Time Warner Cable 'Delays' Texas Metered BillingAustin, San Antonio will join the fun later on... ( old news - 08:56AM Tuesday Apr 14 2009) tags: prices · competition · business · bandwidth · cable · consumers · caps · RoadRunner CableTipped by jayem85  Time Warner Cable recently announced they'd be expanding their metered billing trial into four additional markets: Rochester, NY, Greensboro, North Carolina and Austin and San Antonio, Texas. In Rochester and Greensboro, the company stated they'd begin tracking user consumption this month, then start charging users the planned $1-$2 overages per gigabyte sometime this summer. Two weeks of harsh criticism from the media, consumer advocates and users had Time Warner Cable issue a set of concessions that weren't particularly impressive, and did little to resolve what's become a public relations nightmare for the company. Now, according to the San Antonio Express News, Time Warner Cable tells locals they delayed the meter billing trial there until October (with billing beginning next January) "mostly" because of customer reaction: The decision to delay the meter program was prompted mostly by customer reaction, said Gavino Ramos, Time Warner's vice president of communication for South Texas. "What happened as we're continuing to listen was we worked in some of the comments and ideas that got sent to us," Ramos said. "We came to the realization, let's do this in October." Of course, the "delay" was mentioned last week by Time Warner Cable COO Landell Hobbs, and may have been the plan all along. Delaying trial implementation in Austin and San Antonio likely has less to do with customer outrage, and more to do with perfecting their marketing message before pushing the trial into more competitive markets where defections would be heavier. Both San Antonio and Austin see competition from AT&T U-Verse. In contrast, metered billing remains in place in the original trial market of Beaumont, Texas. Not coincidentally, no "delays" have been announced for the company's metered billing trials in the less competitive markets of Greensboro or Rochester. In Rochester, Time Warner Cable's only competition is Frontier Communications, a cash-strapped carrier our users say struggles to provide connectivity faster than 3Mbps. The moves highlight how Time Warner Cable's thinking is being shaped by the level of competition (or lack thereof) in each market they service. The carrier has so far avoided deploying the metered billing trial into any market served by Verizon FiOS. Verizon has told us they have no plan to implement caps or metered billing at this time.
Related:- Time Warner Cable: Let's Not Talk About Net Neutrality
- Time Warner Caps Go from Ugly To Invisible
- Customer Battles Time Warner Overages
- Comcast Wireless Broadband Hits Atlanta
- Time Warner Cable GETS MORE EXTREME!!!
- Real Consumer Group Takes Aim At Fake Ones
- Comcast DOCSIS 3.0 Hits Denver
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
|
 
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA | Lame. This topic cannot get enough attention. | |
|  | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Lame. said by Omega :5GB cap? Say goodbye to streaming video, downloading music (legal or illegal) or even intense digital photography pornography. edited by /me | |
| | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| I can just imagine some of the stuff that got sent to them. " we worked in some of the comments and ideas that got sent to us"
My guess the are holding off till kids are back in school so they dont rack up huge bill right when school starts and give parents a heart attack when they open the bill. Harder to cancel when your kid needs internet access for school work.
P.S.
and Karl, no sense of humor this morning?
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
| | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: I can just imagine some of the stuff that got sent to them. Screwing your customers out of more money just because you can (see - absolutely no reason for this crap) isn't exactly a sense of humor issue. 
But you are right, Karl can normally find some humor in just about anything.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| | | JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL | Re: I can just imagine some of the stuff that got sent to them. I was referring to his deletion of my beating a dead horse gif. I'm thinking they messed up his double Vanilla Rooibos Tea Latte at Starbucks this morning.  | |
| | | | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: I can just imagine some of the stuff that got sent to them. Well for the cable industry I'm sure this is a dead horse, but for consumers this remains a contentious debate, and a delay in two markets is fairly important.
And I'm an Americano drinker.  | |
| | | | | | | | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
 ·Comcast
| Re: I can just imagine some of the stuff that got sent to them. You guys with TW need to beat this horse. I can see what these clowns are doing. They try to establish the lowest cap possible with pricey overage charges. Since the response from consumers has been so loud, they back off a little on the numbers, but still set the precedent of a low cap with expensive overage costs, whatever those numbers may be. This will stifle innovation, and negate any need to upgrade their current service, which they should be doing anyway.
Whats troublesome for me, as a Comcast customer, is what happens when Brian Roberts sees this and thinks "well if TW can get away with it maybe I can too".
Now I know Comcast is currently upgrading, but by TW setting the bar so low, I'm sure others will follow suit. Future upgrades will just be a lowered cap with higher overage costs.
--
"When I was in junior high school, the teachers voted me the student most likely to end up in the electric chair."---Sylvestor Stallone | |
| | | | | Selenia
join:2006-09-22
Pittsfield, MA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| To TWC's investors Clearly you can see this company is run by a monkey by the fact he even introduced this idea. Yet, he considers the customer base stupid enough to actually think he can convince us that this is good for us. He probably considers you just as stupid. Spinning the propoganda of how many users stay within his pathetic limits. While some may truly use less than say, 5GB, they would still hate to be wondering if they crossed this boundary invisible to most. Those who have no concept of a GB and suddenly get a huge bill simply won't pay it and leave. The competition for the given area will prevail and Twc will leave investors holding the bag, just like they are purposely doing to the consumer. Use this delay to think about it and speak with your wallets. It is investors that can truly shape a company, when the monkey in chief isn't doing the job he should. | |
| | mobbo
join:2005-04-13
Denton, TX
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: To TWC's investors I agree, but they are rolling out these ridiculous caps in areas with little to no competition. I DARE them to rollout these caps in an area with FiOS or U-Verse. They'd be laughed out of town. People with no idea what a GB is probably won't hit that 40GB cap until Netflix streaming, Hulu, and Youtube HD start becoming as mainstream/popular as the other activities those people are currently doing (emailing chain letters and funny pics probably).
Be prepared to hear a crap-ton of corporate speak from TW about this. What's funny is... all they have to do is raise their cap to 250GB and this whole thing would go away! I mean what sort of IDIOT is in charge over there? What's more expensive? A PR campaign, losing customers, negative publicity, and legislation... or just raising the cap to a decent limit? It doesn't (and shouldn't) take a Harvard Business degree to answer that question. | |
| Dampier
Phillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
| No Headline Here - This Was Part of the Last COO Statement Actually, this is a patently transparent attempt to divide and conquer the united opposition to these usage caps. And it's not breaking news. Good ole Lauren told us this last week:
Trials will begin in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in August. We will apply what we learn from these two markets when we launch trials in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, in October, but we will guarantee at least the same level of usage capacity in these trials. | |
| | 
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No Headline Here - This Was Part of the Last COO Statement said by Dampier :Actually, this is a patently transparent attempt to divide and conquer the united opposition to these usage caps. And it's not breaking news. Good ole Lauren told us this last week: Trials will begin in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in August. We will apply what we learn from these two markets when we launch trials in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, in October, but we will guarantee at least the same level of usage capacity in these trials. Of all the places to pick why would you pick Austin? Geek Central, they have competition from U-Verse and Grande,and everyone is opinionated. We probably suck down much more bandwidth than most cities our size.
I just don't get it. | |
| | | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: No Headline Here - This Was Part of the Last COO Statement said by MrMaster :said by Dampier :Actually, this is a patently transparent attempt to divide and conquer the united opposition to these usage caps. And it's not breaking news. Good ole Lauren told us this last week: Trials will begin in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in August. We will apply what we learn from these two markets when we launch trials in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, in October, but we will guarantee at least the same level of usage capacity in these trials. Of all the places to pick why would you pick Austin? Geek Central, they have competition from U-Verse and Grande,and everyone is opinionated. We probably suck down much more bandwidth than most cities our size. I just don't get it. Greensboro has a relatively high percentage of educated people, although not anywhere near as many who are "computer" technical (so to speak) as Austin. I (personally) think they are using the Greensboro and Rochester test markets to see how a mix of people, including technical people, will react. They'll use what they learn here and then see if they can apply what they've learned to the various other markets.
Remember, we sit smack dab in the middle of NC State, Duke, UNC, and Wake Forest universities. Greensboro itself is also a pretty big college town, hosting UNC Greensboro, Guilford College, Greensboro College, as well as NC AT&T State University. It's a great test market for gathering data on a wide swath of ethnicities, age groups, and educational levels. We also have incomes that run the gamut ... we have $5+ million dollar homes down the road, but some areas of Greensboro are very, very poor ... along with everything in between. | |
| | | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | quote:
they have competition from U-Verse
Good ole' AT&T has their own "trial" that will logically follow once TW does this. | |
| | | |
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No Headline Here - This Was Part of the Last COO Statement said by djrobx : quote:
they have competition from U-Verse
Good ole' AT&T has their own "trial" that will logically follow once TW does this. Yes, you are correct. Fortunately for me they aren't doing any trials in texas, yet. | |
| | | | | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX | Re: No Headline Here - This Was Part of the Last COO Statement Oh, but they are...see Beaumont. | |
| | | | | |
MrMaster
What If
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Austin, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: No Headline Here - This Was Part of the Last COO Statement said by vinnie97 :Oh, but they are...see Beaumont. AT&T is testing in Beaumont as well?
Boy, getting screwed by your telco and cableco at the same time. To think that our parents USED to have it worse than us.
Time to relocate if you live in Beaumont. | |
| chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23 | we canucks warned ya they try that welcome to the AIG GREED of the net | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? said by WhatsNormal :
TWC obviously wouldn't make the caps so low as to force a majority of their users into upgrades/overages as that would also drive huge subscriber losses.
Most areas of the country have at best a duopoly on providing high speed internet to residences. AT&T has already stated it is also interested in caps. IOW TWC is banking on most of its internet subscribers having little choice but to accept the caps. This isn't just about numbers, it's also about gouging consumers and limiting competition. | |
| | | 
WhatsNormal
@rr.com
| Re: What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? As posted in the TWC forum, TWC allows other ISPs on their network. Earthlink, Localnet, and NYCT.net now, Juno and AOL when those companies offered it. Those companies don't have caps.
Maybe more ISPs should push to get on TWCs network and not have caps. | |
| | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? said by WhatsNormal :
As posted in the TWC forum, TWC allows other ISPs on their network. Earthlink, Localnet, and NYCT.net now, Juno and AOL when those companies offered it. Those companies don't have caps.
Maybe more ISPs should push to get on TWCs network and not have caps.
Is this correct? The info I got is the ISP's piggybacking on RR infrastructure would all be affected by caps also... I have no idea myself. | |
| | | | |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? I can't speak for any others riding the TWC network (I didn't think there were any?), but Time Warner Cable has stated that Earthlink will also be imposing caps. | |
| | | | | |
NSA_CIA
@charter.com
| Re: What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? said by Karl Bode :Time Warner Cable has stated that Earthlink will also be imposing caps. Where? Got a link? | |
| | | | | | | | | Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| said by WhatsNormal :
TWC obviously wouldn't make the caps so low as to force a majority of their users into upgrades/overages as that would also drive huge subscriber losses. Bad for quarterlies, bad for stocks, ain't gonna happen. But thats exactly the path they are going down with these ridiculous caps. 40GB a month?? In my household, I've got 2 laptops, PS3, iphone, and dish network DVR all on my network with RR internet. After taxes, my bill is $54 a month for 7mb down. Between web browsing, online gaming, streaming internet radio, modest online video watching & uploading & downloading everyday files (pics, demos, etc) I am averaging around 2 gigs a day. That would put me way over the limit and this is normal everyday stuff I've been doing for years!
Bottom line is Time Warner is scared out of their minds about online video. Its now getting to the point that the quality and ease makes is a viable alternative to traditional cable TV and thats the whole reason this has come about. Set insanely low caps to kill internet video and protect their current TV biz (which in my opinion is a conflict of interest).
Like another poster said, make it a 250Gb cap... all this uproar disappears and most will be willing to accept this reasonable cap. | |
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? It's really funny when you look at it. The same thing happened to telecom companies once VOIP leached away half of their subscriber base. Once video goes digital, they KNOW they will lose in the same fashion.
cw | |
| | 
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by WhatsNormal :
Everybody complains how low these caps are, but is there any sort of 3rd party statistics showing how much bandwidth the average person uses to compare against the tiers? There is NO WAY for a third party to get these stats. There are only two sources the stats could come from.
1) Time Warner Cable.
2) Users themselves.
Obviously, the users that are going to report it on forums like DSLreports or other media outlets, are most likely the users that use MORE than the average, thus skewing the data.
I would be willing to bet that over 70% of users downloads less then 20 Gb a month, and that only about 30% exceed that, and probably only 5% ever exceed the 100 Gb.
That being said, even though not everyone will download as much, no one likes to be limited. It would be similar to saying "You can only drive 250 miles a day". The fact is, that besides roadtrips, 90% of people don't drive more then 100 to 150 miles a day in their PERSONAL vehicle. (I'm not talking delivery truck drivers here). They drive to and from work, they go out to dinner, they bring their kids to baseball practice, they go shopping, etc, etc.
Even though 90% drives 150 miles per day or less, pretty much EVERYONE would scream in agony if we were all over sudden to be limited to driving no more then 250 miles, and then charged $1 per extra mile.
No one wants to be charged $1 extra a mile for the 500 mile fishing trip they do every summer, and going to the ski resort in winter that is 500 miles away.
This is why the 250 Gb softcap of Comcast is so much better. It was accepted by most users, there was no major outcry, and best of all it is a SOFT cap, meaning that if you go over the cap once because you were an idiot and a trojan got onto your machine that uses your box as a data relay, and because of it you generate 400 Gb of traffic where you normally generate 30-35ish.... you won't be punished with a HUGE bill of overages.
What some ISP's in Europe use is throttling the line. Say you have 15 Mbps down, and 2 Mbps up, and you reach the cap.... then your line is automatically switched back to say 1 Mbps down and 256 kbit/s up until the end of the month. This also accomplishes TWC's goal and keep massive amounts of traffic of the network, but without having to charge the user extra money. | |
| | |
NSA_CIA
@charter.com
| Re: What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? said by maartena :There are only two sources the stats could come from. 1) Time Warner Cable. 2) Users themselves. 3rd party = other ISPs, other service providers (Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.), maybe software bandwidth trackers could aggregate statistics, maybe 3rd party router firmware could anonymously collect and aggregate statistics, maybe a hired firm to collect it. Lots of options are possible.
This isn't specific to TWC, but it's internet users in general. A web census of sorts to put actual numbers to what most people have no clue about. | |
| | | |
NSA_CIA
@charter.com
| Re: What's normal usage? How does it compare to the caps? Hell why not have Stopthecap collect statistics some how? From user reports at least. Then use it to build a usage calculator of sorts where users can choose what they do, and how often, and it'll give a ballpark figure of bandwidth usage for the month.
They have sob stories from people scared they're going to get hit with overages, yet when they list out their internet use it's obvious it's really not that much and they're no where near overage territory. The VAST majority of people have no CLUE how much bandwidth they consume and until SOMEONE OTHER THAN THOSE CHARGING for bandwidth comes up with statistics nobody will believe how much or little is being used.
I didn't break 30 GB a month until I started downloading ALOT of TV shows and movies. Before that most people I knew thought I used the internet alot more then they did....so I'm sure they're way below 30 GB of usage. | |
| | | |
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by NSA_CIA :said by maartena :There are only two sources the stats could come from. 1) Time Warner Cable. 2) Users themselves. 3rd party = other ISPs, other service providers (Youtube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.), maybe software bandwidth trackers could aggregate statistics, maybe 3rd party router firmware could anonymously collect and aggregate statistics, maybe a hired firm to collect it. Lots of options are possible. This isn't specific to TWC, but it's internet users in general. A web census of sorts to put actual numbers to what most people have no clue about. But it would be an almost impossible task to actually generate something that is useful. Most of my traffic comes from these two places:
1) me running 5 OpenTTD servers. +/- 30 Gb a month
2) online video streams from a Dutch TV company that has streaming stations. +/- 15 Gb a month
3) me uploading a backup of my stuff to an online backup host. (+/- 30 gb a month)
Perhaps we could get the Dutch TV company to really tell us how much a Dutchie in the US uses in data transfers, but for my game servers you are going to have to rely on what I tell you, because there is noone else that has the data specific to that.
Online backup providers are usually quite reserved about giving statistics like that. They may give a running total but it really doesn't work to say "Our company has 5 TB of monthly traffic from TWC IP's" and then divide that number by ALL 6 million customers TWC has.
It's just not going to work.... the only entity that have the most reliable figures are TWC themselves, what goes in, what goes out etc.
They should make the data counter available to everyone, so we can actually SEE what we transfer. Not take it for their words and then see them raking in the cash of charging overages. | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |  "Wait till the heat dies down. We'll be back later."
| |
| | | Tony208
join:2009-03-16
Flushing, NY | Re: On UVerse now... This 5GB cap is hilarious!
Assuming 6 Mbps down and you happen to use the whole thing, you'll be over in about 2.5 hours. $ for TWC | |
| | | | | | | | compton
join:2002-02-08
Brooklyn, NY
| said by poolek :I know ATT is looking at caps, too - but hopefully, if enough people fire TWC, both TWC and ATT will re-evaluate their plans.
The problem is not the cap, but the size of the cap. If Time Warner had matched Comcast cap of 250 GB per month it would have been a non-issue. You just have to hope that ATT will institute nothing less than a 250 GB cap; if they decided to cap. | |
| boombie
join:2000-12-01
Milwaukee, WI
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·RoadRunner Cable
| Caps Here's the REAL reason for TW's caps, from their 10-K report,
"Technological advancements, such as video on demand, new video formats and Internet streaming and downloading, have increased the number of media and entertainment choices available to consumers and intensified the challenges posed by audience fragmentation. The increasing number of choices available to audiences could negatively impact not only consumer demand for the Company’s products and services, but also advertisers’ willingness to purchase advertising from the Company’s businesses. If the Company does not respond appropriately to further increases in the leisure and entertainment choices available to consumers, the Company’s competitive position could deteriorate, and its financial results could suffer."
»ir.timewarner.com/secfiling.cfm?···-09-1481
Shamelessly borrowed from Hardocp | |
| |
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Caps They just don't need to forget there are third-party DSL providers - such as DSLExtreme - that don't have any video/media/portal services, and thus don't care about competition from the internet.
We all knew it was online video and revenue, the whole Netflix/XBox deal has caused a whole lot of people using large amounts of data.
But there's got to be a way to NOT limit the amount of data transferred. Moreover business accounts should never be affected by these kinds of caps. | |
| |
Sunflower1970
@rr.com | Whoa, boombie. That's an awesome find. And exactly what us customers have been saying, and they've been denying this whole time. They can't deny this now...I wonder what they'll say when this gets more attention? | |
|
CapthisTWC
@rr.com
| How to beat TWC.... easily, and maintain your service TWC is just hoping your LAZY and NOT VERY BRIGHT. TWC provides the transport services of other ISP's in your areas. Earthlink is a BIG one, and in most areas but check your area for Cable Internet Providers and see.
Basically, what you have is the EXACT same connection, just paying the other ISP your Bill, who pays TWC an agreed upon portion. Say for example... you pay other ISP $40 a month, and they give TWC $20 a month of it for providing the Cable Service.
Same service, same modem, same speeds..... NO SILLY CAPPED BW LIMIT. And you get the added benefit of cutting what portion of your bill that TWC gets in HALF or Better.
If just 2 or 3% of TWC customers do this, then TWC will RUN SCREAMING AWAY from this as fast as their greedy little feet will carry them. PLUS... They will come up with some nice Marketing Campaign to BEG you to come back. $9.95 for the first 6 months for returning customers???? LMAO! | |
| |
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: How to beat TWC.... easily, and maintain your service Actually, Time Warner Cable has said that Earthlink will be imposing the same limit over their network. | |
| | |
LiquidChaos
@rr.com
| Re: How to beat TWC.... easily, and maintain your service Heaven forbid they do this near me. I monitor my own bandwidth and between video, audio, gaming, and managing 2 websites with 5TB+ in files on the server, I use up around 650GB of bandwidth per month. Ive actually spiked to 1.4TB in a single month. IF they decide to do this in my town, Ill have to be without the internet completely. Either that or pay around $500-1000 a month. Which is more than all my current bills combined. | |
| | | |
|
|
·
from:
