@Trai_Dep:

Again, what monopoly are they being "allowed?" If you want to start offering broadband to upstate New York, nobody's stopping you. Clearly, they are operating in a competitive environment, given that Frontier has already said that they're eliminating bandwidth caps in those areas, so consumers have a clear choice.

Saying that Time Warner Cable has a monopoly in those areas is like saying that Bugatti has a monopoly in cars because nobody else makes a car that can go 220mph.

No one really has the "right" to any service that they don't produce themselves in some way. You don't have the "right" to buy food from the supermarket, it's just standard that they'll allow you to shop there. Theoretically, you could be forced to live off of only what you grow or produce. It wouldn't make that business practice any less fucked up would it

@gqcarrick: "Leave it uncapped or they had better prepare for a mass migration of users away from ALL cable services (Phone, Internet, cable tv)."

That assumes there is a better deal available, which in many markets there is not.

Even if you ignore the inundating marketing blanket of phone calls, mailings and television ads, Verizon's crippled DSL packages and mundane programming competition offers me little alternative. Here's to hoping the 'test' is blocked.

I see this more as TWC trying to kill off unlimited bandwidth before people realize what they are losing.

By killing unlimited bandwidth, they keep a stranglehold on their TV division. All those services delivering TV and movies to your home over unlimted broadband is cutting TWC out of the loop on a lot of profits.

Just imagine when IPTV becomes an actual reality...TWC will start really hurting.

This is a pre-emptive strike to kill alternatives to TWC's TV service.

It's a media-based company with competitors taking away their market share and delivering media through other channels (verizon and u-verse). Plus, there's no competition in those markets for higher-bandwidth (ex: FIOS) connections to the house. Sucks to be in those areas! A new broadband service-level standard needs to be defined so that "broadband" now describes FIOS speeds and not DSL speeds. Then, we can compare apples to apples and not get caught up in these data caps.

[gigaom.com]

When I posted about it on a parenting group, there was an overwhelming response of "well, we'll leave if they do!" and not one person saying they'd stick with it. Like us, many of those parents aren't the mega-users being hit, but they don't want to have to worry that if their kid is playing educational games online or if they catch up on a missed TV show that all of a sudden it'll start costing a fortune. None of us have the time or patience to byte-count.

And it's the principle of the thing. Austin is a pretty proactive place and we get that if we don't stand up and scream NO to this, it's going to go national.

You can tell there's been an effect, because as of Wednesday night, TWC was running new Austin-specific ads about how great they are, how much they love their customers, how bad AT&T U-verse is, etc. I even got a robo call from TWC to let me know they'd be in the area fixing things and would I like to press 1 to speak to a representative just in case I had any technical problem at all because oh golly gee they'd love to pop by and help me out...

They're feeling our anger. We just need to maintain it.

Thank you tomato but i'd be screwwwweeeddddd if TWC *local monopoly* put a cap on.

This is too vital of a service left alone to the likes of comcast and TW.

It's because we all know this is being done out of spite for online video surge. this is nothing more than to restrict options for video to cable Company only. They are too greedy to offer more/and at a better price so they have taken the bully route.

@Trai_Dep:

I don't follow - what "rules of the game" are they changing? Is there some FCC reg from the mid-90s that said "if you choose to offer broadband service over your cable lines, you cannot implement usage caps"?

Why do you think they are using these areas as "test" markets? Since there is no little or no competition, they can roll it out, give people little recourse, and call it a "success".

I applaud this guy and hope others join him to take care of this. These cable companies have been raking in the cash for years. But, when it comes to upgrading their networks to better support more users, it has been a less than stagnant pace.

@Cassius98:

VoIP really won't be a problem - even if you talked 24/7 for the entire month you'd use maybe 6-7GB.

What about online games and downloads, the gaming industry is surely going to go digital only very soon, but if the ISP's put limits on bandwidth the game industry would probably want to have a huge say in it, since it would definitely affect their industry. Some handheld systems out now are practically digital-only already. Game downloads would take up a lot of bandwidth and if the ISP wasn't willing to provide the necessary bandwidth then there wouldn't be very many sales for digital download games.

The sad part is that if TWC ends up dropping the bandwidth caps, they'll probably just raise their rates to compensate. It's a lose/lose for customers. The only fair option is more competition.

There is really no point in this type of setup except to generate overage charges. A cap does not alleviate bandwidth issues.

As Dave Burstein, editor of trade publication DSL Prime, put it recently, "No one is going to stop Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T from practices that are truly necessary to efficiently run a network. The issue is blocking competitive video and charging 1,000 percent and higher markups on bandwidth that are unacceptable."

* Thanks! Awesome find!

If you are also paying for cable TV then disregard this please.

Whether its movie and tv shows purchased via XBL or HD videos from video gaming sites that I subscribe to along with ad supported (legal) tv show websites and or online only shows and movies. I also buy alot of games online and they are downloads whether it be via Steam for PC, Xbox Live, PSN, or the Wii Shop.

If I had been capped I wouldnt be getting this content which means people wouldnt be getting my money.

Digital inequality is already a huge problem here. If companies are allowed to institute metered Internet using monopolies, the gap between people in different social categories is going to grow even larger.

Middle class people take it for granted that doing things like watching YouTube and Hulu are luxuries or recreation, but when you CAN'T participate in Web 2.0 while other people can, you are basically being desocialized out of the digital age.

This is what I see as the problem.

@Trai_Dep:

Which subsidies?

Which write-offs?

Which protected monopolies?

It's a serious question.

@gqcarrick:

That 90% margin doesn't include customer service, support, nor the cost of the equipment and infrastructure.

@LiquidGravity:

No network, ever, anywhere, has been built to allow every single customer to use the full rated bandwidth. If one in five Americans picked up their home phone right now, the system would be overloaded.

Saying "they should have to build their networks so that everyone can simultaneously get 5Mbps 24/7" is like saying "if there are 1 million people in this city, then the Interstate leading into and out of it should be 1 million lanes wide."

I don't know if constitutionally we have the right to unlimited internet, but seeing as has most of these data plans are advertised all over the television and billboards as "Unlimited Broadband" but have soft caps built in, I think we have the right to complain.

Not sure how TWC advertises their braodband in their market, but know Comcast loves to tote their "Unlimited" Service in my area, yet if you go over 200GB frequently you'll start getting cut off. ATT's "Unlimited" iPhone data plan has a 5GB cap. I'd call that limited which means they shouldn't be able to advertise as anything other than that. That's my problem with all of this.

Man, this metering crap hasn't been slaughtered yet? It's a stupid idea that has been kicked around since the beginning of time with no more pros than the stupid (but functioning) idea we have now.

Whether we cap speeds, or data, or both, or neither, there's always a bad side. The important part is to recognize when you're on the bad side and when the company is.

The better deal for everybody that is not an ISP is free data, capped speeds. It's the best of all worlds while still allowing the ISP to feel like it's screwing everyone and providing a viable model for maintaining a certain quality of service.

IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO NOT GIVE THIS COLLECTIVE MOUSE ITS COOKIE! If you don't realize how things like this work, they are going to push that "reasonable" 250GB (or whatever number is needs to be) hard, hard, hard until they manage to sell it or get smacked. But it is the existence of ANY data cap that loses the game for us. Just as objects in motion tend to stay in motion, once you put weight behind an idea it is hard to keep it in check. That 250GB will get hit with the grocery shrink way one way or another. Whether they decide to charge more or give you less, you won't have any more choice in the matter than you do now with your cable.

The worst part is they don't even have to do anything. Technological advances alone will inherently devalue the byte. Anybody remember having a computer with two megabytes of RAM? That was less than two decades ago. They will take advantage of their massive amounts of cash, of their position as a seller, and as a necessity of modern society in order to increase their profits. It is what they are trying to do RIGHT NOW.

Tell them they can't screw us anymore than they already do. Tell them off for what they are trying to do now, and then take that "REFORM" tattooed fist and knock them down.

Or at least, for the love of God, don't make me bail them out one day.

...I could go on.

They're not like content providers, or any other free market business out there. They want it both ways. It's not right.

(Oh hey, I go to RIT too! Or I did. Just finished up at the end of winter quarter.)

The question that I have is whether the TWC cap/meter runs for TWC VOIP calls, or whether TWC voip data would not count against the cap, but another VOIP provider (Vonage)data would count against the cap. That seems anti-competative.

Similar situation for TWC video on demand when compared with NetFlix downlad service, which I suspect is what this proposed cap is reall aimed at stopping.

@Trai_Dep:

Which public giveaways does the cable industry get? They pay about 5% of their revenue (usually) for access to the rights of way, and they also pay whoever owns the poles they attach the cable to a leasing fee.

The telcos got large effective subsidies, but the cable guys built the network on their own dime. Doesn't mean they don't need reining in, but there is a difference.

@Zyzzyva100:

I agree on the "doing this where there isn't effective competition" point, but that Ars Technica article is kind of silly - it's like arguing that Delta is ripping you off when the fuel to transport you to LA is only $40, but the ticket costs $400 - somebody's got to pay for those planes, after all.

@razremytuxbuddy:

One other note - the municipal gov'ts that sign the franchise agreements are often acting in _their_ interests, not their constituents. They often focus on stuff most people don't care about (but they really do), like public access channels. The vast majority of consumers never watch it, but the city council likes being on TV.

The rest have explained the "loss of jobs" problem. New and existing business that depend on their customers having high bandwidth connections will not survive the bandwidth capping. TW knows this and is trying to take advantage of customers who have become if not dependent at least comfortable with these services. Working from home will no longer be an option for many people as well as compensation for the work at home folks would have to go up to offset the cost thus causing more companies not to offer the work from home as an option.

In a not so direct way this would also be worse for the environment for the above listed scenario, more people driving cars to work instead of commuting virtually.

Frontier is now claiming they are dropping bandwidth caps...most likely to scrounge customers off this.

@gqcarrick: damn skippy! RIT student here. It comes down to the fact (IMHO) that so many high tech students in the area are moving to things like Hulu and Netflix and effectively abandoning the real TWC cash cow that is cable television. If you note, they have exempted their own video service from the caps.

There is another option though. Look at clearwire! Totally wireless and I have heard some good things.

1. It hurts the economy. E-commerce sites will suffer when people become reluctant to "browse". Sites like YouTube, Hulu, and other high bandwidth sites will take an even heavier toll. In a time when we are trying to boost the economy, metered bandwidth moves us in the opposite direction.

2. TWC purposefully chose areas where little competition exists between ISPs. If metered bandwidth was supposed to be helpful to consumers, then they would have chosen areas where people had some choice. Instead, they are using their monopolistic position to extort money from people that have little choice in the matter.

3. Data usage should be getting cheaper, not more expensive. As the price of technology decreases, so should the price of the service. With that in mind, it is hard to justify imposing new restrictions designed to charge more money.

I'm one county over and live out in BFE, so no cable out here means I'm on DSL. It works fairly well most of the time. A few other times, meh, not so much.

@Yankees368: Frontier was reportedly considering extremely low bandwidth caps as well [stopthecap.com] and [www.dslreports.com] .

Hey, Rochester is knows as the Imaging capital, and the flower city. Now they can be known as the Bandwidth capital of the world!

Dang, it took me 10 years to convince my parents in Rochester to get off of dial up, and then then the ISPs pull this garbage.

It also sounds like they're using their internet monopoly power to lock out competitors with some of their services, like Hulu for TV and Skype for phone service.

Lucius Fox: Let me get this straight: You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands. And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck."

What about people who like to buy HD movies from iTunes or Amazon and download them? What about people that like to use video conferencing in lieu of paying the phone company (or Time Warner!) for telephone service?

What about the people that are considering doing so in the future?

The problem isn't that they're making a business decision to start metering. The problem is that they are doing it in a way that forces consumers with no other real alternative to make the decision between paying substantially more to use bandwidth on third-party services, or paying for Time Warner's own services (which includes unlimited bandwidth).

If they wanted to charge a reasonable per-GB fee every month, just like the power company, that's fine. But to tell people that they can only use up to X GB, and then they're going to start paying the "penalty rate," is absurdly anticompetitive.

@iancoleTX: Yeah, what a populist move that virtually any politician could have done. I'm sure his championing this cause has nothing to do with the fact that his seat in the house is very, very contested by his Republican counterpart.

Which representatives are clamouring for TW to come meter their district?

@dwhuntley: Maybe Cable should take the 90% profit margin they see on high speed internet and invest in their infrastructure then if they can't afford it like you said they couldn't. I know they make that much, I worked for cable. They are doing these caps for 2 reasons. Its a money grab, they know people will go over their caps with Hulu and other services. They are afraid of losing people paying for cable tv to online video services like hulu. They know its coming, they are trying to stifle that option right now with caps.

But seriously, it's like they're taking things back to the old AOL days in the 90's where you paid for the Internet by the hour. That was dumb then, and this is dumb now.

@Matt Sherlock: Unfortunately Rochester has Frontier Telephone, so they can't get FIOS like the rest of NY State can. Frontier has a plan to cap service however since there is a huge backlash against TW they have now said they will not cap so they should expect a huge influx of users.

@Jeremy82465: 250 is more reasonable, but I don't even think I want to stop there. Leave it uncapped or they had better prepare for a mass migration of users away from ALL cable services (Phone, Internet, cable tv).

@LJKelley: Same here. Between 2 computers we use well over 50gb a month between surfing, my work (computer guy by trade), my gf telecommuting, using our Wii, and watching tv shows online.

@Kogenta: Perhaps you need to band together and vote your representative out of office, someone has to listen if no one ever gets a second term.

@Yankees368: Yea they aren't pulling this crap in Buffalo because they know they would get run out of town by FIOS. I know my parents have Road Runner and it comes from Rochester so I am wondeirng if they will be affected by this retarded policy. With all the schools in Rochester is really going to screw with college kids that live off campus too, Rochester Institute of Technology, Univ of Rochester, St. John Fisher, Nazareth, etc.

@xAnarChisTx: My local ISP has been providing metered Internet for some time. Personally, I love it. Why? I get cable internet for $15.00/month. 1 GB cap (lowest tier). It saves me money (I only rarely go over, and when I do, it's never by much), and I couldn't afford Internet otherwise.

That being said, I seriously doubt TW is dropping its rates to compensate for this, and that makes it stink. The concept is fine-their execution is what's screwing people over.

Wow, seems like there are a lot of corporate shills in here for TW.

it will only be worse with broadband as all of the providers have a vested interest to kill certain high use applications...*cough* video streaming *cough*

@tc4b: It is very much a money grab. I worked for cable, and they are scared of losing their cable tv customers to Hulu and other websites. They make 90% profit on high speed internet, they only make 10% profit on Cable tv.

I'm not saying they wouldn't try it, but I am saying that there could nasty repercussions if they didn't roll over. TW is not a small company by any means, but they should let sleeping dragons lie.

@wgrune: Thats fine, but why can't we get those speeds on the east coast where everything is so bunched together? Boston, NY, Washington aren't that far apart, why don't they have those kind of speeds? Because Cable doesn't want it to happen.

@Louie Colon: Totally agree. 250gb/month is reasonable. I think you can be a pretty heavy internet user and that cap won't cramp your style too much, if at all. The key is giving customers an easy way to meter and monitor their usage so they can keep track of it and not get a surprise on their cable bill.

20gb/month is ridiculous. The only thing that would make it not ridiculous is if it came with a price tag of maybe $10/month. The low cap means it's not about managing the network, it's about extracting revenue from other parts of the market: shaking down content providers to exempt their traffic from the cap, or steering customers to proprietary Time Warner on-demand or pay-per-view media.

They really want to fight against this (legally) then allow other providers into the area. There's nothing illegal about caps, I'm sorry to say. The only proof against it is cancellations as people switch to a new service.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Well they could, but would face the FCC :0)

The problem is - as a nation we want people to feel free to use data.

The internet is what is going to drive commerce forward, and is essential to us maintaining our dominance leading internet companies and ideas.

Punishing people from exploring new sites, and using services like hulu, youtube, netflix, etc. Will hurt the nations economy.

@bonzombiekitty: Nice thoughts, but it will never happen that way.

I agree it would be quite reasonable if, for example, you're in Tier 1…you go over your limit…so they charge you Tier 2 rates for that month. But, they will never do that. If you're in Tier 1 and go over your limit they won't charge you the nominal difference between 1 and 2. They will charge you an overage fee so you end up paying the equivalent of Tier 117.

@LJKelley: I wish my representatives would do something like this.
Up here in Canada, ISPs have had tiered service levels forever. My local ISP charges $40 for 60GB/month @5MBps, 100GB/M for $50 @15MBps, $100 for 150GB/M @25MBps.
And I'm sure they're getting around actually having to provide "unlimited" bandwith because they're selling "Unlimited Access"

So while I can definatly feel for people being hit by TWC's plans, I can't feel very sorry for people who moan about Comcast's 250GB/month cap that I read about sometimes.

It seems to me that they're trying to treat data like water, gas, oil etc..like a utility product. As though the data itself has a variable value.
However shouldn't the cost of moving data decrease over time with investment in improved infrastructure?

uhh...most people can't switch. In fact I think everyplace Metered internet is being tested has been an area under monopoly control. If TWC and others are truly offering something of value they would try it out in one of the few areas with multiple competitors.

Lobby your local representatives to encourage competition by easing their franchise restrictions.

And to this I say 99% of the time it isn't the local franchise restrictions holding back companies.

Arguing "that's how it's always been" is not a good reason against caps.

@Yankees368: the same is true for most of the markets where TW is trialling this new approach...

Likely a good decision on their part, because all their customers would bail if they had another choice.

Their main argument is that they want to stop people who use Bittorrent and transfer hundrends of gigs 24/7. I can understand that, and I have no problem with Comcast's 250 gig cap. But TWC's caps are close to what the average user uses, and there is no reason for such low caps.

Major providers are increasingly using this shared line excuse to put the impetus on the user to cover the failings of their oversold network. Never mind the fact that they're the ones taking on the new subscribers, promising faster speeds than they can deliver, and are magically able to make the internet go faster when I pay for higher tiers.

This is a cash grab, pure and simple.

Unfortunately, the end result is still that the cable companies are monopolies without restrictions on their terms of service. Internet service is replacing telephones and the USPS as an essential service. If internet access is going to be controlled and supplied by monopolies, the terms of service should be regulated.

On a side note, wireless internet access is expanding rapidly, and I'm curious as to how that is going to play into the monopoly picture.

But he's not wrong. This move, with incredibly low caps, will decimate any sort of video-on-demand service. Netflix, Amazon, etc.

You think jobs wouldn't be lost over that?

Of course, Time Warner wants to put their competition out of business. That's where this move comes from. The actual cost of moving bits is not great on a per-user level, and Time Warner could just as easily mirror v-o-d servers to reduce traffic from other networks.

You'll care about metered broadband when your cable bill triples, believe me. $1 per gigabyte can end up being a lot of money.

@MustyBuckets:

Japan is also the fraction the size of this country meaning it is much cheaper for them to install and maintain their communications systems.

@Esquire99:

Sorry Esquire, I didnt see anyone establish it as a right except you, so unless you are prepaired to answer your own question you should stop bringing it up. Also, they did bring up quite a rebuttle to your "I fail to see how capped internet service is "job killing"." yet you were happy to just glance over all of those.

Your response sir?

It's also "job search killing" for the unemployed. Most corporate companies don't even allow you to mail in a resume anymore - you have to utilize the form on the website. Could you imagine having to limit your job search and application process by internet gigs consumed? It's unfair to subject someone to that when they pay for their own internet service.

I wonder how much of this has to do with consumers moving more of their entertainment consumption online compared to traditional television. More Internet, less TV seems to be the way it goes these days. Perhaps TWC is seeing the future moving to online consumption of information being the norm and trying to be ahead of the curve on implementing a method to squeeze more revenue from this model. They are simply amassing money to help them build that path.

Sort of like how projectors are way more advanced than plasma/LCD TVs but you don't find many of them for sale at Best Buy compared to TVs. They want you to move to plasma/LCD first and then move to projector. They lose money if you are ahead of the curve and leapfrog technology.

I'm well aware of how bandwidth caps will affect peoples usage. I probably use a lot of data on a monthly basis, way more than average. But I don't feel that I have a right to use that much data. As my current plan is, I have truly unlimited, but my provider may decide to change that. Should they do so, I'll either investigate other alternatives or I'll adjust my usage or plan accordingly. What I won't do is expect the government to step in and protect me. Internet service is not a right. It's not a true necessity (there are still books and other ways to get information). If you don't like the terms upon which the service is offered, find another provider. Don't like the TWC is the monopoly in your area? Lobby your local representatives to encourage competition by easing their franchise restrictions.

Wow, a politician fighting AGAINST big business and FOR the interest of his consituency?

Attaboy!

That is all.

@razremytuxbuddy:

Very very very few contracts are exclusive. Generally only for company-owned developments. What keeps competitors from building is the fact that the economics of being a cable overbuilder are terrible.

@Nathan Yost:

"And regarding your Cell phone analogy-what if you made one phone call and you shot through your plan's minutes and then were charged for overage..."

My first cellphone plan: 20 minutes/month. So I'm very familiar with that concept.

*Sent, I mean.

@Esquire99:

I agree that it's not great, and I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, but I don't see why there's any legal grounds for mandating all-you-can-eat internet.

This would make life hell for MMO(Rpg) addicts such as myself. I average downloads of 10g+ a week trying out new games, patching said games, checking out trailers, plus the passive bandwith use of Ventrilo (a must-have) and the packets send and received just during gameplay.
If I had a limited useage plan, I'd be screwed.

The problem with metered internet is two-fold:

A) It's not a problem in communities with competition.
B) It's a problem because Time Warner is cutting off the competition and forcing you to use their service. You can't watch Hulu, but you can use their on-demand viewing service.

To be honest, I think TW can do whatever they want as long as these municipalities allow competition to come in.

If you watch You-Tube movies, or torrent some files (legit or not), or listen to internet radio, you are bound to go over too.

However, the cost structure has to be reasonable (maybe 3 residential tiers, exceed the usage on one tier and you're bumped up to the next tier, pro-rated, for the rest of the month), based on what the average user would use if the usage was not metered, and would need good monitoring capabilities.

It's "job killing" in that:

1. Any new internet venture that has a really good idea may find it hard to garner funding because internet bandwidth restrictions, thus stopping the creation of new businesses.

2. Old businesses like Hulu.com, and downlaoding services like Steam, Direct2Drive, FileFront, etc. may have to lay off employees because their services are particularly high bandwidth services.

3. Mainstay internet businesses would suffer from a decrease in traffic as now that internet usage is limited people will not be venturing to too many websites outside their "musts".

Metered service is VERY bad news for America. Maybe not for other countries, but as we have been born and bred with unlimited data, taking that away could send a shock through the entire system that not only stifles new ventures and ideas but also new jobs.

I'm glad somebody in Congress has a backbone enough to stand up to big ISPs and their virtual monopolies.

Let's just hope that the companies that want unlimited broadband (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have more pull than the cable companies. Individually they don't but collectively they probably do.

I believe the official comment from TW in response to Greensboro's opening of the market: "We're taking this very seriously."

Check out this ars technica article from today with a breakdown of the price gouging.
[arstechnica.com]

I live in Rochester. Frontier has several options for DSL speed. I've tested my DSL speed against a friend who lives a few blocks away on Road Runner, and their about the same.

I suspect Frontier is going to see a big boom in business over this.

Let me put it this way -- would you be happy if TW told you suddenly, you can only watch XX amount of TV a week and will charge you for overuse?

The other difference is MANY people can forgoe tv. But internet has become more necessity than luxury with time.

I'm avidly against metered internet; however, the REAL issue is the EXTREMELY low caps and the fact that it will only help TW.

The customer-base that isn't using much GB of data is just surfing the web. When just doing some internet surfing, the difference between 2mbps and 7mbps is not really noticible. So NO ONE wins except TW.

True utility companies are granted monopoly status, and in return must get regulatory approval to change their terms of service. Cable companies typically secure defacto monopolies through exclusive franchise agreements granted by local authorities who should be securing better terms for their constituents rather than giving away the farm.

In my opinion, no cable company should be given an exclusive service area, ever. The problem with cable companies and their monopolistic service has persisted for decades now.

Really, the bill should say that the only way metering would be allowed is if there were a certain number of competitors on equal footing. And even then, there should be some limits on the details of metering such as showing the profit-per-gig as it relates to the expenses of expanding to a certain area.

I think he's right on the money. If you have tried to apply for a retail job or any position through a chain you would know you get directed to their online application site. The internet really does fuel our world. I have heard on this site horror stories about people getting charged outragious amounts of money for data usage and we wouldn't want fear of this happening to cause folks to not do something that they needed to do. I know you can go to the library and use their computers, but there are lines, and if there are new charges implemented who knows if librarys will be able to continue providing a free service like this.

Please don't let this come to my community

If you want cable internet service, you get Rogers - and if you want ADSL / fibre service, you go with Bell (or a Bell wholesaler, because they own all of the lines).

Even with our DSL service going through a Bell wholesaler, while our ISP doesn't throttle us during peak times or impose a bandwidth cap, Bell could modify that at any moment.

Before it was easy to provide an more bandwidth with fewer subscribers. Now subscribership is increasing and with the demand for online video going up, this is going to add more pressure to the net. Without charging those customers who are using more bandwidth, the quality of everyone's access will suffer. I think the legislation is a bad idea.

You think that's not going to hurt Hulu, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft etc? It's a power grab and greed at its finest. It'll strangle online content delivery.

And it'll be coming to your house soon.

And regarding your Cell phone analogy-what if you made one phone call and you shot through your plan's minutes and then were charged for overage...

www.stopthecap.com

He complains about the "virtual monopoly", but has he made any effort before this to bring a viable competetor into the area? Wouldn't that also bring jobs? Seems like he's unfairly demonizing TimeWarner (in this case) for a business environment that's not their fault.

Paying for what you use *is* reasonable. What's not reasonable is that these companies are trying to both protect a failing business model and increase their profits (because 1 GB doesn't cost them near what they charge) without increasing the value of the service they offer. And that's just wrong.

@Esquire99: Yes, but cellphones plans were never all unlimited. Broadband has always been unlimited data usage since its conception. It costs a lot more money to transmit data wirelessly than it does through wires in the ground.

This would be the same as your cell provider "testing" a new service where your unlimited texting package is now limited to 1500 a month and pay per text in excess

I enjoy his passion to help these people out. I too think that 40 gigs is almost unusable for most tech savy people these days, though I dont know if he should be putting all ISPs in the same basket. I am on comcast and I think that 250 gigs is whole reasonable for a high usage household much less the average one. Either way, I support him sticking it to TWC, go get em!

I'm glad our representative is doing something about this. I know I have voiced my displeasure. 40GB is a laugh. Using Netflix, Xbox Live i easily touch 50 to 60GB a month.

Though with cellphones, there are a number of companies to choose from. With broadband, most areas have to choose between the monopolistic cable company or the monopolistic phone company (in my case, Comcast or AT&T respectively).

I probably fall in the higher bandwidth range since I have pandora playing constantly, exclusively watch tv via HULU or Netflix, and do a lot of online gaming. It would really suck to have been saving money on cable only to end up spending the difference for my broadband bill.