Theoretically, this should allow you to get out of a triple-play contract (if they're changing the terms on existing contracts as well)? I'm glad I don't have TWC. (Wow, someone made me glad to have Comcast available in my area!)

A public message to all ISPs: I will run, not walk, from any ISP that implements throttling, bandwidth caps, usage fees, overlimit fees or tiered rate plans. That is all.

@Radi0logy: Me too.

For once, Verizon DSL FTW.

I was listening to a discussion on NPR yesterday about how far behind the rest of the world we are in cell phone use and technology. Phone plans here are insanely high, consumption based, phones are hobbled and many features are premium priced and still on a consumption basis.

It seems like TWC is wanting to go massively backwards. The time to create a model for consumption based internet was back in the early 90's. Most companies dumped consumption based internet when they moved from dial up to broadband. Consumption based internet on dial up was supposedly due to ISP having to have phone modem banks at local exchanges. Physically locating and having a finite number of concurrent connections was the cost factor of why some had limits on total mb or total time online.

It is already a real problem that cell phone service is totally behind every other developed country. Having internet usage be done in the same manner would be a horrible hinderance to learning, business and efficiency. TWC is behaving like the RIAA. Both have an outdated and dying business model and they are taking it out on consumers rather than changing.

Maybe the best way to fight this is to have people in cities that have TWC and few other option complain to the city office that decides who gets cable contract for that city. Tell them to dump TWC, why and to get someone new in the area or set up a city owned ISP.

@bohemian: ...or set up a city owned ISP.

You mean where they're not already conveniently illegal, of course.

This shit is scary, and I really can't believe that the country that used to be the most technologically-advanced in the world is letting itself be strangled by the greed of its own corporations. And moreover, that the media are generally complicit -- it's great that you heard this story on NPR, but where have they been for the last decade while all this was going on? And where are all the other media outlets?

...Oh, right. Owned by TW. >,<

@Radi0logy: Me too, but I'm worried that they're working on making it so I don't have that choice.

Will I have to skip the country to get decent Internet? I mean, I already do in order to get good cell-phone service, but it's the 'Net that's the deal-breaker for me!

I feel really bad for anyone who is in an area where they are "stuck" with this kind of crappy service.
I have moved 5 times in 8 years and AT&T has followed me throughout these 8 years with not a single issue with service or billing.

Yikes. I have TWC and unfortunately they pretty much have a monopoly on the high speed internet access out here. I guess I'll keep making regular ritual goat sacrifices to the Internet gods so that FIOS makes its way here.

And that's another reason that I love Verizon FiOS.

No bullshit. No crap charges....just pure love.

@bohemian: We have a city owned ISP in this state, full fiber optic service and blazing speeds. They also offer phone and TV service. They offer one pricey bundle that offers 100 Mbps internet service. Time Warner is crying foul.

@bohemian:

I keep telling people this, but no one will listen. Japan and Europe both have far better cell plans than we do in the US, as well as better broadband speeds.

Even some of the poorest countries in Africa have FTTC. There are obviously companies willing to build this kind of infrastructure, if we'd just stop with the subsidized and mandated ISP monopolies.

@paulrules: That's not available in all areas. The rest of us are screwed.

I will never ever go back to Time Warner Cable for internet service as long as they keep doing perverse ideas like this one. This is just money grubbing greedy bad customer service.

@Radi0logy: I'm with a local tiered ISP, and I love it. I only pay $15/month for Internet access and couldn't afford it otherwise. The difference between this and TWC is:

1) It wasn't sprung on me-they were upfront about it when I signed up.

2) I can easily monitor my data usage on their website.

If I were Verizon and I wanted to get more of TWC's subbers, I would be mentioning the lack of caps in their advertisements. Sure the red-headed cable guy is amusing but most people have no idea about these caps and who really reads those amended subscriber agreement letters?

@Coles_Law:

Consumption billing is fine, as long as there is competition. TWC is trying to do it in areas without competition.

@baquwards: They're trying HARD to get it banned in North Carolina.

@Cocoa Vanilla: Don't take it that far, I still have no idea why faster speeds don't equate to higher caps. That's nothing short of criminal.

@Radi0logy: The only figure these assholes understand is money, if you don't agree with them don't pay for their services and make sure you tell every single person you can about your personal experience with the company. This is capitalism, we vote with our dollars, now if only we can take down their monopoly we'll be fine.

I feel so sorry for anyone stuck in their coverage area, I really hope the internet one day is open up to all companies so when one company pulls this shit we can take a show of force and remove every last dollar we have with this company. I'd seriously rather have dialup than this shit, but the very idea that anyone should be returning to dialup should be considered criminal.

@bohemian: @bohemian: "It is already a real problem that cell phone service is totally behind every other developed country. "

Part of the reason for this -- not an excuse to avoid fixing the problem, but an explanation -- is that the US had (one of) the most advanced and comprehensive wired phone systems in the world. Other countries whose systems were fairly backwards in comparison had a huge incentive to leapfrog ahead with cell technology (northern bits of Scandinavia, for example, were among the first places with ridiculously good cell penetration, because nobody ever bothered to lay wire lines up there).

Any time you build a comprehensive infrastructure, you tie yourself into that infrastructure and some kinds of innovation will slow as a result as other countries leapfrog over the infrastructure you're "stuck" with. (Countries that got plumbing early on, for example, have much more outdated systems (with a lot more lead) than countries who joined the party later.) It's very expensive to switch infrastructures.

Not that this should prevent cell companies (and wire-line companies) from innovating their asses off. But the existing infrastructure, systems, contracts, and cultural expectations that go along with that infrastructure do have a "dragging" effect on innovation.

Again, not that this should be an excuse. Since we KNOW it happens, we should be planning for and around it.

This is aimed squarely at third-party phone services like Vonage. The cable companies hate carrying all that data without compensation. They were blocked from slowing it down (although they do it on the sly), so they came up with this.
Once this is in place, any ten-minute VoIP call will trigger an automatic slowdown and interrupt the call. Call to complain? You can't: they will leave you on hold for more than ten minutes. Their solution will be to sell you their phone services.

Diabolical, this is.

@Radi0logy:

...or tiered rate plans

When did Comcast become the lesser of 2 evils? I think I feel dirty for saying that.

@Mary Marsala with Fries: Peer-to-peer mesh networking, anyone?

@aja175: That's where I'm headed if they pull this crap again. Maybe if we get enough on Verizon here, we can get some FiOS love.

@oldgraygeek: Voip voice service is NOT the problem here. Even if you max out the quality settings, a voip call shouldn't use more than about 64 kbps at a maximum.

One of my closest friends is an ip engineer with a large cable/internet company, and the numbers they give out are pretty close to the truth... less than 5% of their customers are using over 80% of their ip bandwidth. He also admits that their handling of the tiered-plan thing has been a disaster, and that their first mistake was billing it as unlimited service at the beginning.

*IF* they implement this properly (big enough plans with small enough prices for the "standard" plan) they can accomplish their goal of getting the big users (primarily the big UPSTREAM users sharing via p2p) to pay more for their high usage without pissing off every one of their customers. Hell, if they focused their plans on the upstream, it would stop all of the people complaining about the threat to video-on-demand services (I use netflix instant and from time to time Hulu, for example) because the real pain in the ass from a network management perspective in an assymetric network is saturation of the "smaller" upstream pipe.

@arstal: I say if they do we take some lynch mobs to their headquarters in the state and to the capital. What say you?

I just called TWC and had them pricematch ATT UVerse internet prices. If they implement the metered biling, I will RUN to ATT, even though I think they are the devil....

@Goatweed: If I were Verizon, I'd quietly roll out FiOS to everywhere TWC is about to pull this stunt, wait for it to happen, then get LOUD and announce you have a better service in place.

This is why we need real competition with no fewer than 6 (six, that's half a dozen) high speed communications providers serving each home for people to choose from. Let them have their consumption billing and rate caps once there is real competition.

I've always stuck by TWC internet service because you get clear reception for all network TV plus bit a free cable if you use a splitter (I dont sub to cable) AND you get the freedom of not dealing with the phone company, always a big plus (dont have a land line either).

But once I get this wording in my bill, I'll be calling to say "I DON'T agree to these terms, either accept it or cancel my service"

@Goatweed: I'm sure Verizon would rather hedge their bets and see if TWC pulls it off, cause if they do, they'll do it too.

@Cocoa Vanilla: I dont have them any more either. They cancelled my service because I complained to the BBB for their lack of services and the fact their techs would flat out lie to me.

@Ms Brangwin wants carnal knowledge of Henry Cavill:

I know :( Not everyone can enjoy the love of FiOS :(

@Paul Hibbard: Sounds like you should call your AG next, then.

In an world of (relatively) high bandwidth providers that form an oligopoly, the only solution is national laws regulating these bast*rds.
Numerous studies have shown the actual cost to provide bandwidth is pennies per user; they're praying on ignorance to fleece the same customers who feed and clothe them.
I blame them less (it's a scorpion's nature, after all), but it's something only regulation will halt. I DO blame the house slaves who try rationalizing being victimized by their masters, however.

So what happen when the big 3 get togother on this one to increase their profits. TWC, Comcast and Verizon all put this in place and about 90% of people will have no options. Also remember that its not price fixing if they don't talk about it with each other.

@supercereal:

That's the issue. The amount of money they want to charge is vastly inappropiate. The cost per Gig is just under 1 penny, and they want to charge 100-200 times that.

@Radi0logy: Unfortunately all ISPs will implement that caps simultaneously. The only competition will be in how low the caps are

@dbshaw: You do realize they'll just cancel your service, right? They're not going to customize your agreement.

@gauden44: He should cancel it himself, instead.

@Munchie: You mean the anti-trust laws don't recognize telepathy?

@Radi0logy: I wish I could say that too, but, y'know, I live in Rochester, NY. Nuff said.

@GearheadGeek: Most ISPs have abysmal upstream speed, so that isn't the problem. And TWC tiers would have hit most users, so it's not 5% that are the problem. If there were so few, the ISP could simply terminate their accounts. Ask your friend why his company doesn't reinvest some the obscene profits they are making on their internet business into providing 100/100 service so that video and p2p can be painlessly throttled to 80mbit if things get congested.

@Trai_Dep: There is an oligopoly of providers in the US only for a tiny fraction of the households. Most are lucky to have one reliable consumer broadband provider let alone two or more.

Makes me glad I live in a market where TWC has competition in the cable market, as well as from uVerse.

I'm still with TWC for now, as they are the cheapest option (I only get IP service), but if they start capping my usage, I'm gone. I already reamed them up and down for getting rid of eBilling and essentially forcing me to go back to the 90s and a paper bill, or use their own billing site (clue: centralized e-billing with the bank is convenient. Logging into a separate website for each of my billers is anything but. I'll make you kill the tree, thanks,). If they institute bandwidth caps, I'm done.

Oh, to have FTTH here.

@arstal: Still, what a company charges for service can't be expected to be the real and actual cost of the service itself. The costs of infrastructure, building and equipment, employees' salaries and plenty more are all factored in. The actual cost to transmit a gig of data is irrelevant -- they can charge whatever they want. And countless people are willing to pay at that price.

There are several internet choices for the vast, vast majority of people out there. People complain about "monopolies," but what about DSL? Satellite? Dial-up? If one wants the "niceness" of cable internet, then one has to pay for it. Fast internet (or internet, period) isn't a necessity in a home like power and water. There are plenty of alternatives (such as your local library).