nakahito

nakahito

drawkbox

This book documents the largest fraud case in American history.

The case is simple: Do you have a 45 Mbps, bi-directional service to your home, paying around $40? Do you have 500+ channels and can choose any competitive service? You paid an estimated $2000 for this product even though you did not receive it and it may never be available. Do you want your money back and the companies held accountable?

Background: Starting in the early 1990's, the Clinton-Gore Administration had aggressive plans to create the "National Infrastructure Initiative" to rewire ALL of America with fiber optic wiring, replacing the 100 year old copper wire. The Bell companies - SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest, claimed that they would step up to the plate and rewire homes, schools, libraries, government agencies, businesses and hospitals, etc. if they received financial incentives.

iamliving

What else I see this capping other than throttling bandwidth usage is limiting the race for faster and better features between the ISPs. I mean, wasn't there a time when the ISPs were racing to give its users more bandwidth, faster speeds and at a lower cost? Now it looks like less bandwidth, little progress on the speeds, costlier, and ridiculous overages (understandably to deter from going over the caps), not to mention packet trafficking.

kintamanate

jdotto02

And everything I keep reading claims that this will only impact new customers signing up, which implies that older customers will be grandfathered in without a cap. Hah... hahaha... RIGHT.

Here I thought I was doing them a favor by limiting my download speeds to about half of my cap, and trying to limit my bandwidth usage to keep it under 30 gigs a month. What about people playing on Xbox Live? I've never done anything or seen any numbers as to how much bandwidth that tends to consume, but I imagine it's not an inconsiderable amount. What about Netflix subscribers watching movies online? What if it's a particularly patch heavy month from Microsoft, or I do a reinstall on two computers and need SP2?

There's a lot of reasons why this little money-making scheme sucks, but I'm guessing that they'll get away with it because most of their customers just don't know any better.

linoth

I hope it doesn't pass onto other ISPs.
I purchased the fastest I could where I live, as far as speed goes. Why? Because I plan on doing more than just checking my email.

Im sure the speed was available for that reason as well. And Im sure I pay the high price I do because of what it is.

-Core-

All so that the networks can handle High definition content_ Because I hate to be the stickler here Time Warner - but we ain't going back to the days of 14.4k 2400 baud modems_ Sorry_

uberfu

Time Warner has a choice -- they can either be "just an ISP" in the future, or they can be just nothing, and let Verizon and their ilk handle the Net.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

Chagocal

From TWC's perspective, allowing unlimited bandwidth sows the seeds of their own destruction. As we transition from needing cable to watch video content, and get it straight over teh internet - they become merely an ISP - and I bet that scares their board to death. So they cap bandwidth in order to discourage us from using the internet to consume video and instead use their preferred video medium - cable! Sounds kinda anti-trusty to me... arbitrarily dictating how a customer can use a product that has no use guidelines... sketchy at best. I'll bet anything EFF and MoveOn and a vareity of other consumer groups will get involved once the true implications of this are realized. The internet is not about looking at cnn.com or amazon.com anymore. Sure that's part of it, but the essence of web 2.0 is convergence of services - you need bandwidth to do that and without it the internet is a boring place.

tulanejosh

[www.theedge.ca]

There's other high speed wireless providers but their pricing is worse, ie. less bandwidth for about the same price.

cmaddeaux

ianmac47

I'd be wiling to wager that vonage and other voip will count against the bandwidth, while the time warner internet phone won't.

ari14850

Rustydog

Fierock

Their intent would be to increase by profits by slightly lowering revenue while at the same time largely reducing total bandwidth usage. So what do they do with the extra bandwidth, how do they use that to make up for the lost 5% revenue?

By lowering their average monthly rate they could possibly make some new customers, but at the same time it would result in lower revenues from the remaining customer base. I will all comes down to price elasticity - how many people that are not connected would change their minds if it was $40/month instead of $50/month?

Depending on TW's share of the market, their competitors possibly could feel the pain of more competitive rates because it may force them to do the same, because they are not going to simply let their own customers walk. If TW wants to start a price war then all the ISP's would suffer. It may kill off a few smaller ISPs, but it's not going to result in many converted customers.

No, there is no way I see this saving the casual internet user any money. Instead TW would simply sacrifice its high bandwidth users, rather than expand its equipment, to invest in their capacity. Then in another 5 years when the amounts of data we consume is exponentially more than now, they will have an advantage over their flat-rate competitors who've absorbed the bandwidth hogs.

Is this a smart move by TW? maybe, but that all assumes there is no major technological advances or breathroughs during that time, and that the entire industry doesn't follow suit. All I can tell is that no consumers won't benefit from this scheme, but I'm sure some execs will.

Fierock

simmo

Bkzbeatboxxx

The corporate hubris of T/W seems vaguely reminiscent of some record companies I know...

pejoratus

SpyderMS

shakes

Azteck

Thank you for your inquiry. I do apologize for the delayed response.
This is only a trial in one market in Beaumont, Texas not Central Texas
Division. This does not affect any Central Texas customers. I will
forward your concerns to our Management Team. If you need any further
assistance please give me a call or an email. Thank you again for the
customer service inquiry.

Oh yeah... I feel so warm and fuzzy. I love that a gig is now more expensive than a gallon of gas, all cuz TWC is trying to force us to keep watching their cable product instead of switching to digital delivery straight from the creators.

tulanejosh

pliSkiNAKE

STAND UP FOR YOUR SELFS PEOPLE AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
SEND AN EMAIL, MAIL A LETTER, GET A DISH, JUST DO SOMETHING. MAKE IT UNDERSTOOD WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS SHIT ANYMORE! THIS IS AMERICA! ACT LIKE IT!

Mosher

tulanejosh

whootowl

kahibbi

NoStyle

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

Not only that, the spectre of increased charges for overage will probably do a lot to reduce usage for people that are just using the bandwidth "because it's there." I've been guilty of this- lately I just replaced my old rips of CD's I own with higher bitrate ones, just because it was easier than ripping them all again myself.

As for the overage fees, read the last paragraph of the article summary. If a user has the tools to check their usage and still goes over, it's their own damn fault! This is not a foreign concept to people, as cellphones have been this way for a long time.

I wouldn't mind seeing an option where you get the maximum speed possible, and just get billed for what I use. Maximum burst speeds are a lot more useful than being able to do 5mbit sustained for a whole month.

sardonicbastard

tulanejosh

Before:
1.5m/384k, unlimited: 34.95
4m/512k, unlimited: 44.95
6m/768k, unlimited: 54.95

After:
1.5m/384k, 10GB cap: 34.95
4m/512k, 30GB cap: 44.95
6m/768k, 60GB cap: 54.95

With who knows what kind of overage fees that you don't know about unless you carefully track your internet.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

I would happily pay $50 a month for 50GB, let alone 500GB!

reckless_inoz

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

$50 for 50GB probably wouldn't be that bad. The problem is that it will really be more like $75 for 10GB. The only way they make money on this is setting up tiers where most users will opt for it and not use all the GBs (like buying too many minutes on a wireless plan) and by hoping that a lot of people guess buy too small a package and get stuck with overage fees (again, just like wireless plans).

The thing that I worry about is that RR has generally been a pretty good product - the only tiers had to do with the amount of throughput you bought. Now, this really seems like they are changing their business model to be more like the wireless companies who have horrible business models from a consumer-point-of-view.

What's next? Only RR-approved computers?

GusRandall

Katorok

That is, unless all the people bitching ARE the bad apples. You know, the kind of people that sue when they get kicked out of the all-you-can-eat buffet for eating all the crab legs.

sardonicbastard

AlaskaGuy

jamstigator

i'd go to verizon dsl if i had to, this is total BS. as if we don't have enough BS to worry about in life, there's another cap we have to watch for, so now I gotta be careful on how much sugar i eat, how much greasy food i take in, how much soda i drink, how much gas my car consumes, and now how much my family downloads?

bye TWC if you implement this ridiculous plan

diablofreak

How about using some of last years net income of $7.356 billion? (after a Revenue of $63.055 billion!!)

source:[en.wikipedia.org]

NZRUSS

Evan394

So you're saying they should've already done all those incredibly expensive things (totally revamping/upgrading their networks accross one of the largest markets that they have) without attempting to generate more income to do it with.

I don't get how you expect them to have paid for all of that without adjusting their pricing schedule.

And now that everyone has gone way overboard on the "totally made-up example" that Matt provided us with, there really is absolutely no actual data in the article except that Time Warner confirmed that they will be testing a new pricing plan in one market. That data comes in the first sencence of his 4 or 5 paragraph post. the rest is all editorial. So jus chill, till the next episode. Read before you bitch.

Evan394

lols dude, lols

Evan394

I'm probably an intermediate user, I download probably 1 Linux distro a month, read the regular blogs with video, have about 10 audio and 2 video podcasts, i use no bit-torrent. I have 3 machines (2 ubuntu and 1 windows) and game (BF:2) about 6 hours a week. My connection speed is 6Mbps down with Charter Cable and pay about $50 a month.

I use about 8 to 10GB per month.

I'm sure they'll be tiering their pricing so i have to pay extra. I'd be super pissed if I had to.

NZRUSS

efemall

Agreed.

dead_red_eyes

St3v3

boglegwtf

It's $50 for 500 gigs. If your definition of $50 is the "least", well then either inflation has gone really bad or you're some rich mother f.. heh. j/k.

ripfire

nownot

If meant in good faith, what TW is doing makes sense. I have never measured my bandwidth consumption and I certainly like unmetered service (well, as unmetered as a low-end DSL line from ATT can provide), but I bet capped service can be offered at a lower cost than one-size-fits-all unlimited. From the article:

...tiered levels of service based on how much data they download per month...

I'm imagining a low-end tier for Grandma & Grandma, a mid-range tier to satisfy regular users and light gamers, and high-end tiers for the heavy users and gamers.

Drizzten

rainfever

Actually, if they manage to get rid of unprofitable users (e.g. bandwidth hogs using torrents) TW will increase profits. They will then be able to lower rates to compete with other providers (e.g. Sprint's Xohm or 700Mhz).

Variable pricing is good for the average consumer. It's only painful for people trying to game the system (which would be the average Gizmodo reader, apparently).

Sihanouk-s-Poodle

Then there wouldn't be a reason to even test this new billing scheme.

I'm glad this topic came up because it leads to something I've been meaning to figure out for a couple of weeks but have been too lazy to do it. I'm hoping to start up a small hosting company for a few of my buddies websites. If this actually ends up taking off, what will that mean for me? In other words, how are hosting companies charged for their Internet usage?

TJ

Darrone

whootowl

Monty

And for those talking about a mass exodus from TW, what makes you think that isn't exactly what TW wants? Drive out all the costly high bandwidth users and be left with the profitable low bandwidth users. Makes perfect sense to me.

Bender

Jackson the Narcisisst

transam98

notamacnyc

I don't think Time-Warner and Comcast wouldn't be punishing customer's for actually using their "unlimited" internet service if they had already gone ahead and started doing the properly thing and gone with Fiber Optics, which handle much higher bandwidths and are scalable for future use. The state of the current consumer internet services is almost DEMANDING for this change to happen.

BookbagNinja

dagamer34

A few ISPs and the only other cable company, Time Warner, complained because of unfair competition or some such because the local government is basically carrying the big weight of the costs of the city's ISP, which by the way besides providing cable TV also provides electricity and trash removal, all on the same bill, at an incredible price.

If it's possible to do here in a town with 30,000 people, it's possible in other places IF the people demand it. We voted on it, we all wanted it, and so far (the past eight years or so,) it's been great.

sandwiches

However, the big loss I see with this is that I also run an open WAP so that people can use my internet access if they want to and set up an external antenna so that we have wi-fi at the pool at my apartment complex.

The saddest part about this to me is that charging by the byte could end up being the death of free open wireless.

JeffCarr

● Music and movie downloads
● TV shows, streaming videos and online games
● Digital photos and video e-mails
● The latest news, sports and entertainment

tulanejosh

I dont see this as a big deal if it is that kind of bandwidth. As cable gets faster and *certain* people are going to start downloading massive amounts of content they should get charged more. Im a casual user who pays $50 anyway, this wouldnt affect me.

It would affect those who are really using the system, like how everything else is. Overuse your cell phone, overage charges. Drive a lot, high gas bill. Kill to many hookers, high lawyer fees.

The only thing I want to see is that they force the providers to sell bandwidth to other providers at wholesale so you can get rid of local monopolies.

archercc

drummerjoe

axiomatic

freelunch

lianna_g

Those poor suckers in Beaumont are really getting the shaft.

badfad

MrMaestr0

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.

Fierock

izim1

Rand

rospaya

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.

GusRandall

scarab

xtremesniper

thebattousai185

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

khefer

@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.

NightElfMohawk

MrSpyder

"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.

ZombieOneZero

tulanejosh

NightElfMohawk

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

tulanejosh

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.

theespacepope

Hiphopopotamus

dhaberer

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.

Absent Blue

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.

izim1

kaos.rox

NightElfMohawk

FullFlava

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.

FullFlava

demonwolf

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...

GizmoBub

izim1

lulu321

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

pastrychef

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.

jrronimo

enine

Death

DeCerbo

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...

EQC

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.

adam12hicks

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

MrBlahBlah

MrSpyder

FuzzysFriedChicken

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

Playstation

Coder4Life

Coder4Life

sebas0069

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.

SinistarX

josecardozo

M_Mickey

daftrok

Darrone

tehmark

thechansen

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.

dcartist

DestroyerMTL

dataguy