Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner Expanding Internet Transfer Caps To New Markets
Akido37 writes "Time Warner Cable is expanding its transfer capping program to new markets in Rochester, NY, Austin, TX, San Antonio, TX, and Greensboro, NC. It seems they have been testing plans with 5, 10, 20, or 40GB of data transfer per month, with prices ranging from $30 to $55 a month. BusinessWeek quotes Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt saying, 'We need a viable model to be able to support the infrastructure of the broadband business ... We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension.' Ars Technica adds, 'The BusinessWeek article notes that only 14 percent of users in TWC's trial city of Beaumont, Texas even exceeded their caps at all. My own recent conversations with other major ISPs suggest that the average broadband user only pulls down 2-6GB of data per month as it is. One the one hand, this suggests that caps don't really bother most people; on the other, it indicates that low cap levels aren't needed to keep traffic 'reasonable' since it's actually quite low to begin with.'"
Only 40Gb/month on the top plan? Here in the UK, TalkTalk's "free with any reasonably expensive phone package" ADSL is 40Gb/month... though it's not really enough these days, thanks to stuff like iPlayer.
I don't even know what you could do with 5gb a month. I have dd-wrt running on my router and UPLOAD more than 5gb a month using email and AIM to chat.
Whale
Caps are to stop the heaviest users, not the lightest ones. That 14% (which is a lot, not a little) that exceeded their caps are the ones they are targeting. That 14% ties up the majority of the bandwidth and light users get poorer service because of it.
For the record, I have always been one of the top users of every ISP I've ever been with. I was '#1 abuser' for the smalltown ISP I had back 12-15 years ago. I haven't ever let up. (Yes, that's what the ISP called me to my face.)
Overall, their customers are going to be a LOT happier without caps... Caps make customers worried about extra charges on their bill. Most customers will pick a slightly higher priced 'unlimited' plan over one with a cap, even if they would never hit the cap even on crazy months.
Time Warner will figure this out again soon when their competitors get a good hold on their market.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
14% of users going over the proposed limit is a lot. This means one out of seven. In contrast, Comcast has a cap of 250 GB, and cites figures of around 1%. As web-based video services continue to grow in popularity, I can only imagine the amount of people having issues with their cap. Maybe this will be just the thing to spark some competition!
Member of the 7 Digit UID Club
Comcast allows 250 GB, this makes them look fantastic.
I don't really object to a super low plan for less, but 40 GB is a low max. I've done that with legal content plenty of times. I can imagine getting there binging on youtube and hulu even.
This looks more like an attack on their competition (internet eating away at TV viewing), than a need to meet customer demands.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I only wonder why they are expanding the test to larger markets where they don't have significant competition from other ISPs
That's the whole point. Here in Rochester, NY, we have no other option but DSL. In Buffalo, NY (about an hour away), they have Verizon FiOS.
We are getting screwed, they are not. We have no other option for broadband, and they do.
This is so clearly Bait & Switch that TW should be proscuted within an inch of their corporate lives. Their top officers should be in jail, to wit:
1: Promise unrealistic, unlimited downloads and speeds that discourage all competition.
2: Once you have the monopoly and the consumer has nowhere else to go, bring in onerous download caps that actually reflect the basic capabilities of your pitiful system.
3: Buy off Washington so that you won't be punished for #1 and #2.
4: PROFIT!
The really Big Lie in all of this is that the argument for caps is that the system only has a very limited capability. Yet WITHOUT CHANGING OUT A SINGLE PIECE OF HARDWARE you can get a much higher cap simply by paying a much higher amount of money. Where did all that extra bandwidth come from? Clearly cable companies lie like rugs, and the public and regulatory agencies continue to buy into those lies as we're all being screwed over!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That doesn't follow at all. Low level caps are needed so that the very few don't abuse the network. Data that the average broadband user doesn't abuse the system means that the very few are spoiling it for the rest of us. Cue the Bit Torrent whiners.
While I agree with the general tone of your comment, your comparison is not really valid. TV signals are broadcast, all users get the same thing. Furthermore, the TV signals aren't sent over the big pipes of the Internet, they are received at your local cable companies offices and sent through the companies cable lines from there. The Internet is different data for each individual, and ISPs do pay a per gigabyte fee to send data across the big pipes that make up the backbone of the Internet.
In all honesty, I would be ok with a per gigabyte fee if the fees were reasonable. Say, $10 for a 10 mbps link plus whatever the ISP pays to send my data through the trunk lines (I'll even throw in a +15% on that figure so they can make their profit).
I interviewed Alex Dudley, VP of PR for Time Warner Cable at Network Performance Daily on this. I tried to be impartial, but as I mention in the intro, this would raise my bill 500%, and would be a 1000% markup from Time Warnerâ(TM)s wholesale rate, and as TW is a monopoly in my apartment complex, the net effect is that Iâ(TM)m getting kicked out of my home when the billing goes live, so the interview gets heated at points. FTA:
Previously, I wrote on how bandwidth caps have a chilling effect on Internet participatory culture.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
I live in Buffalo, but the fact that these caps are coming to Rochester bothered me enough to email Time Warner saying that if they ever bring this to my area, I'll immediately switch providers. Too close for comfort!
Earthlink is a Scientology front, I'd rather give my money to Time Warner and get raped in the ass.