Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time Warner Broadband Cap Trial Rescheduled In Texas

Posted by timothy on from the dump-their-tea-in-the-gulf dept.

jcrousedotcom writes "Time Warner cable apparently has heard that folks aren't too happy with their plan to meter their unlimited connections. From the first paragraph of the article: 'Time Warner Cable's proposed trials of consumption-based billing were originally slated to begin in several markets this summer, where customers would be a part of a tiered pricing scheme. Pricing would have started at 1 GB per month for $15, and go up to 100 GB per month for $75, and include a per-gigabyte overage fee. The public's reaction was less than favorable, and the trials in Texas have been rescheduled.'"

32 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. They can either do it openly or covertly by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Look, one way or the other, almost every broadband ISP has overbuilt their network and was not prepared for the advent of HD video and streaming services. The hard fact is that they cannot (and never could) deliver "unlimited" bandwidth. So either they:

    a) Raise their prices considerably on all their "unlimited" plans--sucks for the light users, who are basically subsidizing the heavy users who want to stream HD video and movies

    b) Covertly start throttling back heavy users--sucks for everyone, since no one even knows how much they're being throttled and there is no option of paying a premium to escape it

    c) Set download caps--sucks compared to the "free ride" heavy users are getting now, but at least it's out in the open with no throttling bullshit (and light users don't get penalized).

    Personally, I'll gladly take c. But there is for sure one option that is *NOT* on the table:

    d) Everything stays priced the same as now, without throttling or download caps

    So pick a, b, or c. And stop kidding yourself that you can pick d.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by dykofone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They certainly will have to pass on the costs, and I would prefer openly, but why-oh-why do they pick the tiered level approach? It's the same way the cell phone companies do it: you have to guess how many minutes you're going to use ahead of time, then get shorted for what you don't use and pay huge overages for when you exceed you're initial guess. Let's get back to the electric utility model where you are charged for exactly what you use, and if anything, you get lower off-peak rates.

    2. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by MagicM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      d) Everything stays priced the same as now, without throttling or download caps
      So pick a, b, or c. And stop kidding yourself that you can pick d

      What's wrong with picking d? It just means that at peak times, when your ISP has to process more data than it has bandwidth for, everyone's transfer rate goes down. This happens until those watching streaming video get fed up with the "buffering..." and go do something else, at which point everyone else's transfer rate goes back up.

      Nobody has to pay more, no schemes are necessary, and those ISPs who also happen to be Cable TV operators get to rejoice in the fact that streaming video failed. Everyone is happy.

    3. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Dan667 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Time Warner can do what ever they want if they pay back the $200 billion in infrastructure they received from taxpayers enabling a monopoly in some areas. All the data so far shows that a very small percentage of people are very heavy users and it remains to be be seen if that is actually causing any problems for Time Warner. What is clear is that Time Warner is trying to protect their outdated cable tv business model, and as long as we paid for the infrastructure they should have limits to what they can do with it. They should publish data on their problems if they want any reasonable resolution. Until then, "d" is the only option that can be picked.

    4. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Pooklord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      . . . I'm going to guess it's much more fair by using the electric utility model and much more profitable by using the "heads-I-win_tails_you_lose" model of cell phone companies.

      Guess which model they're going with?

    5. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Endo13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually you skipped the only options that should even be considered.

      a) They need to pony up and install the extra infrastructure they've already been paid to install with our tax dollars and then actually provide the service they are currently selling.

      b) Since they're apparently unwilling or incapable of doing A, relieve them of their monopolies and introduce more competition.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    6. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the issue behind this whole thing has nothing to do with internet traffic and the poor ISPs who can't keep up. It's about keeping people from watching content on the net rather than on the TV, or on the Cable Provider's website which they charge for. Hulu has deals with the networks, not with the cable providers. TWC doesn't like that.

    7. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by tthomas48 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What costs? Their bandwidth costs have been going down, and their profits have been going up. There are no costs they have to pass onto the consumer.

      You mean the cost of losing their cable business because Hulu, Netflix, and iTunes do what they do, but better and cheaper? I think that's the cost they're passing onto the consumer. It's an anti-competitive penalty to lock consumers into the "Time Warner Family of Products".

    8. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by uncqual · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Back in the day when people had landlines, did they think that their "unlimited local calling" allowed them to use the phone while everyone else also was? They probably, if asked, thought so, but in reality if everyone in the city picked up their landline to place a call at 6PM, many (actually, probably most) of them wouldn't have gotten a dial tone.

      If your house has 200 AMP service from the electric company, do you think you can draw 200 AMPs at any time? Well, no, not if everyone in your area is also using "their" 200 AMPs at the same time.

      What do you suppose would happen if everyone in a town supplied with municipal water turned on all their faucets at the same time. Yep, they would get a dribble compared to what they would get if they just turned it on at a random time.

      Virtually all utilities "over subscribe". I'm betting that if you read the medium sized print in your residential cable broadband contract, you will find that they don't guarantee bandwidth. If you want bandwidth guarantees, try business class services.

      I'd agree, if the advertised "Up To X Mb Per Second" isn't available much of the day, the advertising would be dishonest, but in my limited experience, most times of the day, ComCast meets their "up to" bandwidth advertising.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    9. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They do it because the cell phone companies are making money with it. Utilities use metered because electric load is fairly constant and predictable. Even the use of AC is predictable. With a phone though, I can go a month and use about 60 minutes, and then the next one, I can use up 3000 (yay conference calls). I prefer knowing how much I pay ahead of time to getting wildly differing phone bills.

      The problem is that unless you get unlimited you'll more than likely still have differing bills. But if you pay for more than you use you're wasting your money.

      Falcon

      --
      Should there be a Law?
    10. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So in SK they have to run ~500 wires in 1 sq km. Yet in the US they only have to do it ~30 times? Exactly how does running 30 cables cost more than 500?

      Also this pop density is bunk anyway. If true then ONLY the rural areas should not be connected by now. Yet it seems THE WHOLE US is getting crap service. There should be islands of BAD ass service in the US. Yet we do not see that.

      Chicago, NY, Miami, DC, Seatle, SF, Dallas should *ALL* have kicking service. They dont. There is a fundamental problem here and it isnt pop density. Only people in Verizon areas are getting a glimpse of what should be going on.

      They are being cheap and can not figure out what to do thru analysis paralysis. Take my neighbor hood for example 100 houses. Lets say 10 houses actually care enough to get decent internet (that number is probably low). Lets say it cost 20k (way generous) to wire them all up. At 50 a month and 120 install fee you ROI in about 2 years. Past that it is gravy.

    11. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why NBC has the right idea with NBC Direct. Sure, they have some glitches right now, but they're working on it and release updates every couple weeks.

      I got busted by NBC for getting episodes of season 1 of Heroes over bittorrent because I misssed a couple episodes and NBC didn't post them online -- now they use p2p to let people download their videos in HD onto your computer and then watch it whenever you feel like it. Right now I'm working the night shift, so when I get home on the night a new episode was posted, I start the download, go to bed, and when I wake up I can watch it while eating breakfast. Overall I'd say it's much better than Fox on Demand in that the quality is consistent and it's better quality (the only downside being the rare occasions when the program breaks and you have to spend 30 minutes screwing with things to get it fixed).

      I think all tv stations should switch over to NBC's model and exclusively release shows online for download and release them on dvd / blu-ray. It would let people manage their time a lot better and (for stations funded by commercials) you wouldn't have to pay for cable just to get a show in HD that you could pick up for free with an antenna (granted, in crap quality). Channels like HBO that you do have to pay for with cable could just charge a small monthly subscription to get their shows online. Sounds like a good plan to me, but that's just my opinion.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    12. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by deraj123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, that's what I want. A combination of an ineffective, bitter company and a government agency managing my internet connection. That could only improve our service, right?

    13. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Cramer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Utilities use metered because ...

      Utilities meter because they have to produce what gets used. Every gallon of water you use has to be filtered and pumped to you. Every watt of power you use has to be generated. If there's no demand, it isn't produced.

      Internet bandwidth isn't like that. A DS3 is 45mbps - period. Packets or idle pattern, it is always and forever 45mbps. Or put another way, if everyone downloads 10GB this month and 100GB next month, TWC's bill(s) to other ISPs are unchanged. Their bill is based entirely on rate, completely independant of volume. Yet, they want to charge us for both rate and volume.

    14. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Cramer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it's hard to string cables to carry all of it. The rats nest of wiring in Japan and Korea would get people sued and executed here in the states. Heck, AT&T has been sued in many places for their Uverse cabnets -- aside from it being the size of a refridgerator (and white/beige), it's not that ugly.

      Plus, there's all the red tape... monopolies, right-of-ways, agreements to use the utility poles, etc., etc. And there's a great deal of "not in my front yard" to fight as well.

    15. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Dan667 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No I am not. US Taxpayers own $200 billion in Time Warner infrastructure. It is not their to do what they want with it. And you are making assumptions about their profitability. Time Warner is making a lot of money as is even with the AOL boat anchor.

      Time Warner 2009 Q4 - Excluding one-time items, profit was 23 cents a share.

      If they are having problems, the data is certainly not showing it. Of course yelling and whining is very popular with them.

    16. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Cramer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Verizon can do it and make money, TWC can as well.

      TWC is already making ass bleeding amounts of money -- over $4 BILLION in profit last year. What they don't want to do is spend any money on operational upgrades to offer faster speeds -- a) it cuts into those massive profits, and b) it risks cutting down their profits on cable TV service. And as soon as TWC does this, every other ISP is going to see they can get away with it, too. And then *bam* the cost for broadband will go through the roof and no one will be able to aford to even read their email much less stream a 22kbps realmedia webcam video for 11secs.

    17. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by fredklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those analogies suck.

      YES, If I pay for "200 AMP" service, I damn well expect to be able to pull 200 amps. If I can't, then it's not 200 amp service! If I pay for 30/5 (Optimum Online BOOST), then I should get 30/5. (I understand getting slightly less due to line conditions, etc, but when I pay for 30/5, I expect to at least get somewhere close to that thruput.)

      You seem to be fine with an ISP giving you a 64kbps connection under a "Up To 10000000MBps" plan, simply because it says 'up to'.

      I'm betting that if you read the medium sized print in your residential cable broadband contract, you will find that they don't guarantee bandwidth.

      Well, if you went to the local grocery store, and saw they were offering 'up to' 10 cans of soup for $10, and when you paid your $10, they handed you ONE can of soup, wouldn't you be pissed? "But we didn't offer 10 cans, we offered UP TO 10 cans..."

    18. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by donny77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is also one of the biggest concerns with bandwidth metering. A customer sells in 8 year old XP machine that shipped with Automatic Updates off. His brand new Vista machine shipped with Automatic Updates on. His bill jumps up and he doesn't know why.

      Windows Update, Apple Software Update, Java Update, Adobe Updater, Virus signatures, Spyware signatures, all the badly coded 1024x768 Flash websites that think they are Web 2.0. Suddenly this all costs money, and we haven't even gotten into the malware and viruses that are "surfing" for you when you are not around. The average consumer will not understand how they used so much "bandwidth" when they just check their e-mail.

    19. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Larryish · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I can sum up the reason that this will never happen in two words:

      ... fair and simple...

      The cable companies don't roll like that.

    20. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How often did you pick up a phone and not get a dial tone? How often has your house had brownouts?

      Now how often have you hit X in the "Up to X Mbps"?

      One of these things is not like the others.

    21. Re:They can either do it openly or covertly by fredklein · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your last paragraph says "I'd agree, if the advertised "Up To X Mb Per Second" isn't available much of the day, the advertising would be dishonest, but in my limited experience, most times of the day, ComCast meets their "up to" bandwidth advertising."

      Well, I'm happy for you. I have Optimum Online (BOOST), which should be 30/5. I'm getting 24.383/5.3227, according to Opttimum's own speed checker. At 1:14am on a Wednesday night. And that's the best I've ever seen it. 24/30 = .8: I'm getting 80% of the Download speed I should be- No, I'm getting 80% of the Download speed I'm paying for. And that's inside their network! if I go to a nearby outside speed tester, I get:

      18.555/5.224
      18.59/5.29
      11.703/4.954
      21.906/5.191

      Even taking the best of these, my connection speed to outside Optimum's network (IE: more realistic) is 21/30 = 70%

      SO, in the end, I'm happy that you get what you pay for. I only really get 70% of what I pay for.

      I would probably decide it wasn't worth the risk of my ten dollars to take a chance on getting only one can if that seemed to happen very often.

      It happens all the time. And this is one of only 2 'grocery stores' (Optimum, Verison DSL) in the area, so....

  2. It's an interesting idea. by LocutusMIT · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think the idea is sound, but the prices are way too high.

    We currently pay about $50/month for cable modem (for four residents). If Time Warner cut their prices by two thirds—or even by half, as we don't come close to using 100GB/month—they'd essentially match Comcast, but I'd get a discount any month I don't hit the max. I'd switch over in a heartbeat.

    Not that I expect them ever to do that.

  3. It's not bandwidth. by Drakin020 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not bandwidth they need to cap, it's download speeds.

    Seriously, just because someone downloads 3TB's of porn doesn't mean the internet is going to run out of fuel. The kicker is how FAST they are downloading.

    If everyone in the world started downloading at 4MB/sec then we would have problems. It's not how much they download.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    1. Re:It's not bandwidth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why on earth is TW talking, on the one hand, about data caps, while on the other hand selling 15mbps turbo service? If my math is correct (which I'm sure it's not), using a 15mbps pipe will get you to 5GB in about 44 minutes.

      So they are talking about penalizing users who sign up for their *advertised* high data transfer rates - and use them for more than 44 minutes??

      Now I understand that their capped bandwidth pricing model won't mirror their existing model, but it begs the question... why bitch and moan about users abusing your network and then sell them the very tools (i.e., high transfer rates) that make network abuse possible?

  4. Rochester by mc1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Rochester Time Warner customer myself and my friends who are also customers are pretty upset about all of this. The big problem is that as far as broadband goes choices are slim. Either Time Warner, or Earthlink, who buys its bandwidth from Time Warner. Beyond that its either Clearwire, Frontier DSL, both of which suck, or shell out a ton for a commercial grade installation in your house/apartment, which probably isn't actually an option. I've already said that if someone like Verizon were to introduce FiOS to the area at the same time Time Warner did this, they'd probably have a lot of people jump ship...

    --
    The musings of just another geek and his junk.
    1. Re:Rochester by cabjf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They probably will still lose a lot of customers for this. This is just an extension of their initial tests. They want to see how hard they can squeeze before losing too many customers. The markets they're planning to roll this out in have limited competition. They aren't likely to lose too many customers, but they can use that data to project what would happen in an area with more competition. If they cannot be convinced to either put reasonable caps in place or abandon capping at all, I think the best response would be to let them know you are canceling and why. Then switch to their biggest competitor in your area.

  5. Re:Probably How It All Went Down by bFusion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That sounds about right.

    Hell, the latest major patch for World of Warcraft was closing on a gig by itself. If I have two computers and two laptops that need to download it (for girlfriend and other visiting friends) I'm completely boned.

    Granted I can copy/paste the patch file from one computer to another, but it's the principle of the thing here! There is this feeling I get from these revisions that "If you use more than a few gigs a month you're probably a pirate anyway" ... it's REALLY easy to burn through a gig or two just doing normal non-illicit internet hijinks.

  6. Re:Bandwidth is a utility, like electricty... by Thraxen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then TWC needs to be as heavily regulated as other utilities. Last year they PROFITED over 4 billion on their data services. The cost to maintain their network was roughly $150 million and was actually lower than the previous year. So why don't they put some of that money toward increasing capacity?

    Also, there's a pretty clear difference between using up a physical resource like water or electricity which must be generated and consuming bandwidth.

  7. Re:What was that? by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, you think they want a bunch of heavy users as customers--when they lose money on each one of them?

    As soon as Granny figures out she can get her soaps anytime, we ALL will be "heavy users". Streaming video, in any acceptable resolution, is a resource HOG.

  8. Metered is inherently better for you by Nerdposeur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I prefer knowing how much I pay ahead of time to getting wildly differing phone bills.

    I understand your viewpoint - you want one less thing to worry about. But in every other area of your expenses, you just budget for an average amount - gas, food, whatever.

    Unless you get unlimited, never-expiring rollover minutes/bandwidth - and good luck with that - the "plan" model ALWAYS favors the provider. It's like this:

    1. Estimate your usage and choose a plan.
    2. Did you use less than that? You paid too much. The carrier wins.
    3. Did you use more than that? You got charged fees. The carrier wins.

    The optimal price model for the consumer is where you pay for exactly what you use at a fair per-unit price.

    Of course, what's missing from these "metered" plans is to take it the other direction. If I'm going to pay extra for using more than a cap amount, I want to pay zero when I use zero and pennies when I use very little. It's only fair.

  9. Damn by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I read the headline, I was hoping TW was getting sued over the cap.
    Then I RTFS (this is /., I didn't RTFA).

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.