PDA

View Full Version : Time Warner Roadrunner Moving to Metered Usage --Opinions?



Prospero2006
April 2nd, 2009, 10:38 PM
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/02/1619251&from=rss

This story also broke today in the San Antonio Express News .

Now, I'm a Time Warner customer in San Antonio, and I really find this troubling. If the cap were set to something reasonable like 150gb-200gb a month, I might be able to let it ride, but 40gb a month for the premium plan seems a little ridiculous.

They article states that Time Warner is attempting to make this move to prevent abuse and keep a small number of excessive downloaders in line, but I can't help but wonder if it is more targeted toward curbing the spread of online media. It would, assuming I was remotely interested in keeping Time Warner as a service provider, make me think twice before streaming a movie to my X-Box for example.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

Mehall
April 2nd, 2009, 10:40 PM
My cap is 10GB

Granted, that's BT's entry broadband, and there are a few "unlimited" schemes over here (including Sky, who have NO fair use policy.)

Godly
April 2nd, 2009, 10:44 PM
I'm in Austin, using time warner. I don't know if they're planning on putting a cap on my usage. I don't download much, but if they cap me it's gonna **** me off. It's the principal, I'm already paying for service, now you want to regulate it? Reminds me of old cell phone plans where you paid for going over your minutes. Isn't this 2009? Aren't past this stone age crap?

gletob
April 2nd, 2009, 11:16 PM
EWWW!!!!

That's just wrong. I hope this isn't a trend first comcast sets 250GB now TWC 40GB. As long as verizon doesn't start screwing with me I'm good.

Skripka
April 2nd, 2009, 11:29 PM
I do not, and would not subscribe via TWC unless I had no other choice. Their service sucks, there fees are high--and those are just for starters. In all honesty though, I could live fine under a 20GB/month cap and not exceed it.


I don't understand how anyone can burn through 10GB/day.

Jags_FL
April 2nd, 2009, 11:32 PM
I'm glad I have FiOS :)

swoll1980
April 2nd, 2009, 11:32 PM
I would have to see something from Time Warner before I worried about it. I guess it's what they have to do. Some people spend their every moment on this earth downloading stuff. I guess it's a disease.

Prospero2006
April 3rd, 2009, 12:36 AM
Actually, I wrote Time Warner customer service to inquire, and they verified it.

Firestem4
April 3rd, 2009, 01:48 AM
I am horrified that TWC is going to do down this route... Honestly if they keep this up I will cancel my families subscription with the ISP and move to someone else, Even if it means less speed. I will NOT be subjected to this.

I find it idiotic that the reason companies are doing this is to save money because they do not want to cough up the dough to expand their hardware systems to allow for more growth. Instead they want to circumvent it by making people afraid to go above a 'maximum" limit and have to pay moer fees. *shakes in fury*.

unoodles
April 3rd, 2009, 05:30 AM
40gb? Sign me up. Heck my ISP (Hughesnet satellite) caps me at 200MB per day.
If I go over 200Mb downloaded, I get throttled back to 30kb/s for 24hrs.
200*31 = 6200. Thats 6.2GB per month max.

FuturePilot
April 3rd, 2009, 05:41 AM
This is terrible. I'm sure they will continue to roll this out to all their customers, so it's only a matter of time before I get a cap ](*,):evil:

40GB is awfully small for any serious Internet user. According to my router:

March 2009 Incoming: 30519 MB / Outgoing: 5487 MB
And I'm actually missing the first 8 days of March in those stats. On average I can push between 1.5 and 2GB over the wire per day. So I would easily go over a 40GB limit.

If they ever put a bandwidth cap on me it would have all sorts of negative effects like do I really want to keep seeding this Ubuntu torrent? I'm definitely going to keep my eyes open for someone that doesn't impose stupid bandwidth caps.

MikeTheC
April 3rd, 2009, 05:42 AM
I used to be with TW, but the local account was bought out by Comcast. To be honest, I really haven't had (knock on wood) any significant service issues with either company.

Nevertheless, I don't think anyone likes the notions of caps, especially as a function of valuation of service for dollars spent. Now, let's say you're paying $45/mo and they institute a cap, but the rate is now like $15/mo. At least you would be paying less.

I agree with the above poster who was glad to be on Verizon's FIOS system. A friend of mine in PA is on that and thinks it's pretty awesome. I wish I could subscribe to it here. My concern is that Embarq, the new local service provider, when they intro their own version of FIOS (whatever trade name they decide to use) they will choose to put caps on it (which would defeat the whole point of having a fatter pipe). My concern is that it could have a sort of "chilling effect" on other ISPs, all of which would figure that if the fattest pipe in town (other than high-capacity leased lines) has a significant cap, then it's justification for all of them to do so as well.

It may well be the U.S. regulates itself into complete 3rd rate oblivion. This plus killing net neutrality (if it were to happen) might really help to kill the 'net. At that rate, I'd have to start seriously reconsidering if I'd want to remain on.

dasunst3r
April 3rd, 2009, 05:43 AM
I would be OK with it only if they give something on their end as well, either in the form of lower prices and/or faster speeds. Also, I want rollover usage and the ability to purchase more at reasonable rates.

We consumers can't just be giving and giving all the time.

woppy71
April 3rd, 2009, 05:47 AM
Yes, this would make me want to change providers... one of the reasons I use Virgin Media here in the UK is that they offer true, unmetered download allowances, which is vital to me. This sort of thing, when ISP's say "Unlimited Usage" then slap an AUP (acceptable Usage Policy) on your account just smacks of hipocracy and false advertising, but thats just my take on things... :p

MikeTheC
April 3rd, 2009, 06:10 AM
Until citizens wake up to the fact that they are constantly "voting" for things every single time they spend money on anything at all (from a stick of gum to a movie to a car, etc...) this situation is never going to change.

The best way to get any company's attention is to directly threaten their revenue stream. Period. Threaten that and you get their immediate and undivided attention. However, this also does require "unionizing" each company's user base, which is, of course, where this whole thing kind of falls down. Nevertheless, this is the practice I use personally, as much for the reasons stated above as out of conscience.

Another way to look at this (and as I write this I know there are going to be some of you who will take issue with me) is that this whole situation is something we as members of society have brought on ourselves (that is, the unquestioned allowing of geographic monopolies, the politicizing of the tech industry, the -- in general -- near-unquestioned allowing of actions by boards-of-directors of corporations all over the world, etc., etc.) and what we are seeing now are the consequences of those (in)actions; consequentially, we have earned every single ill and negative thing that's coming. (Please understand I don't mean this on a purely individual level, but rather on a group level.)

We are not an activist culture. Rather, we are a pacifist one which has been allowing itself (and sometimes encouraging) to get steam-rolled by companies and governments alike. My question principally is: Are we going to ever wake up to this fact?

Prospero2006
April 4th, 2009, 08:42 PM
FYI: I also called Time Warner, and their customer service reps are fully aware of what's being tested in the San Antonio/Austin area. The guy was real nice and was helpful in filing my opinion with the company. Basically I told him any move to a pricing model that limits bandwidth consumption will be a deal breaker for my household. (Of course he tried to sweet talk me. 'Oh but sir, you may possible save money.... yada yada')

I would recommend upset Time Warner customers call and get an opinion officially filed. They are definitely collecting data.

billgoldberg
April 4th, 2009, 08:49 PM
I don't understand how anyone can burn through 10GB/day.

Stream a HD movie, 5-10gb.

Firestem4
April 4th, 2009, 09:58 PM
I don't understand how anyone can burn through 10GB/day.

Hell, not even movies, Seeding Linux ISO's will eat up plenty of bandwidth as well. People are always downloading them.

doorknob60
April 4th, 2009, 10:18 PM
Ouch, my ISP has a 100 GB cap on all their plans, which is very reasonable IMO, but 40 GB for the most expensive?? That's not right.

Sunflower1970
April 4th, 2009, 10:37 PM
I'm in Austin, using time warner. I don't know if they're planning on putting a cap on my usage. I don't download much, but if they cap me it's gonna **** me off. It's the principal, I'm already paying for service, now you want to regulate it? Reminds me of old cell phone plans where you paid for going over your minutes. Isn't this 2009? Aren't past this stone age crap?

You've probably heard by now, but yes, Austin is affected. TWC chose 4 cities that have little or no competition in offering cable internet service. So, Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, NY, and Greensboro, NC are all now 'test subjects' along with the first city TWC picked on, Beaumont, TX. In Austin and SA our choices are Grande, which is a very limited area, TWC, and AT&T Uverse or DSL. But, they are looking at capping too. Their two test cities are Reno, NV, and they came in to Beaumont not long after TWC. So, I'd bet AT&T will be here very soon capping. Grande's been having a great old time. They've been advertising no caps. Oh, and I guess there's Earthlink. But I'm not too sure how that works. They piggyback the TWC lines, and they won't be capping, but I don't know if that will change at some point or not.

If Austin had more competition, then we'd not be subjected to this. But, as it is, the only hope to defeat this is to get some sort of grassroots movement started.

It's angered quite a few people and a facebook group has started along with a few websites. http://stoptwc.info/ and lots and lots of twitters about it. Burntorangereport.com has two good articles with other links about what's going on here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8346/the-grassroots-consumer-response-to-time-warner-bandwidth-capping and here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8342/time-warner-cable-wants-to-introduce-twotiered-internet-pricing

Skripka
April 4th, 2009, 10:40 PM
Stream a HD movie, 5-10gb.

Ah. Never have been in to that sort of thing. The most bandwidth intensive things I do is update/upgrade WinXP and Linux.

Prospero2006
April 5th, 2009, 05:15 AM
You've probably heard by now, but yes, Austin is affected. TWC chose 4 cities that have little or no competition in offering cable internet service. So, Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, NY, and Greensboro, NC are all now 'test subjects' along with the first city TWC picked on, Beaumont, TX. In Austin and SA our choices are Grande, which is a very limited area, TWC, and AT&T Uverse or DSL. But, they are looking at capping too. Their two test cities are Reno, NV, and they came in to Beaumont not long after TWC. So, I'd bet AT&T will be here very soon capping. Grande's been having a great old time. They've been advertising no caps. Oh, and I guess there's Earthlink. But I'm not too sure how that works. They piggyback the TWC lines, and they won't be capping, but I don't know if that will change at some point or not.

If Austin had more competition, then we'd not be subjected to this. But, as it is, the only hope to defeat this is to get some sort of grassroots movement started.

It's angered quite a few people and a facebook group has started along with a few websites. http://stoptwc.info/ and lots and lots of twitters about it. Burntorangereport.com has two good articles with other links about what's going on here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8346/the-grassroots-consumer-response-to-time-warner-bandwidth-capping and here: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8342/time-warner-cable-wants-to-introduce-twotiered-internet-pricing

Those are excellent links. Thank you.

Prospero2006
April 8th, 2009, 03:49 AM
I thought I'd go ahead and add a link to this thread.
Great site relating to this issue:

http://stopthecap.com

Very informative.

Tamlynmac
April 8th, 2009, 04:23 AM
I had TWRR in Missouri and never had an issue. But can honestly say a 40G cap for their premium service will be a deal breaker. As others have implied the solution is to threaten their income base. Should enough people threaten to switch in one region that may alter TW's view of this new program. Perhaps taking an add in the local rag and recruiting people to boycott TM might also effect their perspective.

Th e answer IMO is to show a significant reduction in the number of subscribers that will continue tolerating this greedy endeavor. Like all major corps in this country money talks and ** walks. If it's possible to impact their pocketbook enough they will scrap this idea.

Good luck

bhaverkamp
April 8th, 2009, 04:29 AM
What router do you use? I have been trying to get that kind of info for quite some time.

toupeiro
April 8th, 2009, 06:09 AM
I would drop them like a bad habit and never look back... I was the very first roadrunner customer in our city, literally, the first install of the early bird rollout program. Needless to say, they've gotten a lot of my business over the years.... If they move to a metered model, Not only will I absolutely drop all of their services entirely, and never come back, I will recommend against them to every single person I deal with professionally. I despise this greedy model..

ryaxnb
April 8th, 2009, 05:18 PM
I don't see the reason to stick with shared cable at this point.
It's obvious shared cable is on its way out due to the fact that it's just not enough bandwidth for the Mbps they're giving out. This leads to the ironic position where DSL actually has more bandwidth.
Myself, I use DSL. The advantages are obvious. DSL costs less, it leases its network to third-parties, and it actually has the bandwidth it gives you. If DSL gives you 3mbps, you actually get 3mbps. If Comcast gives you 8mbps, they probably actually have about 1mbps if everyone was online at once. Then they have the balls to charge you $45 a month for it. With DSL, $29.99 a month gets 3mbps access, and it's basically guaranteed.
What's worse is they're getting a new cable DOCSIS network... and those idiots are increasing bandwidth provisions per consumer to 20 and 25mbps, instead of using the bandwidth to make sure that people actually receive what they ordered.:lolflag:. This metered plan is just the latest wave of restrictions by the flailing cable companies as they try to maintain their competitive edge of high speeds, and also keep the network upright. It's not working. Even the average joe wants to download HDTV now, look at Apple HD rentals and buying, via Apple TV.

Prospero2006
April 9th, 2009, 11:11 PM
This site is really consolidating users who will be affected by Time Warner's upcoming plan to meter internet use. If the test is successful in the affected market, it will be coming to a city near you!

http://www.stopthecap.com

nonedrinkwater
June 25th, 2012, 12:55 PM
I used to be with TW, but the local account was bought out by Comcast. To be honest, I really haven't had (knock on wood) any significant service issues with either company.

Nevertheless, I don't think anyone likes the notions of caps, especially as a function of valuation of service for dollars spent. Now, let's say you're paying $45/mo and they institute a cap, but the rate is now like $15/mo. At least you would be paying less.

I agree with the above poster who was glad to be on Verizon's FIOS system. A friend of mine in PA is on that and thinks it's pretty awesome. I wish I could subscribe to it here. My concern is that Embarq, the new local service provider, when they intro their own version of FIOS (whatever trade name they decide to use) they will choose to put caps on it (which would defeat the whole point of having a fatter pipe). My concern is that it could have a sort of "chilling effect" on other ISPs, all of which would figure that if the fattest pipe in town (other than high-capacity leased lines) has a significant cap, then it's justification for all of them to do so as well.

It may well be the U.S. regulates itself into complete 3rd rate oblivion. This plus killing net neutrality (if it were to happen) might really help to kill the 'net. At that rate, I'd have to start seriously reconsidering if I'd want to remain on.

i have both. i use roadrunner for browsing, and fios for usenet.