Slashdot Mirror


Time Warner ToS Changes Could Mean Tiered Pricing, Throttling

Mirell writes "Time Warner Cable has recently changed their Terms of Service, so that they are allowed to charge you at their discretion via consumption-based billing. They were shot down a few months ago after raising the wrath of many subscribers and several politicians. Now they're trying again, but since they make exclusions for their own voice and video not to count against the cap, this could draw the attention of the FCC."

5 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte by sadler121 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they use that justification, than I want to be able to have torrent(any) traffic that stays inside their network not classified against my cap either.

  2. Re:A change is gonna come... by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    FWIW I just switched from TWC to Earthlink cable.

    The funny thing is, TWC is still the cable provider, but Earthlink is the ISP. I still have the same cable modem TWC installed, etc. After I called Earthlink and signed up for their service ($20 a month cheaper than TWC for 6 months, then $10/mon cheaper than TWC forever...no contract) I had to call my local TWC office and they toggled something in software that made me get an Earthlink IP.

    I don't know if TWC will be able to start making Earthlink charge more, but when I talked to the people at Earthlink they specifically told me there were no bandwidth caps, no tiers, and no plans for such.

  3. I don't mind. by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm all for tiered pricing, as long as the tiering applies to them as well.

    No more of this "up to X mps for $50 a month". If they promise X but can only deliver 1/5X then they only get to bill me $10 a month instead of $50.

  4. Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte by Nivex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The cable companies do their throttling at the cable modem. It turns out this cap can be bypassed. There were some guys back in my hometown that got caught doing just this. The cable company threw the book at them.

    It would make more technical sense to do this at the headend, since they could keep the control closer to them. It would also allow customers who wanted to exchange data locally to do so at the full loop speed without chewing through upstream bandwidth. Instead, I'm stuck talking to my neighbor two apartment buildings away at 384kbit/sec. Obviously what makes the most technical sense does not necessarily mesh with what makes the most business sense.

  5. Re:Could they possibly... by stinerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu.

    Correct. This is a consequence of the owners of the infrastructure also selling services over that infrastructure. That is the key. The infrastructure needs to be owned by the public (just like with our roads and airwaves) to ensure there is no conflict of interest.