 
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Can't compete with FiOS Cable continues to both prove they can't compete with FiOS nor can they cease to charge the customer more money.
As a side note, Time Warner Cable's trial can be compared to the higher gas prices in that there's noticeably less traffic on the local freeways. Perhaps this will have the same affect on their network. | |
|
 | 
Willies
join:2002-12-15
Montpelier, OH | Re: Can't compete with FiOS I'm alredy talking to Verizon .. | |
|
| | 
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Can't compete with FiOS Ditto...along with DirecTV. | |
|
| | | 
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS I wouldn't be looking to satellite for any deals. Better get out that antenna instead. I'm tempted, but my wife and children would never forgive me. 
And as for Time Warner, they wanted me to sign a paper that indicated they would charge me over $1,500 if the modem they wanted to supply me was lost, stolen, damaged, or otherwise not returned to them. $1,500 for a $50 modem. $50 retail, probably $20 for them. | |
|
| | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS They charge everyone a fee of such. Usually its about $100-200 for an unreturned modem or if it gets damaged or such. They just don't damage themselves.
Cable boxes on the other hand are much more. DVRs start at about $400 to $500 HD DVRs are in the thousands. | |
|
| | | | |
Millenniumle
join:2007-11-11
Fredonia, NY
| ... It was $1,575.00 if I remember correctly. A $100.00 would be a stretch, but I had to say no to over $1,500.00.
If they only intend to charge me $100.00 they should put $100.00 on their sheet instead of over $1,500.00. It cost them a sign-up. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| said by Millenniumle  :I wouldn't be looking to satellite for any deals. Better get out that antenna instead. I'm tempted, but my wife and children would never forgive me. And as for Time Warner, they wanted me to sign a paper that indicated they would charge me over $1,500 if the modem they wanted to supply me was lost, stolen, damaged, or otherwise not returned to them. $1,500 for a $50 modem. $50 retail, probably $20 for them. Ordered DirecTV yesterday and got far more programming for less money than TWC and given the high prices TWC charged me for equipment rentals, I'll have the D* stuff paid back within 12 months. As for OTA, yeah, I would but a lot of the shows I like are on cable/DBS. | |
|
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
2 edits | TWC tried this to me about five years back. It got featured on DSLREPORTS. I fought this issue tooth and nail and WON. Here's how and some suggestions to follow. On my local website, they advertised unlimited internet access. The first letter I got was 5GB and like 1 dollar for every GB over. The next was 15GB and then like same fee scale. The third was 40GB and forced upgrade to business if you exceeded. I called the Attorney general and Better Business Bureau after each letter. Let's say I was on a first name basis with the lady who called me after each complaint. Hell, the 3rd and final call, she seemed exasperated. She said I now the story let's not hash it. I just have to call you and ask if you filed a complaint. Seems my story and the complaints won out, as the caps were officially removed from my ENTIRE AREA.
Suggestions:
1) Look for writing on their website that clearly states caps. Does their website ALSO make notice of X caps in this area? Mine did not. It also said unlimited. - Report to the Better Business Bureau and Attorney General. IT WORKS!
2) Do representatives tell new customers upfront about the usage caps? If no, document this, or record conversations. They record you, just say you want to record them =). Turn this over to the BBB and attorney general saying customers are being mislead upon signing up. See Above for action!
3) Does TWC allow users to track usage via their website or a free counter? Being able to monitor one's usage is just as important as having said cap. If no, report them for not allowing one to track their usage. A customer shouldn't have to buy software to do what the company wants to impose.
4) If all else fails, tell them you are LEAVING and will take something else DSL for the very reason they have caps. While you maybe not go over, you don't want to face the chance of paying more. Your business will be appreciated elsewhere.
Listen, I know many will reply here that a company can do what it wants. I agree 100 percent. However, a company that wants to do this MUST BE UPFRONT about it though. If they are not, then there lies a problem and action needs to be taken. Let's be honest, I will just about promise you that representatives, their websites, and local adds do not state caps. That scares away customer. Here lies your leverage. I used it, and it worked. Hope those affected have success. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS The BBB is a joke. Companies could careless about them. Especially since they have to PAY to be part of it.
and TWC doesnt advertise unlimited. They stopped that some time ago the same as Comcast. Also their website also is governed by the not responsible for typo-graphical errors in some areas. | |
|
| | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS said by hottboiinnc :Also their website also is governed by the not responsible for typo-graphical errors in some areas. A typographical error is not omitting to state something (like saying that there is a cap) but stating something that should read differently (like giving a price of $4/month instead of $45/month). | |
|
| |
| |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
2 edits | Re: Can't compete with FiOS Even with the price increases and "sneaky" fees they're on par pricewise with TWC and that is without a contract.
With a contract, they're cheaper than TWC and the price is locked for the term of the contract, at least here in SoCal. | |
|
| | 
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| said by TWCCable :
Time Warner's way of doing it is much better than what Verizon FIOS is doing to fund their upgrades which is to lock into contracts and keep adding prices and sneaking in fees.
I am more than happy to be locked into my fios contract (for once in my life, lol)
There is no other provider that can compete with fios.
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
|
| | |
| | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Can't compete with FiOS DSLx doesn't have any caps and don't care what you do so long as it's not illegal. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Can't compete with FiOS Yeah - just as DSL-Extreme is at the mercy of Telco for not allowing either Uverse Internet access or dry loop DSL.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | 
jp
Premium
join:2000-05-18
Fountain Hills, AZ | If what you say is right, then why create the bad goodwill. Just go after the 5%. Clearly, there is more here then "being fair to all users". Could it have to do with future lock-in for their video services and their partners......hmmm! | |
|
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| TWC is doing what many cable companies are, failing to upgrade and finding ways to make an outdated network exist for longer. Time Warner, while it does do occasional increases in bandwidth, seems more interested in keeping an outdated system going for many years to come. They'd be far better off building out and expanding, than pissing off the 95 percent of their customers that don't go over caps. It's a swear word let's say. Pretend the government says only people making 250,000 individually or more (500,000 for married) or more will have to pay a 50 percent tax. We all know, most people don't make this much money. The GDP in the U.S. is around 45,000. Therefore, probably 80 or 90 percent will never be faced with having to pay 50 percent. Yet, it still lies on their mind. What happens if for some reason I DO MAKE that much? Do I really want to lose HALF of my hard work? The same goes for TWC. People might not use over 5GB but let's say there's a busy month and someone uses 40 GB? Better yet, let's say this is shared between a family and the family uses 100GB total. Do people really want to be paying out large amounts in overage? I'd venture to say no. While most won't be hurt, there's always the chance of alienating people based upon the chance they might be. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS how is their network outdated? They can easily bump out DOCSIS 2.0 speeds. They just don't. They have nobody really to compete with. Most of their area is in AT&T land. they know damn well that AT$T is a joke with their speeds and already out preform them.
and pissing off 95% of their customer base? HA! More like just the people that post on here. Most customers will not have a problem with this. And as i said it before THIS IS ONLY FOR NEW CUSTOMERS! GET IT!? | |
|
| | | | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS said by hottboiinnc :how is their network outdated? They can easily bump out DOCSIS 2.0 speeds. They just don't. They have nobody really to compete with. Most of their area is in AT&T land. they know damn well that AT$T is a joke with their speeds and already out preform them. and pissing off 95% of their customer base? HA! More like just the people that post on here. Most customers will not have a problem with this. And as i said it before THIS IS ONLY FOR NEW CUSTOMERS! GET IT!? for new customers RIGHT NOW. One their "experiement" is over and they impliment this it will go for EVERYONE. To think otehrwise is obtuse. Also even if it was only for new customer only permantly they won't be getting new custoemrs in areas where people actualy have choices. I have at&t DSL in my area. Even though their fastest speed is only 6 mbps, so if Charter ever had a stupidly low cap I would switch in a heartbeat. | |
|
| | nydwarf1
join:2008-04-11
St Catharines, ON | So does Time Warner Cable give the 95% who don't use anywhere near their cap a rebate for the bandwidth they didn't use? | |
|
| | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS said by nydwarf1 :So does Time Warner Cable give the 95% who don't use anywhere near their cap a rebate for the bandwidth they didn't use? Or give roll over credit for under usage to offset getting slapped with an overage fee. It does not need to be a 1-for-1 credit or be good forever but some kind of rolling average would be more equitable since they CLAIM (via their Overage Penalty) that you are ENTITLED to use a designated amount of bandwidth a month and thus you should be forgiven for going over one month when it is less than by the bandwidth you did not use (from your allocation) during the prior 1-2 months. | |
|
| | drpaladin
join:2004-06-06
New York, NY
| Troll
Read the story before you comment - the price triggers are far below what TWC itself characterizes as abusive use.
They're raping their customer base, trying to drive off everyone except for the highly profitable, 'check your email 1x per day / surf Amazon 1/2 an hour' crowd. In short, suckers who'll pay $40 per month for around 20 hours of use. | |
|
| | 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| said by TWCCable :
...In fact I don't even use even close to the bandwidth caps and neither do 95% of users. If you are in the 5%, then you should pay Time Warner extra. If you are sucking up bandwidth, then obviously you are going above and beyond what a residential connection is all about.... So not only can they cherry pick the most profitable areas, but they can cherry pick the most profitable customers as well? | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Can't compete with FiOS how do they cherry pick? they're not the ones that went to the Government to ask to get out of building in ENTIRE towns where the wanted to put service. They didnt ask for special treatment. You got them confused with AT$T and Verizon. | |
|
| |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by TWCCable :
Time Warner is not price gouging consumers with this at all. It is much better than what VERIZON FIOS is doing with price increases and contracts.
In fact I don't even use even close to the bandwidth caps and neither do 95% of users. If you are in the 5%, then you should pay Time Warner extra. If you are sucking up bandwidth, then obviously you are going above and beyond what a residential connection is all about. Not only that but Time Warner is NOT DISCONNECTING THE CUSTOMERS.
They aren't going to make significant sums of capital off of doing this because 95% of users are not using this sort of bandwidth in the first place. The net profit is not that significant. But yes Time Warner should use 100% of all this gained capital to finance upgrades in the system and to get us eventually to Fiber to the home if necessary. Ok I'm not against caps for heavey users but a 5 GB cap? That rediculous. Hell even WildBlue's crappy cap is better than that. Hell 5 GB is what you get with CELL PHONE internet. And the 40 GB for the 15 Mbps tier? That's ridiculously low to.
TW says this is a TRIAL which is good because they will find they will lose a ton of customers. Why would I stay with TW( if it was in my area ) when I could go with at&t and get their 768 kbps tier for $20 and NO CAP. | |
|
| | |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Can't compete with FiOS If 5GB cap becomes the norm for line based Internet, I might as well shell out a few dollars more and go wireless.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS said by espaeth :said by BF69 :Ok I'm not against caps for heavey users but a 5 GB cap? On their 768k intro plan... Let's be realistic here, people consuming a lot of bandwidth aren't going to be on that plan. Once again if you leave your PC and conenction on 24/7 you could use up 3 GB in background noise. Even with Wildblue satelite you get 7500 MB( 7.32 GB ) download and 2300( 2.25 GB ) upload. Why wouldn't I just switch to at&t for $20 a month for 768 and ZERO caps and not even have to worry about it? | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
| Re: Can't compete with FiOS Im not on DSL, but I have the lowest cost broadband I can find, and my server is on 24/7. When I need to DL a new Linux ISO, it may take 1/2 a day, but its no big deal for me.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
| |
|
| | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying. Why would someone buy a capped service that costs more per month, than an uncapped service that costs less?? The uncapped service, albeit slower, will allow you to download more data for less money. But you will just have to wait a little longer for your downloads.
The reason you pick a 768K uncapped plan over a faster service that is more expensive and capped is to save money, and download more.
cw | |
|
| | 
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
| said by TWCCable :
In fact I don't even use even close to the bandwidth caps and neither do 95% of users [YET] . If you are in the 5%, then you should pay Time Warner extra UNTIL X% FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY?. If you are sucking up bandwidth, then obviously you are going above and beyond what a residential connection is all about [AS OF JUNE 2008]. Not only that but Time Warner is NOT DISCONNECTING THE CUSTOMERS [BECAUSE THEY'LL BE A REVENUE STREAM IN 5 YEARS].
They aren't going to make significant sums of capital off of doing this because 95% of users are not using this sort of bandwidth in the first place [YET]. The net profit is not that significant [YET]. But yes Time Warner should use 100% of all this gained capital to finance upgrades in the system and to get us eventually to Fiber to the home if necessary.
I included some caveats in that original statement because I see this as little more that TWC gearing up for the billing free-for-all that's on the horizon. Get those caps set NOW before more people start using VOD and other higher bandwidth services and that 95% of people who don't hit caps in 2008 becomes 90% in 2009 and 80% in 2010 and viola! TWC has a nice additional revenue stream.
TWC should go after the hogs and the fact that they're not suggests someone realized they can keep the status quo and gear up for the next few years when bandwidth demands increase. By then they've already got a nice overage system in place and they still didn't have to spend money upgrading the network to prepare for the higher demand. Of course they could always raise the caps but that remains to be seen and whether they do or not will shed light on whether my suspicion is correct.
And for those who begin hitting their caps for VOD services from oh, say DirecTV, TWC has a heck of a deal for you: You can use TWC's VOD service and it won't affect your caps--aren't we awesome??? I've already done the math for VOD with TWC's new caps (»TWC: Hosing IPTV, VOD, DOD, and other non-TWC services.) and VOD 1 hour per day is not all that unreasonable. . .but it will still cause you to exceed caps. Make that HD content and VOD every 3-4 days will cause overage--and that's JUST VOD, doesn't include other web activities. Oh, and did I mention this cap plan is also conveniently a good way to keep VOD competition off TWC's network? If TWC implemented something like 200GB caps with plans to increase them as the internet matured their true intent wouldn't be so obvious.
Very nice. . . 
--
Wishes: When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor. --despair.com | |
|
| trekologer
join:2005-10-20
Old Bridge, NJ
| This is just another way to increase rates while being able to say that they didn't raise rates and engage in anticompetitive behavior.
There is no bandwidth crunch on the backbone connections with the cable company. There is plenty of capacity there and very easy to turn up more if needed. Where there is a capacity crunch is the local neighborhood node. At this choke point, everything is just data. TV. VOD, internet access, telephone. Its all just data.
If this was really about fairness, the usage caps would also apply to TV, VOD and telephone because its all just data. It obviously is not, because there isn't money to be made in charging twice for your own service, but there is money to be made in charging for someone else's service. This is just a way to discourage use of competing services (internet video, VoIP) though deceptive slight of hand.
But...but...those competing services are using the cable companies networks, right???? No, they're using the internet connection that the customer paid for. The cable companies aren't giving away internet connectivity for free. But now they've come up with a way to charge more for it and con some folks into thinking that they're being fair in doing so. | |
|
| |
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA | Re: Can't compete with FiOS You bring up a very good point. This would limit those who for example like to watch Netflix movies via their streaming service. It truly is another way to choke out while the competition while taking away from the paying customer. | |
|
|
|
See 29 replies to this post |
|
clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI | It Can Only Be Fair This can only be fair if they rebate money to those who come in far below the caps. After all, this *is* about paying for what you use, right?
Oh, no, it's not... | |
|
jp
Premium
join:2000-05-18
Fountain Hills, AZ
| Unintended backlash Right or wrong, good or bad, you know it's coming. I believe that there will be an unintended backlash however. If I had a cap, you can bet that all ads will be blocked, flash off, etc. If an advertiser wants me to see an ad, they will have to pay me for the bandwidth. Also will not be as apt to try new services or offerings on the web as the 'conserve' mentality takes hold.
You can also bet that the divide and conquer system will be used here - 1 dollar for an extra gig - no problem, I can accept that. Then once accepted, the cost will gradually rise. Won't be a dollar for long.
--
All that is gold does not glitter
Simplycomp Solutions
| |
|
|
See 20 replies to this post |
|
|
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| Re: Greed, greed and more greed said by Ray422 :Today 100 million executive bonuses, tomorrow 500 million executive bonuses. well said
--
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. | |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| BS quote:
"We think it's the fairest way to finance the needed investment in the infrastructure."
Why would TWC have any economic incentive to spend extra cash to make improvements when the net result of that investment would be that customers would not be paying these overages?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
|
See 10 replies to this post |
|
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: Back door around anti-trust law LOL Anti-trust? It's hardly Anti-trust. | |
|
| | |
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Back door around anti-trust law They do not deny Amazon the right to offer services. They allow it. They're not blocking the service. They simply are telling all new customers that if you use over XXX amount then you pay more for that. It's simple. Most users won't have a problem with it.
Current customers shouldnt either and be grateful that TWC isnt making them follow the new rules. Hell everyone is on here bitching about what their doing. They can be like Comcast in some areas and just kick your ass to the curb. And actually if you want Amazon 24/7 like anything else buy a business class connection and be done with it.
Also you claim their VOD is using the HSI bandwidth. Its not. It operates separate. Nothing on TWC's network touches the internet except the Internet. Phone doesnt, TV doesnt. VOD doesnt. All is separate. If Amazon wants to get into the TV business tell them to partner up with a TV provider. They must be doing something wrong though at Amazon since they lost the Borders agreement renewal for their e-con website. | |
|
| | | | |
| zodden
join:2000-04-05
Irvington, NY
| said by Dogfather :The reason they're doing this is simple, to stop their competitors from reaching their customers. They create micro coercive monopolies in instant video delivery wherever this is done. Amazon Unbox, iTunes movie rentals, Microsoft Live rentals, Vongo, Netflix and many other services directly compete with TWC VOD services Now you are talking! You have hit the nail on the proverbial head. This has nothing to do with upgrades or fair use, it has to do with them trying to take out competitors. The netflix ondemand is very interesting, but if I were capped at 40GB per month it would make it impossible. Watch 5 HD movies that month streamed to you and your already close to the limit. | |
|
bugabuga
join:2004-06-10
Austin, TX
| So that's how they want to bring "web content to TV"? Just read another headline, from Hollywood Reporter:
Time Warner Cable plans to make it easier for its subscribers to bring online video to their TV sets
Mmm... with a few extra charges here and there, so the subscribers would cry and swear never to watch online video ever again.
»www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/con···cf83e7cd
Fantastic.
--
Странные новости почти каждый день | |
|
| 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
4 edits | Ridiculous... Wow, at least with Comcast, it was 250 GB. 40 gigs/month, for a 15 meg subscriber? That's just preposterous. When someone pays for a 15 Mbit line, they expect a LOT more than 40 gigs of usage/month. That's sort of the point of getting faster internet, ya know..............
Fiber's looking better every day....... Heck, if I can get 7.1 Mbit DSL, I'd take that over cable any day..... | |
|
| | 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
| Re: So that's how they want to bring "web content to TV"? They want it to be like the cell phone minutes pool model. You will go over the smallest tier but never go to the next tier but there is no tier in the middle between the two effectively forcing you to pay for the higher tier.
The reasons they give for the limiting the service and charging more are irrelevant as i doubt the increase revenue is set aside and directly diverted to the upgrading pool they say it goes to. | |
|
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Looks like someone is digging their own grave hardly a dealth wish. Most of their currently customers won't leave. This is only for new customers if you didnt read that.
Also cable is all most people can get. Especially when ILECs won't expand DSL and they just don't care about it in some areas. | |
|
| |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Looks like someone is digging their own grave I suspect that the 'average' person will not know or care.
I geeks/techs/students/hackers will (small percentage), or those that do some serious use (again 'currently' small percentage) won't notice.
Once online video delivery becomes a 'norm', I suspect all carriers will be performing some form of cap/filtering, especially if its not their content.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
mrhuggles
join:2007-03-29
Ames, IA | 6 hours if my math isnt wrong [it probably is someone check it please] they are giving you 6 hours of bandwidth and calling that 1 month | |
|
| 
Halo5
join:2000-07-20
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| Re: 6 hours Lets see. I have their 15mbps tier.
15mbps = 1.9MBs.
1.9MB per second, 60 seconds in a minute, 60 * 1.9 = 114MB
114MB per minute, 60 minutes in an hour, 60 * 114 = 6,840MB
6 hours of downloading, 6 * 6,840 = 41,040
Sounds about right. Six hours of using my connection before they start charging me more. | |
|
Fudge TWC Cust
@rr.com
| I'm fudge if this goes into effect for everyone I watch a lot of anime in the web's video services plus downloading and testing OpenSuSE, Ubuntu and Linux Mint distros using Bittorrent in addition to using the net for my work and play (Xbox 360). If this goes through after TWC's "testing phase", I'm fudged! I don't have any other choice except for a 768Kbps DSL connection here in Los Angeles. Competition, my rear! | |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: I'm fudge if this goes into effect for everyone read the article. Its for NEW CUSTOMERS! | |
|
| |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: I'm fudge if this goes into effect for everyone said by hottboiinnc :read the article. Its for NEW CUSTOMERS! FOR RIGHT NOW since it is in TRIAL. Don't be so obtuse to think it won't apply to everyone eventually. | |
|
| |
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
·Skype
| said by hottboiinnc :read the article. Its for NEW CUSTOMERS! Yes, you keep telling yourself they'll never roll it out to everyone else. . . | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: I'm fudge if this goes into effect for everyone I can. I don't use them anymore. I moved and have a great local provider. Buckeye Cable. They were on the front page a while back for their speed upgrades. | |
|
| | | |
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | Re: I'm fudge if this goes into effect for everyone In that case, I guess you'd better hope you don't return to TWC territory where you'd be considered a new customer again.  | |
|
pilotsr
join:2002-08-08
Twentynine Palms, CA
1 edit | Major Suckage If these hotdog's are going to roll out this sort of crap system wide, why can they not roll out one uniform speed based tier across their entire network??? I don't buy those lame ass excuses about their infrastructure being outdated either, they are capable of pushing things far beyond what they are at now.
We just got upgraded to 10 megs down here in the Charlotte market, after being between 6-8 for quite some time. Why are some areas up to 20 megs, while the rest of us are still slacking behind???
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the greedier get greedier, and the rest of us continue to get defecated on.
You can be sure that the RI** and the MP** are in cahoots with TW over this.
Oh, and $1/GB? I want credit then for all the spam that comes across your network. So much for my Steam account, an average game download nowadays is close to 10GB's off of Steam.
One system format, and I'd go through the entire cap in one day.
Vista 64 SP1 = Close to 1GB
Vista Ultimate/Office 2007 Updates = 1 GB
Mixed 64 Bit Drivers = 1GB
Paid Games from Steam = 50GB?
Misc Applications (Messengers and such) = 200MB?
Having to live with a TW usage cap = _l_
This just stinks of sh*t, I'm sorry. | |
|
| 
jsz0
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT | Re: Major Suckage I don't disagree that 40GB is unreasonable but in this example wouldn't it be more efficient for both you, and TWC, to backup this type of stuff locally? | |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| contradictory ads I can't seem to find the video online and can't capture it, but its really funny how keeps airing "unlimited home phone" service and the working class italian/Sopranos-type guy keeps saying how important "unlimited" is, the word is said like 10 times in the ad. Someone at TW's ad dept needs to get a wake up call to stop advertising their service as unlimited. Oh doesn't matter, the mission statement of TW's ad dept is to take the truth, and put the opposite in the ads anyways. | |
|
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: contradictory ads We have "Fiber Fast Internet" billboards but of course they don't tell you it's only fiber fast for a few hours a month. | |
|
| | 
braynes
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Waterville, ME | Re: contradictory ads Perhaps they should call it the part-time internet rather then unlimited.
Bruce | |
|
|
| abadaba
join:2005-09-25
Houston, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Re: What about traffic generated by TW Services said by Mr Matt :  Will usage generated by TW services like VoIP be charged as part of the customers monthly usage or are TW services not counted in the monthly usage totals? If TW employs NebuAD will unsolicited advertising be charged against the customers monthly usage totals? How will customers protect themselves against junk traffic? AMEN to that
I see nothing but problems stemming from this. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by Mr Matt :Will usage generated by TW services like VoIP be charged as part of the customers monthly usage Most likely not unless their VoIP is utilizing your standard internet connection.said by Mr Matt :If TW employs NebuAD will unsolicited advertising be charged against the customers monthly usage totals? It's not really unsolicited if you are receiving ads anyway. Only now they'll now be targeted.said by Mr Matt :How will customers protect themselves against junk traffic? The same way that customers currently protect ISPs from junk traffic  | |
|
silly rabbits
| pareto effect Google for it
pareto effect
80/20 rule
better run out and get a patent on getting rich from it while simultaneously utilizing it to estimate required future network capacity... | |
|
A123654
@rr.com | Your math is correct. :-( | |
|
ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN | LOL LOL
So much for that Ad that we seen here on dslr about being better than Verizon Fios, TW is going to bleed customers at that rate.
--
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdYueIC1pjM | |
|
|
The Vigilante
@rr.com | Re: LOL Funny...I must have missed the notification from TWC showing my typical usage in order that I, the CUSTOMER, may make an informed decision as to what level of service to elect for. | |
|
WishingIHadFIOS
@charter.com
| Flat Rates don't last Most people don't realize that when the power companies began, originally it was metered, then a lot of them got into flat fee rates (not the "flat rates" used today, but real $x / month, unlimited use).
But that didn't work out.
Honestly, despite people's complaints, I believe this is a market correction. Having "unlimited bandwidth" encourages abuses. The only way that competition actually works is in a price-war, which never lasts forever.
Also, metered rates encourage strategies to conserve, just like energy prices do. Before, when we were all metered on BBS systems, we developed front-ends to minimize time used and maximize efficiency. Bandwidth limits will encourage more experimentation with multicasting, torrent-style P2P enhancements, better compression techniques, IPV6 enhancements, QOS enhancements, etc. | |
|
| Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Endicott, NY
| Re: Flat Rates don't last Repeat after me: Bandwidth != electricity
You need to burn a fixed amount of coal/natural gas to generate a KwH of electricity. Unlimited billing will never work as long as you are paying for each KwH that your customers use.
Bandwidth does not have a fixed per-byte cost. You don't have to burn mountains of coal dug out of the ground to move a byte of bandwidth from LA to NYC. | |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| get with the times This is just going to cause them major headaches.
Don't they have enough to worry about? What possible good can come of this tedious make-work, the angered customers, and the bad press?
I strongly agree with other posters who've pointed out that this is right around SIX (6) hours of continuous use and that such a 'cap' is absurd.
Granted, probably more than %50 of customers do not use up this much, but this is bad for the average savvy user.
Heck, I probably don't use 40GB a month (partially because my connection has been wacky for awhile - but I'm moving soon and haven't bothered to call a tech ) - but what if I did?
What if I had a month where I fixed 2-3 people's computers?
Updates, random downloads (if I didn't already have a recent copy of say, AVG free), and then factor in regular usage.
What if I watch a movie every night on Netflix? Each movie averages OVER 1GB at their max quality (which, btw, I've been unable to attain since connection issues have been weird.......) - that's over 30GB EASILY, probably right AT their cap, if not a few GB over...
What if I also bought a movie or 3 off of iTunes?
Let alone Rhapsody...
Hey, wait, don't cable companies have partnerships with Rhapsody? Tivo does too.
Whatever anyone's reasoning for actually doing this are, they're essentially trying to charge people MORE for using services that they ALREADY PAY FOR. Not acceptable. Not cool in the least.
...Is that not screwing directly (or, indirectly?) with network neutrality ..........
Cox, if you're listening - please do not consider such idiotic schemes that this competitor is!
The way I see it, an "average" user can, and WILL easily exceed their caps. Not cool.
So yeah, if I add up all the things I COULD use my connection for - it might well exceed these caps very easily.
Guess who would soon be my next ISP... NOT cable!
I'd rather have a stable, reliable, CAP FREE DSL connection at LESS THAN HALF of my current* speed than this mess.
Give me a 3-6Mbps DSL line WITH NO CAPS rather than this garbage.
(*=advertised ) | |
|
mikeinto
join:2001-08-13
Los Angeles, CA | TWC is cutting their own throat F*ck the faster speed of cable. Actions like this will drive a lot of customers back the DSL. Then TWC can wallow in their freed-up bandwidth. | |
|
|
|
|
for the HD DVR
from:
$1/GB OK; 5GB cap for 768 OK; 40 GB cap for 15 mbps NOT ok
What about traffic generated by TW Services