You could try renewing your contract before its expiration date. Just make sure you'd be renewing under the same set of terms/prices you have now before you sign the dotted line.

I suppose, on that note, anyone using MagicJack or Vonage are screwed.

Time Warner started charding $5.00 for paying their bill at payment center. So now customers has to pay money to pay bill. I am switching ASAP

The cost of internet acess for the comsumer is going up wile the price of providing it is going down. Worse the cost of upgrading the system are minor 20-100 per coustomer. The bandwidth squeeze is a myth in most areas it is an excuse to prevent compitition and protect their cable TV services. Who needs cable TV when you can see the same shows on the net.

your mm might just use the internet o check 5Mb of emails a month, but get pwned and end up getting slammed by having her box blast out 10Gb of spam in a month.

Personally I use TDS Metrocom DSL and Dish Network Sat TV services in my area instead of the local duopoly of ATT and Time Warner cable.

I get the dish network 250 channels plan, TDS value 500+120 mins long distance pack for phone and their lowest tier DSL service.

I get more/better tv service then I did with time warner, not as fast, but livable internet speeds 1Mbit/512Kbit which I've had capped on torrents for months on end with not a word from TDS.

A better simple alternative- Instead of imposing caps on everyone, the 14% abusers can be controlled by lowering their network priority as they download more and more. This throttling is like turning a faucet down the more they use. Essentially, the more an abuser downloads the less they get in throughput. The total network throughput then would be the same. This would happen automatically in the background without consumers having to check their internet download gauge (TWC's proposed PITA information web page). Or, you could just play the overage game with them and put your miscalculated overage mistakes in their pocket.

TWC's network equipment does not get "used up" like fuel in cars that are driven faster or farther. Their total capacity is set based on their infrastructure and therefore is often *underutilized* most of the day/night. With throttling instead of tiered caps, they could always maintain a 100% throughput to their internet backbone without affecting the 86%. All this is obvious to them but they do not go with the simple solution. Why?

Besides price gouging, there is also a more dubious purpose for measured tiers. Metering automatically opens the door to legitimately and legally (without warrant) to *monitor* your internet traffic to collect and sell demographic information based on type of usage. How much streaming video do YOU use? Do you play online games? How often? All this can be easily extracted to profile your online habits and target you for promotional (physical junk mail) information among other profitable uses. Otherwise, they could never legitimately explain why they collect individual usage information without the pretext of metering.

If so, these changes clearly add to their bottom line at your expense. Since they geographically control broadband access in some areas and internet becoming a household need, this is like operating a monopolistic system while invading your privacy. I cannot see a reason to create a tier system in this situation other than monopolistic profiteering.

Don't reward such business behavior or wait for them to give you a "break" by cutting a little off a $55, $75 $150 or whatever "fair" rate. Switch to a provider that doesn't aggressively put their interests above yours or go with cheaper dial-up for light email use (the 86%?)

Make the choice - You are the customer and this will send the message loud and clear.

@LordSkippy: I know, right? What, are they supposed to live in squalor?

It just goes to show how fucking ridiculous these caps are. I fully admit that I did not go to business school, so maybe I just sound like an idiot right now - but wouldn't it have made more sense to reinvest in their infrastructure, making their network more stable and thus able to support more users, growing their business? Especially in an industry that is rapidly growing?

I'm already voting with my wallet here (I'm lucky enough to have a local cable company in my area - go astound!) But it's such a small vote!! A corporation can withstand infinite amounts of frustrated customers and public scrutiny - but it cannot withstand a blow to its bottom line, as the recent economy has proven. Look past your emotions people, get off your asses, and do it! It's the only way it will change.

I'd bet money that your generalization isn't as accurate as you think.

I will still leave if they put any kind of metering on. My husband and I are opposed to it as a business practise, so NO adjustment of amounts will satisfy.

Also contact manufacturers of video games like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. Many are moving to an all digital format, and increasing broadband costs would most definitely have an affect on their business and sales. For the Sony PS3 and the Microsoft Xbox 360 its basically required that you have an internet connection to use these systems (might as well just invest in a PS2 if you don't want to play games online). If broadband access doesn't keep up, then the video game industry will never be able to advance, and we will be stuck in this gen forever.

I also wonder what Netflix has to say about this..

Pretty much every device you buy goes online these days, or has to go online to do something, like a download, a software update etc.

Of course, right now I'm in Norway, and pay the equivalent of around $50/month for my service - 12Mb down and 1 up. Not the greatest, but at the moment it's the best I can get unless the cable company upgrades the building. In any event, it's fast enough for my needs. And with the amount of competition here, there's no chance of them starting to cap services.

The subsidization argument is specious. A very small percentage have low enough usage to justify a decrease in their monthly billing. What is not being discussed is that TW has a lower cost 'slow' plan in place in the unlimited service, but you need to know it exists and ask for it, cause it isn't readily advertised. When you ask for it they will try to upsell you on the 'faster' 39.95 plan.

This 'pay-by-usage' argument is actually better directed at the Cable Television aspect of TWC. Why should someone pay $60 for 300 channels when they only watch 15? Ala carte television based on the usage of the individual can be more easily regulated. The biggest problem with metering this stuff is that people don't realize how much is used up when they aren't even actively using the internet. Spam, Web-Ads, Anti-Virus Updates, Automatic Update Checkers, and the like are out of the user's control it. Why do you think they crack down on telemarketing to cel-phones? The user is paying for those so the phone companies need to keep it quashed. The web can't be as easily monitored.

This should be simple SUPPLY and DEMAND . If you demand it and but there is no supply left so be it . It's sorta of like a store running out of something . Who's fault is it that there is no more left -the supplier or the consumer ?

And since many of these companies are using public rights of ways they should be regulated to prevent the gouging of the customers who are giving these same companies access to THEIR property .

If there is none left do what would a store do on a popular item - order more . If this requires plant upgrades then spend some more money to make money .

Sign me up!

And these people who use less than 1G a month have totally been conned by TWC to buy into their internet packages... Wow...

It's hilarious that they are only rolling out these trials in area where there is little to no competition...

TWC, you better give me a reason to stay...

@zapwizard:

It costs a lot and you cant just crimp ends on like with copper wire.

is good.

Otherwise, suckage.

Why don't ISPs but the money into improving their networks to accommodate the increasing bandwidth usage then capping people

Greed is horrible

Many people in Austin have choices, whether they be DSL, Satellite, Grande, or U-Verse. Everyone I know is done. Austin is about the stupidest market in the world to test this. The majority of us are extremely tech savvy and won't stand for this crap.

That is why this email only class isn't an issue here and it made no sense to cite this email only class in a discussion about average broadband users.

Prices you pay are not related to cost of anything. Forget cost. Cost has nothing to do with ANYTHING. You will be charged what you will pay. Ok? So please don't attempt to question broadband/infrastructure costs with anything, because it is not relevant. TWC will charge the very most it can for the least amount of service it can get away with. I they could, they would charge you and not deliver anything at all. But the government is the only organization that can enforce that one.

Call this what it is, another way to increase their income without "raising" their rates. Pick consumption or speed based billing, you shouldn't have both.

@Corporate_guy: And they know more people will cancel cable when cutting back than will cancel the internet.

Hello, Hulu.

@Sunny Yeung: If you do, you might want to point out how unilateral it is:

customers have to pay for a tier, and get charged that tier, even if they use less than that tier.

But they get to charge customers for excess usage above that tier.

In order for this to be remotely fair, they should have to charge based on actual usage, like the electric company or water company.

[stopthecap.com]

Says quite the opposite. Hopefully the government will step in at some point and break up these monopolies.

another interesting trend (around me) is an increase in non-broadcast networks. last time i sniffed, there were about 6 of these within proximity of my house (all WPA'd). that corresponds with a slight decrease in broadcast networks, so i'm guessing that a few of my neighbors have become a little more savvy as of late.

This is a very consumer UN-FRIENDLY stance, and I really do hope that the government puts a stop to this.

No one will even use them around Cincinnati. Their service is supposedly even worse around here.

Try putting a cap on in a competitive market--that just won't work. The only reason people use them in competitive markets is to save a minor amount of money. It sure isn't for service.

So I will set up a wireless network and sell off the connections to my neighbors for a few bucks to cover the cost (50 apartment units), they will drop their cable. If I am not allowed to resell, then I will "GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE", just to protest TW!
it won't work in LA/CA, we have too many other/cheaper options, you would have to be nuts to stay with TW Cable!

In other words - they're charging their customers more for a service which now costs them less to provide.

My 10Mbps down, 1Mbps up connection costs $60 per month. The allotted monthly usage is 95GB and the overage fee caps at $25.

@Micromegas: Bingo.

Don't think "well I'll just switch to Verizon" is gonna help you escape this sort of thing. I'm sure the only reason TWC hasn't tried this in viable-Verizon markets is because Verizon hasn't yet promised that they'd do it too.

But don't worry. I'm sure as soon as those "top 30%" bandwidth users from TWC switch over to FIOS, they'll announce their own metered broadband plans too. There is *no possible way* TWC would ever implement this on a large scale unless they were pretty confident that everyone else would adpot something similar.

"download 1gb, pause the downloader(wait a month), repeat for 13 months"

Also in KC, and I think I have the same plan as you. Since I'm locked into a 12 month contract I'm expecting mine not to change.

If they try to change it for my contract I will be breaking the contract(via material change of your contract argument).

Today bandwidth is much cheaper than it was in the 90s. The difference in cost between a person only checking email and a person downloading 300gbs of files is less than 3 dollars.

Just look at their ploy. After 75 dollars of metered billing your line becomes unlimited again. If this was about protecting their networks from hogs, they wouldn't allow you to just pay more and still get unlimited downloads.

I'm all for anything that gets people to pay for what they actually use.

I guarantee that I use at least 200 GB per month. >_>

So TWC is going to implement DOCSIS 3.0 in Rochester? There is no way in hell I'd pay $99 for a 50/5 connection when it's going to be capped, and FIOS is close to that speed and unlimited. Granted FIOS isn't available there yet, but it's only a matter of time.

We're a couple hours west of Rochester - if they pull this metered shit here I'm cancelling Time Warner, both cable and broadband. The wife will have to live without the DVR.

TWC pretty much created this tier to address that argument knowing full well that no one would ever pay to use it beyond dial-up users that are not already paying customers. So time warner wins even more and the rest of us are even more screwed.

I can't find it now, but some people are saying that their business class is cheaper. Somewhere between $80-90/mo for unlimited...

I'd like to switch, but it would be useless unless I also move out of the area, which I have no plans to do.

I just hope my only alternative isn't earthlink reselling TWC.

It makes you wonder why the 30% of their customers who only use 1g or less don't blance the 30% of customers who use more than 40g.

TW rest assured we know this is another way to screw your customers because they have very few options in the markets you service. We know this has NOTHING to do with P2P or Bittorrent, instead it's about you gaining capital without improving your systems.

And finally TW, rest assured, if you announce caps in my market... I am switching carriers, next day.

That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage at Turbo speeds.

can someone explain what "virtually unlimited" means? i mean, when you're dealing with a capping policy, there's unlimited & limited. where exactly does virtually unlimited fall?

i'm guessing it means that once you reach your 100GB cap, they'll will let you pay $1/GB for up to an additional 75GB. after that, you're done. the lights stop blinking until next month.

One gigabyte costs less than one cent. If you used 1tb of data that at most is going to cost the ISP 10 dollars. Current pricing already is setup to adjust for bandwidth hogs. Time Warner has their turbo add-on which basically doubles the download speed of their base service for 10-15 bucks. Since most hogs would pay that fee for the added speed, they are already being paid by and profiting more on "hogs".

Most of the cost for broadband is a fixed network cost, not bandwidth. They want to charge 75 dollars more as an extra fee that at the most extreme could only really cost 10 bucks. An average hog probably only uses 100-300gb a month. So 1-3 dollars more in bandwidth than the old lady checking email to them justifies charging people 75 dollars more.

However they still havent mentioned a monitor program, like other ISPs have - I want to be able to login and see my data in real time.

Without knowing how much internet I actually use (I'm going to take a shot at between 20gb per month.. but really I just dont know) I can't say for sure how I feel about this.

What I do know is the Charleston SC Tri-County is a competitive market, so I'm not too panicked just yet.

That said, I will find a competitor to get my internet from if they implement caps in Kansas City. Time Warner installed fiber to a ton of neighborhoods so I can't imagine they're that hurting for bandwidth.

I am now going to be convincing my friends to use OTA for their television needs and switching to Frontier DSL (which now has no caps in response to Time Warner Cable's plans).

Let the hemorrhaging of Time Warner Cable's profits begin!