var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Alys Brangwin feels g-l-a-m-o-u-r-o-u-s
April 10, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

No, TWC it's not all better. We're switching to something new very soon, probably Dish Network. Thanks for picking my area which has such limited alternatives, though!

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
xyxvv
April 11, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alys Brangwin feels g-l-a-m-o-u-r-o-u-s: There has to be some other way to get intrnet, theres usually some form of DSL or wireless isp, there are even satalite isps.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Crabby Cakes
April 10, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alys Brangwin feels g-l-a-m-o-u-r-o-u-s: That's what makes this whole thing so evil! They're deliberately trying this in markets that have no alternatives- either you pony up or you go without. I'd be shocked to see TWC try this in areas where AT&T and Verizon are viable alternatives.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 10, 2009 11:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Crabby Cakes: Exactly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
April 10, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alys Brangwin feels g-l-a-m-o-u-r-o-u-s: imo, this is the perfect time to lobby your legislators to break cable franchise agreements, or de-franchise TWC. the fact that other cable internet service providers don't cap usage should serve as sufficient proof that TWC is abusing their franchise.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 10, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've already dropped my time warner TV cable services. I now plan to drop my internet service with them next week.

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!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 10, 2009 11:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AngelaPashoo: I'm strongly considering dropping their sorry asses and taking my business to Verizon as a sign that I want FiOS.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
April 10, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't hide behind doing it for the customer. If that were the case you'd be upgrading your network rather than trying to keep people off it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Woden501
April 10, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowburnt: Yeah... and they wouldn't have dropped their Turbo charged speed... [www.timewarnercable.com] . At that page it says its 15MB down, and yet \" We will introduce a 100 GB Road Runner Turbo package for $75 per month (offering speeds of 10 MB/1 MB).\" So, you get an extra 40gb a month, but have to drop your speed from 15MB to 10MB?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
karmaghost
April 10, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowburnt: Yeah, really. Charging $150/month for how things used to be isn't really kosher.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LordSkippy
April 10, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No, not really. I'm still leaving before the cap is in place.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kevin Carlyle
April 10, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I pay less than half that in monthly fees for my service for unlimited service. I think their overage fees should be less than what I pay right now

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Berz
April 10, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin Carlyle: @Corporate_guy:

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Berz: My contract runs out at the end of the summer. I believe it was a 14 month contract. That is when I would be in danger of not getting the same deal or being forced onto a metered service. I am not worried about them making a change mid contract.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gardenwzl
April 15, 2009 3:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin Carlyle: Also in Kansas City. I pay 75 a month for analog cable and road runner internet with turbo. It's based on a contract. I already know I will be canceling the service if they don't let me renew the contract price. I am one person in a single apartment. 75 for both is the top of reasonable. But anything more and it would be too much.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SanDiegoDude
April 10, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The moment TWC launches this in San Diego is the moment I cancel them and switch to FiOS, which just finally became available for our area!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
runchadrun
April 10, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SanDiegoDude: I ordered FiOS the day it became available in my neighborhood and dumped TWC about an hour after FiOS was installed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cocoa Vanilla
April 10, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SanDiegoDude: You have FiOS in San Diego? I thought San Diego was AT&T territory, not Verizon. Also, why the hell are you sticking around with TWC (no matter if they have caps or not) when FiOS is available? ;-)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Overheal
April 10, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The only thing they're doing right by the consumer here is the 2-3 months of grace.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
April 10, 2009 7:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Overheal: Yes, this part: \"Once we implement this trial, we will not immediately start billing customers for overage. Rather, we will first provide two months of usage data. Then we will provide a one-month grace period in which overages will be noted on customers' bills, but they will not be charged. So, customers will have an opportunity to assess their usage and right-size their service packages before usage charges are applied.\"

is good.

Otherwise, suckage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AndyMan1
April 10, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Overheal: Agreed. Big Kudos for the grace period idea. Here's hoping that's a permanent feature for both new and existing customers, and not just a limited time thing for the transition.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sunny Yeung
April 10, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can I file a complaint for this to the state AG, by any chance?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
RedwoodFlyer
April 10, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sunny Yeung: In the future, please just directly contact your AG without asking Consumerist readers for tips. Every electron is sacred, and readings through comments is slowing the internet down for your neighbors, causing their livelihoods to suffer. -TWC

Reply
\"user-pic\"
stevejust
April 10, 2009 6:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cabjf
April 10, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sunny Yeung: Maybe, you could argue that they are taking advantage of their exclusive rights as a cable provider in the area. Then point out that all the cities they are expanding this too have little competition from other ISPs. Either they should be forced to roll it out across the state at that point, or lose their rights to exclusive access in any city. Hey, in NY, Cuomo can't wait to fight for the little guy. It really helps with his plans for governorship in the near future.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
YourTechSupport
April 10, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The 1gb plan is simply a slap in the face compared to the larger insult. 1gb should be complimentary for the damn basic package. Just send them a refurb modem and be done with it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@YourTechSupport: That one gig plan was created yesterday. It was created to try to address the huge backlash when they announced their new pricing last week. Since one of the dumb arguments was that old people checking email would have to pay 40 dollars.
Of course that argument was a dumb one dreamed up by people trying to oppose this in any way. Since anyone who only checks email would be using 7 dollar dial-up and would not be using more expensive broadband.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tiber
April 10, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: Many people have completely dropped their landline in favor of cell phones, so they'd have to pay for phone service again. Between that and the hassles of actually using dial up, they'd rather just get the cheapest broadband option.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tiber: The type of people that only check email are going to be older people who have land lines.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tiber
April 10, 2009 10:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: That's a poor assumption to make. My mom for instance doesn't have internet because there are few things she does online that can't be done at work, but she doesn't have a land line. A low cost, limited broadband would be perfect for her.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xyxvv
April 11, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tiber: You do realize that a great many site have gone to a many megabyte level of flash, java and other crap piled on top of their sites for no good reason right? Or that those with windows machines are highly susceptible to viruses tha turn them into spambots just by having the machine on and attached to the internet right?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xyxvv
April 11, 2009 10:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xyxvv: oops, I meant this for Corporate_guy

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
UrIt
April 10, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

ok really? 60GB? are you joshing me!? and $150 a month for virtually unlimited service? oh screw you TWC, i don't have the kind of money, you know why? because WE'RE IN A RECESSION DUMBIES!! very few people in Rochester have that kind of money, and there's no other options in the area.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
LordSkippy
April 10, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UrIt: They know we're in a recession, and they're feeling it too. That's why they have to raise rates, or be forced to settle for a smaller jacuzzi. And you can't settle for a smaller jacuzzi, really. Come on!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
arl84
April 11, 2009 4:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ViperBorg
April 10, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UrIt: They know that. They don't care.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
andrewe
April 10, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I pay CDN$45 a month for a 10/1 GB with a 100 Gb cap that is never enforced. I thought this to be pretty standard. I don't think I would pay $75 for the same service especially knowing the price could go much higher with overage charges.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is 100% about protecting their cable tv and on-demand services. They basically figure that if you get your tv/movies from someone else, you still need to pay them for it. It's basically no different than throttling competing services, but by marketing it as a fee based service they hope to sneak around regulators and hope that their \"capitalist\" approach will gain them \"conservative\" political support.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
stevejust
April 10, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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


Hello, Hulu.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jakuub
April 10, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: While I'm not sure I agree with your price per gig estimates - TWC's 2008 Form 10-K SEC filings indicate that
\"High-speed data costs consist of the direct costs associated with the delivery of high-speed data services,including network connectivity costs. High-speed data costs decreased primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs, partially offset by growth in subscribers and usage per subscriber.\"

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Triterion
April 10, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

LOL I like the DIE DIE DIE! 75 bucks MORE for internet is still Highway robbery, no matter how you look at it. If this cap ever comes to my city i'm going back to carrier pigeon. Or bartering with my neighbor for their wireless password.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brawndo_The_Thirst_Mutliator
April 10, 2009 5:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mad Dog McCree: You must not be very technically savvy, otherwise you could just break their WEP. Its not hard.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
April 10, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brawndo_The_Thirst_Mutliator: assuming they have WEP encryption. many people don't even enable that, but i've noticed a lot more people enabling WPA or WPA2 on their wireless in my neighborhood. not so easy to crack WPA & i don't believe WPA2 has any known vulnerabilities currently.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jakuub
April 10, 2009 5:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brawndo_The_Thirst_Mutliator:
\"you could just break their WEP\" - and federal law. Who cares about that though, really?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
April 10, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
April 10, 2009 9:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: Virtually unlimited probably means just what it says: you get unlimited \"virtual\" internet service. Even if they give you an actual connection, it's \"unlimited\" the same way a credit card has a \"fixed\" interest rate.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 5:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: It's supposed to mean you can use all you want after 150 bucks. But your scenario is probably what they are really thinking about. Also this is 75 dollars more than what you normally pay. So there is nothing stopping them from creating a 150 dollar tier thus allowing them to charge you 225.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bilge
April 10, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like the fuel surcharges that various companies added when gas was $4.00/gallon. Even if TWC has a legitimate reason for capping, will the caps and surcharges go away when the technology catches up to accommodate the increased usage?

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 11, 2009 12:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bilge: No. Not only no, but HELL NO.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bilge: The technology has already been caught up. Broadband has always been unlimited since the 90s when it came out. This is because bandwidth is extremely cheap compared to the physical costs of managing the network. So the majority of the cost is a fixed cost and that is why you get fixed pricing with broadband.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Crabby Cakes
April 10, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bilge: HAHAHAHAHA! Please see: Any American airline.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mecharine
April 10, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There isnt much of a legitimate reason for doing this. Its a plain money grab. Most of their network is habitually underutilized. They're basically increasing fees because people dont use their connection enough.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
xkaluv
April 10, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 5:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xkaluv: There is one other thing this lets them do. It allows them to offer sweet bundle deals that have 5gb or 40gb caps at 1 dollar a gigabyte so that an advertised sweet bundle will end up costing more than your previous services.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
April 10, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: Hell, their 5gb cap works out to something like $6 a GB! Even on Comcast, which has the semi-official 250GB cap, it works out to about $.50 a GB!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Micromegas
April 10, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Every broadband provider in my city switched to metered broadband within the same week, and they all offer practically same rates. It's $50 per month for 2 Mbps/350 Kbps with a 30 GB cap, give or take a little speed depending on the provider.

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
April 10, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Old and busted: Stealing Cable.
New Hotness: Stealing Wifi Internet.@Micromegas: Sounds like price-fixing to me. Maybe you should contact your local attorney general. But all it'll take for this to fall apart is one ISP that still offers flat-rate internet to come to town.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smartmuffin
April 10, 2009 5:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alys Brangwin feels g-l-a-m-o-u-r-o-u-s
April 10, 2009 9:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@smartmuffin: That sounds like collusion, which is technically illegal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
April 11, 2009 6:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alys Brangwin feels g-l-a-m-o-u-r-o-u-s: Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jst07
April 10, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I will split if they ever try and pull this on me, even if it means switching to a slower, uncapped network. This is just absurd.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 11, 2009 12:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jst07: I live in one of their markets they just slammed this into. I don't care that I can easily fit in 60 gigs, that's another $10 a month they're charging me for the same and ANY cap, regardless of how high, is unfair to the consumer.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Sunflower1970
April 10, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As I saw someone over on Twitter say (or something like it), Gee I get to pay $150 for unlimited service, when I pay $39.99 for unlimited now. What a deal!!!!\"

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
equatek
April 10, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds like buying the $150 per month plan and wifi-ing to the neighborhood in exchange for $$ is the way to go... I have to share with 3 neighbors to bring my costs down to the $40 again, and \"virtually\" unlimited bandwidth - whatever that means.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
diasdiem
April 10, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@equatek: That's bound to violate the terms of service. Besides, it doesn't come out to the same as you had before, since you'll be sharing one 768kb/128kb connection instead of having your own individual connections. Not really a viable option if your neighbors all watch TV and movies online.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 10, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@diasdiem: Their normal tier like 10mbit/1mbit. You can get turbo for an extra 15 which I think doubles the upload and download speeds. So for 165 a month you can have enough speed to share with three or four people.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
DoubleEcho
April 10, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sam Oldenburg
April 10, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If this happens in my area my parents will go berserk at the increase of costs.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sasquatch28
April 10, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not sure if this is possible with this new tier service, but a couple years ago I finally was fed up with twc shenanigans so I looked around and found that earthlink offers cable internet service in my area (I'm about 80 miles south east of Rochester btw) I believe earthlink pays TWC to use there cable lines. This may be a good way to get around TWC \"bandwidth issues\" anyone know for sure?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 10, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So I guess you all thing it's A-OK for 1% of the people to be subsidized by everyone else who doesn't leave torrents running 24/7?

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

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 10, 2009 8:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EverettCynortas: Um... I think you will find that the stated usage numbers coming out of TW are considerably lower then the true average. All in all people are more willing to pay $40 across the board so they don't have to worry about overages or what-not. As it stands the average user will be paying $10 more for capped service at their average rate of usage, and shelling out more on those odd months when they watch one too many streaming netflix movies.

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
bbbco
April 10, 2009 5:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Since I live in Greensboro, my friends and I are all outraged by the \"test market.\" We are currently looking into our other options and trying to get people as informed as possible about the bait and switch tactics of TW.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
gauden44
April 11, 2009 2:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbbco: Come on man, the situation sucks but don't throw around the phrase \"bait and switch\" where it doesn't apply. Too many people are doing this a lot these days and it gets annoying after a while.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 11, 2009 12:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbbco: Let's all go to Verizon! If we get enough of a run to them from TWC, they might have mercy and bring us the warm touch of FiOS!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Russell Pike
April 10, 2009 5:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nice. So under their plan, it would take over a year to download the Age of Conan 14 day free trial from Fileplanet.

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

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Entomologista
April 10, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Russell Pike: I was wondering what this would mean for online gaming.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sunflower1970
April 10, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Russell Pike: Not even that. If you idle, you can use up to 2GB/mo--not doing anything else. So, you can't even d/l anything. Here's the source: [www.networkperformancedaily.com]

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
zapwizard
April 10, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So how much does fiber optic cable cost?
I feel like buying my own and running it to my nearest friend who has Uverse.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
April 10, 2009 7:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zapwizard:


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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 10, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zapwizard: Ethernet would be enough, but wireless will save you from digging trenches

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 10, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Time Warner has its head so far up its monopolistic ass that it can't see the price they will pay for such stupidity. Goodbye! Good riddance! DSL and dish for me. They lose not only my internet business, but my television as well.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 11, 2009 12:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MelanieDiomedes: Unfortunately, most people will bitch and moan and then not do anything about it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Robbie Johnson
April 10, 2009 5:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm with Rogers Cable in Canada.

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

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
KarbonKopy
April 10, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wish I had a choice, as it's TWC or AT&T DSL in my area. So the choice between having a cap, or being a customer of Satan's DSL. This sucks....

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
April 10, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@KarbonKopy: I never thought I'd say this, but it looks like AT&T is the lesser of 2 evils here. And now I need a shower after that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
metaled
April 10, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Virtually unlimited at turbo speed??

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!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 11, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@metaled: On a good will donation basis, right? You know, a \"heavily encouraged\" one.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
neilb
April 10, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It took TWC over 4 months to bury my cable line in Toledo. I called them every week and asked for a free month because they broke their previous week's promise to have it buried. They were incompetent enough that I got several months of free service before it was buried.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 11, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@neilb: They left one in my yard last year. It had been there a while before that and I took it out with a lawnmower, so there's a fresh one on top of my lawn again. I really think I should run it over weekly until they bury it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MacQix
April 10, 2009 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't live in a TWC service area, and I sure as hell won't make the mistake of moving to an area that only has this as an option.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dohtem
April 10, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's GigaOM's breakdown of the whole thing. Pretty slimy what they are doing. In a way, they are forcing heavy internet users to bundle their services and get them all from TWC.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Brian Gruidl
April 10, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm looking at alternatives in Minneapolis, and now this is making me wonder about our city-wide wireless internet, 6MBs download / 1MBs upload for $39.95/mo (there's an annual option as well) doesn't seem so bad. I just can't find anything stating that it's unlimited...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 10, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What about college students who have to watch web streams of their classes? I know many people, especially parents, who are trying to complete additional college courses to get another degree while they are working and don't have the time to sit in a traditional classroom and can only watch web course streams online.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz
April 11, 2009 12:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AronneVintersorg: You don't get it, do you? The impact on consumers is not important. They sat on their ass for years while their infrastructure got filled up with traffic and now they want to stop the traffic.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
metaled
April 10, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So you pay MS to connect to XBOX Live, but have to pay TW Cable 10x that amount just to use it? Same with other systems, no games, no video. Since they can't charge for the services, they charge you to connect to them! They really want to control what you can do!
AT&T, here I come....Fudge....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ilo
April 10, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just to be clear, this is all about protecting their cable TV business. People are dropping their premium cable subscriptions (HBO, etc.) and just watching movies and TV shows from iTunes, Hulu, etc via internet download. These caps are designed to make iTunes and Hulu bandwidth so expensive that it is cheaper to pay Cox for the HBO subscription.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
April 10, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Funny, they say everyone will suffer if they don't do something, yet:

[stopthecap.com]

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tackhouse1
April 10, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

beyond ridiculous! I am glad I am not a TWC subscriber...

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 10, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What ticks me off is that they claim they are implementing bandwidth caps to move to a consumption based payment instead of a speed based payment. The only problem is they are still selling speed tiers. If I'm paying for each bit that is transferred why are you also limiting how fast those bits can be transferred? Those bits should be sent to me as fast as your technology allows, period.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vastrightwing
April 10, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 10, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: Government usually only steps in when prices are too low. Maybe if TWC gets some more government subsidies they will keep the price at its current inflated level.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
foodporncess
April 10, 2009 6:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm an Austin TWC customer, but I'm moving this summer. I'm moving to an area that has TWC, Grande and AT&T U-verse as options. And guess what? Adios TWC.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jonathan Thomas
April 10, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This really blows. I'd be totally fine if the caps weren't so low. The different tiers will almost double my internet costs as well. I don't torrent, but I do watch a fair amount of Netflix instant and I really don't have another option other than to move, as DSL in my area cuts off at 1.5 mbps. No Uverse and No Fios. Really don't know what we're going to do if this happens in our area.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
DeadlySinz
April 10, 2009 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Internet tiers are a joke.

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

Greed is horrible

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
April 10, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

$150 for \"unlimited\" broadband. Um no thanks. Right now I get that for $35 a month.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kylere
April 10, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think it is time for closer government regulation of this industry, and I have written my representatives in Washington encouraging them to do so as a result of companies like TW, and Comcast. I would encourage anyone reading this to do the same, vote with your dollars and your letters.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Scott Linder
April 10, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have TWC and Verizon FIOS is available. I'm seriously considering jumping ship and signing up with Verizon. For the same price I'm paying I can get faster speeds. Just have to sign up for a year with 'em.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Dave
April 10, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So unlimited data for a cell phone costs $20-30, but unlimited data for home internet costs $150. What?!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Goatweed
April 10, 2009 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I gave fios a few months to settle in before I jumped a few months ago, and while the move wasn't perfect and there are cons to it, Fios is by far the superior service with regard to pricing and product. Yes, you need to bundle up for a year to enjoy the savings but where's the harm in that? The TV picture is worlds better, HD is fantastic and the internet is not only faster, its consistently more stable than Roadrunner ever was for me.

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Andi Lee
April 10, 2009 8:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No. No way. I'm glad I don't live in an area where TWC is my only choice. I left my monitor open for a while while I was just on IRC and had just my iGoogle page up, and a few little time/date/weather/e-mail widgets running in addition. After a couple of hours, there was already 1 GB down just on my laptop. No idea how massively bandwidth is used between my main computer (which just sits on IRC for most of the time and handles the bulk of my downloads), two gaming consoles in the den, and also other family members with their laptops doing the same stuff I do online.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
I_have_something_to_say
April 10, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So let's see, current plan is $ 49.99 for 15Mb unlimited and soon I can get 10Mb capped at 100GB for $ 75.00?

Sign me up!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
April 10, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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 .

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Goatweed
April 10, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

but it's for the betterment of the internet and all of it's users!!! lol

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sljepi
April 10, 2009 8:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

How can we bring to attention of FCC or someone high in the government?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Sunflower1970
April 10, 2009 9:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sljepi: There is action already being taken by NY Rep Eric Massa. Here's an article on what he's proposing to do: [stopthecap.com]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Tallanvor
April 10, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

According to my router, I've uploaded 5GB and downloaded 98GB over the past 41 days... Pretty light usage compared to some months when I transfer around 200GB.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Outrun1986
April 10, 2009 9:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would contact all the electronics manufacturers, like Apple etc. and see what they have to say about this. Its obvious that there are going to be less products like iPods sold if bandwidth becomes so expensive that no one wants to download music or videos. Whats the point of having an iPod if you cannot download music or videos because internet is so expensive?

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.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
April 10, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Nope, not good enough. I'd never hit that $150 maximum, probably wouldn't even need the 100GB package to start, but I still don't like the idea of having to byte-count constantly.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SGAC
April 10, 2009 10:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Do these fees apply to those who are also subscribed to TWC customers who signed up with their Price Lock Guarantee(tm)? Because if these bandwidth caps are additional amounts/fees that need to be applied on top of the PLG, I'm going to call breach of contract. I think TWC should give THOSE subscribers the option to opt out of those PLG contracts without early termination fees if they're going to start imposing these additional ones.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ogremustcrush
April 10, 2009 11:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So they want to charge $150 for the same service I have from them right now for $60... If they ever implement these \"trials\" in my city I will instaswitch to another provider. I don't care if the bandwidth is lower or the price is higher, caps are just plain evil in today's internet society.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JWBrockman
April 11, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just did the math.. if their own speed promises are to be believed, then you could potentially hit your cap on the Standard package in UNDER 6 HOURS of usage.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 11, 2009 6:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Time Warner Cable's argument is that 86% people do not hog internet bandwidth and so they only want to burden the 14% that do abuse their access. Apparently, their ideal customers pay $45/mo for a 7 wide megabit connection to download a few gigabytes of email a month. Good for TWC, bad value for you.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
April 11, 2009 1:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Rogers has a 60Gb cap on my mid-range high speed plan (still plenty quick, though) but once you hit $25 you're free to put the pedal to the metal.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
crazydavythe1st
April 11, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Contact your congressional representatives and the FCC and tell them what happens when government-sponsored cable monopolies are allowed (notice that Time Warner isn't implementing this anywhere where they have actual competition). Even if you're typically against government intervention, you would probably be the type of person that would suggest that a free market sets broadband prices, not a pseudo-free market where there are only two choices for broadband access and they are largely in bed together. Also be sure and mention the disastrous economic effects that this will have on small businesses that are forced to rely on Time Warner.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Smoken_Joe
April 12, 2009 6:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
alichadhar
April 12, 2009 7:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 13, 2009 3:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Today I called Time Warner because my cable was acting up and the on-demand wasn't working. They refused to give me a credit on my account because \"on-demand is a free service,\" the rep informed me. What BS.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 13, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm curious on what happens to people who have bundled their telephone service into the plan. The voice plan uses the internet connection, so how are they going to segregate this usage?

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

Reply
","");