They'll be lucky if it's $50 for 500gigs...

Yeah it'll be more like $50 for 2GB. This pisses me off so much.

It's better to just bandwidth throttle people down to reasonable levels, and expand that as the network grows.

But it's their business so they can run things however they like I guess.

We'll see if their new model survives under capitalism.

Thats a lot of bit torrent.

Time Warner boycott hoooo.

Ridiculous... They act as if there not making unreasonable amounts of profit per quarter. If you want to limit peoples usage, slow a user who is eating more than a normal amount thats one thing, but when u throttle one service, or start charging by the byte, you ruin the entire concept of net neutrality. Its the internet, its supposed to be free.

I'm so glad that my apartment complex here at UT Austin switched to Grande internet. Its soo much cheaper and soo much faster! Go Grande! Fuck the Bird!

The 90's called, they want their broadband pricing back.

i can't understand why you have so few reasons for not moving to texas

But here's the kicker. Time Warner wants to charge you a bunch of money for downloading a bunch of content. At the same time, Time Warner via Warner Bros is hoping that you'll pay to download their large media files (movies) and do so often.

So... If you give too much money to Warner by legally watching a bunch of their properties, you'll hit your bandwidth cap and have to pay them even more in overage fees.

Yay.

That's Bush fault. He leaves in Texas.

That's like putting a limit on how many hours of tv you can watch a month...

or wait.. That's like a school teacher being like "Sorry Tommy you get a timeout because you read too many books this week"...

It's a set back. I remember a friend of mine in australia told me about this kinda stuff and I was like, dood how could you even survive with only 5gb a month, that's a serious issue there.

I wasn't even expected this primitive system would finally come to the state (or maybe there are some similar services already here?)

@Coder4Life: Except watching a lot of TV (Besides On-Demand) doesn't change how much bandwidth is being used.

It would be nice if it was capitalism and we had a choice. That's not the case. In many places where I live(Texas), you either get Time Warner or you get nothing. And don't say dish, that's ridiculous. DSL isn't in all areas and they're the only cable provider. There needs to be more choice in cable and service providers, bottom line.

do you know if they will offer this as a less expensive plan, as well as the current unlimited?

I'm a Time Warner customer in California, and if they try to put me on this, I'm going to finally call Verizon about Fios. Just saying.

Texas is a great state. We have the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. And lots of other hot women. And we all have guns!

Anyways, this isn't that big of a deal. It's not state or government mandated, so the mass exodus of customers will result in the dissolution of this plan. We have too many other options for broadband to care about these guys.

This is the Hidden Cost of the "Digital Delivery Future" that everybody likes to ramble about.

Everybody says that BluRay and/or HD-DVD are the last physical media...and that downloading movies is the way of the future.

Well, guess what: if you make a few iTunes rentals (or purchases) a month, you might just have to spring for a larger cap on you internet service. Suddenly, you're paying an extra $20/month so you can download 5 movies from iTunes. That "wonderful" $3/movie rental charge just increased to $7. If you buy movies for $10-$20 and download online, add another few dollars to the price there too.

Suddenly, driving to the store or ordering off Amazon (with free shipping) appears a whole lot cheaper...

@MrSpyder:
What about Comcast?

I can just see a bunch of suits sitting around asking, "Hmmm...what else can we charge for?"

Warner died when they merged with AOL, the service slowly dropped to AOL levels then when they couldn't get my connection working for months they decided that me connecting to my company VPN once a quarter when I was on call meant I had to buy their business class service so I dropped them.

I used to live in Sydney, AU where ADSL (1.5 mbit, mind you) was pretty much the best service you could get. On top of that, they had a tiered payment system. I think I was paying AU$70/mo for 16 GB of downloads. Here's Exetel's current price list, for the interested: [www.exetel.com.au] They also now offer ADSL2 with faster speeds. Safe is to say, I am MUCH happier to be back in the US with no cap to speak of (except for the Comcast "Fuck you, customers" cap).

The thing that worries me about this is that Comcast is claiming that they need to stop BitTorrent uploading as a mode of network management. That's another way of saying "we need to keep people from using the service they pay for because we can't actually offer that to every single person all the time." Yet at the same time, Comcast is trumpeting faster speeds to the home ([arstechnica.com]). HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? How is that even legal?

I'm just a tech who wants decent internet service at home. Yet, when a company says with one mouth that their network can't handle the demand and with another that they're increasing speeds, my mind fails to continue processing anything, ever. Why isn't the FCC/Congress nailing their ass to a wall?

It's like the people in charge don't actually know how the internet works.

If they try this in my area, I'm dumping them immediately.

Is this how they hope to compete with FIOS? Start imposing caps? Whomever is making decisions at Time Warner is a moron!

this is going to encourage people to steal connection.

@decerbo:
time warner cable is/was comcast. comcast is/was att cable. they keep selling/changing name/companies whatever, but they remain the only cable company in north texas. the ONLY sbc dsl available is the 1.5mps "express package" and verizon fios is only available to about 10-15% of the area. if you want cable or broadband cable internet an you live in north texas. you have NO options....

How does this factor in with VOIP? Will talking all you want on your flat fee for VOIP service shoot your internet bill up too?

Time Warner is pitiful. They have the worst customer service of any company I've encountered. My internet goes out at least once a month for a day or more (and this is in Manhattan!) and you can't even get a person on the phone without waiting on hold for over an hour. Then they don't even have an explanation and tell you to sit tight until they can identify the problem. If my building didn't prohibit it I'd switch to directv and the attendant internet service in a heartbeat. Likewise verizon hasn't brought Fios in yet.

Ugh. Better enjoy the unlimited bandwidth while I can I suppose...

with all the new iptv and movie rental stuff hitting the net this won't fly for long I forsee a huge backlash from customers/gamers.

@adam12hicks:
The problem is, there likely won't be any "mass exodus" of customers. The vast majority of people (the 95% who don't eat up huge amounts of bandwidth) don't know enough about this stuff to care. I've got a bad feeling that by the time real bandwidth-eating stuff (i.e. streaming HD) becomes truly mainstream, this kind of system will have already moved into place and it'll be too late. And don't think they haven't thought to cover their own download services, I'm sure there will be some sort of plan for allowing you to hand over your money for "premium" content without racking up your bandwidth count.

Even though the bandwidth hogs will be an extremely vocal minority, they're still vastly outnumbered by people who have more important things to worry about. Not discounting the importance of this, but for most people out there this is very, very low on their list of priorities.

It really wouldn't be difficult for them to spin this as a good thing for the majority, something like "now we charge based on usage so it's a better value for the average home user" or "bandwidth caps allow us to provide higher speed and better service to everyone." The only real problem here is the lack of competition and choice.

@Mike from Boston:
Yes that's pretty much every business boardroom in history.

Allright Time Warner, I've been putting up with the financial assault you've been pounding upon me since getting *gasp* 2 cable boxes, one of which is DVR, no premium channels, and cablemodem access, because it was still tolerable here in Austin. If you end up doing this though, I'm going back down to just cable (or seeing if I can finally get Grande cable in my area), and I will, despite how much I hate them, switch to AT&T DSL. You're pushing me, baby...

I pay almost $50 a month for 60 GB in Canada. You guys are such babies.

@NightElfMohawk:

tv-wise their cable prices are still reasonable though. i was paying $150 a month on direct tv (all channels only 2 boxes) before switching over... now i pay $150 a month with 3 hdtv dvr (2 of them dualtuner)AND my internet. i was gonna try dishnetwork see if i could go cheaper but they limit only ONE hd dvr per home. and i was still only gonna save about $20 but WITHOUT internet.... but i still say we need competition here.

@sebas0069: I feel obligated to correct anyone that says this and inform them that Bush is really from Connecticut.

And this plan sucks balls.

I want Grande cable so bad, everyone I know that has used it likes it. Plus their customer service is actually nice and their repair guys are prompt. My friend called them one morning when the modem went dead and they had someone out there that afternoon.

thank god i just switched to fios in houston. beaumont isn't far from here.

Finally! I've been waiting for the day we revert to the old pay-per-minute policies of AOL 3.0. We're getting closer!!

If they were smart they would do what cell phone companies do. Have different levels of information per price plans. So many gigs for so much, twice the gigs for almost twice as much, up to about 4 levels, then have Unlimited for more than all of them.

I'm not saying this is a good idea, in Raleigh if you don't have road runner, then you have dsl which is horrendous, all I'm saying is this is how they woul dmake the most money by screwing the hell out of the consumer. Fios has yet to catch up so they can still get away with things like this.

I don't see how we are being babies. We've had a consumer beneficial pricing model for years here. You expect us to jump for joy when they do something that's not even in the same zip code as our best interests, all because they don't want to invest in network upgrades? 60 gb is nothign. Throw browsing all day, working from home, downloading legal content off itunes, watching a Netflix Instant movie or two, gaming online, and you easily burn through that. And its not like I am going to stop any of those things... so how does this help them manage their network? Are they going to invest my "fees" in network upgrades?

@kaos.rox: Hey, just because Canadian ISPs suck, doesn't make us babies; it just means you don't mind taking it up the ass.

Plus, Grande has NFL Network bundled... I'm jealous of my friends that have it.

I heard that.

@DARRONE: I'm not a fan of the plan, but your argument is bogus:

"but when u throttle one service, or start charging by the byte, you ruin the entire concept of net neutrality. Its the internet, its supposed to be free."

There's nothing in this that has anything to do with neutrality. They're not talking about throttling or charging more to torrent users, for instance - that would fit. This is a "pay for what you eat", usage disincentive, and it's profit-motivated all around. Sure, they're making tons of money now, and they don't want to spend any more of it than they have to upgrading an infrastructure that *will* get choked eventually.

The US interstate highway system is "free" (well, subsidized). Your access to it (car ownership, fuel, insurance, etc.) is a privilege you pay for. When you say the Internet is supposed to be "free", it sounds more like "beer" than "speech". That's like proposing that somebody should be paying for the differential in your gas and car insurance if you drive more than most people.

@izim1: Thanks for getting my back.
I meant FIOS isn't in all areas(and DSL sucks). Cable in North Texas is a bad joke. and Time Warner is the worst. Back when I lived in Austin and had TW I got the tier over basic cable specifically to get Speed Channel. Two races into the Formula 1 season, Speed channel disappears. I called and they said(i'm paraphrasing) 'it's on a special sports package for extra bucks and it's always been that way so tough cookies.' After that I lived without cable for almost a year. I hate Time Warner.

@izim1: I can't go with any dish because I tend to live in apartments, and most of them don't allow you to mount them on the building. But there's 2 cable companies here, just that one is not available in all areas (Grande), and Time Warner's available basically anywhere.

@absentblue: Thank you for correcting that - as someone born and mainly raised in Texas but not a bible-thumping moron, I'm appreciative to see I'm not the only one that has to point out the doofus is not from this state as well, he just got to the White House from here.

First the mobile phone network providers sneakily do this with data by either disabling your account or citing "reasonable usage." Now wired broadband providers?

Did the first exchanges use a pay per time model for private lines?

I seriously think the gov. needs to step in.

@HeartBurnKid: Just because the two Canadian ISPs have a monopoly over the industry, doesn't mean we mind taking it up the ass. We have no choice. Either pay them for a 60GB cap (that has been in place since I can remember, it's 100GB for 18mbps connections) and get your content, or disconect from the Internet and move to the States. Personally, I'd rather pay.

I also live in texas (houston suburban) and we were part of the Time Warner area that sold/traded to comcast. We immediately noticed throttling when we used netmeeting or aimpro stuff after the switchover. It royally sucks and fios/verizon or (att formerly sbc) won't come to our address. The only other option (besides comcast's $40 a month) is $65 a month fee for slower speeds from a small telecom that is the only choice for local phones/DSL. I like having multiple HD-DVRs for the house with cable, but I am dying for better internet options. Help! Free the internet!

I have been Road Runner customer since they brought the service to Austin (10+ years). The minute they try to hit me with this type of pricing is the minute I switch providers. I don't download movies or use bit torrent but I also don't want to have to worry about my usage each month.

Its ironic that when cable companies moved into long distance, they adopted a flat rate model rather than a per-minute model yet now we have a cable company planning move from a flat rate model in broadband to a by-the-byte model.

What is all the fuss about, I've been paying $10 per GB a year ago. Not in the USA though... Now I'm paying $50 for IPTV and 2 mbit flat rate Internet, it's a bit change in a year.

@Mike from Boston & Fullflava: Actually the suits sit around in boardrooms asking themselves, "How can we take something a customer is already buying, cut it up into multiple services while creating a incomprehensible billing scheme so the customer is fooled into paying more for the same thing?"

@MrSpyder: HAHA speed channel. i went through that too. i needed my motogp and formula one races so i paid the extra $5 though. but now its back on the basic package and they might as well call it the NASCRAP channel...... i liked it alot better when it was speedvision. you can blame all that on FOX though.

If the real intention is just to deflect the higher network maintenance costs away from the low-end users, then I can understand why they are trying to push this. By keeping broadband costs lower for the "average" consumer (whom they purport to be the other 95% whom contribute to only 50% of bandwidth), they can try to attract more low end users.

However, I don't believe that they'd try to pass on those savings to the low end customers who are already paying what TW knows to be their price point. And they could sell extra network throughput as a selling feature to remaining customers, or whatever other profitable ventures they may decide to do with it.

Obviously most us 5% who use the internet for all its great multimedia features (illegal torrents ;) would never go for that, so TW will end up losing 5% of their revenues and the rest of the customers would end up paying, on average, the same (plus a little more to make up for the lost 5%).

They are offering slightly less to slightly fewer for the same price or more. It seems clear that this is only a cash grab at the expense of higher-usage consumers, whom they are trying to villify, and is a sure way to shrink your customer base rather than grow your business. And like others said, if it is on a per byte basis, then it will become easier for them to neglect updating their usage rates as the average user's bandwidth also goes up.

I don't get it. Whenever I bittorrent it is almost painkstakingly slow. It might be downloading for a LONG time, but it definetly is not taking up a lot of my available bandwidth.

Jeez, when I think of testing a product of service in a select area, what comes to mind are beneficial things: Starbucks and iTunes release market-by-market, Verizon Wireless' Ringback Tones, the rollout of EV-DO.

Those poor suckers in Beaumont are really getting the shaft.

Some of the previous posters have it exactly right: if this country actually supported and legislated for free enterprise, if it honestly felt competition was a good thing and made sure it wasn't actively legislated against ... the free market would take care of this latest assault on customer rights and customer service. Too f*ucking bad it doesn't. Too fu*cking bad the US isn't anywhere near as advanced as Korea or a slew of other nations when it comes to internet services.