bandwidth
Latest
Time Warner Cable scraps broadband capping plan in Rochester, NY
It's already delayed its controversial broadband capping plan in a number of markets, and it looks like Time Warner Cable has now gone one big step further in Rochester, New York (one of the initial test markets), where it has reportedly scrapped the new tiered pricing plan altogether. As you no doubt recall, the plan was more or less modeled on cellphone pricing plans, and had intended to cap customers' data usage at a certain level and charge upwards of $1 per GB for any overages (eventually maxing out at $150 per month). That, naturally, didn't go over so well with folks, and even New York Senator Charles Schumer eventually got in on the act and complained directly to Time Warner Cable. Of course, this still doesn't officially mark the end of the pricing plan in other markets, but it certainly seems to be getting increasingly difficult for Time Warner Cable to move ahead with it.[Thanks, Phil]Update: As a few of you have helpfully pointed out in comments, Time Warner Cable has now put out a statement of its own that confirms in not-at-all Orwellian terms that it is shelving all of its consumption-based billing trials "while the customer education process continues." The company also says that it'll soon be making bandwidth measurement tools available to customers, which it hopes will "aid in the dialog going forward."
Public rage stalls Time Warner trials of consumption-based internet
Time Warner's new data capping broadband scheme was never expected to win any popularity contests, and the details of its plans are so frustrating, that this probably should not come as a surprise. Regardless, it looks like the company's plan to further roll out testing of the consumption-based billing method has been foiled, or at least stalled, because it couldn't find enough customers to participate in the testing. TWC had planned to test in several locations, including San Antonio and Austin, Texas, but the response has apparently been so negative, and there were so many complaints, that the company has "delayed" the trials until October. So... maybe if we keep moaning about it the plan will be abandoned altogether? Here's to hoping, anyway. [Via The Register]
Time Warner Cable lays out broadband capping plans, says $150 for "unlimited" use
In a move seemingly designed to further our frustrations with broadband providers, Time Warner Cable has soft-announced an "unlimited" package once its new data caps go into place... for an affordable $150 monthly charge. Responding to criticism over the company's plans to start capping usage and charging for overages, Landel Hobbs clarified the provider's stance, letting users know that the capping would be limited to a $75 ceiling, thus (when paired with its top tier plan) would provide "virtually unlimited" usage. Virtually unlimited. Here's a rundown of what the COO proposes: A limited package for "light users" at 1GB / monthly, 768KB down / 128KB up, with overage charges of $2 / GB / month. Road Runner Lite, Basic, Standard, and Turbo packages at 10GB / 20GB / 40GB / and 60GB caps, respectively, and overage charges at $1 / GB / month. A big daddy, 100GB Turbo package at $75 / month with overage fees of $1 / GB, which, when coupled with that magic threshold of $75 in charges, becomes the "unlimited" plan. We only have two questions, guys. First, how will you let end users know they're hitting caps? Right now there's no centralized solution for monitoring bandwidth. Even cell phones show minutes used, so will you give us the infrastructure for broadband monitoring? Secondly -- instead of giving users a "virtually" unlimited package, why not just sell an unlimited package at $150 a month? The impression we get is that you want to leave the door open for aggressive users, and that your capping of capping charges might be a moving target in the right situation. [Via eWeek]
As if things aren't bad enough... AT&T terms change targets Sling
AT&T has quietly changed their TOS (terms of service; it looks like the revision is targeted directly at the Sling software that is due out for the iPhone, and also other Sling apps that are currently running on other mobile phones on the AT&T Network. Here's the nasty little section: This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, customer initiated redirection of television or other video or audio signals via any technology from a fixed location to a mobile device, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. They also added this language: On the 5GB DataConnect Plan, once you exceed your 5GB allowance you will be automatically charged $0.00048 per Kb for any data used. On the 200MB Data Connect Plan, once you exceed your 200MB allowance, you will be automatically charged $10 for an additional 100MB. Unused data from either your initial allowance or any overage allowance (e.g., the 100MB) will not be carried over to the next billing period; all data allowances must be used in the billing period in which the allowance is provided. On other plans with a monthly megabyte or gigabyte allowance, once you exceed your allowance you will be automatically charged overage as specified in the applicable rate plan information. This can't be good news for those using Sling or Orb software, or those who were expecting the iPhone app. Other carriers do have similar language, but in my old days on Verizon I was able to use the SlingPlayer software on a Windows Mobile phone without hassle or threats. After everyone already got pretty mad at Sling for making older SlingPlayers obsolete for use with the iPhone app, AT&T can now be added to the roster of offenders. A Sling spokesperson, Jay Tannenbaum, told me today via email: "The most cost effective way to enjoy streaming content on any phone is by taking advantage of an unlimited data plan, something that we suggest to all our users. If there is no data cap, there's no problem. That said, we try to have good relations with all the carriers and try to deliver the best quality experience within the constraints of bandwidth and technology." This quote doesn't specifically address the TOS changes, but at least it's dialogue. Here's a link to the new TOS from AT&T Wireless. It will be interesting to see how this all sorts itself out. Thanks to Jason and others who pointed this out.
TWC moves consumption-based internet billing to more markets
No, folks -- this is no prank. Time Warner Cable really is throwing caution (and public opinion) to the wind and moving forward with its evil consumption-based internet billing. If you'll recall, we heard that the operator was trialing the method -- which imposes premium rates on big broadband users -- back in early 2008, but now it seems it's quietly hoping to roll it out into more major markets. Starting this month, TWC will start gathering information on its customers' internet use in Austin, TX, San Antonio, TX, Rochester, NY and Greensboro, NC; if all goes "well," consumption billing will hit those markets this summer or sooner. We'll point you to the read link if you're interested in just how outrageous these capped plans look (particularly for internet TV viewers), but we'd be remiss of our duties if we didn't share this gem of a quote from TWC CEO Glenn Britt: "We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension." Thanks for clarifying, Glenn-o.[Thanks Kevin, image courtesy of Corbis]
Sprint looking to wholesale bandwidth to connected gadget makers
So, what's a flagging cellular operator to do once it has succumbed to the grim realization that no one wants to sign up for your service and you've already collected the dough from selling off nearly all of your towers? Go wholesale, of course! Unbeknownst to most, all of the Kindle downloads on Amazon's white-hot e-reader go through Sprint's network, and given just how successful that little venture has been, the carrier is hoping to expand its revenues from wholesaling bandwidth (which currently sits at just 3 percent of its total) by inking similar deals with connected gadget makers. From internet-connected vehicles to GPS systems to cameras, the options are darn near limitless, and with so much free capacity on Sprint's network, it might as well find companies to use it. 'Course, it's not like Sprint's the only one out there trying to carve these kinds of deals into stone, but it's definitely the one that needs to do it most immediately.
Behind the scenes of WoW's bandwidth
We heard a little while back that it was AT&T who provide data center hosting to Blizzard and this gigantic game (and actually, we've had outage problems before due to maintenance on AT&T's end), but our friend Tamara Chuang of the Orange County Register went straight to the source, and spoke with the big bandwidth provider on just what it takes to keep the servers up. There's some good information in there, especially if you're interested in all of the motherboards and wires that run the World of Warcraft. MMOs are apparently AT&T's biggest gaming customers, and they run the wires for companies like Blizzard as well as Konami and Turbine. They originally helped run Battle.net, and when Blizzard wanted to expand with World of Warcraft, AT&T's gaming division expanded with them.Unfortunately, there's a lot of secrets here -- given that they're selling a service, AT&T doesn't speak too frankly about how much downtime they're really responsible for, and of course as a trade secret they can't give any numbers on how much bandwidth is passing through and where it's all going. But they will say that they've got latency levels down to milliseconds (in their testing, I'm sure -- lots of players would probably suggest it's a little worse, depending on which ISP you use), and that they offer services like Synaptic Hosting. During times of hard usage, Blizzard can ask (for a price, of course) to open the floodgates up and make sure there's enough bandwidth to go around.
PSN download charges proving unpopular among publishers
While it's the cost to consumers that often drags downloadable content into the internet's argumentative din, the cost to publishers and developers is generally an infrequent point of discussion. Consider that issue brought into the limelight now, with MTV Multiplayer reporting on some brewing dissatisfaction amongst certain publishers offering content on the PlayStation Network.According to comments made by several unnamed publishing sources, Sony's "PlayStation Network Bandwidth Fee," implemented in October of last year, asks publishers to pay 16 cents for every gigabyte of bandwidth distributed through the PlayStation Store. The charge, which applies to everything from demos to game add-ons, is one difference between Sony's network and Microsoft's Xbox Live Marketplace that's giving publishers pause. "It definitely makes us think about how we view the distribution of content related to our games when it is free for us to do it on the web, on Xbox Live, or any other way - including broadcast - than on Sony's platform," explained one source. "It's a new thing we have to budget. It's not cool. It sucks."Developers that choose to provide content exclusively to the PlayStation Network may be exempt from sticker shock. A publisher of popular PSN-exclusive titles told Joystiq, the fees "are so small [they do] not affect our business or attitude towards releasing games for PSN. The fees are extremely low for PSN-exclusive titles, and only slightly higher for non exclusives."We've reached out to Sony, other PSN developers and content providers to ascertain just how not cool or possibly sucky they find the reported bandwidth fee. The real concern, of course, is whether this dissatisfaction will manifest as fewer pieces of PSN content. Now that would be decidedly not cool.
AT&T will continue Blizzard hosting
We haven't gotten much of a look at Blizzard's server architecture, but here's a tiny one: AT&T has announced in a press release that they're re-signing to a two year agreement to provide Blizzard with hosting for World of Warcraft and Battle.net. We'll get the joke out of the way first: that explains why Blizzard's sites go down so often! Ba-dump ching!But seriously, the press release says AT&T has been working with Blizzard on providing bandwidth and network monitoring for nine years already, and that they have multiple "Internet Data Centers" that provide global support of the network infrastructure that lets your character wander around Azeroth. AT&T isn't the only company Blizzard works with -- while their network provides the connections and bandwidth, the actual coding and the databases behind all of the action in WoW are another story, and Blizzard likely works with multiple big companies to make sure that all runs smoothly. AT&T provides the cables, but someone's got to help provide the servers and the code they're hooked up to.Still, despite the jokes about the downtime, it's quite a feat. We're still interested in hearing more about the mechanics behind the World of Warcraft. Unfortunately, lots of this information is probably a trade secret at this point -- even if no other MMOs are coming close to WoW's numbers, Blizzard has probably come up with a lot of techniques they don't exactly want known to the public. But a look inside one of these "IDCs" or an idea of just what machines they're using to run a realm of WoW would be intriguing.
No download, no problem: Browser-based MMOs
Not all of us have the high end computers to run graphics intensive games like Lord of the Rings Online. Others players may just not want to take the time or bandwidth to download a whole MMO client just to find out that it's not worth it. Plus, maybe we want a game that we can play easily from any computer -- something that we can access while on the road. What could be the solution?How about a good browser-based MMO? While we here at Massively tend to concentrate on the more mainstream titles, Dean Sherwin over at MMOHub has written an article in the defense of browser based MMOs, plus a list of some games that we can easily grab while on the road from any computer. Things like RuneScape, Adventure Quest, and many others are all listed easily on their website.
Behind the Curtain: Looking to the future
I was reading an article on the BBC News Technology pages the other day, and it piqued my curiosity. The availability of super-fast broadband is about the only thing that's likely to entice me to move back to my home town. But how much bandwidth do you need to kill ten more foozles? Ofcom , the organisation which – among other responsibilities – monitors ISP in the UK, recently reported that the average home broadband speed here is 3.6Mbps. A quick Google search suggests that speeds in the US are similar. Broadband speeds are climbing, there's no doubt about that, but upload speeds still lag behind download speeds. I imagine that this is one reason preventing developers from getting really experimental with interactivity in MMOs. If your players' bandwidth is being taken up just shunting the basic game data back and forth, why bother eating up the rest of it with something that might just end up being window dressing?
Intel's opto-electronic 'breakthrough' could save this doomed Internet (or not)
It seems like every tale of impending bandwidth "disaster" is soon countered by a new bandwidth "breakthrough." In this case, researchers at Intel have been testing a silicon-based Avalanche Photo Detector (APD) (as opposed to the traditional, and rather expensive, indium phosphide), and so far results have been quite promising. On one key metric, something called the "gain-bandwidth product," the APD achieved speeds of 340GHz, or as the gang at Intel puts it, the "best result ever." It is hoped that this product could significantly lower the price of 40Gbit/s (and faster) optical links and find a home in areas like quantum cryptography, biochips and eventually chip-to-chip and on-chip interconnects. And most importantly, this could be huge for our national entertainment infrastructure: with online television gaining momentum and a spin-off of The Hills dropping soon, bandwidth has to be stretched to the breaking point as it is.[Via VNU Net]
BBC: WoW's patches may push some over the bandwidth limit
We've posted a few times already on the bandwidth limits recently introduced by some ISPs, and in general we've decided that WoW doesn't use nearly enough bandwidth to get you in trouble with your Internet Service Provider. That's likely still true, but as this columnist at the BBC found out, if you're close to the limit, this month's 2gb patch might have been enough to put you over the top. Generally, while the WoW connection does require a strong bandwidth hookup, it won't use too much bandwidth sending data back and forth. But patches and other downloads definitely add to the total, and on a patch like 3.0.2, you're looking at a lot of data flying back and forth.I'll still maintain it won't get you near the limit -- if this columnist really did have a 25gb limit, the 2gb download was still just a fraction (he's been downloading a lot of other stuff, seems to me). So it's not time to start worrying yet -- if your ISP does send you a letter, then you can look at your internet usage, and see, if like this columnist, it's time to switch ISPs.But he's got another point, and that is that gaming is clearly having a large effect on computers and technology in general. Would we be fulfilling Moore's Law every two years if we didn't have 3D graphics that needed upgrading? Would high bandwidth connections be as prevalent today around the world if it wasn't for games like WoW that required a high bandwith hookup? Gaming is affecting the basic technologies and economies of the Internet these days, for better or worse.
Behind the scenes on the Comcast bandwidth limit
Our friends at BigDownload have a long but interesting feature up about that Comcast bandwidth limit and how it might affect PC gamers like us. Even though they chat with a lot of people higher up in both the ISP and gaming industry, the bottom line hasn't really changed: most people won't be affected by the limit, and if you are, there are things you can do about it. As we determined last time, at max, even if you run WoW 24/7 the entire month, you're still using only about 5gb, nowhere near enough to trip Comcast's limit. And even if there's a big patch download that comes through, it'll still be a very, very small percentage of people that come anywhere near it. While Comcast may change things in the future, there are a few voices already speaking out against bandwidth caps, including the Entertainment Consumers Association.And if you do get suspended out of the blue? Best option is to just use another ISP -- even if Comcast isn't willing to support people who use tons of bandwidth, there will likely be another company that does. And if high-level broadband does become really widespread, it would be a bad business decision for Comcast as well to suspend large numbers of their userbase -- while there's always the chance that they could start charging a premium for more bandwidth, smaller companies will likely step up to fill any spaces that Comcast tries to screw over.In short, right now, this isn't a problem. While in the future, Comcast may try to bring the bandwidth cap lower and lower, at this point, it doesn't effect enough people out there to worry, and even if you are affected, there are likely steps you can take to get around it, including going with another ISP if that's an option.
Valve blames 'bandwidth' for lack of PS3 support
"We don't have the bandwidth." That's the explanation Valve co-founder Gabe Newell offered up when poked by 1UP for answers regarding the company's lack of PlayStation 3 support. Put another way: "We don't have PlayStation developers," marketing director Doug Lombardi explained. While hardly a new revelation, Valve's dilemma continues to prevent the company from creating in-house PS3 content.In the short term, this means -- for the last time -- no Left 4 Dead on PS3, and also, no Team Fortress 2 updates. But...? Uh-uh. "They're not doing ongoing development on The Orange Box for the PS3." They, of course, is EA, developer of the PS3 version of The Orange Box. To file a complaint, please contact the office of your local EA representative. Oprima el dos para continuar en español.
On WoW's bandwidth consumption
Some of you may have heard about the ISP Comcast's new 250 GB per month bandwidth caps. We've even gotten a few emails asking how this is going to affect WoW players. You can set your minds at ease: this will not affect us in any significant way. The highest bandwidth I've ever heard of WoW using at a time is 30 KBps; this is in situations like raid fights or zoning into a city when there's a lot of data flying around. So if WoW was always running at peak bandwidth, 24x7, you'd be looking at around 70 GB per month, a sizable chunk of your cap. However, I rarely if ever see it go as high as 30 KBps; typical usage is more like 5 or below, often even in the sub-1 KBps range. And nobody plays WoW 24x7 all month, I hope. Let's say your average WoW bandwidth is 2 KBps, which I believe to be a reasonable estimate. That comes out to about 7 MB per hour. So to estimate your monthly usage from WoW, multiply that 7 MB by how many hours you play a day (on average), then by 30. The average WoW player is on for something like 20 hours a week, which comes out to 600 MB per month - about 0.2% of 250 GB. Even if you were on 24x7 all month, you'd still only be looking at 4.8 GB, less than 2% of the cap. [Edited to fix numerical mistakes] In short, you won't have to cut back on WoW to stay under a 750 GB per month cap.
Bandwidth restraints hindering New Zealand's Freeview HD expansion
Oh noes! Merely months after Freeview execs were celebrating the surprising uptick in Freeview HD users, in flies word that bandwidth is already becoming an issue. You see, Freeview was initially launched as a "satellite only service using MPEG-2 video compression software," while the HD terrestrial component uses MPEG-4. Transponder space on the Optus D1 satellite is "rapidly being used up, and any further expansion of data bandwidth would require Freeview broadcasters to purchase more space from Optus." If the old MPEG-2 system was suddenly canned and replaced with MPEG-4, every last satellite Freeview user would be forced to buy a new set-top-box. We shouldn't have to explain the glaringly obvious problem with that scenario. Thus, the only stop-gap solution is to simulcast the signals, which obviously requires oodles of bandwidth. Unfortunately, broadcasters are gun-shy about dropping even more cash to expand the available space without assurance of a good return on their original investment, so as of now, expansion plans wait while bigwigs figure out where to get more funding.
Photonic breakthrough could mean 60x faster internet speeds
Every so often, we get wind of some new "breakthrough" from a few guys / gals in a lab that promises to simply revolutionize the web. A team from the University of Sydney is the latest bunch to do so, claiming that a piece of scratched glass (or a Photonic Integrated Circuit, if we're being proper) could enable internet speeds 60 times faster than "current Australian networks." Essentially, the "circuit uses the scratch as a guide or a switching path for information," and the resulting product is "photonic technology that has terabit per second capacity." Call us when you folks get everything ironed out -- we'll be over at Sigbritt Löthberg's house.[Via The Future of Things, thanks iddo]
RCN & Comcast dropping analog cable en Mass.
New England cable customers better get used to the digital cable box, as both RCN and Comcast made moves in the last week to shrink analog lineups with an eye towards eliminating them entirely in the future, making room for more HD. Comcast says its HD stations in Western Massachusetts will go from 30 to 50 by the end of the year, plus more VOD options, while analog customers can expect to have their channels halved within the next two years. Meanwhile RCN kicked off project Analog Crush on July 4 to go all digital, planning to double its current 40 HD channels and increase to more than 100. Dedham is first on the chopping block, while other Boston-area residences will go digital throughout the rest of the year. Got a TV still connected to analog? Check out the links below to find out when you'll be moving to digital or losing service entirely.Read - RCNRead - Comcast
Ask Engadget HD: What is switched digital video (SDV)?
With scads of cable providers slowly but surely converting markets and delivering channels via switched digital video, we reckoned now was an excellent time to dust off the terminology dictionary and dig in deeper. Fittingly, Jarad agreed: "I've seen that lots of markets are being switched over to SDV lately, and I've noticed CableCARD users are generally upset whenever this happens. Why is that? I thought SDV was supposed to free up space so that more high-definition channels could be distributed on the current network?"If you've suddenly found yourself wondering the same, head on past the break for the low-down.
