on certain greedy CEO and board members, and certain members of Congress who've sold their birthrights for personal profit.

[dequire]

Yesterday I researched comparative figures and found that the US ranks 16th, on average, world wide. The average download was less than 5Mb/s and the average upload was less than 750Kb/s. That puts the US on par with most 3rd world countries. You can put it all down to the greed of our cable and telcos who pocketed the $300 Billion they were given 15 years ago to install Fiber Optic cables around the country in exchange for local, state and the federal government not "competing" with them. Now they are trying to maximize their profits on Copper wire by creating artificial scarcity and forcing users into tier systems, reserving the large bandwidths for the premium "services" at exorbitant prices.

When one considers using burning Bamboo rather than suffering with their "service" departments -- I'd rather insert those burning Bamboo sticks into another orifice on certain greedy CEO and board members, and certain members of Congress who've sold their birthrights for personal profit.

I'm not sure we a re a world leader in anything anymore, sadly.