AfterDawn Forums
These messages are comments to this news item:

Charter Communications to start bandwidth caps

news article released on:

Following yesterday's news that Time Warner was expanding their metered Internet trials to a few new cities, Charter Communications has also announced that they will be introducing bandwidth caps on their cable Internet service. Charter, the fourth largest cable company in the US, will set tiered caps, meaning "customers who purchase speeds of up to 15 Mbps to 100 gigabytes a month, while ...

Read full article

This discussion thread has 38 messages.

#1
With all these discussions of bandwidth caps and such, is there any way I can check my bandwidth usage. I know what I download, but I really don't know how much I stream effects my usage. I'd like to know what I use.
▼▼ This topic has 37 answers - they are below this advertisement ▼▼
AfterDawn Advertisement
#2
Quote:
a Charter spokesperson: "More than 99% of current Charter Internet customers use less bandwidth than the threshold allows and therefore will not need to change their surfing habits in any manner."

Geez... then why even bother putting caps in the first place?
#3
In 7 years no one will own hard drives except non-end users (i.e. corporations/companies). Everything will be "streamed". Music, video, apps, even games over FIOS. You'll login to your "PC" using a biometric device. Everything including bills, will be paid for online to phase out the cash economy.

Remember that Germany was an enlightened nation (i.e. Einstein, Von Braun, etc) prior to the Nazi takeover. If it can happen to them..
#4
Originally posted by Run4two:
With all these discussions of bandwidth caps and such, is there any way I can check my bandwidth usage. I know what I download, but I really don't know how much I stream effects my usage. I'd like to know what I use.
There's a free program that I use called netmeter. Here's the official site for it: http://www.metal-machine.de/readerror/

Anyways, with all these talks of bandwidth caps possibly happening in the future, it's just making me use even more bandwidth than I normally would.
#5
I've been looking local myself for other isp's in case my isp pulls bandwidth caps soon or some other bullshiet with the RIAA or who knows. Not a music guy so its ok but privacy and my identity are some other things that i wouldnt want some creepy companies playin with.
#6
99% = random high number they pulled out of nowhere. I don't doubt its fairly high, but 99%? I agree with DTN107, if it really is 99%, why bother.
#7
cousinkix Suspended due non-functional email address
Chater stinks on ice. They can't even provide decent TV reception in some nearby communities. People who live there, would be crazy to use them as their ISP...
#8
Quote:
Quote:
a Charter spokesperson: "More than 99% of current Charter Internet customers use less bandwidth than the threshold allows and therefore will not need to change their surfing habits in any manner."

Geez... then why even bother putting caps in the first place?

I agree, what's the use? There's no point in this. Charter would've been wise to avoid this, and IMAO i think that they're doing this to gain the bigger hand, while hemorraging us loyal ISP users money that could be used to expand bandwidth use.
#9
Here's the deal on this guys, the cable companies see the internet as a threat to their broadcast model. Pretty soon any content you need can be streamed right off the web.

What's at play here is that it is cheaper to just cancel your cable subscription and go with an Internet only connection that gives you audio and video you WANT on demand. I bet this rush to limit bandwidth has nothing to do with the acutal cost of bandwidth but how much customers will/are going with Internet only subscriptions. Keeping no caps on Internet assures a massive migration to internet only subscriptions to replace crap TV and unwatched channels you and I are paying for.

If they don't act, then they shoot themsleves in the foot since crappy tv will soon be replaced by anything else that you really want to see and hear. As it is, I only listen to online radio right now and only terrestrial radio when I'm in my car. And other than a few news channels and National Geographic HD, I don't watch too much of other broadcast TV. If I could get the other media online, why would I need to pay the extra money for CATV?

The solution to this will be FIOS or whatever Obama has planned for in their supposed modernization and rollout of high speed internet. Once those options become available, everyone drop cable and you'll see 'unlimited' internet come right back :D
#10
@ nesNYC

I was going to post a similar comment to yours (I still am...) but I would have to disagree with your last statement.

I too agree that the only reason Cable Companies are starting to put Caps on their internet services is because they are actually looking at the demographics and seeing the consumer moving more and more toward internet streaming for thier video, music, and video game needs. They are placing caps on the bandwidth now so no one should notice an increase immediately as the online business models are not fully developed by all yet.

As for the ISPs going back to unlimited, I do not see that happening. Once people start watching their TV on the internet then they will no longer need to have cable pumped into their TV. That would be a huge loss at $60 per household (I have no idea what the current rate is since I have not had cable for over 2 years). These companies like the money they are making and they have to keep the stock holders happy so they are going to have to make up the difference somewhere. Where is the most obvious place??? The internet. At charging $1/GB over the limit they can easily make their money back (plus probably more) for all of the TV junkies that are currently in the US.
#11
It's just like cell phones and "peak" minutes. Most people have dropped their landline because everyone and their brother has cell phones with free long distance, texting, mobile-to-mobile, etc. Now, how much do cell plans cost versus landlines? Unlimited cell plans?

If you see my point, this is where they are headed, because they know they can squeeze more of the almighty dollar out of Joe Consumer's wallet.
#12
you should see how bad it is in aussie land
#13
Agreed, They will offer a unlimited plan at 100 dollars a month to make up for no cable video services. And even then they put a secret cap on that plan. The biggest problem is that there is no competition in certain cable markets. Dsl might not be up to par and Some areas just don't have FIOS yet. I would be lying if i said these bandwidth caps are to help with network management.

The primary use is to stop everyone not needing cable TV. More and more cable tv are placing their premier content on like hulu or tv.com for free with limited interruptions. Xbox 360's that can stream movies from netflix. Everything cable companies has been working for Voip, VOD, PPV. Their entire business model could be destroyed with the next generation.
#14
"customers who purchase speeds of up to 15 Mbps to 100 gigabytes a month, while those who purchase up to 25 Mbps will be capped at 250 gigabytes. People who pay for speeds up of to 60 Mbps will not face any limits."


So whats happens too people that use less then this speed right now I am licky I get 5 Mbps so will I get a cap.

How do I find out how much I have used does charter keep track.
#15
#16
Originally posted by bigfamei:
There is never a bandwidth issue when you pay. lol
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/06/inter...tml
Good article. I switched from DSL to cable recently to save money. Got rid of my phone for VOIP and my monthly bill decreased by $50/month - even with paying an extra $10 for Boost, which gives me about 4MBps down and 700kBps up (you do the conversion). I've uploaded and downloaded tons and have had no problems. No caps for customers who pay for the higher tier. $10 more a month is nothing when I am saving $50 a month from DSL and getting the highest speeds.

But now I am looking at just paying for internet and getting rid of portions of my CATV bill. I've been doing some research on Hauppauge WinTV cards. So I may be able to reduce my bill even more by getting rid of one receiver and replacing my DVR with a regular HD receiver. Something that is desireable to me in this economy.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Feb 2009 @ 12:51
#17
Originally posted by maryjayne:
@ nesNYC

I was going to post a similar comment to yours (I still am...) but I would have to disagree with your last statement.

I too agree that the only reason Cable Companies are starting to put Caps on their internet services is because they are actually looking at the demographics and seeing the consumer moving more and more toward internet streaming for thier video, music, and video game needs. They are placing caps on the bandwidth now so no one should notice an increase immediately as the online business models are not fully developed by all yet.

As for the ISPs going back to unlimited, I do not see that happening. Once people start watching their TV on the internet then they will no longer need to have cable pumped into their TV. That would be a huge loss at $60 per household (I have no idea what the current rate is since I have not had cable for over 2 years). These companies like the money they are making and they have to keep the stock holders happy so they are going to have to make up the difference somewhere. Where is the most obvious place??? The internet. At charging $1/GB over the limit they can easily make their money back (plus probably more) for all of the TV junkies that are currently in the US.
I can tell you that cable in Canada SUCKS. Nothing but reality shows and lame "reality" game shows which costs 70 bucks per month. The spouse likes it but I hate it. Cogeco gets you to upgrade in "theme" packs which make no sense at all. Liberal? Youll get a theme pack with 3 conservative channels and 3 liberal. Conservative? Same deal. Last year I saw a great article outlining what the web would be like in a few years time from now..you wont have the buffet deal you have now. No, youll have to pick from the cable companies THEME packs, say YouTube, MSN, Google, Hotmail/Yahoo and Digg for 50 bucks a month. If you want Ars Technica, Gamespot, CNN and FOxnews, youll have to ante up another 30 bucks per month.

And the scary thing is..the corporations do have the ability to block sites. What I see happening is some 22 year old physics grad student will invent some type of revolutionary new tech that offers wireless connection to the Internet (all sites) that bypasses ISPs. Then most of us will be considered "criminal" if we don't subscribe to the cable companies group a$srape.
#18
Originally posted by cousinkix:
Chater stinks on ice. They can't even provide decent TV reception in some nearby communities. People who live there, would be crazy to use them as their ISP...

Well, even though I've been called somewhat crazy on occasion, I have no other choice but to use Charter. I actually switched to them because I was using the only "high"-speed internet service available in my area (close to the Thumb of Michigan in the country), which was called Air Advantage. This gave me service from a radio tower which was located about 1000 yds. from my house. However, I was paying $50.00/mn and only getting 1Mb service. When Charter came, I asked them if they were going to upgrade their network (I did some reaserch and there was MUCH better equipment they could be using which would allow for speeds up to 3 Meg) and they told me they had no plans to upgrade. So, I switched to Charter and now I get 10 Meg, with the option to go up to 16. Some of us HAVE to use Charter or be left in the cold...
#19
Originally posted by Hopium:
you should see how bad it is in aussie land

Well??? How bad IS it in Aussie land???
#20
"Last year I saw a great article outlining what the web would be like in a few years time from now.."



Windsong, Do you remember where you saw this article? I would like to read it...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Feb 2009 @ 15:26
#21
lubricant Suspended due non-functional email address
Quote:
Quote:
a Charter spokesperson: "More than 99% of current Charter Internet customers use less bandwidth than the threshold allows and therefore will not need to change their surfing habits in any manner."

Geez... then why even bother putting caps in the first place?
because it's a bastard company and the people in charge want to squeeze every last penny out of its customers with minumum liability
#22
Quote:
Once people start watching their TV on the internet then they will no longer need to have cable pumped into their TV.

This says it all right here.

If only 1% had an OPEN PIPE with constant traffic the hit to bandwidth or servers would be minimal.

This is about setting precident.

The future is NOW...
#23
Originally posted by windsong:
In 7 years no one will own hard drives except non-end users (i.e. corporations/companies). Everything will be "streamed". Music, video, apps, even games over FIOS. You'll login to your "PC" using a biometric device. Everything including bills, will be paid for online to phase out the cash economy.

Remember that Germany was an enlightened nation (i.e. Einstein, Von Braun, etc) prior to the Nazi takeover. If it can happen to them..
I could see it in 10 but more likely 20.

Basically when cell phone tech can be used for basic HD video and you only pay 20-50$ a month for it and unlimited calls....

And by then almost everything will be "free" since you pay a monthly fee to the media backed ISP for basic(limited),gold(most stuff) and premium(everything) content .
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Feb 2009 @ 19:04
#24
Originally posted by bassdog69:
"Last year I saw a great article outlining what the web would be like in a few years time from now.."



Windsong, Do you remember where you saw this article? I would like to read it...
Cant remember exactly where but..I read THIS slashdot article that is even more scarier and only confirms my fears. They wnt to turn the web into another AOL:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/06/1444258&from=rss
#25
windsong, This DOES sound like a future we want to avoid. However, this article and the subsequent comments are 3 YEARS old! I would have to think that ESPN has changed it's tune due to the fact that when I click on the site there are NO ISP restrictions shown at all. I think the idea of net neutrality is INCREASING every day. even though ISP's are going the broadband restriction route, I don't think we really have to worry about ala carte cable models permeating the web. Look at what happened to AOL. They started making deals with certain entertainment providers and people left them in droves. The whole REASON people are flocking to the net AWAY from cable is because they don't want to pay for programming that they never watch. I would be interested to hear your response : )
This discussion thread has been automatically closed, as it hasn't received any new posts during the last 180 days. This means that you can't post replies or new questions to this discussion thread.

If you have something to add to this topic, use this page to post your question or comments to a new discussion thread.