Slashdot Mirror


Time Warner To Offer Unlimited Bandwidth For $150

unr3a1 writes to tell us that Time Warner Cable has responded to the massive criticism of its new plan to cap user bandwidth with a new pricing model. Users will be given a grace period in which to assess their pricing tier. The "overages" will be noted on their bill, allowing them to change either their billing plan or their usage patterns. "On top of a 5, 10, 20, and 40-gigabyte (GB) caps, the company said this week that it would offer an additional 100GB tier for heavy users. Prices (so far) would range from $29.95 to $75.00 a month, with users charged an extra dollar for every GB more they download, although that charge is also capped at $75. An 'unlimited' bandwidth plan, therefore, tops out at $150."

8 of 479 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig by guga31bb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    -Comment about lack of competition
    -Comment about poor quality of US bandwidth relative to other countries

    What did I miss?

    1. Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oblig comment about how those $150 dollar/month heavy users will likely still be throttled anyway, regardless of any promises or assurances the company is going to make to the contrary.

  2. 'Bandwidth' is a Misleading Term Here by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Time Warner To Offer Unlimited Bandwidth For $150

    When will the hurting stop? Bandwidth is measured in kbit/s, Mbit/s, etc. Please express this in some rate related to seconds if you're going to use it because the phrase "unlimited bandwidth" means to me that I should be able to sit down and at the drop of a hat (or the spinning of several platters) have a DVD from my friend's computer located on my computer.

    I think a more appropriate term would be something like "no monthly download limit" or some such thing ... not as seksi as bandwidth but for the love of god please keep these ideas separate. Unless you're going to start talking about bandwidth as in GB/month or TB/month which would drive the hardware and network guys nuts because that is a meaningless metric.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Re:WOW by cabjf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We'll give you the same access you have now, just for three times the cost."

    Well, I guess they finally figured out how to make pirates pay. And the artist still gets no money.

  4. I may not be reading this right, but... by MaxwellEdison · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they're charging a max of $75 for the overages, whats to stop someone from using the $29.95 plan, and maxing the fee...effectively getting an unlimited plan for $104.95 (plus obligatory taxes of course)

    --
    -=Bang Bang=-
  5. Netflix by Stonent1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They just don't want you streaming Netflix over your cable. They want you to sign up for their on-demand service.

  6. $1 per GB -- 4x the cost of DVD+stamp by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's just insane. It makes it 10 times more expensive than to send a burnt DVD ($.5?) through the mail (~$1 I guess?).
    That pricing scheme is about as out of touch as Dr Evil in that scene where he asks for a ridiculous $1 million ransom for not blowing up the planet.
    You can get internet transit in a datacenter on the order of $6 per Mbps per month wholesale; peering is way below that.
    That mean that for $6 you can transfer ~320GB a month; Warner is going to charge 50 times that.
    Sure, it's not the same thing entirely obviously, but the main difference is that you have to build a line to the customer, and you're paying for that already whether you use it very little or a lot.
    The only remaining difference therefore is the connection between local concentrators and the backbone; nothing special and particularly expensive about it.
    Therefore this is a total rip-off, and most likely monopoly abuse.

  7. And that's the problem - they don't understand by StringBlade · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm one of the fortunate few to be in Rochester, NY and fall under the tyranny of Time Warner Cable. I've talked to their customer service reps. I've read their statements. And yesterday I had the opportunity to hear some of their low-level execs try and defend the plan at a town hall meeting with our congressional representative (who's on our side BTW).

    They simply don't acknowledge that access (bandwidth) is not at issue here, limiting the use of that bandwidth in terms of some arbitrary amount of data is the issue.

    If you look at their 2008 SEC filings (linked by their corporate site timewarnercable.com then you'd see their costs went down about 12% from 2007 and their revenues and new customers both rose about 10% over 2007. Clearly usage is not really an issue.

    The issue they're not admitting to (except in their SEC filing) is Internet video like Hulu and Netflix is their primary threat and the way to mediate this threat is to make it more expensive to watch videos on the Internet than to pay Time Warner for cable and Video on Demand services.

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.