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.
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good point and technically possible aswell. I wonder if anyone has suggested it to them tho, rather than just bitching about it on forums :)
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:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:4, Informative)
>I'm stuck talking to my neighbor two apartment buildings away at 384kbit/sec.
The problem is that you dont know where the bottleneck is. Im sure in cable networks the bottlneck in many scenarios is local and in other times its the backhaul. Assuming there's 100mbps of unused bandwidth between the cable node you are on and the node your pal is on may not be correct.
Not to mention, the docsis protocl may not be able to understand who to lift the cap for and who not too. Considering there's no business reason to provide that service, perhaps you and your neighbor should spring for a wifi link.
I think the sad part of this scenario is that there should be a business reason to provide this type of service. I imagine a municipal run ISP would be able to handle this pretty well and it would help the community. It would be nice to have a 50 or 60mbps link to everyone on my local node. Oh well, perhaps someday the municipal government will wise up.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Have you tried walking over to his/her apartment?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
That seems quite fair to me.
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that depends how much difference there is between how much the backhaul bandwidth costs them, and how much they resell it to you for.
In the case of Time Warner's proposed fees, they were planning to charge about 10x the free market rate, which is a bit much when you're a monopoly in many areas.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well the reality is, it is not about what they are planning to charge it is about economically excluding other content distribution companies from potential customers and establishing a content distribution monopoly.
This is forcing a legislative stance, where bandwidth providers will only be allowed to supply bandwidth and absolutely nothing else, otherwise the will always attempt to restrict use of that bandwidth so as to increase profits well beyond reasonable terms for cost of provision of that bandwi
contradictory (Score:2)
Operators usually justify throttling by saying that unlimited usage degrades service for everybody on the same cable. That justification makes sense.
There is no reason why "backhaul bandwidth" should be a problem. If it really were a problem, they could fix it by increasing upload bandwidth (rather than decreasing download bandwidth).
Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they read the last check I sent in... (Score:5, Funny)
I changed TWC's terms of service first.
It's written on the back of the check in 1 point font.
"Accepting this check indicates the acceptance of the following changes in
service billing:..."
Re:I hope they read the last check I sent in... (Score:4, Informative)
You can write whatever you want on your checks in 1 point font, it normally has zero effect on the agreement, although it may in theory be taken as an anticipatory breach of contract on your part..
That is, because an attempt at changing the agreement under such irregular conditions is an unenforcable one, and you're obligated under terms of existing contract with TWC to send payment. You cannot impose new conditions before you meet the terms required of you.
As a result, you also can't automatically bind TWC into an agreement based on them having payment made from your check.
Even if you had no prior agreement with TWC, you couldn't do it, because of the special nature of a check.
To condition accepting terms based on a payment, you have to make them sign the contract before or separate from the check.
And all the requirements to have a contract have to be met; consideration, meeting of minds, etc.
e.g. You'd have to send them a document that is the agreement but not a check / payment instrument that has another clear intent.
1 point font is also small enough as to make its contents unenforceable, as the other party can rightly claim the text was not visible.
Re:I hope they read the last check I sent in... (Score:4, Informative)
But changing the TOS in a small-type on a flimsy insert sent with the bill that takes a law degree, additional experience, and hours of careful reading to comprehend constitutes a "meeting of the minds"? Bullshit.
The fact that this sort of thing is legally accepted shows only that common sense in the application of the law was thrown out the window long ago in order to accommodate the existence of mega-corporations.
It may be a necessary evil, but that's no reason to dissemble about what's actually happening.
Re: (Score:2)
What's good for the goose...
Not really (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, the textile lobbies have already formed a cartel and manipulated the government specifically so that you aren't baked. ;-)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You should start a political party, should you feel so inclined, with a view to lobby your local governing bodies for exactly this sort of service.
I'd donate, and I'm not even American. It just so happens that the UK seems to follow you everywhere, so maybe we'll see some fallout over the pond.
Re: (Score:2)
So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them. They have used our public right of way to run their cables, we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger, it is time to take it back.
Uhoh... yeah, that ain't gonna work. That's pinko hippy communist talk, and as we all know, that way leads Stalinistic purges. And honestly, given the choice between shitty broadband and Stalinistic purges, which would you pref
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they not the least bit stupid and are totally "in touch". They just know they are a borderline monopoly so they really don't care what their customers want.
Re: (Score:1)
First I would have to ask, what's their real customer base. It doesn't sound to me that it would be "Joe the Subscriber".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The average customer isn't going to care if their internet is slightly slower because of a P2P user so if everything is as you say it is there is no need to cap.
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
By your rationale, people who watch only a few hours of cable TV a month should pay less than those watching hundreds of hours of cable TV, as they are essentially "abusers" of what is advertised and sold as an unlimited service. Total bullsh*t. 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. They want you to pay outrageous amounts of money for their crappy cable TV service, VoIP telephone service, and PPV movies on-demand service. They know it, we know it, and the feds know it. They're not fooling anyone.
At best it's anti-competitive, at worst it's extortion. The feds need to come in and smack TWC back in line.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is absurd. What in your mind constitutes an "abuser" of a service that is advertised as unlimited?
Right. That's what this is all about. Some of the connectivity providers are being caught out, selling more bandwidth than they have. Rather than shifting into an honesty mode, they're trying to classify those that actually make use of what they've bought as "abusers". It's as if a restaurant were to complain of the abuse of those patrons that ate their entire meal.
They lied before because there wasn't enough demand for them to be caught. That's changed, and their dishonest ways have been exposed.
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's okay if you pay for a certain level of service and never come close to using it, but not okay if you take full advantage of what you've paid for. Riiiiiight...
Re: (Score:2)
It's as if you went to a buffet style restaurant and bought the "all you can eat"
And after eating your 4th round of food... the restaurant owner gets pissed and tells you that you need to pay more for the next round.
Or you need to pay $Z more if you want to go back and get any more of food item X.
Where the menu/sign out front/no signs in the restaurant told you that food item X was limited, or that you were only allowed N rounds of all-U-can-eat.
By the way, some restaurants actually do pull that t
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's somewhat justified because almost all the traffic that Australian users do is to and from OUTSIDE Australia...
As you're on an island, all traffic goes through a few ocean cables which have limited capacity, and that capacity costs a lot.
This is not the case in Europe and especially US where the telecommunication companies already received tons of money to invest in infrastructure yet they all screw their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
While this is absolutely true, the pricing that we are charged here for poor speed and low quotas is frankly highway robbery and not really justifiable even with this consideration. I know we started life as a penal colony, but do the ISPs have to keep up the tradition? :)
Now, back on topic. Most of the ISPs here do not charge quota for accessing their servers. Telstra run games servers that allow their customers to play without hitting their quota, while my ISP runs a large mirror site that has an impr
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia, we get to choose our plan by both speed AND quota.
Is this actually true?
What I mean is can you pick any speed and any quota from a matrix of choices? Could you get 20Mbps with a monthly cap of 1GB or 1Mbps with a monthly cap of 300GB?
I suspect that in reality, every plan has a cap based on less than 10% usage of the advertised maximum speed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funnily enough, you can get sorta close to both of those plans.
There are ADSL2+ plans (i.e. 24 Mbps) with 2 GB/month allowances: http://www.tpg.com.au/products_services/adsl2plus_pricing.php [tpg.com.au] (first plan in the list).
There are also 100+ GB plans from several ISPS at the 'standard' ADSL1 speed of 1.5 Mbps, which is quite close to your 1 Mbps example.
If you wanted to get upwards of 200 GB though, you'd have to buy a 24 Mbps plan with 200+ GB and tell your modem to connect at 1 Mbps if you insist on it ... why
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TWC isn't in my area. I have Comcast, so I don't really care too much what TWC is doing. Even if I did, TWC doesn't serve my area, and even if it did, I have the commercial service with Comcast. Since I pay a premium, it's very likely I would be exempt. On Comcast, I'm already exempt from the 250 GB/month bandwidth cap.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true in the slightest. Here in NZ, we've had Tim Berners-Lee himself come here just to complain to our government about the state of our broadband. And I don't think Tim Berners-Lee is "noone".
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about New Zealand. I'm talking about Australia. Big difference, wouldn't you say?
Why not.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not abhorred. It's deceptive implementation is abhorred. That's it.
The whole "slashdot/FOSS/etc hates commerce" thing is such a total red herring. Somehow 'not believing your bullshit' became a sign of communist sympathy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We are also questioning the motivation. As you've pointed out, transfer caps have very little to do with bandwidth saturation. So while TWC is using this as their rationale, we who know better are calling bullsh*t.
And seriously, did you actually read the new TOS? Does anyone think it's okay to sign up for a service
Re:Why not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.
If you want to grab your ankles to increase TW's already high profit margins while they spend a fraction of a percentage of revenue on improving the infrastructure, knock yourself out. It's a free country. But don't be surprised as the abhorrence the rest of us have for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because just about every company uses public property in some way and this doesn't give government the right to dictate their pricing strategy. Those people who own and work for that company are also members of the public so it's their property too (don't get me started on the evils of "public" property). In principle, this is the same thing as g
Re:Why not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market". Just can't get enough of that corporate cock, can you?
That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.
Yes, because paying 1000% more for monopolized products and services will be such a boon for you, as well as deadly workplaces and poisonous food/medicine/products/drinking water.
Re: (Score:2)
What a stupid thing to say. Of course they should pay the rent on the land they use. What has that got to do with the issue here which is this: does the fact that companies use public infrastructure like roads etc give the government unlimited power to control how those companies should run their business? If the government says this: you lay your cables through public pro
Re: (Score:2)
What a stupid thing to say.
Your complaint was very stupid, yes. Then you decided to take the stupid up to 11, to the point where it makes my hair hurt:
Of course they should pay the rent on the land they use. What has that got to do with the issue here which is this: does the fact that companies use public infrastructure like roads etc give the government unlimited power to control how those companies should run their business? If the government says this: you lay your cables through public property, theref
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the government has already made mandates about railroad pricing schemes.
I was going to make that point as well, and will add a bit to it. In the US, there are substantial advantages to be a common carrier as opposed to an industrial railroad, number being that a lot of state and local laws are pre-empted for the common carriers. In addition, eminent domain is a lot easier to secure for a comon carrier than an industrial RR.
Re:Why not.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is not about regulation so much as the fact that this monopoly (all Telco ISP entities are monopolies) wants to add charges at a rate greater than that of anything approaching reason while at the same time strangling anything close to competition by anyone other than themselves. These are the same phone companies that have been gouging us for years - first for phone service, then for government mandated "fees" they were allowed to keep and now broadband.
I realize this was an intentional troll but I am
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
How do you strip value from a homeless and broke person. Your idiotic statement only takes into account the extremely short run where prices can go up and consumers still have money. Once they run out of money they can't fork any more over.
Sure there are differences in wealth but not everyone is equal. Those that head big businesses have a huge responsibility to keep he company running smoothly or thousands could be out of jobs. Do you really want to pay the person in charge of thousands of peoples futur
Re: (Score:1)
Do you really want to pay the person in charge of thousands of peoples futures the same amount as the janitor sweeping the halls?
No. I don't think it's worth paying CEOs 10,000 to 100,000 times as much as an entry level worker either. Although I'm sure there are plenty of CEOs that disagree with me.
Re:Why not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with a "free market" is that greed trumps all. This is fine when you're dealing with yachts, luxury homes, and bling, but not so much when it comes to basic and ubiquitous goods and services like homes, automobiles, healthcare, and yes, Internet.
There was once a time in this country when making a buck was not the end-all-be-all of running a business. Unfortunately that time has long passed. Instead we have corporations with no moral compass, no compassion, no sense of right and wrong, only the financial bottom line. And we excuse this behavior on the grounds that they are businesses who are beholden to shareholders, blah blah blah blah blah.
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. Or cut their pay by 10% each (like they're really going to notice). But when was the last time that happened?
I'm tired of the all the excuses. A business can be profitable AND be socially conscious. They are not mutually exclusive. Until the people of this country stop buying corporate America's excuses as to why they can't do this we will continue to see the working Joes get beaten down while the wealthiest of wealthy keep getting richer and richer.
So yeah, explain to me how great the "free market" is again...
Re:Why not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame corporate america - blame every single person who has bought into the stock market bubble (including everyone who has a 401K or IRA).
At one time people bought stocks based on their dividend yield. These people held on to the stocks for a long time and did not want the company to sacrifice the long term for the short term.
Now the market is dominated by speculators that want instant profits now. Stocks are no longer priced by the actual condition of the company and its long term outlook but by the "greater fool" theory.
The companies are just responding to what their owners are telling them.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest enablers are those that fork over money to these corporations in the first place. Without them, none of it would be possible.
Re: (Score:2)
What? No. Merely that people blame the corporations for doing what they do but it's the consumers that let it all happen.
Re: (Score:2)
"The problem with a "free market" is that greed trumps all."
At least in context of cable, I think the free market would work fine... if there was a free market. In many (most?) there is only one government sanctioned cable company. There is no competition in many neighborhoods because the government made it that way.
In general, I'm not a big fan of regulations. But because regulations caused (much) of this mess to begin with, I'm all for regulation that prevents ISPs from throttling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no competition in many neighborhoods because the government made it that way.
Uh, no. You don't have competition because of natural monopolies - you aren't going to have multiple cable companies make the massive investments in infrastructure when a maximum of one line will be used at one time - not because of government. Yes, monopolies are granted, but that's so an unregulated company doesn't come in with lower rates the regulated company, and then jack up rates when the regulated company is driv
Re: (Score:2)
That and worker productivity rates have increased all that time, yet worker wages have stagnated or declined. The rewards from those increases have just gone to the top instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Happens all the time, as opposed to, say, Wall Street execs who take home multimillion dollar bonuses while losing money for their companies and shareholders.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and we are allowed to bitch and moan and create massive campaigns about what poor service we're getting for the price that they want to increase.
The only problem is that many of us don't have real choices (choosing between powerful corporations known for colluding isn't much choice). We're doing exactly what we should be doing in a free market. We're shouting at the vendor that they're overpriced and looking at legislation to keep them from changing prices (which is appropriate in this case since the c
Re: (Score:2)
Time Warner just wants to lock people into yearly contracts where they can charge whatever they want and if you want out of the contract, you will have to pay a penalty.
New Name of The Game is Content Value (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what's going on. Big content providers are primarily in the business of distributing movies, music, tv shows. Distribution used to be expensive because of exclusive licenses for limited radio spectrum or having cable pay for your content. Along comes this damn inconvenient packet switched broadband and basically reduces distribution costs to a ridiculously low number. So, some people who aren't as smart as you, or for that matter a poblano pepper decided that:
* By raising the cost for residential broadband, it would make it cost you more to download Heroes vs. just watching it on their cable/on demand network.
* Because you can get your shows for less through the cable company, then they can sell all the commercials and make more money.
* Big content benefits because they can wrap everything up in a nice DRM wrapper on the DVR box you rent and then they get to sell you Cloverfield eight times over the next four years.
There's just a couple of small holes in the plan:
* It's probably illegal. If it's not it's so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers.
* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights. Last I looked there were at least a few more things to do online than movies and music.
* There are emerging technologies that are going to absolutely screw any business plan counting on a last mile monopoly (google meraki just for fun). Just for the hell of it, I'm going to start a mesh in the apartment complex I live in ($20/month/2.5MBPS).
* Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time, and last I looked, the internet only ISP isn't gone yet... and won't be gone for some time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time, and last I looked, the internet only ISP isn't gone yet... and won't be gone for some time.
But most people really only have access to either Comcast, Time Warner or AT&T other then the occasional local ISP (which usually has slow connection speeds because of the lack of infrastructure) or dial up (unusable to download anything really) there are many people who can't switch even if they wanted to.
Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value (Score:5, Funny)
* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights. Last I looked there were at least a few more things to do online than movies and music.
Porn?
Re: (Score:1)
Porn?
That IS what it's for.
Re: (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
Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is just a 100% money grab. Nothing as well thought out as 'internet is cannibalizing our other business'. Remember that the internet segment of their business is a growing segment. Their video is a declining one. The reason it is declining is due to competition from directtv/dish/att/others...
This is a money grab, no doubt. At the same time, this is also a lame attempt to save the content distribution business and avoid simply becoming a pipe. This is why net neutrality and a "genuine internet" initiative are so important. TW wants to charge less for their content than everything else you get online. This is all about owning the bridge, then being allowed to put up a toll bridge to make more money.
Terms of Service = Contract? (Score:2)
Is it legal to change the terms? Do they count as a contract in the legal sense?
I guess if you're paying month by month, changing them and, ideally, notifying your customers that you did and that's just the way the cookie crumbles, they can continue to purchase their services or not. But what if you got locked into one of those deals? You know, three months at such and such price but then you have to stay on for nine more months at full price or whatever?
Re:Terms of Service = Contract? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the ultra fine print you will probably find a clause that allows them to change the terms of the contract at their discretion, and that posting a update on their web site is sufficient notice, it's usually right before the clause that allows them to have any disputes settled by their cousin Harrold in a kangaroo court of their choosing....
Re: (Score:1)
At which point (in the UK at least), you would tell them to take it through the small claims court if they want their money back and cite OFT guidance [oft.gov.uk] (page 52) in your defense of the claim.
I'd be surprised if you couldn't pull something similar in the US as two of the basic concepts of contract law are consideration [wikipedia.org] and estoppel [wikipedia.org]. I guess you would be probably relying on previous case law for this, unless the US has any guidance similar to that given in the UK.
Re: (Score:1)
It might make it not a contract, but the only relief you'd be able to get out of that is you could quit their service without paying a penalty fee.
A change is gonna come... (Score:2)
Looks like I may have to switch off of TWCable... sad. It was good service for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you going to switch to? AT&T and Verizon are doing, or will be doing the same thing.
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "overuse." They see a means by which they can milk additional profit "...in these difficult times." They can certainly manage the loads they have everywere if they wanted to. They don't want to manage the load. They want more money... no, they need more money. Their top executives lost a lot of money when the markets fell and they have to make up for the loss somehow, somewhere.
I see the Earthlink option as an interesting one and worth looking into. TXU Electric provides the power in my ar
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.. I literally just switched so am not quite sure how all the billing details will play out.
At the very least I hope TWC gets slightly less of my money now.
Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that the point? If they where forced to use those channels for data, wouldn't that mean they would have even more capacity?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
An analog TV channel takes 6 MHz, or you can fit 2 proper digital HD channels or 3 overcompressed HD channels. Digital voice from your cable provider uses a separate channel for reliability and it has allowed Cable companies to take significant telephony marke
Adding unfair competition doesn't make it better (Score:2)
I wonder what corporate genius thought this would make it more acceptable instead of less acceptable. This is like the Simpson's "can we have a pool dad" chant.
Its inevitable anyway (Score:2)
Wince the ISP's are tied ( or are actually one in the same... ) to the content producers, it is only a matter of time before we end up in a situation where you are punished for using competitors.
Oh, and punished as a customer in general, like comcast does now.
Cap 'n Trade (Score:1)
Here's the trade. You cap my net, I block all ad servers. That should save me a bundle. Unclog the tubes with Drano.
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.
Just send them a blank check... (Score:4, Funny)
So basically Time Warner is saying "we can charge you whatever we want based on whatever we feel like and you must agree to this or fuck off"
Time Warner really gets it
It's "triple play", not all "Internet" (Score:2, Funny)
Childish whining like the OP about cable companies' not metering their own television broadcasts or telephone calls, but metering Internet, gets nowhere. You all want cake, and you want it free, and to eat it too. But the cake is a lie.
Cable runs telephone on reserved, engineered capacity (PacketCable) for which subscribers pay a fee. It doesn't touch the Internet; it goes to a media gateway into the phone network.
Cable runs video on many channels, some analog, most QAM nowadays. That's sent from the head
Re:It's "triple play", not all "Internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, if they didn't want people using it "unlimited", then don't advertise it like that and then change TOS while the customer has your service. Either man up and friggin' say it's "X" GB a month (like they SUED Comcast into doing), or don't put a cap on it at all. Throttle the up/down speed past a certain amount (certainly more than 50GB).
The cable companies made serious bank off the benevolence of imminent domain, using federal subsidies to lay the cable (meaning using OUR money to do it). Now they complain people are using "too much"? Bite me. Why didn't TWC try any tiered pricing in places where there was competition? Because it's a BAD IDEA. And if TWC does go through with their plans (try #2), you might well be the only one on their network. Good luck with that. The internet is filled with actual studies that prove your points to be incorrect regarding bandwidth caps and usage, not some "whining" by people who don't feel like being gouged by TWC.
Just when I thought... (Score:2)
Just when I thought I was in with cable Internet they push me away again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was frankly disappointed to see the redundancy in your sig (not to mention bad security practice). Also in an effort not to be offtopic one could liken it to TimeWarner being struck down last time but just ploughing on anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is nice, but most people have four choices for Internet service:
Cable
DSL
3G
Dialup
For a lot of people, choice #2 or #3 isn't an option due to coverage areas, choice #3 and #4 are too slow to be useful for a lot of things.
So, essentially Cable is a monopoly. This is why they are trying the usual garbage.
Its ironic that while the rest of the world gets faster links like 4G, US bandwidth actually suffers and gets more expensive as time goes on.
I'm also pretty sure that it is only a matter of time before a