Don't the user contracts say the company reserves the right to cancel your service immediately, at any time, with no advance notice to you, if they deem fit?

Not that I'm saying this is fair, but I was pretty sure that language is in the fine print.

Hmmm I think could do that in week if i really really tried... Wonder if they cut me off as well?

Are you serious? Good lord... I sometimes get to that point to in a week. WTF is TWC thinking! I need to jump ship, as soon as Verizon Fios gets here... which they seems to be taking their sweet sweet time with.

"According to her, that is more than most people use in a year,"

Will Time Warner complain if you watch too much TV?

I've got news for Time Warner. Yeah, just try and educate me. The reason that is "more than the average user uses in a year", is the fact that most users are grandparents, soccer moms, etc., that merely go with your packages to be convenient (ie, they already have cable tv). They log on, send an email, look at a few goofy chain letters, then they are done. Fact is, they don't even NEED high speed internet. They would be better suited to having dialup and saving $50 a month over what you charge.

You are lucky to have such customers. It's like if 90% of the customers at an all-you-cant-eat buffet were on diets and merely ate the salad, but paid the full $15 price. The people that NEED high speed internet (gamers, bloggers, etc), are the ones that are going to be using 5-20 gigs a week (hell, just 2-3 hd videos from Netflix will eat up close to 5-6 gigs.). I think we need to educate the people throwing money into the wind for services they don't need.

The reason they shut the service off is to get you to call them. Cable companies in general have a VERY hard time getting people to call them back, so they have to resort to these kinds of tactics to get people to call in so they can be scolded for abusing the system. Granted, if it took more than 1 call for him to get to the right person, something in their system is wonky (or they just have dumb-ass CSRs). I'm not saying that his is the best way to go about notifying people with abusive use patterns, but sometimes what works isn't necessarily "fair".

I'm sure the number has increased some by now, but as of about 2006, the "Average" data usage at the cable company I worked at was roughly 1.5gb per month. There were a few outliers that were way up into the 100gb range, but on average it was about 1.5gb/month. I wouldn't be surprised if that's closer to 3gb now, but that would still make the rep's statement accurate.

Bleh, what about Netflix power users? I use that thing as a tv replacement. Along with Hulu and what not, I'm sure I use quite a bit especially since I like my HD streaming.

Unless the contract specifically states that there is a monthly/weekly cap then this should not be happening.

How can a company advertise unlimited internet access only to ... limit it?

Sounds like TWC is getting sore that people may be using online content vs. traditional expensive cable.

@idip:
They call it "abusive usage", which is almost certainly prohibited by the terms of service.

@Kevin Goetz: I don't think you understand how internet data and television signal transmission actually work...

@Saboth: Agreed. I hate seeing my relatives paying for broadband when all they do is check their email. Literally their email and myspace, that's it. For that you might as well go to the library or get 56k for $5 a month.

i've been backing up a huge amount of data to Mozy (currently at 350GB) my uplink has been saturated at 1mbps 24/7 for months now. Not to mention the occasional iTunes and Amazon movie downloads. I may very well be way over that usage in a month.

Thank goodness i have speakeasy instead of time-warner.

Oh noes! The internet is drying up so we have to teach people how to not get high speed unless they need it and to use it conservatively!!!

NOT.

Go screw yourself TWC.

@dragonfire81: What's the point of having Terms of Service then? Why go through page after page after page of reasons they can cancel your service when a simple "because we feel like it" will suffice?

@Saboth: Saving $50/month? My TWC 768/128 is 19.99. Not a promo.

Cable is $18.50, digital phone local with CID and CW is $24.95.

@Jack Doyle: So they can tell YOU what you can and can't do?

I wounder if the poor guy lives in an Apt or condo... it seems to me that what they would really be afraid of is someone in an apartment complex teaming up with the neigbors and having a wireless network serving several apartments on one TWC internet account. I bet they only follow up on high levels of usage if they think there is a chance that they are getting screwed out of payment. If it were the same level of use from a rural house I bet you would never hear from them...

@dako81: Actually, as more and more people turn to high-bandwidth applications like Hulu, Netflix, AppleTV, XBox Live, etc., the internet is indeed "drying up." (Not literally, of course, but there is only a finite amount of bandwidth available.)

TWC has every right to limit traffic through their networks, just as consumers have every right to find another service provider. Some will say "But TWC is the only ISP in my area," though I doubt they've looked at every available option -- DSL, satellite, etc.

I am so glad I switched over to Verizon when I moved.

Well, I will be glad when they finally hook me up already.

@Jack Doyle: Not to blame the vic here, but it wasn't because we feel like it. It was because they deemed he was downloading too much

My brain is going TILT. Given the noise level on the internet, I cannot figure out how it is possible to have less than 5GB on an idle connection, let alone one that actually gets used for anything. (Noise = miscellaneous attacks from compromised systems.)

If this tiering ever gets to AT&T, I'm off the net for the most part. Without the data volume, the connection has a value of $4/month. That is what it would cost me to go buy a muffin at Panera once a week and do my bills, banking and e-mail on the Wi-Fi.

@dragonfire81: Any TOS has its get out of jail free card. It's a contract setup by the people in charge to benefit them. It's NOT a list of rules to follow.

Obviously we all need to write to our congressional representatives and demand more protection from dishonest ISP's like Time-Warner, who gladly take our payments but then reneg on delivering the services promised in exchange for that monetary consideration.

Making *full* use of a paid service hardly constitutes an "abuse" of said service.

If an ISP is unwilling to PUBLICLY declare any and all specific limits on their services, then they should not be allowed to interfere with any customers use of those services - especially for supposedly exceeding them, since technically no such limits even exist from the point of view of the customers who are purchasing that service.

We clearly need more (and tighter) state and federal regulation of ISP's including laws requiring them to clearly state their terms and their limits up-front and in writing, so that we, as consumers, can make well-informed choices.

@wcnghj: That's cheap! It depends on where you live.

@supercereal: NO NO NO NO NO. If you want to offer a service invest in it. Buy infrastructure. Yes you will have to spend some of the money you are making, but you will avoid brown outs.

TWC isn't dealing with bandwidth issues they're dealing with rising costs and diminishing service revenues. This is a money issue not a "clogged tubes" issue.

They're simply proving that a cable company is a bad place to supply Internet access to the masses because of the lack of competition that preceded the medium of coax television distribution.

@supercereal: I don't think you understand how when people purchase services with money they expect to receive that service.

Well, when it happened I thought bleh, but the same exact thing happened to me over a year ago. Comcast, in this case, told me I was in the top 1% and next time they warned me it would be permanently shut off. So, yes I have throttled back. No civil disobedience here, all alternatives sucks in this area. Yay to duopolies .

@cyberscribe:
Regulation isn't the answer. Make your voice heard with your wallet and find another ISP. As much as people want to complain about TWC, etc. having a monopoly, it's not true. In virtually every area, there are other options. You may not like those options, but they are there. DSL, Satellite, etc. The fact you don't want/like that service doesn't affect it's real viability as an option. Government intervention/regulation will stunt growth and make things more costly (compliance costs).

@warf0x0r:
You don't think TWC has a right to limit traffic on their network at all? And so what if it's a money issue. If their costs > revenue, they'll just pull out of the market. I think it's fair for them to charge more if their costs go up.

A little passive aggression on their part?

This makes me feel better about having FiOS! Thanks Time Warner!

@kvanh: Mozy Home Unlimited FTW!

@Saboth: *applause*

@wcnghj: Yeah, and the same 768/128 cost $15/mo over at Verizon. They upgraded their service though, and it's now $18/mo for 1/384. By the way, 768 isn't truly high-speed by a LONG shot.

@supercereal: And the single greatest problem is some people are limited to choices. In some apartments you can only GET their preferred provider. I've lived in places in Pennsylvania that had contracts with AT&T and Comcast. You had to get them or you'd violate your lease. Didn't like it? Move.

Some homeowners associations are the same way. My boss is required to have FiOS by his association and in turn they get it at a much cheaper rate. But not everybody has an option. They really don't.

@dragonfire81: I wonder if that works in reverse with paying bills.

"You charged me more than some people in third world countries make in their entire lifetime for a month of crummy service!"

The lowest common denominator logic is amazing. If my ISP called me and started lecturing me, they'd really hear some choice words and probably learn a thing or two about bandwidth; then I'd cancel.

@strathmeyer:

I don't think you understand how there's a difference between getting a service and abusing a service.

At least they're making it easy to get out of a contract...

@henwy: I don't think you understand how using about 3 TV shows' worth of bandwidth a week is perfectly reasonable for someone who's paying for "unlimited" service.

@Esquire99: What of the "government interference" that let TWC come into existence in their oligopolic form? Guess that's okay since they're a well-connected mega-company, right?

@Esquire99: This sounds like exactly the kind of situation where the wonderfully ambiguous word "average" gets abused. Do you know which average the company's statistics are referring to?

@Esquire99: Of course they have a right to limit traffic. That's why when I pay for a 3Mbps connection, my downlink is rate-limited to 3Mbps. Conversely, since I'm paying for unlimited 3Mbps service, I should be able to download 900GB/month if the servers can send it to me that fast.

@Esquire99: The problem is that many of us don't really have a choice. We're in a catch-22 situation: The incumbent telco and cable companies have built extremely expensive infrastructure on the backs of franchise monopolies (and often tax breaks as well). Now turning around and saying that the market should be deregulated is like playing King of the Hill where one kid gets a helicopter ride to the top of Mt. Everest before you start.

(The only practical solution I see is coop-owned last-mile infrastructure with a universal demarc at a subdivision entrance or similar location. Implementing this retroactively is left as an exercise to the reader.)

@chrylis:
All usage divided by all users.

@Esquire99: So mean usage. I'd be interested to see what the distribution on that looks like, as well as the median. (My guess would be significantly more high usage than low usage, but it'd be useful to know clearly what these patterns are.)

@Preyfar: That's a good argument except for the fact that it's not legal. [gizmodo.com]

@Preyfar: I've certainly lived in places like that, but years ago the FCC banned what they called "exclusive access and service clauses in video contracts between cable operators and multiple-dwelling units." If you wanted to challenge a lease in court, the clause would likely be nullified...but of course you'd be out all sorts of money.

After being screwed over too many times by landlords, I brushed up on my state's tenant laws; you'd be surprised how many things in your lease are "unenforceable."

@chrylis: While I agree with your philosophy, can you find anywhere where your ISP uses the word 'unlimited'? They stopped referring to it that way a little while after dial up ceased being common.

@Kevin Goetz: If they could meter TV use they totally would, no doubt about it.

@Esquire99: Oh yes, just look at western Europe. They regulate everything to death and their net service is just *awful*. My friends in similarly populated areas there pay half as much for nearly one and a half times the speed. Poor bastards.

@Esquire99: Dude I just downloaded 15 gbs of stuff in one day, and i'm sure with torrents, netflix, video games, youtube, hulu and the like the average is MUCH higher that 1.5, unless as someone else pointed out, all they do is check their email and myspace, in which case they're paying too much money for internet they're not using to its full potential.