Time Warner Bandwidth Caps

[Spyder]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080116-leaked-memo-time-warner-cable-to-trial-hard-bandwidth-caps.html

The testing will be in Beaumont, TX (GG darkspoon)

"Under the proposed scheme, new customers will be able to choose from a couple of different plans with varying bandwidth caps. They'll be given online tools to monitor usage and will be able to upgrade to the next higher tier of service to avoid charges for exceeding their monthly bandwidth limit. If the trial works well, Time Warner would then roll out bandwidth caps to current customers: "We will use the results of the trial to evaluate results for possible future nationwide rollouts," reads the memo."


___________________________

The only thing I worry over is how greedy they will get with the packages...charging way more money for what is not a very high cap and such.

[DarkSpoon]

JUST saw the commercial where i can "upgrade" my connection for an extra 9.95/mnth. they say you can do this because they know what gamers want. :gay:

just read that its only going for new customers for the trials. depending on that they will decide to force it on the existing customers.

[MasterOfPuppets]

If broadband ISPs truly had an "unlimited bandwidth" plan for a price that was affordable and competitive with other capped-bandwidth plans, they'd definitely capture a greater portion of the market IMO. I don't see why no one has done this yet, minus Comcast (because they cap it at a certain point and stop certain activities such as BitTorrent and other P2P programs.)

[Spyder]

We'll see how long they stop those. The company I work for is in talks with Comcast - if they bought our product, they could wash their hands of liability by simply sending them a message saying "hey, pirating is not cool man" (either on the page or in a popup) that captures whether or not they looked at it. When that is stored in the database that the person acknowledged the warning, the ISP no longer is liable for the user's actions.

This is great for ISP's and the users because it forces the RIAA and all of those wrls fagbags to go after users - and there are just too many of them, they wouldn't make a dent by going after them (hence why they go after the big ISP's).

[KMS]

We'll see how long they stop those. The company I work for is in talks with Comcast - if they bought our product, they could wash their hands of liability by simply sending them a message saying "hey, pirating is not cool man" (either on the page or in a popup) that captures whether or not they looked at it. When that is stored in the database that the person acknowledged the warning, the ISP no longer is liable for the user's actions.

This is great for ISP's and the users because it forces the RIAA and all of those wrls fagbags to go after users - and there are just too many of them, they wouldn't make a dent by going after them (hence why they go after the big ISP's).

If you don't acknowledge the message can you not get to the data? I would just put the server on the pop-up blocker list.

Actually changing the text on a web page opens up a big can of worms, as you are altering other people's content.

Is this only for the web, or for all ports/protocols that might be used for sharing data?

[MasterOfPuppets]

We'll see how long they stop those. The company I work for is in talks with Comcast - if they bought our product, they could wash their hands of liability by simply sending them a message saying "hey, pirating is not cool man" (either on the page or in a popup) that captures whether or not they looked at it. When that is stored in the database that the person acknowledged the warning, the ISP no longer is liable for the user's actions.

This is great for ISP's and the users because it forces the RIAA and all of those wrls fagbags to go after users - and there are just too many of them, they wouldn't make a dent by going after them (hence why they go after the big ISP's).

If you don't acknowledge the message can you not get to the data? I would just put the server on the pop-up blocker list.

Actually changing the text on a web page opens up a big can of worms, as you are altering other people's content.

Is this only for the web, or for all ports/protocols that might be used for sharing data?

I think it's a one time pop-up if you are caught download illegal material, so they hit a button that sends a message like, "hey ur doin somethin bad lol mayeb u should stop??///" "click ok"

and you click ok to acknowledge that they warned you, thus wiping their hands clean.

[DarkSpoon]

or they could just make you sign a contract or agreement saying they are not responsible. seems easy enough.

[Spyder]

We can actually divert them from the page they were going to that has the message the ISP wants to give them...and when they click "OK" or whatever, it'll go to the page they wanted to get to. The pop-ups are not used so often anymore because of pop-up blockers.


Actually changing the text on a web page opens up a big can of worms, as you are altering other people's content.
I know we have that ability - but I don't think we use it. From my understanding, we just shove the site's content into the bottom half of a frame. This kind of sucks when the page times out or you want to go back (because the URL changes) ... but for free internet with the Wifi units, it's not a big deal. Last I checked, only a few of our customers have been running ads on their wifi units.