Bandwidth Caps and the Gamer

[Queasy]

Good read from Gamers with Jobs on the implications of bandwidth caps for gamers. The writer of the article is from Rochester, NY and Time Warner has announced a tiered bandwidth cap ranging from $29.99 for 5GB to $54.90 for 40 GB (no price announced for the 100 GB cap yet). Just downloading demos, purchasing a couple of games, and watching Netflix streaming via the 360, the couple easily exceeded the 40 GB cap and that doesn't count other non-gaming activities.

I've been keeping my eye on AT&T with their bandwidth cap test run in some trial markets like Reno. I'm hoping that this doesn't become widespread because it would seriously curb my demo downloading and video streaming.

Click through to read as it is too long to just copy and paste.

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Good read from Gamers with Jobs on the implications of bandwidth caps for gamers. The writer of the article is from Rochester, NY and Time Warner has announced a tiered bandwidth cap ranging from $29.99 for 5GB to $54.90 for 40 GB (no price announced for the 100 GB cap yet). Just downloading demos, purchasing a couple of games, and watching Netflix streaming via the 360, the couple easily exceeded the 40 GB cap and that doesn't count other non-gaming activities.

I've been keeping my eye on AT&T with their bandwidth cap test run in some trial markets like Reno. I'm hoping that this doesn't become widespread because it would seriously curb my demo downloading and video streaming.

Click through to read as it is too long to just copy and paste.

I imagine this is a long-term ploy by cable companies and telcos to get network neutrality in the grave. You want streaming media and game downloads? Ok, you pay for a separate game and media streaming package that only runs on certain ports, which are port numbers we conveniently made available to certain companies for large amounts of payola.

Works out well for the MPAA, RIAA, and other IP heavy companies, because you no longer have to worry about uncapped bittorrents...open source software and other legal uses of bittorrent be damned in the name of the almighty bottom line.

 

[Kabob]

Ghey...

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

I could go on and on about this particular subject, but bandwidth caps are all-around bad for everyone except the ISP providers to get rich off of greedy schemes.

 

[Industrial]

I know it's just a matter of time when it will come to my area. These test markets isn't to see if they should or should not use caps, but how much they could charge without losing too customers. I have TW, and during periods of heavy use like streaming and downloading, I always notice throttling from them. When months I do very little downloading, I always have great speeds.

I was thinking of getting the ATT Uverse, but I'm sure it's just a few years away before they cap that. Unfortunately FiOS isn't available in my area. The only solution I can think of for uncapped highspeed dl is from satellite, but I'm sure it's useless to try to game on it, as the uplink is through dial up.

 

[nakedfrog]

Here's a question I didn't see addressed in the article... does everyone get the fastest speed available under this plan?

 

[Kabob]

Hrm, interesting thought frog.

Ya know, if you weren't paying for any plan and only for bandwidth I suppose it wouldn't be too bad as I don't think I use more than 40GB's/month...could be wrong though. We've got Netflix on the 360 and we do watch a good bit on it.

Still don't like the idea though, I'd rather pay for a speed and not have to worry about going "over the limit" on content.

 

[spidey07]

Games use very little bandwidth.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Games use very little bandwidth.

It's not the game, it's the downloading of demos and purchasing games online. As the author of the article pointed out, she and her husband exceeded TW's 40GB cap after downloading a few demos, purchasing a few games, and watching some movies via Netflix.

The demos and game purchases are now as much a part of the gamer experience as is playing them online. Now we are adding streaming video through our consoles as well.

 

[Industrial]

They are thinking about giving lower speeds but higher caps. What lower speeds mean is anyone's guess.

I have the standard TW package speed, and I get consistent 750 kbps with some peaks hitting almost 950. When they were throttling (I suspect, but they always say there's work done in my area) my speed, it would drop to around 200, maybe hitting 300, and gaming would suck with the lag. On PC gameservers near me, I would be in the 100-150 ping range, when I would normally be at 30-50, and the lag totally sucks especially for FPS.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: Industrial
They are thinking about giving lower speeds but higher caps. What lower speeds mean is anyone's guess.

I have the standard TW package speed, and I get consistent 750 kbps with some peaks hitting almost 950. When they were throttling (I suspect, but they always say there's work done in my area) my speed, it would drop to around 200, maybe hitting 300, and gaming would suck with the lag. On PC gameservers near me, I would be in the 100-150 ping range, when I would normally be at 30-50, and the lag totally sucks especially for FPS.

Latency (ping) and throughput (speed) are different things.

Online gaming generally requires very little throughput, but a low latency. The cable companies can handle this.

Things like streaming video and downloading files, though, require high throughput - the higher the better.

I'm mixed about this tiering system, though. The consumer/bandwidth hog in me is annoyed, obviously, as I'm not a fan of paying more.

But I understand where Time Warner is coming from - if you use more, you pay for more - just like most other services. I think it stings a little bit more since we've been so used to the unlimited pay structure.

I remember when AOL charged hourly.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Industrial
They are thinking about giving lower speeds but higher caps. What lower speeds mean is anyone's guess.

I have the standard TW package speed, and I get consistent 750 kbps with some peaks hitting almost 950. When they were throttling (I suspect, but they always say there's work done in my area) my speed, it would drop to around 200, maybe hitting 300, and gaming would suck with the lag. On PC gameservers near me, I would be in the 100-150 ping range, when I would normally be at 30-50, and the lag totally sucks especially for FPS.

Latency (ping) and throughput (speed) are different things.

Online gaming generally requires very little throughput, but a low latency. The cable companies can handle this.

Things like streaming video and downloading files, though, require high throughput - the higher the better.

I'm mixed about this tiering system, though. The consumer/bandwidth hog in me is annoyed, obviously, as I'm not a fan of paying more.

But I understand where Time Warner is coming from - if you use more, you pay for more - just like most other services. I think it stings a little bit more since we've been so used to the unlimited pay structure.

I remember when AOL charged hourly.

But even when AOL charged hourly, you could often find a local ISP that provided unlimited time for a flat fee... you just had to have more know-how, and didn't have access to AOL exclusive stuff. Had an account with a local ISP back in '96 for $20/month
I don't have faith that they will increase the caps in a timely fashion to respond to market conditions, nor that the increased fees will truly be put forward to improve their network.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: Queasy
The demos and game purchases are now as much a part of the gamer experience as is playing them online. Now we are adding streaming video through our consoles as well.

Unless his rhetoric changes, all he's going to say is, "you use more, you pay more." It's not really even worth responding... especially with something that was even outlined in the article that you linked.

Originally posted by: ducci
But I understand where Time Warner is coming from - if you use more, you pay for more - just like most other services. I think it stings a little bit more since we've been so used to the unlimited pay structure.

Except Time Warner has a very deluded idea of what is considered excessive.

There's really either two ways that I see this... they are either truly behind the times or they're little scheming bastards that are trying to push people away from the new "multimedia revolution" that's been taking over the Internet lately.

Also, they're trying to push this onto people with horrible analogies of paying for dinners and such. To be honest, I don't give a rat's ass if my neighbor uses twice as much bandwidth as me... as long as he doesn't degrade my service (and hopefully no one else's), I don't care!

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Games use very little bandwidth.

Reading comprehension FTL

Someone cue up the Nelson "Ha-Ha"

 

[MikeyLSU]

some argue this is like other utilities(energy, water) where you are charged based on consumption and internet should not be different.

My only problem with that is if you don't use energy for a month, your bill will be next to nothing. Well the internet wants the best of both worlds, they want to charge you more if you use more, but not charge you less if you use less. If you buy the top tier and don't use it that month, you still pay the full amount.

That is what makes this whole idea crappy.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
some argue this is like other utilities(energy, water) where you are charged based on consumption and internet should not be different.

My only problem with that is if you don't use energy for a month, your bill will be next to nothing. Well the internet wants the best of both worlds, they want to charge you more if you use more, but not charge you less if you use less. If you buy the top tier and don't use it that month, you still pay the full amount.

That is what makes this whole idea crappy.

Most people compare it to cell phone plans, which people are relatively alright with. I imagine down the line, all internet providers will have a similar structure.

 

[BoberFett]

I'd be OK with caps depending on the pricing structure.

As it is, it sounds like they want you to buy your bandwidth up front and charge massive fees if you go over.

If they actually gave just a strict per GB charge that'd be preferable.

 

[Industrial]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: Industrial
They are thinking about giving lower speeds but higher caps. What lower speeds mean is anyone's guess.

I have the standard TW package speed, and I get consistent 750 kbps with some peaks hitting almost 950. When they were throttling (I suspect, but they always say there's work done in my area) my speed, it would drop to around 200, maybe hitting 300, and gaming would suck with the lag. On PC gameservers near me, I would be in the 100-150 ping range, when I would normally be at 30-50, and the lag totally sucks especially for FPS.

Latency (ping) and throughput (speed) are different things.

Online gaming generally requires very little throughput, but a low latency. The cable companies can handle this.

Things like streaming video and downloading files, though, require high throughput - the higher the better.

ah yeah, that's right

but I always notice the increase in my latency when my throughput is lower. I can't recall a time when my pings where high on my favorite server, and my throughput is wide open. I don't use P2P, only straight streaming and downloading, so during those months were I'm doing heavy downloading, that's when I notice the suspected throttling, and notice the generally higher pings (and no I'm not downloading while gaming )

But yes, metered bandwidth is not a good idea, as I see it as stunting progress. Good thing Obama and his administration is for internet accessibility, so if they have to step in, than all I have to say is the ISP brought it upon themselves.

 

[zerocool84]

I'm all for REASONABLE caps but 40GB is nothing. Watching netflix movies and surfing the net and playing some games will easily get you past that 40GB cap. 40GB is nothing.

 

[Deinonych]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I'm all for REASONABLE caps but 40GB is nothing. Watching netflix movies and surfing the net and playing some games will easily get you past that 40GB cap. 40GB is nothing.

Agreed. I also find it disturbing that TW is rolling out caps in markets where there isn't a viable competitor like FiOS. I'm in the Austin area, and I'm not happy about this.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Deinonych

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I'm all for REASONABLE caps but 40GB is nothing. Watching netflix movies and surfing the net and playing some games will easily get you past that 40GB cap. 40GB is nothing.

Agreed. I also find it disturbing that TW is rolling out caps in markets where there isn't a viable competitor like FiOS. I'm in the Austin area, and I'm not happy about this.

Where I live in Los Angeles, there is either Time Warner or slow DSL. FIOS is close to where I live but not here yet. It's the same price for a hell of a lot faster so I can't wait when they get to me.

 

[cessation]

Originally posted by: ducci
I imagine down the line, all internet providers will have a similar structure.

Just the greedy ones. You can get a dedicated server hosted for $70 with a 10mbps dedicated line. That's because their bandwidth providers don't charge by how much data is transferred. They are charged by what type of connection they have.

The funny thing is there's no talk of an unlimited plan at all. I'm guessing that's because it's not just about p2p but also stopping sites like hulu and netflex taking money from them(TW). I live in Austin,TX so it looks like I'll have to call TW soon and see if they have any unlimited business plans. There's no way I can do with 40gigs a month and I don't use p2p.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: cessation

Originally posted by: ducci
I imagine down the line, all internet providers will have a similar structure.

Just the greedy ones. You can get a dedicated server hosted for $70 with a 10mbps dedicated line. That's because their bandwidth providers don't charge by how much data is transferred. They are charged by what type of connection they have.

The funny thing is there's no talk of an unlimited plan at all. I'm guessing that's because it's not just about p2p but also stopping sites like hulu and netflex taking money from them(TW). I live in Austin,TX so it looks like I'll have to call TW soon and see if they have any unlimited business plans. There's no way I can do with 40gigs a month and I don't use p2p.

Oh knock it off already. I am so sick of this shit by people that have no freaking idea what they are talking about. A data center is a single point and bandwidth is easy to pipe into it. You don't have to build/maintain/upgrade the optical networks over distance with a data center because it's all in one place...

ahh, fuck it. I'm tired of arguing with people.

 

[MTDEW]

This sucks!
What next, they'll offer "rollover GBs" to those that dont use the whole 40gb that month?

This makes Comcasts 250gb cap seem really generous.

But if it works, i wonder how long Comcast will stay at 250gb.

 

[cessation]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: cessation

Originally posted by: ducci
I imagine down the line, all internet providers will have a similar structure.

Just the greedy ones. You can get a dedicated server hosted for $70 with a 10mbps dedicated line. That's because their bandwidth providers don't charge by how much data is transferred. They are charged by what type of connection they have.

The funny thing is there's no talk of an unlimited plan at all. I'm guessing that's because it's not just about p2p but also stopping sites like hulu and netflex taking money from them(TW). I live in Austin,TX so it looks like I'll have to call TW soon and see if they have any unlimited business plans. There's no way I can do with 40gigs a month and I don't use p2p.

Oh knock it off already. I am so sick of this shit by people that have no freaking idea what they are talking about. A data center is a single point and bandwidth is easy to pipe into it. You don't have to build/maintain/upgrade the optical networks over distance with a data center because it's all in one place...

ahh, fuck it. I'm tired of arguing with people.

Says the guy with 40k post, do you even have a life? And what the hell are you talking about anyway? I didn't say anything that would disagree with your post.