×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Time Warner To Offer Unlimited Bandwidth For $150

ScuttleMonkey posted about 5 years ago | from the super-size-me dept.

The Internet 479

unr3a1 writes to tell us that Time Warner Cable has responded to the massive criticism of its new plan to cap user bandwidth with a new pricing model. Users will be given a grace period in which to assess their pricing tier. The "overages" will be noted on their bill, allowing them to change either their billing plan or their usage patterns. "On top of a 5, 10, 20, and 40-gigabyte (GB) caps, the company said this week that it would offer an additional 100GB tier for heavy users. Prices (so far) would range from $29.95 to $75.00 a month, with users charged an extra dollar for every GB more they download, although that charge is also capped at $75. An 'unlimited' bandwidth plan, therefore, tops out at $150."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

479 comments

How many 2 Girls 1 Cup per hour is that? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534687)

2 Girls 1 Cup is the only thing on the internet worth downloading.

Oblig (5, Insightful)

guga31bb (841932) | about 5 years ago | (#27534689)

-Comment about lack of competition
-Comment about poor quality of US bandwidth relative to other countries

What did I miss?

Re:Oblig (1)

EdZ (755139) | about 5 years ago | (#27534717)

- Obligatory note that broadband in the UK is even worse.

Re:Oblig (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 years ago | (#27534773)

Obligatory observation that having the perspective that someone happens to have it worse still doesn't change the fact that these guys suck.

Re:Oblig (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534823)

Oblig comment about how those $150 dollar/month heavy users will likely still be throttled anyway, regardless of any promises or assurances the company is going to make to the contrary.

Re:Oblig (1)

creimer (824291) | about 5 years ago | (#27535259)

Obligatory note that anyone who pays $150/month for internet access should be throttled. There's more to life than having the biggest tube in the neighborhood.

Re:Oblig (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534961)

Obligatory reality check that you can get genuinely unlimited 16mbps packages for £10 a month in the UK.

Stop ranting about BT and shop around (e.g. O2, Be etc)

Re:Oblig (1)

thermian (1267986) | about 5 years ago | (#27535167)

- Obligatory note that broadband in the UK is even worse.

Rubbish. I pay £12 for an unlimited 8mb connection. Really unlimited, we have caned it for three years now, sometimes over 200Gb a month, and its been fine.

Re:Oblig (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 5 years ago | (#27534807)

What did I miss?

Obligatory conspiracy theory about how the info of unlimited-bandwidth account holders will be faxed to RIAA lawyers and their private investigators.

Re:Oblig (1)

aaandre (526056) | about 5 years ago | (#27535067)

You missed the fact that both types of comments are relevant to the situation.

I doubt that TW & Comcast would be jumping on the charge/per/kilobyte model so quickly if they hadn't monopolized and divided the market.

What are our options for alternative providers? Any suggestions for the LA Westside area?

Two Letters (0, Flamebait)

orkim (238312) | about 5 years ago | (#27534693)

F U

Nothing, how about nothing! Dont need no computer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534793)

How about going without a computer, TV and or phone service... Go outside - have fun for a change... Ex-pale kid.

Re:Nothing, how about nothing! Dont need no comput (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534925)

but yet you managed to post?

WOW (3, Funny)

qoncept (599709) | about 5 years ago | (#27534695)

What an awesome deal!

Re:WOW (5, Insightful)

cabjf (710106) | about 5 years ago | (#27534735)

"We'll give you the same access you have now, just for three times the cost."

Well, I guess they finally figured out how to make pirates pay. And the artist still gets no money.

Re:WOW (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | about 5 years ago | (#27535149)

Irritating, isn't it? I wouldn't mind the caps so much if there were a nominal increase in speed. Gimme a synchronous 20Mb line and I'd be OK with that.

Re:WOW (1)

aaandre (526056) | about 5 years ago | (#27535255)

This was never about the artist, bro.

Always about the money squeezed out of the public domain by selling the artist's creation.

Marching on to the 1000 year copyright law extension!

OUCH (1)

Quantos (1327889) | about 5 years ago | (#27534697)

I thought Shaw was a bunch of pirates. At least I don't seem to have a cap on my service.

Anyone? (4, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | about 5 years ago | (#27534713)

Is there anyone who didn't see this coming?

First they whine that unlimited is not unlimited. Then they put a number on what 'unlimited' is, and change the contract that you had already signed. Then they decide that they can actually give you the service you originally signed up for, but only if you pay them $150 more.

Re:Anyone? (2, Insightful)

CityZen (464761) | about 5 years ago | (#27535083)

They built out some infrastructure, put out some plans, then people starting signing on.

As the system fills up, they have two choices:
-build out more infrastructure, sign up more people
-jack up prices (and hope to keep signing people up)

The short-term plan is easier to "sell" to stockholders, most likely.

Shooting themselves in the foot (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534727)

Just how greedy are these fuckers? If I wind up having to pay $150/month for internet, I'm going to cancel the cable TV, which is already approaching that amount. Can't imagine I'm the only one thinking along those lines. I guess TW's left hand doesn't care what its right hand is doing...

'Bandwidth' is a Misleading Term Here (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 5 years ago | (#27534729)

Time Warner To Offer Unlimited Bandwidth For $150

When will the hurting stop? Bandwidth is measured in kbit/s, Mbit/s, etc. Please express this in some rate related to seconds if you're going to use it because the phrase "unlimited bandwidth" means to me that I should be able to sit down and at the drop of a hat (or the spinning of several platters) have a DVD from my friend's computer located on my computer.

I think a more appropriate term would be something like "no monthly download limit" or some such thing ... not as seksi as bandwidth but for the love of god please keep these ideas separate. Unless you're going to start talking about bandwidth as in GB/month or TB/month which would drive the hardware and network guys nuts because that is a meaningless metric.

Re:'Bandwidth' is a Misleading Term Here (4, Informative)

scotsghost (1125495) | about 5 years ago | (#27534829)

Amen. It's not "unlimited bandwidth"; it's "unlimited usage".

And it's not even that; if you drill down, the $150 plan is actually a $75-for-100gb/mo, with a promise to cap overage charges at $75 -- thus virtually unlimited usage for $150. How long before they renege on that particular promise?

Here's the article's source; sadly, it's the original source of the confused use of the term "bandwidth": http://a.longreply.com/109511 [longreply.com]

Re:'Bandwidth' is a Misleading Term Here (1)

CityZen (464761) | about 5 years ago | (#27534875)

I agree that the wrong terminology is being thrown around. Bandwidth is a rate, and they're charging you for an amount, which is a different thing.

I guess you can say that they are indeed talking about a rate if you consider bandwidth as the amount of data per month.

Still, rather than jack up the prices as demand increases, it would be preferable if they increased supply instead, but this means building out more infrastructure, and this only happens when there's competition.

Re:'Bandwidth' is a Misleading Term Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27535031)

Hehe, well said! Is your 13.9 Terabit/fortnight router faster than my 40 Gigabit-per-every-third-tuesday modem? Bonus points for quoting Bill from TTL.

Re:'Bandwidth' is a Misleading Term Here (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27535059)

150 (GB / month) = 478.484324 kb / s

..says Google [google.com].

Re:'Bandwidth' is a Misleading Term Here (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#27535061)

And, because it's not unlimited bandwidth[1], it is also not unlimited usage. The maximum speed they appear[2] to offer is 15Mb/s, which works out at a 4.7TB/month cap, or around 3Â per GB. This is easily the cheapest I've seen quoted for bandwidth, while the $2/GB they charge for the 40GB/month package is close to the most expensive. If you're using 4.7TB/month, it's very good value (for the first month, until they find some reason to kick you off). If you're using 40GB/month, it's pricey. If you're using 5GB/month, it's extortionate.

[1] To be really pedantic, bandwidth is measured in Hz. The term you are thinking of is 'throughput'.
[2] I just went to their site; I thought telcos in the UK were patronising. They are in a different league.

Re:'Bandwidth' is a Misleading Term Here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27535197)

100 GB / month = 304 kbits/s

So, "unlimited" time warner cable is basically equivalent to bottom-tier DSL, or about 2x ISDN.

I may not be reading this right, but... (5, Interesting)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | about 5 years ago | (#27534741)

If they're charging a max of $75 for the overages, whats to stop someone from using the $29.95 plan, and maxing the fee...effectively getting an unlimited plan for $104.95 (plus obligatory taxes of course)

Re:I may not be reading this right, but... (1)

ZiakII (829432) | about 5 years ago | (#27534843)

If they're charging a max of $75 for the overages, whats to stop someone from using the $29.95 plan, and maxing the fee...effectively getting an unlimited plan for $104.95 (plus obligatory taxes of course)

Where I have Time Warnter the $29.95 plan is capped to 1.5 Mbps, while there other plan is caped at 6 Mbps, although I'm not in their bandwidth limit testing area, so could be different but I would imagine it is the same.

Re:I may not be reading this right, but... (2, Insightful)

SlashdotOgre (739181) | about 5 years ago | (#27534895)

I have a feeling when you reach $75 in overages, they simply cut you off and tell you if you want access again you either have to fork over the difference for the $150 plan or wait until your next billing cycle. Also I'd presume the $29.95 plan is at the lowest speed possible which might be low enough that to reach the $75 cap you'd need to run your connection at full speed for the entire month (although I doubt it, it's possible).

I wonder how long it's going to be before Comcast pulls this crap. Also now might be a good time to start securing your WiFi better, as the motivation to steal access just significantly increased.

Re:I may not be reading this right, but... (1)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | about 5 years ago | (#27535017)

I'm sure they cut off the internet entirely after +$75, then you can call them up and switch to unlimited for $150 on top of that (not pro-rated or anything halfway sensible).

No such thing as unlimited (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 5 years ago | (#27534743)

You have to draw a line somewhere, and put a price under it.

Re:No such thing as unlimited (1)

Shados (741919) | about 5 years ago | (#27534759)

Correct. Within their own network aside, even the ISPs themselves have some form of limit at the end of the day. So bandwidth speed limitation aside, they will always have to cut you off eventually.

Re:No such thing as unlimited (1)

Rhonwyn (49658) | about 5 years ago | (#27534933)

Why? Why do they have to cut me off eventually? Throughput (which is what they're talking about here, not bandwidth) is essentially free. It doesn't matter if I download 1 GB, 10GB, or 500GB in a month. It is the bandwidth that costs money.

If I download, constantly, for 28 days, at 512kb/sec, I'll use 1209.6 gigabits of data. That's well over all of their caps, but 512 kbs is a very small amount of bandwidth and a very cheap line.

With their standard cable internet plan, at 6MB/sec, I can download for less than 14 minutes and hit the 5GB cap, 27 minutes for 10 GB, an hour for 20, and 2 hours for 40. That's not including their faster packages.

Re:No such thing as unlimited (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | about 5 years ago | (#27535153)

They have to cut you off eventually because they don't own the entire network. Yes, throughput is "free", but its the easiest way to charge for usage over a period of time. That way downloading at 6mb/s one day, and not downloading at all the next, evens itself out.

The ISP itself cannot hammer the entire internet continually, but it -can- spike. Thus -> throughput over time. If you use 6mb/s for 1 hour, its not as big a deal as if you use 1mb/s for 6 hours. You have a much more lasting impact in the later case, and have much higher odds of conflicting with someone else.

Re:No such thing as unlimited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534901)

You know when it comes to racism, people say: " I don't care if they're black, white, purple or green"... Ooh hold on now: Purple or Green? You gotta draw the line somewhere! To hell with purple people! - Unless they're suffocating - then help'em. - Mitch Hedberg

We miss you dude. Why did you leave us.

Re:No such thing as unlimited (1)

CityZen (464761) | about 5 years ago | (#27534909)

Indeed you are correct. In one month, there is a hard data transfer limit that can not be exceeded.

Re:No such thing as unlimited (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 5 years ago | (#27535225)

"You have to draw a line somewhere, and put a price under it."

You're always bandwidth capped, so it could be unlimited given the maximum bandwidth you have, meaning even if they max'd the bandwidth 24/7 all month they would not reach the cap.

Cheaper across the pond - for once (4, Informative)

OMGcAPSLOCK (1507399) | about 5 years ago | (#27534747)

At current exchange rates, $150 works out to be about £100. By comparison, I'm getting uncapped 24mbps ADSL downloads for £22 per month in the UK. I think this might be the one sole instance where the UK gets a better deal on something than the US.

Re:Cheaper across the pond - for once (1)

OMGcAPSLOCK (1507399) | about 5 years ago | (#27534779)

I should probably add that I still have to pay about 50% more for the MacBook Pro that I use to connect to internet in the first place.

Re:Cheaper across the pond - for once (3, Funny)

bwcbwc (601780) | about 5 years ago | (#27535089)

On the other hand, everyone in the country must be getting bulk discounts on CCTV surveillance cameras by now... :)

Clarification on $75 (2, Interesting)

Marc_Hawke (130338) | about 5 years ago | (#27534765)

The other story I saw on this said that the monthly bill was capped at $75. They assumed that meant subscription + overages. So the 'unlimited' plan would be only $75. (Still high for an ISP only charge.)

Is there a 'horse's mouth' release anywhere that doesn't have that ambiguity?

Re:Clarification on $75 (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 years ago | (#27535113)

Do you really think that's high? Another poster said that it's a 6Mb/s connection, which puts the maximum monthly throughput at 1.88TB. That works out at 3.9Â/GB, which seems pretty cheap to me.

In central Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534777)

We usually get a flat plan for 15-20mbit/s over dsl for ~40 EUR/month (1mbit up)

and in japan (i heard) are the prices for fibre-to-the-desk very similar

why are you guys still fucking around with those cable companies?

Attention to Linux users (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534789)

You are all losers With no life and need to get one.

Start by typing

sudo yes > /dev/sda

on your command line.

Re:Attention to Linux users (1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 5 years ago | (#27534831)

Says the guy with so little life that he goes around wasting his time posting this crap.

Wheres the friking backlash? (2, Interesting)

drijen (919269) | about 5 years ago | (#27534795)

Funny. Over at speakeasy, I can get a line that is not only faster, but guaranteed bandwidth, and is unregulated as far as what I do with it. No idiot company blocking my ports, bitching about my fileserver, etc. Further, I can sign up for a resell plan and make money on my line, with speakeasy doing all the billing. Oh, and I can have that bundled in with VoIP access too? All for around the same $150? Gratuitous link: http://www.speakeasy.net/home/ [speakeasy.net]

Please mr. ISP, tell me again how you aren't a simpering moron?

Re:Wheres the friking backlash? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 5 years ago | (#27534911)

Speakeasy charges too much.
Mostly due to what the local loop charges them I am sure.

Re:Wheres the friking backlash? (3, Informative)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about 5 years ago | (#27534915)

Because I, the ISP, have formed a pact with your local government to prevent Speakeasy (or any other meaningful competition) from servicing your area of the country.

Re:Wheres the friking backlash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534919)

Thank you.

What others are out there? My google foo is failing me.

Re:Wheres the friking backlash? (1)

CityZen (464761) | about 5 years ago | (#27534969)

They can get away with it because they have monopolies in many markets. Speakeasy is not available everywhere.

Re:Wheres the friking backlash? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 5 years ago | (#27535215)

Please mr. ISP, tell me again how you aren't a simpering moron?

Because we make more money than Speakeasy by pandering to the real simpering morons.

I used to get unlimited bandwidth... (1)

gillbates (106458) | about 5 years ago | (#27534801)

For $14.99 a month via DSL.

Technically speaking, there's no such thing as unlimited bandwidth, though, I would expect if an ISP advertised "unlimited usage" for a 6 Mbs line, I'd be able to download (6 Mbps / 8 bits per byte * 3600 s/hour * 24 hours/day * 30 days/month = 1944000 megabytes = 1.944 terabytes per month). Sadly, no.

The problem I have with these plans is that they're charging more for essentially the same service as before. Sure, you'll always have those people who are "excessive downloaders" who - by the cable company's definition - are "abusers". But the problem is that these people: A.) Expect to use the bandwidth for which they've paid, and B.) Are so few and far between that they don't affect the overall usage significantly.

Unfortunately, for most, the only way to get a fair price is to talk your congressman into price controls; ISPs are often monopolies in the area in which they serve.

Re:I used to get unlimited bandwidth... (1)

jlarocco (851450) | about 5 years ago | (#27534997)

Unfortunately, for most, the only way to get a fair price is to talk your congressman into price controls; ISPs are often monopolies in the area in which they serve.

It's not your congressman, but your city council who you should talk to. They're the ones who give out the local monopoly in the first place.

Re:I used to get unlimited bandwidth... (1)

swilver (617741) | about 5 years ago | (#27535077)

ISP's in my country have realized the following:

Q: What happens if we just let our customers download as much as they want?

A: They could download 2 TB each month.

Q: 2 TB's?? Where would they store all that crap?

A: They can't unless they're just maxing the line and throwing it all away.

Q: So... if we'd let them download as much as they'd want, it's likely they'd stop downloading that much in a few months at most?

A: Yeah, that's likely, since they can't store that much data anyway.

Sooo... in my country, ISP's simply give you unlimited accounts, for the simple reason that most users simply cannot download and store that much data anyway -- sure, they were downloading left and right the first few months, but that changes rapidly. I'm a good example. I used to download 200+ GB a month, but I barely go over 100 GB these days -- I simply donot know what to do with it all.

Not terribly surprising (4, Informative)

d_jedi (773213) | about 5 years ago | (#27534821)

Definitely disappointing, but not surprising.
The problem is, residential broadband networks were never designed to handle the uses many people make of them nowadays (particularly due to P2P) - there are some heavy users who transfer terabytes of (sometimes of dubious legality) information every month.. it is unreasonable for these people to pay the same price as someone who just checks their e-mail and sends photos to their grandchildren.

The caps and prices here are quite unacceptable - double the cap and half the price, and maybe we're talking..

Re:Not terribly surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534985)

then don't try to sell me an "unlimited" plan. tell me that i can only download 40 gigs a month up front, not after i've been a paying customer and using your product.

Re:Not terribly surprising (4, Insightful)

berzerk8 (1525125) | about 5 years ago | (#27535057)

So you think that the average user (IE the person that just checks email and sends photos to their grandchildren) should be the standard to which we are all charged 29.95 for a 5gb plan? I can download 5gb in a couple of hours without there being any "dubious legality". Those of us that are more technically inclined should not be punished because of the "average user", who are in all likelihood the people on the phone with Dell when their wireless mouse runs out of batteries...

A good first step (3, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | about 5 years ago | (#27534827)

The problem with the mainstream model for ISPs is that in an unlimited use plan, the less aggressive users subsidize the consumption of the aggressive users. Most slashdot readers may not have a problem with that, but I think that a lot of people would rather pay a reasonable, and cheaper rate, for bandwidth they use than pay more for a theoretically uncapped amount that they won't use.

Re:A good first step (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 5 years ago | (#27534893)

But they won't. The bottom price will be what they pay now and everyone else will just pay more. Prices are never going to be reduced.

Re:A good first step (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27535007)

And what this translates into, is that use under-using people are STILL subsidizing just as much as you were before. The heavy users are just helping to line the pockets of the shareholders a bit more, because you know they won't stop and say "hey... if we have so many people hitting the caps, perhaps we should spend that extra cash and flush out our network better.". They'll do exactly what they did with the billions they were given in the past to build out the network and shower it on their investors.

Re:A good first step (1)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | about 5 years ago | (#27534973)

Fine then, change the pricing model to a price/GB. Use a two tier system for amount uploaded and downloaded, and show this on the billing statement. This could also give people more of an incentive to keep their PC's secure. As all the spam bouncing around on zombie PC networks would then have an actual cost to the computer's owner other than "Windows is acting funny".

Re:A good first step (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 5 years ago | (#27535135)

Fine then, change the pricing model to a price/GB. Use a two tier system for amount uploaded and downloaded, and show this on the billing statement.

Now you are DIRECTLY paying for ads and patches.
Buy a game or application online? Pay for it, and then pay to have it 'delivered'.
Pay your ISP to deliver your local government information?

No thanks.

Re:A good first step (1)

Arsenal4rs (1529513) | about 5 years ago | (#27535049)

The problem with the mainstream model for ISPs is that in an unlimited use plan, the less aggressive users subsidize the consumption of the aggressive users. Most slashdot readers may not have a problem with that, but I think that a lot of people would rather pay a reasonable, and cheaper rate, for bandwidth they use than pay more for a theoretically uncapped amount that they won't use.

Sorry, sounds waaaay to much like an industry shill to me. When I originally signed up for cable, it was marketed as "unlimited". I paid for "unlimited". Just because now the cable industry has succeeded in their marketing ploys by offering "unlimited", and now because of their success their networks are clogged and/or bogged down with all the customers who bought and paid for "unlimited", does NOT mean they can go back on what they advertised. I can imagine their line of thought. "Oh, sorry, we didn't mean "unlimited". we meant 5/10/20 gigs. but if you really do want what we told you you could have, its going to cost you $150. So the next time around, when people once again sign up for "unlimited" and the cable companies are back to having the same issue, how much will it cost to get what you signed up and paid for all over again? Its nothing more then a service provider not wanting to keep up its end of the bargain, and wring more money out of customers for the same level of service while doing NOTHING to earn that extra money.

Netflix (5, Insightful)

Stonent1 (594886) | about 5 years ago | (#27534849)

They just don't want you streaming Netflix over your cable. They want you to sign up for their on-demand service.

Perhaps I'm missing something... (1)

Onyma (1018104) | about 5 years ago | (#27534857)

Why wouldn't you just buy the 5 Gig plan at $29.95.. then go over it at $1 per Gig up to a limit of $75... then you would have unlimited for $104.95... not $150?

doesn't this really mean 'throughput'?? (1)

david.emery (127135) | about 5 years ago | (#27534859)

'unlimited bandwidth' would be basically infinite transfer -speed-. I think what is being offered is no cap on -contents-, which probably means unlimited -throughput-, but at some limited bandwidth (speed). At least my ISP has a sliding scale for real bandwidth, you pay more for more speed, and I'd be really surprised if TW doesn't have the same thing.

Here (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about 5 years ago | (#27534863)

Here in Rochester, the Boring & Mainstream Local Media (TM) has picked up on this pretty heavily, mainly in the "backdoor price increase" sense

We use phone-company DSL, so I'd have no idea aobut how TimeWarner is currently working.

Curious to see what others do. (1)

rindeee (530084) | about 5 years ago | (#27534867)

I'm a Charter cable customer in the St. Louis area. As many probably know, Charter recently filed bankruptcy recently. I have read rumors that Charter is preparing a similar move to what is described by the OP, though I have options. ATT recently established decent service where I'm at ($30/mo buys me 3Mb DSL vs $46/mo for my current 6Mb cable) and to my knowledge has no monthly transfer limits. Given that we use our connection for a LOT of Netflix streaming, this is important to me. There are some decent options in St. Louis between ATT and a few others, so I hope that Charter doesn't get stupid with their pricing. I've been pleased with their service thus far, but I would drop them immediately if they start capping.

Re:Curious to see what others do. (1)

Bootarn (970788) | about 5 years ago | (#27535171)

I'm not an American resident, so I'm wondering if what you pay for your connection is considered to be relatively good pricing? In my family, we're paying 359 SEK/month, wich is about $43/month, for 24 Mbit/s DSL with unlimited monthly traffic. We live in Sweden.

Ma bell (1)

esocid (946821) | about 5 years ago | (#27534877)

Why are ISPs trying to turn into cell carriers (for ones which aren't already) and squeeze every last penny from consumers. On one side, at least someone is honestly selling what they can provide, but at ridiculous pricing tiers. I can easily imagine them trying to charge for certain ports, and applications. One more reason to donate to the EFF [eff.org]
If I hadn't lost^H^H^H^H ever had faith in the FCC I'd wish they would do something about this debacle before it gets really out of hand. Wait, what am I talking about? That happened long ago. I'd like to see something positive happen with their latest proposal though.

Time Warner, we need to talk. (1)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | about 5 years ago | (#27534905)

I've been a little tuned out, last time I checked in only hearing about Time Warner testing this capping out in other markets (I'm in NYC), thinking it would never happen to me. So I take it this means a cap is already imposed for me, presumably with prohibitive surcharges after I break it?

The one thing I like about Time Warner is that they tend to look the other way (you know what I'm talking about) unlike OptimumOnline for example with their silly letters. I also like having a somewhat static IP without ports blocked and a general laisez faire attitude about running any kind of daemon, at least off-paper.

Question to Verizon FiOS users in NYC: Is it really badass in general? Same kind of throughput regardless of the nature of your packets? Duplex? Any scary letters show up in the mail? Any downside for me, other than the schlep, to switch from TW to Verizon FiOS for both Internet and television? Because I'm this close to making the two phone calls. Sad because I live close to the Time Warner building and I like the building. It's a nice building. But I spend more time on the Internet than I do walking by their building so I'm not going to let that sway me entirely. But Verizon is such an ugly name. I mean.. Verizon. ugh :(. They paid someone to come up with that?

I could have just googled this, Time Warner NYC's TOS and pricing, but I want my post to serve as an example of what happens to a Time Warner customer once he reads this New York Times article. God bless free market competition.

Re:Time Warner, we need to talk. (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | about 5 years ago | (#27535099)

When I moved up from PA to NY, I switched from a business class DSL line (1.5Mbps down, 384Mbps up) to Optimum Online Business. Back in PA, my DSL line used to run maxed out for weeks at a time (300 GB/month), up here I generally use anything between 100GB/mo up to 300-400GB/mo.

So far, in 2 years of being with Optimum Online Business, they have never hassled me about usage. Verizon/GTE never harassed me back in PA either about usage (in about 7 years of service).

The moral of the story is that if you want good service with no caps, pay for the business class service. That's usually in the $100-$150 range depending on the vendor and speeds. (I pay a bit less up here in NY then I did back in PA and get a lot more bandwidth.)

What's the point?! (4, Interesting)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about 5 years ago | (#27534917)

If you are trying to sell high-speed access, you need to assume that people are going to be downloading about half a terabyte worth of HD video content a month. If the system cannot support that for every customer (10MBit average sustained four hours a day), then you are in the wrong business.

The more I read about these companies' stupidity, the more I want to start a co-op ISP. In LA it isn't that hard to lease a wavelength off of DWP (assuming you have them passing nearby) to connect to one of the hubs in El Segundo, Downtown, or wherever. Negotiate with a community for the right to run local links, and you can have a system installed for under $500 per node, and all your costs are paid after 12 months, with just bandwidth remaining.

This isn't rocket science...

Your point vs. theirs. (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 5 years ago | (#27535195)

The more I read about these companies' stupidity, the more I want to start a co-op ISP. In LA it isn't that hard to lease a wavelength off of DWP (assuming you have them passing nearby) to connect to one of the hubs in El Segundo, Downtown, or wherever. Negotiate with a community for the right to run local links, and you can have a system installed for under $500 per node, and all your costs are paid after 12 months, with just bandwidth remaining.

This isn't rocket science...

Ah, tell me again, what does rocket science have anything to do with Greed? When it comes down to finding ways to make even MORE money, simplicity, fairness, and even Common Sense are usually absent.

Sorry, but those limits will never happen (2, Interesting)

Throgorss (1464375) | about 5 years ago | (#27534923)

Playing left 4 dead on xbox 360 for one minute online results in about 1 megabyte of data transfer for that minute. 1 * 60 = 60 MB for 1 hour. 4 hours a day = about 1 GB so at 30$ a month, I can play my xbox online for 20 hours, or 5 days at 4 hours a day... Not to mention thats no web surfing, email, etc. This is for the entire month. Not to mention those autoplay video advertisements. Youtube videos are highly compressed but still megabytes in size. Could you imagine trying to use windows update, SP3 took over a gigabyte of downloads. The new debian linux is 25GB for the entire thing, true you can get by on 4GB or so...

Re:Sorry, but those limits will never happen (3, Informative)

Hikaru79 (832891) | about 5 years ago | (#27535115)

I think the problem is your math, not their service. 60 MB for 1 hour does not equal 1 GB in 4 hours, not even close -- a gig is 1024 megabytes.

Assuming your estimate of 60 MB per hour is correct, their 100GB/month account will let you play Left4Dead for 56 hours a day without paying any overcharge fees. Is that enough for you?

Re:Sorry, but those limits will never happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27535243)

Only 56? What do I do for the other 30 hours?

Next step (2, Insightful)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | about 5 years ago | (#27534937)

'Friends and family' websites. Get unlimited Gb to your 5 favorite websites. You can choose Google, /., Reddit, Engadget, LKML while little Suzie can choose MySpace, Facebook, Digg, Twitter, AmericanIdol.

This kind of bs shouldn't be allowed to happen.

Peak vs sustained (1)

Orii (55092) | about 5 years ago | (#27534941)

I don't see this comparison made often, but I like to express the data transfer cap as a sustained bandwidth and relate it to the peak bandwidth they advertise. 5 GB cap in a 30 day month is 5 GB / (30 * 24 * 60 * 60) = about 2071 B/sec sustained rate over the month. That's right, if you average 2.1KB/sec for the month, you hit the cap. That's sure a lot lower than the advertised (peak) bandwidth.

The obvious solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534943)

is that the government should force their rates lower, and then bail them out when they can't pay their bills.

Sham (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27534981)

The only reason they want caps is because they know that the internet is starting to compete with their cable offerings. It has nothing to do with bandwidth. They are already upgrading their infrastructure to support huge amounts of bandwidth. The cost to do so is minimal for cable because the latest upgrade happens to occur at the head end and at the modem in the house. That is $40-$100 a home half of which is paid for by the consumer. That is nothing to charge or make back. What they really want to do is tier their pricing in a way that they cannot be out competed by internet TV. We need to break this MaBell up now.

This is about non-corporate content creators (1)

Jewfro_Macabbi (1000217) | about 5 years ago | (#27535045)

This fight never had anything to do with "network capacity". They are saying the don't have enough capacity to stream internet video. Yet they do have enough capacity to stream HDTV 24x7 - so longs as you are paying Time Warner for it.

This is exactly what happened to radio, and then to television.

The only goal these companies ever had, is to price the average person out the "real" broadband market.

Only the wealthy voices, will be disseminated.

Re:This is about non-corporate content creators (1)

Hikaru79 (832891) | about 5 years ago | (#27535169)

This fight never had anything to do with "network capacity". They are saying the don't have enough capacity to stream internet video. Yet they do have enough capacity to stream HDTV 24x7 - so longs as you are paying Time Warner for it.

It takes a really strong streak of paranoia and delusion for that argument to not make sense to you. Yes, in general, companies are better able to deliver services and maintain a high capacity when you pay them for it. I know data is just this one cable running into your house for you, but believe it or not it takes some mighty powerful infrastructure to stream porn into millions of houses 24 hours a day.

I demand an itemized list! (1, Interesting)

DirkGently (32794) | about 5 years ago | (#27535081)

If I go over, what's my recourse to dispute it? I want an itemized list of each movie I watched, icecast I streamed and stippercam to which I whacked off. Phone company does it, and we all KNOW they suck.

Also, what about roll-over gigs? Are nights and weekends free?

Personally, I have the lowest tier of TW business class through a deal my wife has at work. Wondering if I'll be affected. Hrm...

Really Unlimited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27535085)

I don't mean to gloat, but really ? I mean, I get a 5 mbps fiber connection for 10$ a month, and there is NO LIMIT on how much I download/upload. A 10 mbps connection is just 5$ extra. I'd say I rack up about 500 gb of traffic a month, judging from the statistics in utorrent. But I guess this is the price I have to pay for living in eastern Europe.

40% per year (1)

Maladius (1289924) | about 5 years ago | (#27535131)

From the article:

"Here at Time Warner Cable, consumption among our high-speed Internet subscribers is increasing by about 40 percent a year"

So basically they want to see their profits go up by 40% per year, since I'm sure the 10GB cap isn't going to become 14GB next year.

From the TFA: Comcast offers 250GB for $45 (1)

aaandre (526056) | about 5 years ago | (#27535173)

Does Time Warner offer some kind of better, more expensive internet I didn't know about? How come their bandwidth is worth so much more?

Can't be just greed, can it?

Where to complain (1)

drxenos (573895) | about 5 years ago | (#27535227)

Anyone know what the best way to complain? I have TWC, and I've already emailed them to say I will cancel when this comes to my area. I seriously doubt that will have much of an effect, though.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...