[TriLUG] OT - TWC bandwidth caps on the way?

[Jeremy Portzer]

jonc at nc.rr.com wrote:
> 40GB won't endanger any VoIP carrier that I've ever heard off... VoIP requires continuous low latency connections, but very little bandwidth.
> 
> Vonage: 1hr = 300Mb (max)
> FeatureTel: 1hr = 100Mb (max)
>   "max" means all talking all the time - no pauses (like listening to music)
> 
> Vonage uses G711 codec which maxes out at 87 Kbps
> FeatureTel defaults to G729 codec (voice only - no noise) which maxes out at 31 Kbps
> 
> ===
> On the bright-side, maybe folks will stop sending me these gi-normous attached documents that contain a few lines of text that I need to read....
> 

I've been living in Australia where metering / bandwidth caps are a fact 
of life.  There is not a single ISP - not even dial-up - that doesn't 
have them.  Those of you threatening to go to DSL, realize that if TWC 
is successful in implementing this, the DSL carriers may be quick to follow.

So I've seen both sides of this picture, coming from the bandwidth-rich 
USA (though not as rich as some spots in Europe or Asia).

I actually don't think the TWC bandwidth caps are a horrible idea, given 
substantial limits like 40-50GB.  I think they could probably afford to 
have lower excess rates (say, $.50/GB), but there really are a lot of 
heavy users who use SO MUCH more than the average customer, that it does 
make business sense.

Excess rates of $20/GB or more are typical here in AU.  Since this could 
get expensive fast, the typical thing to do for consumer plans is to 
"shape" your connection to dial-up speed when you reach the download 
cap.  This allows you to still get your email but severely limits 
browsing, of course.  You either have to wait until the month is over, 
or upgrade to a higher plan.  I wonder if TWC will at least allow this 
option for people who don't want an unexpected bill?

Having a bandwidth cap - even a high one - really helps make you think 
twice about whether you *really* need to download that TV show (or 
whatever).  The bandwidth caps are high enough that you aren't really 
going to have a problem with standard web browsing, or VOIP, or remote 
access, etc., even if you're a prolific YouTube'r.  Really you can 
download plenty of Linux distributions in that limit too. It's only 
going to affect the people who download dozens of hours of HD-quality 
movies every month - a practice that TWC, being owned by an 
entertainment conglomerate, is not particularly excited about anyway.

The reality is that it takes a LOT of investment to upgrade the 
infrastructure across the Internet to support the large amounts of video 
data that people want to transfer these days.  Can TWC really afford 
invest in this at $49.95/mo. (including all the maintenance costs of the 
last-mile network)?  I don't think it's realistic... but they have to 
maintain that price point for those who aren't interested in all this 
video stuff just yet.  So why doesn't it make sense to charge people 
based on what they use?

--Jeremy