Time Warner ToS Changes Could Mean Tiered Pricing, Throttling 162
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."
AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own content (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not at all strange.
AT&T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth. I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.
What's most important is that for truly equivalent services, the providers should not be able to discriminate.
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (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.
Oh no, no, no (Score:4, Interesting)
they are allowed to charge you at their discretion
When selling most goods and services, it's "here is our price per [measurement], take it or leave it". They do not look into why you are buying the item, and what you are using it for, and charge you based on that. And you are informed of the rate before you decide to purchase the goods or service.
For some reason I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words just now, but when they're deciding what to charge me for bandwidth based on what they think about my use of it... I don't think so.
Re:A change is gonna come... (Score:5, 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.
I don't mind. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (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.
Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value (Score:3, Interesting)
While I generally don't trust politicians to do the right thing, on this they do seem to be looking out for the consumer. So I'm at least optimistic. If push does come to shove we very well might see things on a state-by-state basis, where TWC will be permitted to change their pricing in some states, while others make it illegal for them.
Of course the new FCC chief *could* step in and take care of the problem in one fell swoop. Who knows, stranger things have happened.
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why not.... (Score:1, Interesting)
When a company lays off 500 people yet continues to pay their top executives $20+ million a year, how can anyone with half a brain think this is right? Axe one of those execs and you now have enough money to hire back those 500 people.
Yeah, good luck getting 500 union workers to accept only $40,000 a year in total compensation.