Time Warner Cable is running a pilot program in Texas where they’re metering your bandwidth usage and charging extra if you exceed your monthly allotment. This also gives them the opportunity to create a tiered system where you pay more for more bandwidth. Richard is a TWC Texas customer, and his story is a good example of how things work in a tiered, metered system like this. The bottom line: if metered broadband comes to your area, get used to paying extra to take advantage of things like Hulu (which is free) or Netflix video streaming (which you already pay for).
I am a concerned consumer in the Golden Triangle region where Time Warner (The cable monopoly of Southeast TX) has decided to launch testing for overage charges on unrealistic caps made for their service.
Recently I have tried to stop relying on more costly services such as VOD so I have turned to NetFlix and Hulu which both have online viewing services. These changes soon put me over the 20 GB cap for my internet plan placed in our area. I am aware Comcast is taking a similar route but their limits are set substantially higher @ 250gb. I am not trying to do anything illegal here mind you. I am just trying to find cheaper alternatives to enjoy television. I was hit with a $10 charge ($1 per GB over) and this is what prompted a phone call to them and made me aware of this new billing process they are running only in my direct service area. I was told by a rep that streaming content like NetFlix creates a “bottleneck” type situation and makes other customers suffer. I find this hard to believe since other companies who do not use this method make out just fine. 20GB a month just seems far to low for someone who uses legal online resources like myself.
To Time Warner’s credit I was credited back the $10 as a “one time courtesy” w/ the option of paying more ($10) for their Road Runner Turbo which has a 40gb cap which is still far from reasonable, or be discouraged from using my Netflix/Hulu. Additionally they gave me the signin to an online resource showing the amount of bandwidth coming from my modem each month.(their math also perplexes me in the attached picture). I am not upset with my speed as it is @ 7 MB/sec but to pay more just for more bandwidth seems ludicrous! As a matter of fact this practice could also discourage users from OTHER VOIP providers like Vonage. It seems TWC is trying to further discourage competition in an area where they are already a monopoly! If not then why didn’t they start it in someplace where there are other cable providers for competition?
Since I have no alternatives to switch since I have no use for phone and Dry Loop DSL is not available in my area I am apparently over a barrell up a creek!
Richard
P.S. I have attached a picture showing you also how their tool shows a bit of strange math on how they calculated my overages! Mind you the calculater is my exact calculations which seems very simple math! (100 (for percent) divided by 20 (gb) times the 27.56(gb) i went over. Which should give me my percentage (137.8% not 147). If I am missing something please tell me!
More From Consumerist
-
Marijuana Vending Machine Looks Like A DVD Dispenser But Spits Out Pot Brownies Instead
-
Sony Announces New Game Console And It’s Called… The PlayStation 4
-
British Airways Program Gets To Know Its Customers A Little Too Well
-
Thief Feels Awfully Bad About Stealing Couple’s Tandem Bike, Returns It With Apology Note
-
White House Cancels Public Tours As Of March 8, Citing Effects Of Sequestration Budget Cuts
If you use VOIP, does that count against the usage count? Bad if you have a teenager with the phone attached to their ear.
@PirateCaptain_GitEmSteveDave: Yes, as it uses bandwidth to transfer the voice data . . .
@PirateCaptain_GitEmSteveDave:
I wonder if their own VOIP services would be metered? If they somehow put their services in a special tier, then maybe that would be a way to mount an attack against the metering, as they would be placing their own services in a preferred category, to the detriment of other services (i.e. vonage etc)
@cristiana: That’s a good question. I bet one the FCC/AG’s office would address . .
Cox hasn’t pulled that crap yet, thankfully. That does seem ridiculous, and even worse, it seems like bad math. But maybe I’m missing something as well. Stuff like this might encourage people to just say screw it and “borrow” wireless from their neighbor. Of course, plenty of people are doing that anyway without being screwed by TWC.
@lalaland13: Its probably just a Bit Byte conversion thing id do the math but im lazy
/me shrugs
Its kinda like when you buy a 320 gig HD but when you install it only shows 300 gig
@lalaland13: Cox hasn’t gone this far yet, but they HAVE started punishing high bandwidth users in Kansas. Anything they deem as not “high priority” is given a speed reduction. This is another trial program in Kansas and one other state which I cannot remember.
So basically, if I stream Netflix and start out with 4/4 bars, I’ll have my show paused once to be reduced to 3/4 bars, and again to be reduced to 2/4 bars (non-HD). This pisses me off to no end.
If you already got it, jump on the line with TWC and INSIST on grandfathering your account so they can’t gouge you later on down the road.
When Sprint went and slapped a 5GB cap on EVDO broadband data card service, there was hell to pay! They got cooked past well done and lost a ton of customers.
But they compromised and grandfathered all accounts before the cap start date and mine is one of them.
@Nighthawke:
The problem with TWC, it is difficult or impossible to drop them, as they are a monopoly in many areas (and DSL is often not even close to the speed of cable). Since cellphone companies are essentially the same, people can vote with their dollar and switch, but not so much with the cable companies.
@cristiana: I agree.
I can’t think of any place in the US where you can pick between more than 1 cable provider. Even when I was in LA, in Pasadena, it was Time Warner or nothing. Here in Nashville it’s Comcast or nothing. If you are east of here, it is Charter or nothing.
It’s a joke that DishTV or DSL is the alternative these days. That’s like saying my alternative to my car is a motorcycle. Why not another car? Because that’s the only model you can have. Oh, and now you can only drive it 10 miles a day or pay for extra mileage.
@Heresy_Fnord: It’s true that Satellite and DSL are not exactly competitors for most people, since not everyone has a place they can mount a dish, and since the Telcos are slow to roll out the faster tiers of DSL in most areas.
However if you are allowed to have a dish, it does kick the crap out of cable. Compare the UI and features of the Dish HD DVR to the crap Motorola POS that the Cablecos always provide. Furthermore, the cost–and the promotional offers–are usually way better than the equivalent costs from cable.
This is just a move to stop people from using internet video services, and steer those people to use the video services offered by Time Warner itself. This will increase the usage of PPV and VOD, and they will now get far more additional revenue from their internet services.
This needs to be stopped, but, I have no idea where to begin, I don’t want it to come to my area (NYC). But if this is ‘successful’ I bet it will.
@cristiana: I totally agree. I complain constantly about Comcast traffic management and this seems to me to be cable companies killing two birds with one stone. On one hand, they see services like Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, and bittorrent sucking up bandwidth and on the other, they are feeling pressure from these same services as they offer content that’s essentially competing with their VOD.
I think we all know why they didn’t try this in markets where there is competition… This is the most ridiculous system I’ve heard of, especially with such low numbers. Bad thing is that TWC will probably call the thing a success and roll it out to more markets where there isn’t any competition.
i really don’t see what the big deal is. canadian internet companies have been charging customers like this since broadband was introduced. yes, it may mean you can’t spend all day watching cookie monster sing “chocolate rain”, but given the costs needed to maintain such a network with an ever-increasing number of participants using more and more bandwith, i’d say it’s a very reasonable accomodation.
@UmekoHessel: So, you’re saying they have a reverse economy of scale, where more customers means less revenue? Also, what about the fact that computing power and networking equipment keeps getting faster and cheaper?
@UmekoHessel: No, a reasonable accommodation would be them upgrading their damn network if they can’t service the broadband needs of their customers, rather than going around charging penalties and treating you like you’re doing something wrong when you call them on it.
@UmekoHessel: Sometimes I look at the women Canada exports, and I question my deeply held belief that Canada sucks. But then I read Canadian posts likes this, and am once again placid in my certainty. Those women are anomolies, and they LEFT Canada.
It is just a way for them to try and stop gap a flaw in their business model. If you can get TV of phone from the internet for free they lose out on the $100 a month people would’ve been paying. To make sure they still get yours they now found a way to bill you for circumventing their consumption model. This also makes users lock their networks because leeches now cost the consumer money directly.
It is a total scam.
How is it that ISPs are regressing to this type of billing? Does anyone remember the original system at AOL (AKA internet training wheels) where you paid for XXXX hours per month? I mean, this is stone-age stuff here…
The reality of this is TWC is trying to figure out a way around the Net-Neutrality thing if all ISPs are forced to treat traffic equally (as it should). If they can’t make money by forcing you to use their “preferred” or “sponsored” sites, then they’re just going to charge EVERYONE based on their bandwidth usage. Win-win for TWC. LOSE-LOSE for the consumers, as always.
This is how Comcast rolls as well. Fortunately the cap is substantially higher, but I have to wonder for how much longer. I see Comcast going this route as well eventually.
@Cyberxion101: Comcast may have the highest bandwidth caps at the moment, but they have the worst policies regarding bandwidth throttling. And I’m not talking about their old bittorrent blocking policies.
Thank God that in my area we have Fios. I have never seen Comcast beg until Verizon came and forced them to compete. For some this might be a good deal. I know a lot of people who just want to check their email quickly and if they get a good deal for not using a lot of bandwidth it is a good thing. It reminds me of the cell phone plans. Pay what you use.
@TEW: if they get a good deal for not using a lot of bandwidth it is a good thing
Yeah but all the grandmas who check email once a month don’t get a discount for using LESS. They’ll still be paying their $40 or $52.95 a month for the standard plan.
In reality for every user who uses 500% of the average there are 10 users who use 10% of the average. It all evens out, these outliers are not making them unprofitable, not by a long shot. What they SHOULD be doing is improving their networks AND trying to turn these heavy users into their BEST customers. How? By offering them to pay a little more for a FASTER connection, and not limiting bandwidth.
I know I would pay $10 more for a substantially faster speed. Instead they make enemies of the heavy users and they are forced to change their habits and do without content because of the retarded caps.
I know this from experience, in my city, the city owns the cable franchise and they cap us at 50MB. 100MB or 150MB can be had but they are ridiculously expensive. The next town over can get comcast’s 250MB caps for $19-$52 depending on discounts or promos. Here the 150MB plan would run me OVER $85 A MONTH JUST FOR FREAKING INTERNET. F that. I stay on the cheapest plan just because DSL here is incredibly slow (YAY COMPETITION!) and seethe in hatred at the cable company.
It is a strange day when Comcast comes out as the reasonable company.
A 20gb cap is just ridiculous. I regularly stream movies from netflix and Hulu, I would be over the cap in a matter of days. I am at least fortunate to have a number of competing broadband services in my area.
Here’s how their math works – their definition of gigabyte for your cap is 1 GB = 1000 MB = 1,000,000 KB, = 1,000,000,000 Bytes
However, your usage was measured using 1 GB = 1024 MB = 1048576 KB = 1073741824 Bytes
so, anyway, by their definition, you used up 27.56 GB * 1024^3 (GB / Btye) = 29592324669 Bytes. Then they subtracted your allowance of 20000000000 Bytes, and converted back using 1000^3 Bytes / GB to get an overage of 9.59 GB. It’s the whole 1024 vs. 1000 issue that’s shown up in all sorts of various memory rating areas (like why your 250 GB hd isn’t really 250 GB)
@nataku83: You get the prize! I was going to post the same thing but you beat me to it by a long shot.
This is what’s called shady math. You’re actually over by 7.5GB, but they charge you for 9.59 rounded to 10! Ouch!
This reminds me of the whole “.05 cents per kilobyte” crap that Verizon/Sprint/AT&T STILL pull today.
@nataku83: Wow, the real shady thing here is they measure your bandwidth using one version of GB (the 1024^3 number), and set your cap using the other version of GB (the 1000^3 number). And they make no mention of the different uses.
@nataku83: This still doesn’t explain it. Everything is already in the same units so subtraction and addition should be working just fine.
What you HAVE pointed out is that TWC is fudging numbers by offering 20GB that are not actually GB but instead 20*10^9 Bytes, i.e. they are falsely advertising 20GB.
@statgrad:
I’m having trouble finding an authoritative source saying that giga means anything other than 1,000,000,000. Can you help me?
@CoreyAlligator: try gibi/Gi
@statgrad: actually, it does explain it. the point of my post was that they are NOT using the same units, even though they are labelling them the same. the units for the cap and the overage are smaller than the units of his download – the math in my first post shows how they “converted” between the units. i am not stating that this is legitimate, i am simply trying to explain time warner’s calculation. notice that my calculated value of his data overage is EXACTLY the same as theirs. based on their system, he could use exactly 20 gb, and still be charged for 2 dollars overage
@nataku83: I think we are running in circles. I think we are both saying that they are listed in the bill as the same units yet they are not being computed in the same units.
I’m confused by the math here…
Total gigabytes used: 27.56
Total allowed: 20
Total overage: 9.59
Last time I checked, 20+9.59 was 29.59 not 27.56.
To me, either they miscalculated how much he actually used, or how much he went over by. Either way, something is screwy with the math here.
@RandaPanda0283:
unlisted upload added in?
@RandaPanda0283: This is almost laughably bad, except for the fact that it happened to someone.
Here’s where the number comes from…
If you take the first figure, and treat it as Gibibyte rather than gigabytes (that is, 1024^3 instead of 1000^3), you’ll find that it comes out to 29592324669 bytes. Now subtract 20 Gigabytes (20 * 1000^3) and you end up with 9592324669 bytes. Divide that by 1000^3 and there you go, 9.59 overage.
There’s a long and lurid history of labeling hard drive capacity in base-10 quantities even though from a computer engineering standpoint, the base for the prefixes is typically considered to be 2^10 (1024) rather than 10^3 (1000).
That TW would use the 10^3 figure doesn’t really surprise me. But that they can’t even get it straight on their bill… well the more I think about it, the more it angers me.
If Time Warner EVER does this in my state, we’re switching immediately. I spend all day going to websites, watching videos on youtube and hulu, and I frequently do web work where I’m constantly uploading and downloading large files. In this system my monthly bill would shoot up to over 300 dollars!
This is bullshit. Seriously.
If our local providers start pulling this nonsense we will be buying a T-1 and reselling it to our neighbors to help cover the cost.
Any business who is thinking of adopting a business model that caps bandwidth at a time where everything is moving towards high bandwidth content is more misguided than the RIAA.
@bohemian:
Unfortunately, a T-1 is only 1.54 mb/s. (granted that’s symmetrical)
That’s pretty slow by the standard of most cable internet services, and then you want to split it up amongst several people making it even slower…
How exactly does broadband work? I’d appreciate it if someone could pick up where my train of thought goes off the tracks here:
Electricity is metered because the provider has to give you more power, which costs them money. Is broadband a fixed cost? Obviously you have a line going to your house; at what point does this intersect with neighbours and how does paying for broadband overages improve the system? TWC isn’t actually “creating” more broadband capacity on the line on a month-to-month basis, are they?
/ confusion
@parkavery: I, too, would appreciate a breakdown of this.
@parkavery: Cable internet is a shared system. The cable will carry so much bandwidth and that bandwidth is shared by every one in a part of the town. I don’t know how many people are on the same line and such. So the more bandwidth being used the slower it is for everyone.
@parkavery:
In a nutshell (and this is a simplified view), in the cable version. The cable on your wall, goes back to a group concentrator, usually down the street (in my area I live in, they’re green boxes). That box has a pipe to it from the provider. It’s a shared bandwidth between all people in the area. that line goes back to their backbone network.
DSL, again overly simplified, is more of a direct line straight to the backbone (not quite but good enough for this purpose) which isn’t shared between you and your neighbors.
So when the cable people say speed X, they mean that is the theory based on over subscription and hoping that people don’t use the net all at the same time. Which is why DSL can be faster than cable (based on the speed the phone company sells you).
Point 1: (Business)
It’s been my opinion for some time that the cable companies will use bandwidth caps to “coax” you into viewing the cable company’s content. The bandwidth caps will ensure that you stay subscribing to their core business – content providing. Look, they have already “coaxed” Richard into using cable TV over Hulu, and he doesn’t even realize that he’s doing exactly what they want!
Point 2: (Technical)
Also, I think their claim that Hulu et al create a “bottleneck” is a little bit iffy. There are two ways to transfer information on the internet: TCP and UDP. TCP is a protocol that 1) guarantees data delivery and 2) actively attempts to detect how congested the network is, and use a smaller slice if the network is more congested. UDP is a protocol that 1) Does not guarantee data delivery and 2) sends out data regardless of the status of the network.
A single UDP/TCP connection is not likely to bog down any network, even if it is a large file. The TCP connection will back off as appropriate, and the UDP ‘connection’ will just get it’s data dropped by routers.
What really causes a bottleneck are torrents, because you have a whole crapload of connections blasting the pipe with small amounts of data.
Ok novice question, but does anyone know how much bandwidth usage the typical hulu 30 minute tv show would use?
@lars2112: Not sure what codec it uses, but a nice Divx 30 minute video is typically around 350 megs.
@lars2112: Some googling seems to indicate that Hulu encodes in VP6 at 5-600kbps. That puts a 30 minute show at about 110-130MB.
@lars2112: Not sure if it’s relevant to hulu, but I’ve noticed that reasonably well-encoded video files tend to use about 10 megabytes per minute. Much less than that, and the quality suffers considerably. (and FWIW, music usually takes about 1 MB/min to sound good to me, although streaming sources will usually be 40-60% lower than that)
I initially didn’t ahve a problem with Comcast’s plan for a 250gb limit because i figured that’s big enough and no one should come close. I now feel differently because because once it is in place, and FCC doesn’t have a problem then it’ll be that much easier for comcast to reduce that 250gb to 100gb then to 25gb. with a cap limit and those limits bring in extra revenue, it will be even less likely that ISP’s will want to upgrade their networks. why upgrade when you can make out like bandits from people overusing the limit on trivial online services.
I think I know how they got the %. I could be wrong, but they don’t actully give you 20GB, but 20,000,000,000 Bytes. But you have 27.56 GBs.
20,000,000,000 Bytes = 18.62 GBs and 27.56/18.62 = 147.96%
I can’t explain the GB overage # since that equals 8.93 GBs not 9.59GBs.
Should also be noted that 27.56GBs / 17.97 GBs (27.56 – the 9.59GBs that you are over by) is 153.37%.
Weird math they are using, but I would bet that they are giving you 20,000,000,000 Bytes and calling it 20GB
Please, we all know this was coming. A corporation just giving away bandwidth? They have to make money too, you know.
@ThinkerTDM:
They’re not giving it away, obviously. That’s called free. Customers are paying for it, just as they have been since the beginning.
@friendlynerd: My sarcastic point was, why should they charge you “unlimited” access for x dollars, when they can put a meter on, and charge you y dollars per minute?
25gb? i would use that in a week or less! forget that!
If the pull this shit with my service I will cancel them and downgrade to DSL. Even with the speed hit it’s not worth putting up with insane caps. I can understand throttling, but caps? I don’t think so.
LOL, ThinkerTDM . “Giving away bandwidth” — really? So I guess I don’t pay for my bandwidth every … oh, wait, I do. Yea, that $60/month I pay for DSL is totes “free”.
@nakedscience: $60/ month compared to a tiered pricing scheme will seem like free. You are probably too young to remember dial-up, and by-the-minute prices.
And actually, your $60/month doesn’t cover bandwidth. It’s an all-you-can-eat buffet. You can use 2 gigs this month, and 90 the next.
When your ISP starts charging by the gig, don’t be writing here like a little bitch.
@ThinkerTDM: I’m not too young to remember that, but at least on phone lines, companies could have, and still do, buy service based on minutes used. Thing is, minutes per line are not far off from the way multiple users are handled on the POTS.
The only universally fair equivalent with broadband would be charging by portion of bandwidth used during times of network congestion (IE, when the ISP would need to actively throttle users to keep everyone able t use it), which would result in often-unpredictable monthly charges, even if pricing was generally good.
Along the lines of how they bill their own VOIP plan how do they address HD content on the TV, which chews up a ton of bandwidth. Seems to me that the guy watching HD content on the tube all day everyday would soar over the limits set on interweb traffic.
Seems to me that the preferential treatment given to their own content (voip and HD) could conflict with internet neutrality (for as long as this lasts).
Per GB charges just don’t make sense. It’s like buying salt at the grocery store in cubic meters. It just isn’t sold that way. There are two ways ISPs buy their bandwidth:
- Flat rate. Generally, this means you buy a connection from Cogent, and you pay a flat charge for maximum speed of the pipe (eg: $10 per mbit). This is usually a great deal if you are an ISP and want to oversell (what ISP doesn’t?)
– 95th percentile. Flows are measured over the month, and the ISP pays for the speed at the 95th percentile (eg: If the 95th percentile was 50 mbits, you pay for 50 mbits).
You notice nowhere they are charged per GB? Yup. That isn’t how ISPs pay, and that’s why this method of charging is fundamentally flawed. How?
It doesn’t take into account time and peak usage. The length of time a transmission takes is directly proportional to its cost. A constant 128 kbits stream over a month costs an ISP more than a maximum speed 34 GB transfer, even though they are basically the same amount of traffic. This is because it raises the 95th percentile (by definition) and requires the ISP to purchase a 128 kbits larger pipe, whereas the burst transfer only requires the ISP to have bulk bandwidth available for you for that moment.
As far as peak usage goes a 1 GB transfer at 6 pm costs a residential ISP a *lot* more than a 1 GB, or even 100 GB transfer at 3 am. That’s because your 1 GB transfer at 6 pm is pushing through an already overloaded pipe. If the ISP doesn’t want to appear to have craptastic performance, they need to buy a bigger pipe, and it may raise the 95th percentile (if the ISP has already pegged the link, it won’t). Whereas your middle-of-the-night transfer doesn’t put a strain on the system because they haven’t maxxed out their pipe and doesn’t affect the 95th percentile because the traffic is still well below what it was during peak hours.
So, if you want to be fair, as an ISP, you can either charge a flat rate (because you buy bandwidth from a flat rate provider), you can charge for sustained transfer, or you can charge for peak hours.
It’s hard to transfer the 95th percentile model to consumers, since you don’t care about the consumer’s pipe being saturated, you care about your Tier 1 link being saturated. But the absolute wrong way to do it is to charge a flat-fee per GB. That is absolutely backwards to the way ISPs pay for bandwidth.
As for apps, here’s a short list of most suckage (for an ISP) to most awesomest.
- IPTV/videoconferencing/*tube (heavy constant stream, prime time, remote peer)
– Internet radio (constant stream, prime time, remote peer)
– Telephony (constant stream, prime time, remote and LOCAL peers)
– VPN (variable stream, prime time, remote peers)
– P2P (somewhat constant stream, not prime time, remote and LOCAL peers)
– FTP-alikes (bursty, not prime time, remote peers)
– Websites (bursty, prime time, remote peers)
– Gaming (low bandwidth/bursty, prime time, remote and local peers)
– IM (super low bandwidth bursty traffic, prime time, remote and local peers)
You want to kill an ISP that has idiotic per GB charges? Everyone tune into some HDTV internet content at 6 pm…
BTW: I <3 cogent.
“[..] to pay more just for more bandwidth seems ludicrous!”
Disclaimer: I’m not taking TWC’s side here. I like my bandwidth unlimited.
However: It is by no means “ludicrous”. TWC (and any ISP) have a certain dollar-cost for each byte they carry on their network. That cost is composed of a number of factors: Capital costs (more bandwidth and bytes-carried means more expensive routers/switches/etc), maintainence costs (more bandwidth and bytes delivery means more complex networks and more equipment), and upstream ISP costs (TWC connects to other ISPs to actually “get the internet” — they probably have unlimited, fixed-cost bandwidth agreements, but more end-users using more bandwidth with higer data transfers = higher bandwidth and data to upstream ISPs = more $$).
So just like the electrical company, bandwidth (and total-bytes) is not free and unlimited for TWC.
That being said, a cap of 20gb is not a cap on bandwidth. It is a cap on usage. In the OPs example, 7mb/s is the bandwidth. 20gb is not a cap on bandwidth, but a cap on data transfer/mo.. I just want to clear that up. But both increased bandwidth and increased data transfer/mo. cost the provider more money.
To play devil’s advocate, perhaps the increased use of services such as Hulu and Netflix streaming are putting a greater burden on ISPs and increasing their delivery costs beyond the revenue gained from their previously “unlimited” plans. They are not necessarily acting out of evil.
I would be in favor of a metered system provided that the ISP did a couple of things first.
1) Provided you with a tool to easily determine what your monthly usage was so you could self monitor and/or provided you with an automated E-mail when your projected monthly usage would exceen your cap.
2)Offered lower caps for significantly lower cost. Some people who simply check E-mail or stock prices may be fine with a 10G cap per month, and would be happy to limit their usage in exchange for a low monthly cost ($7-10/month). My parents for example would love a plan like this as they only use E-mail and a few web pages, and only got High speed because surfing the internet was becoming impossible with the increasing number of graphics and videos.
3) Offer high data caps (500-750G) at high data transfer speeds for a reasonable cost $40-50/month.
4) Offer a truly unlimited plan with no caps for significantly more (+$200/month), you are effectively leasing your port and portion of the bandwidth for your usage.
The pricing would be very similar to cell phone pricing where you chiise a service level based on the number of GB/month you anticipate using, but the caps have to be reasonable and the pricing has to be reasonable.
A 20gb cap is a joke. I really hope the study fails.
I have a “price lock guarantee” for TWC…hopefully this will prevent them from putting caps on my current service (5 mbps, unlimited) bc they can’t charge me more than $40/month for internet. Although, I can see them saying that “overages” are outside the guarantee. If that’s the case, I’m cancelling and not paying any ETF due to their terms change.
@Pylon83: So if your gas company starts gouging you you’ll tear out your furnace and install a wood stove? If the gas station gouges you’ll switch to an electric car or bicycle? The government regulates these semi-monopolies so the populace doesn’t have to do daily battle with the wolves of capitalism.
Its unfortunate that the cable companies have been put in such a position of dominance over their customers, in some cases being the only shop in town. The only way to stop this kind of crap is to yank your dollars from them, in the case where you have no competition to switch to this is a very tough pill to swallow.
I would imagine calls to your congress/senator/govenor may help?
Or as one person put here already this looks like an opportunity for a competitor to step in. Buy a acouple T1’2 or OC3′s and sell your own service over wireless.
Thes companies will only do what they think they can do to make money and if that is threatened they will generally back off. Get the word out in your area with other options even some not quite as fast like tethered cell phone etc. Anything that you can think of and give solid example of how this will hurt them. Recommend that they call now and say that if it is turned on then they will pull their accounts end of discussion.
I will certainly yank my turbo/Full cable/digital phone from them immediately and I will make sure that they understand that now. I dont have a problem with a tiered system as long as the tiers are reasonable.
Each story I read people say “I’m not trying to do anything illegal here” like they have to justify their bandwidth usage. The internet was created to transfer data, you should be able to transfer as much data as you wish.
Wow, a 20GB limit would not work in my house. I am on Comcast and use a Tomato’d router to monitor my usage. As a house of 3 adults we use about 100GB a month.
The future of broadband? Instead of trying to control the bandwidth, why haven’t companies increased the size to proportions of Asian size? I’m always envious of my relatives who pay basically the same price I do, and have like 10X faster speeds.
To the OP:
I’m in your area, and have FiOS. You should see when it’s heading to your street.
This does sound a bit like a gouging scheme to me.
Usually, if you’re capable of pulling 20+Gb a month in data, it’s because you’re already paying a premium for broadband.
If their reasoning about a bottleneck is true, what that really tells me about them is that they do not want to spend the money to upgrade their network to handle the additional capacity, so they are going to penalize you for using more than they feel is your fair share.
… welcome to the enlightened overseas method of Internet usage?
@ZekeSulastin: , in case someone takes the ‘enlightened’ seriously.
Charter just started this crap, too. I ran a new DSL line over the weekend, getting it turned on tomorrow. Eat me, cable.
I always thought it would be difficult to dislike TW anymore than I already do, yet here we are.
@parkavery: Most cable broadband is a fixed-speed pipe shared between many houses. This way, by limiting your usage, there is more for the rest of the houses.
This is really just behavior modification. If they stop you from using Hulu, you will be using less bandwidth and more will be available to your neighbor. The right way to do it, IMHO, is to upgrade the lines. But we know that’s not happening.
Also, this is not an issue with DSL because you have a dedicated line to the Central Office. I have AT&T Uverse for TV and Net, and I like it much better than Cable.
(Sorry if this doesn’t show up right, my reply feature is horked for some insane reason)
Look, I think capped usage plans suck. I worked for a cable company that implemented one a few years back. That said, if you don’t like it, get your internet from someone else. Just because you TWC is the BEST option doesn’t mean it’s the only option. You don’t have a “right” to internet service nor do you have a right to unlimited usage on the service you might have. The companies have many different reasons for capping usage and charging overage fees, some of them truly profit motivated, some of them not. Switch to DSL, dial up, satellite, true wireless. But insisting that the government should step in and insist that TWC, et al provide unlimited data usage on their broadband plans is just absurd. While TWC may have a monopoly on cable internet service in your area, I assure you they don’t have a monopoly on internet service as a whole.
Its just another example of people who don’t believe in capitalism (i.e. Time Warner).
Here is what will happen:
1) They have an outdated business model.
2) They try to gouge people into remaining in their model.
3) They go to Congress and try to get a law passed to FORCE people into their model (i.e. get rid of net neutrality).
4) They go out of business instead of seeking to innovate, all the while paying their CEO millions.
Funny how TWC never thought of this before — and charged you for how many hours your TV was on. If so, they would owe me money.
Wow, I know I’m bad in math but even I know 7.56 =/= 9.59
Ok. screwy browser wouldnt let me reply properly. To the one that asked about VOIP with their own services. No, their modems with the built in phones actually have two IPs assigned. One for the data and one for the phone. (If you look you will see an additional MAC) It has its own allocated bandwidth.
@sinfuly Delicious: Bingo!
Clone your router to use the VIOP MAC address! Brilliant! Unlimited data!
Honestly, if Insight or WoW does this in my area, I will drop my broadband in a heartbeat and urge everyone else to do so as well.
Richard should as well. These stupid caps will go away if users stood up to them.
Going to tiered pricing to help all the customers (because of a few leechers) is pure crap, no different than the RIAA saying they protect artists.
It’s just an attempt to prevent their network from being a ‘dumb pipe’ like the gas or electric companies services.
@calacak: I don’t see WoW doing it. They are having a hard enough time keeping customer as it is.
Insight though is another story. I’ve been expecting to pull this at anytime and was even told 6-8 months ago at a Home Show that they had received info about them looking into it and trials starting up. I was told this in Evansville, IN.
He also told it it should be happening in the next 3 months. Its been a long time past that though and I still haven’t heard of it so maybe they decided not to or that guy was just talking out of his ***.
@corinthos: I loved wow, and would love to go back to them. The problem is, they don’t service the area I moved to.
out of my choices in the south east Michigan area, they are by far the best when it comes to service vs cost. More channels that others don’t carry (or carry as a premium), better speeds than I got with comcast (at&t u-verse is faster but has it’s own issues), and never had problems with techs and people uncapping their modems like I did with comcast.
@rattis: I love Wow I live right outside of a city that has Insight but sadly I have to choose between Wow or time warner. I called retentions at wow and they uped my data speeds to their highest teir and gave me showtime, their modem and another dvr for under 90 a month after taxes. I got it for a year and should have it until July.
Sadly their HD offerings suck though and that was one of the reasons I called to cancel and was going to get direct tv.
@corinthos:
They over compress their digital signal too. I’ve got a friend (who works for wow), he’s got Dish for Sunday Ticket but watches all his HD on it now.
We watched Wings opening night this year (2008-2009 season) and the difference between WOW-HD and Dish-HD was huge.
@rattis:
Dish network does not have Sunday Ticket.
Direct tv does and I had WOW cable there HD LINE UP SUCKS.
Direct tv HD kicks there as well at a better price with a HD DRV with x2-x3 times the space.
Smileboot: That’s not a bit-byte conversion error. That’s because the hard drive manufacturers count 1,000 bytes to the kilobyte rather than 1,024 bytes as in reality. When scaled to the realm of gigabytes the difference is quite large. The computer reads it correctly and shows you significantly less than what it says on the box.
Welcome to Computer Marketing Scams 101.
7 MB/s? or 7 mbit/s? I would really like to know the difference here. 7 MB/s = 56 mbit/s is a REALLY nice speed plan and I don’t think thats whats being offered there.
Also, this is exactly why I can’t wait for Verizon Fios to come to my area. Monopolies are not good for consumers at all. All they do is increase prices and you can’t do anything about it because they are the only ones who offer that particular service.
I wonder how this will affect TW’s website. They advertise free online radio, and streaming video, too. If they cap, people will not be using these services.
Wouldn’t this hurt the bottom dollar of companies such as Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc who offer streaming video? Including the HD video that some sites offer too?
this is garbage. the reality is that TWC is most likely exceeding the recommended capacity of their nodes. most cable operators have been known to do this & have gotten away with it so long as most people were browsing like it was 1999.
well, it’s not 1999 & people interact more & more thru the internet than ever before. end users shouldn’t be punished for TWC’s lack of foresight. they were getting away cheap by cramming 1000 people on a node. guess what – that ain’t gonna cut it anymore. take some of those “profits” & reinvest them in your infrastructure like you should have been doing all along.
Thank gawd I have Cox cable and FIOS available in my area – they EVER try to pull this crap with me I am calling Verizon. I love having competition in the area MUWHAHAHA.
@Laughing-Man: Unfortunately competition doesn’t work that way. Once TWC sets a cap every other company will set an identical cap. Anything more generous would not be serving their shareholders.