Charging by the byte to curb Internet traffic
|
|
|
Comments (12)
I for one see the advantage going to the isp that positions itself as the one that Doesn't charge for usage. Time Warner is Fat with profits and I don't begrudge them their success...I do however think this is a move to calm stockholders in a turbulent market. I download a ton of new distro iso's to test and send out to anyone who asks for them. As many as 200 a month isn't rare.
This isn't going to play well here in Austin...why do you think they picked the city they did? The people there just don't use their internet bandwidth near as much. We'll see.
Quoting: I have 50 gig per month. I've gone over it once, when I was setting up a mirror of the 2008.1 repositories. It's shite when you get shaped to 64kBit.
Shaping, that was what they called it, yes. So they couldn't do things like play Second Life, but could get emails and the like, even if it was very slow. I hadn't remembered that quite right.
If there's one pet-peeve I have with my ISP is that I can't get more upload speed. Currently I have 8 Mbit down and 1 Mbit up, but I can't get any faster upstream. I can get downstream as fast as 20 Gbit but I don't need that.
My ISP does offer business solutions that go as high as 4 Mbit up, but they come with the guarantee of 99.99% uptime and you pay a *lot* for that. I don't want the guarantee, just the speed. Apparently it's impossible.
All is not lost though. There's a new ISP in the area that offers 100 Mbit up/down for something like 75 euro a month. Two downsides: [1] You need to have fiber all the way up to your home. If you home is older than 5 years then you probably don't have it, so it costs you 500-1000 euro to have the fiber installed. [2] They offer it everywhere in the area except my town. We'll be one of the last to be able to connect to them. All other towns in the area already have it, but not us :-(
Isn't that the real reason behind the stigmatization of BitTorrent?
If everyone has a printing press, then nobody is a gatekeeper to opinions, styles, trends, etc.
Time Warner - TV/? company - probably doesn't like online entertainment (unless provided by them of course) Comcast - TV/Phone company - probably doesn't like online entertainment and voip (unless provided by them of course) AT&T - Phone/? company - probably doesn't like voip (unless provided by them of course)
Not that I'm paranoid or anything...but it just seems a tad odd that the companies mentioned all have a vested interest in people NOT doing their entertainment/communications online....
Where I live, I can get DSL from the phone company, from a third-party company that leases capacity from the phone company (this is what my provider does), or from the cable company. DSL is slow but cheap, so that's what I have.
I'd love to see municipal WiFi, but that's just not happening these days.
A friend of mine used to (moved to Hawaii, lucky bugger) use his high-gain antennas to set up an open (rate limited) hot-spot that hit a nearby truck stop. He'd put it up on holidays and nights, when his usage was low, and it would always receive good use.
There is something of an "open ad-hoc" network around here, or rather in another part of town. I've also run into them in hotels with pay-to-use Net access. It seems that the people themselves are creating answers.
I don't think always on wifi is going to be an incentive...
Contacted Cox Cable, a small competitor of Time Warner and they assured me that they have absolutely no plans to shape or cap bandwidth. I don't think I am going to wait for TW to pull the trigger since it's pretty much a done deal that they are going to do this. If I can get a halfway attractive package, I will be sending my discontinuation notice to TW shortly
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post

I have spoken to friends in Australia and the situation there seems to be way worse. A couple of people have told me that for them, they have a monthly download of something paltry like 2G and they don't have have the option to top up or pay more for a bigger allowance. Now that seems bad!