TWC expanding bandwith caps of 40 Gb to more cities (thankfully not us YET)

[skier8734]

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/time-warner-cable-bandwidth-cap,7466.html

[Bebop]

So far it's only for new customers and in markets with little or no competition. Otherwise there will be mass defections.

[UncleMeat]

Ugh, we watch anywhere from 2-20 movies/month with Netflix streamed over TiVo.  Based on that alone, this cap would be a huge problem if/when it comes here.

[GBK]

soon as it gets here I'm out.  There is no way I'll pay them what I pay them for any limit what so ever.  Even if I have to 'dark age'.. No way they'll get to keep my business.

[Bebop]

We can always move.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/DOC-30-In-Japan-60-for-160Mbps-101740

[Bebop]

Possible new pricing tier.

http://a.longreply.com/109511

[RLJSlick]

I agree with GB when that cap gets to Wisconsin, I'm out of here, I left their sorry cable service I  can leave their Road Runner services. Let them self destruct like their cable services slowly doing.

[Rick_EE]

Ugh, we watch anywhere from 2-20 movies/month with Netflix streamed over TiVo.  Based on that alone, this cap would be a huge problem if/when it comes here.

That is the sole reason for the 40GB number.  
They are trying to stop competion for VOD.

[Jack 1000]

Yea, the TWC capping issue does suck,

But I could see other companies doing the same thing.  I manage a website and bandwidth is becoming more and more expensive to maintain, especially against this terrible economy.  Usage rate is growing at an exponentially faster rate than ever imagined.

It sounds like the capping won't even affect 90% of users who are just doing web-searches and e-mail.  That's what I have been doing on line for over a decade, nowhere NEAR the monthly 40GB limit where the surcharge would kick in.  It is unfortunate, but the added bandwidth costs for people who are downloaded 20-30 movies a month have to come from somewhere.  What do we do when other providers start doing the same thing, and we know it is just a matter of time before it happens?  We are lucky in a sense because when the Internet first started, ISP's had HOURLY limits!  That really sucked!  Some of you may remember that.  You may think $1.00 per month over the GB quota is bad, but the alternative will have to be for all other providers to find a way to compensate for increased bandwidth cost.  I blame the bad economy more than TWC at this point.

But for general computer use, representing about 80% of the population or more, you don't have to worry about the quota charge.  Remember it is not when you are connected to the Internet, but your downloads and only if you are downloading more than 40 GB a month they charge $1.00 more.  I am not defending what they are doing, but suggesting it could be worse.

Jack

[OlsonNet]

Like Jack 1000 said, other ISPs will do the same thing once people "accept" it from TWC and the others who are trying it.

As long as there is a cap for overage charges - like the $75 mentioned in the article - I'm fine with it.

[RLJSlick]

...through I wouldn't count on it:

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Time-Warners-Broadband-Cap-Plans-Draw-Lawmakers-Ire-202147/

[Bebop]

Yea, the TWC capping issue does suck,

But I could see other companies doing the same thing.  I manage a website and bandwidth is becoming more and more expensive to maintain, especially against this terrible economy.  Usage rate is growing at an exponentially faster rate than ever imagined.

It sounds like the capping won't even affect 90% of users who are just doing web-searches and e-mail.  That's what I have been doing on line for over a decade, nowhere NEAR the monthly 40GB limit where the surcharge would kick in.  It is unfortunate, but the added bandwidth costs for people who are downloaded 20-30 movies a month have to come from somewhere.  What do we do when other providers start doing the same thing, and we know it is just a matter of time before it happens?  We are lucky in a sense because when the Internet first started, ISP's had HOURLY limits!  That really sucked!  Some of you may remember that.  You may think $1.00 per month over the GB quota is bad, but the alternative will have to be for all other providers to find a way to compensate for increased bandwidth cost.  I blame the bad economy more than TWC at this point.

But for general computer use, representing about 80% of the population or more, you don't have to worry about the quota charge.  Remember it is not when you are connected to the Internet, but your downloads and only if you are downloading more than 40 GB a month they charge $1.00 more.  I am not defending what they are doing, but suggesting it could be worse.

Jack

There is no prove that bandwidth is costing more for the provider. If you read TW's 10K, the profit from high speed Internet is up and expense down.





http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/TWC/608745952x0xS950144-09-1480/1377013/filing.pdf



The economy is not the reason for the cap, just greed and eliminating competitions.

[Rick_EE]

But for general computer use, representing about 80% of the population or more, you don't have to worry about the quota charge.  Remember it is not when you are connected to the Internet, but your downloads and only if you are downloading more than 40 GB a month they charge $1.00 more.  I am not defending what they are doing, but suggesting it could be worse.

Jack

I don't have a problem with the idea of a cap per se.   It is the level of the cap.  Comcast's cap is at 250Gb.  This would accomodate most users of Netflix and other VOD services.  Where does TW's 40Gb come from?  It appears to be set just at the right level to get that kind of user.

[TPK]

There is no prove that bandwidth is costing more for the provider. If you read TW's 10K, the profit from high speed Internet is up and expense down.

The economy is not the reason for the cap, just greed and eliminating competitions.

VERY nice, finding that burried in a 177 page report....

... I wonder if the good congressman from New York who is actually fighting on behalf of consumers, or the other remaining members of the house and senate did as much research....

I suspect facts and hard data don't matter much these days, as I'm sure these numbers will be utterly ignored as the people and its leaders drink the cool-aid when TWC and other ISPs say that the costs are driving the price increase...

[TPK]

I don't have a problem with the idea of a cap per se.   It is the level of the cap.  Comcast's cap is at 250Gb.  This would accomodate most users of Netflix and other VOD services.  Where does TW's 40Gb come from?  It appears to be set just at the right level to get that kind of user.

Remember, the goal here is to get you to accept the concept of a bandwidth cap first....  Of course a 250GB cap wouldn't affect hardly anyone, so why protest???

Don't worry about it, they will "get" you later..