* 768Kbps connection with a 5GB cap for $29.95 per month
* 15MBps with a 40GB cap for $54.90 per month
* Customers will be able to see how much bandwidth they have left by visiting the Time Warner Cable web site.
* $1 for each additional gigabyte consumed beyond the cap.
I worry that this won't scale well as streaming services become more and more common. That's bad news for startups expecting their customers to have flat-rate access.
Its expensive but its fair. The connection I have now is as much as you want, until its too much, in which case we'll just cut you off without warning.
I believe I might actually prefer the expensive and fair model.
5GB for $29.95 is hardly fair. Web hosting companies have found ways to increase bandwidth and keep plan prices at same or lower levels. Why can telcos do the same? $5.99 per GB is a ripoff. I have already called Time Warner Cable and warned them that if they implement bandwidth caps in my area, I will discontinue their service. I have other options in my area like Speakeasy or wireless internet providers.
My angry response is: Nonsense. They can shove their internet where the sun doesn't shine.
Rationally speaking: These blokes were given a free rein and tax breaks by Clinton to develop sturdy networks capable of handling great loads and redundancies at multiple layers and levels. The fact that they sat on their asses all the while eating the money and spent virtually nothing on improving the internet experience makes them monopolizing culprits. If anything,the government should penalize them to the tune of billions for the disservice they've done the public. And oh btw, for these rates I'd switch providers immediately if I had an option or go back to dialup.
Hmm, I meant fair as in you know what you are buying for the money you are giving them because the declare it up front. Is this amount reasonable? Hell no. As has been stated above, these companies got massive tax breaks and subsidies (and sometimes monopoly powers) on the promise of limitless bandwidth and fiber everywhere. They have been essentially selling dial-up ever since. (At these caps, they still are). I call that stealing.
What I meant was, this is slightly more honorable than telling the customer that it is unlimited and then cutting off the account without warning when the magic undisclosed number is reached. This way the customer knows in advance that the service sucks monkey balls and can choose an alternative if possible.
> I believe I might actually prefer the expensive and fair model.
Or, you know, they could have enough network capacity to support the speeds they offer.
Ironically I moved to Beaumont (the city in question) last week (girlfriend earns big bucks with Exxonmobil). I'm definitely glad I have a 6m/768k dry loop DSL plan with AT&T that doesn't have any bandwidth limits... especially since it's only $38.99 a month.
If they were really trying to fix a network problem by modifying behavior, it'd make sense to go after the top 1% of bandwidth users (which according to my last cable company used 35% of bandwidth) by setting really high caps and higher per gb fees. By applying silly things like 5gb caps, all they are trying to do is milk more money out people that don't know any better.
(If anyone in the Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas area wants dry loop DSL, you can save yourself time by calling the dry loop department directly at 1-800-264-0002. Sadly I don't even like AT&T that much, but at least they don't do retarded stuff like this.)
Sadly, this is years from effecting the masses. Although depending on the popularity of AppleTV, the Netflix box and other streaming TV boxes that timeframe could narrow. TWC also has to consider how it's OnDemand content is going to be affected in the long-run. And how long is it before the internet starts streaming cable programing with unlimited channel selection and HD? The cable infrastructure is poor and I guess they are seeing what they can do to hold onto their market share until a radical shift happens. Although, since they already do have a large market share, you'd think they'd be more interested in figuring out how to leverage the internet to deliver more content instead of just stifling their users.
They are doing this knowing that high bandwidth customers are likely to leave and they either a) don't care or b) are doing this specifically to lose the high bandwidth users. Cable is already pushed to its limits and providers are spending a lot of money to keep up with satellite's HD offerings.
Unfortunately for TWC, there are plenty of options and eventually this model will cannibalize their entire broadband business.
The 40GB number made me think, hmmm, you could ship a person a hard drive full of stuff every month cheaper than that. It could be like a netflix meets bittorrent business model ;-)
On the other hand, DSL and cable connections in Central Europe have had these kinds of limits for ages, and the flat fee and "fair-use" style contracts have only been offered on a broad scale for the last 2-3 years or so. (my parents & sister were on a 2.5GB/month contract until about 1½ years ago)
I suppose it's not held up the massive expansion of broadband as much here because the alternative, dialup, is even more expensive, at generally between €0.01 to €0.015 (~$0.015-$0.02) per minute. We've always been used to paying a premium for internet access, so when something comes along that's better value for money, more people jump on board.
The capped or pay-per-megabyte contracts are still the norm on mobile (EDGE, 3G/HSDPA/HSUPA) internet access though. But mobile communications contracts in general already have pretty draconian terms in my experience. (minimum runtime 24 months, small print overload, etc., at least you aren't charged for receiving calls/texts these days anymore)
They will probably offer exception to websites owned/affiliated with Time Warner. This will encourage/force people to download streaming media using Time affiliated sites.
ESPN360 (from a 'content company') has been only available to users of ISPs ('delivery providers') who've paid licensing fees to ESPN. [1] This arrangement has existed for a couple years, at least. That would seem to undercut the claim such agreements are illegal.
I don't mind tiered pricing based on consumption, but their pricing scheme is the ridiculous part. So long as the whole internet and all protocols are treated evenly, fine. So long as the limits are there clearly fine. Right now I have Optimum Online "unlimited" and I have been cut off twice for going over bandwidth limit. I was seeding 1 torrent for about 48 hours straight (Debian Etch) and they cut me off for "setting up a server". I don't know exactly how much I use in a month, but probably 50-100GB? 5 wouldn't last me 3 days.
I live on Cape Cod, not exactly the boonies, less than 2 hours from Boston and have ONE choice for broadband. No FIOS, no DSL, just Comcrap cable (with rising rates every year). They have me by the balls and if they capped my Internet there's nothing I could do.
Because not everyone can get FiOS or any reasonable alternative.
I'm pretty much stuck with time warner (offering 10+mbps downloads) or sbc (best is 3mbps for me and I don't even get those speeds) both for around $40 and I live in Los Angeles. There's a few other options, but not many that are uncapped (or have a more reasonable cap like Comcast's) or are reasonably priced.
If Time Warner ever decides to expand this program I'll definitely be one switching away even if it's something slower. On second thought, the more expensive offerings might be worth it compared to what I use every month and I'm not even counting the BitTorrent (legit or not) traffic, sigh.
Am I wrong, but didnt Time Warner pay 40 million for access to bittorrent last year with plans on distributing high quality movies online? This goes against what their goals are with regard to populating the web with high quality video. Maximum Suck!
