Time Warner Responds to Cap With 100 GB "Super Tier"

[Marcus Yam]

Time Warner Cable is planning to roll out new internet service trials that would limit monthly usage to 40 GB, a restriction that has many customers livid.

Time Warner Responds to Cap With 100 GB "Super Tier" : Read more

 

[jrnyfan]

I never thought I would be saying this and forgive such blasphemy but...I'm glad I have Comcast over this stupidity from Time Warner. They have been screwing their customers since the days of dial-up AOL and I feel bad for the people caught in their web of lies because that is the only internet access they can have at a bearable cost or at all.

 

[particleman]

The only way I could see this as good......is make a plan that has a per GB charge. So if one month I use alot less internet......I save money. Personally I use alot of internet...so a flat rate to me works better.....but a pay as you go internet would work for my parents....and save them the $45 a month charge for just surfing the net and emails.

Cheers,

-ParticleMan

 

[esquire468]

Hobbs posed, “When you go to lunch with a friend, do you split the bill in half if he gets the steak and you have a salad?”

Bad analogy. A more appropriate analogy would be for an "all you can eat buffet". If I am fixed at $40 per month for my internet, I am stuck at that price regardless of whether I order the salad (say 5 GB of usage) or the steak (100 GB of usage). Same goes for a buffet. I pay the same price regarless of how much I eat. The only difference is now TW wants to not only fix the price but also limit the number of return trips to the buffet line.

 

[roofus]

Dont be too glad. Comcast will be doing the same thing. They are quietly watching and see how it goes. They certainly do not care about a bad image per say but will be watching to see if TWC customer base shrinks to see how they proceed.

 

[joex444]

Consider for a moment that current TWC customers have been enjoying unlimited bandwidth consumption privileges (apparently its not a right, even when no metering is explicity mentioned in the contract) for quite some time.

Did TWC get complaints from the light users (who probably belong on DSL) that they felt it was unfair they are being charged so much for their low usage while others can use all they want (which is also the light users privilege at the time)?

The way TWC should act, IF they have the best interest of their users in mind, is to create metered tiers and leave their current scheme in place.

What I'm talking about here is keeping an unlimited $45/mo plan with the same speeds. Then you add in a 40GB/mo plan for $25/mo, with the same speeds to draw customers away from DSL (more customers = more revenue no matter how you look at it). And finally offer a "Super-Tier" with double the speeds for $65/mo.

If there is ANYTHING at all we should be learning from this and the Comcast cap is that we need to destroy the ARTIFICIAL monopolies given to the cable companies by our government. It's absurd that we can't have competition. And they have shown time and time again that they do not care about their customers interests and instead are simply greedy corporations with the honesty to rival a shady car dealer or a credit card scammer.

 

[foxyg]

Any cap is bad, there should be no cap. And there should be more than 1 cable provider at 1 area.

 

[mikeynavy1976]

I currently have Time Warner but am moving in a few months. Can someone please tell me if there's a web site that I can punch in an address or zip code and see what cable provider services it? I'll definitely be looking for a place that either has a non-TWC provider, has Verizon FIOS or ATT U-verse, or allows for satellite dishes.

 

[Guest]

No matter how you spin it, the customers see this as a way to nickel and dime us even more as we are turning to other services available online rather than paying for your cable subscription.



If Time Warner implements consumption-based billing, I will be forced to cancel service and urge everyone I come in contact with to do the same.



My options for an ISP are limited, which Time Warner is aware of. I will switch to AT&T, and if they implement a similar system, I’ll forego Internet access altogether rather than be restricted by consumption of bandwidth.



I urge you to think about the long-term profit loss you’ll incur with this system. I believe you’re going to lose a lot more customers than you are anticipating.

 

[jshumate]

The sole reason for the cap is to preserve the cable companie's market share in direct to home entertainment. More and more streaming content is becoming available from netflix, hulu, tv network websites, etc. and is being delivered right through cable's pipelines. Obviously they don't want consumers to have an alternative to cable tv service. So they just slap some cost barriers on that content under the guise of fair usage policy.

 

[jshumate]

The sole reason for the cap is to preserve the cable companie's market share in direct to home entertainment. More and more streaming content is becoming available from netflix, hulu, tv network websites, etc. and is being delivered right through cable's pipelines. Obviously they don't want consumers to have an alternative to cable tv service. So they just slap some cost barriers on that content under the guise of fair usage policy.

 

[duckmanx88]

damn esquire has it down perfectly. this cap is so ridiculously lame.i mean 5GB is nothing. heck if you reformat your computer and download updates and necessary programs you may have already gone through 1GB. just one hd movie on itunes is 3.5 GB.

im sending them an email thats for sure.

 

[truehighroller]

I again say I have their turbo service and if they continue down this road, I will drop them like a bad habit on New Years. I work at home once a week and use a soft phone and that uses some bandwidth alone I am sure. Plus I like watching videos through hulu you tube and what not. I will not be paying them more money to use their service period. Time Warner's excuse (spin) = FAIL!

 

[tayb]

Fuck off Time Warner. I already canceled my service and moved to Fios. Never again will I use your company.

Oh by the way at least two dozen of my friends and co-workers in the Austin area have switched to Fios as well. I wonder how many scenarios like this have played out across the nation.

TV (HD, DVR) + Phone + 2nd tier Internet = $140 a month. $140 *24 (ish) = $3,360 * 24 months = $80,640. Just walked out of your revenue charts for the next two years.

Voting with your wallets is a great thing. Anyone I know who has Time Warner will be heavily persuaded to drop them.

 

[Hatecrime69]

Well at least somebody can make comcast look good

 

[WyomingKnott]

What an unusual concept! Asking the customer to pay by what is used. Almost every business in the world follows this concept; why not internet access?

On a broader scale, for the last 14 years I have been wondering how communications companies would make money (and make money they must, or we will not have communications). Originally, we paid the phone company for phone calls. Talk more, pay more. Connect to the Internet more, pay more. Then an interesting thing happened: VOIP (and its predecessors). Instead of data communication requiring that you pay the voice carrier for call time or a leased line, you could use data communication to not pay the voice carrier. It was an interesting dilemma for the phone companies. The clients were using a service that ran over their lines to eliminate paying for the use of their lines!

The owner of the network has made an investment that allows us to use data services. Why should we not pay them back for that investment, based on our usage? It's a fair model. It's the equivalent of a toll road. Some roads are tolled, some are paid with from general tax revenue. A trucker prefers the latter, someone who rides a bike to work would prefer the former.

I would be delighted if you-all would help me think about this in the context of a simple fact: networks are a large investment that must be paid for and return a profit. As more bandwidth is utilized, more network capacity has to be built. Unless you think that the Internet should be built and maintained by the government as a public service, that is. Or are there other alternatives?

 

[tayb]

That is a great story there WyomingKnott but what you fail to realize is that these companies have been refusing, for years, to upgrade their services to accommodate more people and more usage. Over in Japan I can get an internet service 10 times faster than anything Time Warner offers consumers for half of the "premium" service Time Warner offers.

Had they spent money upgrading their lines and speeding up service overall they wouldn't have to be handing out bandwidth caps. The bandwidth caps themselves are just another excuse for Time Warner to be a lazy company and do absolutely nothing in terms of upgrades. More people want more speed so instead of giving them that speed they are introducing bandwidth caps so they can continue to add more customers without significant infrastructure upgrades.

Time Warner is just a shitty company.

 

[timswar]

If this comes to Raleigh I will switch services immediately. My biggest use is Netflix streaming, and I have a feeling I'd break that 5gig limit pretty quickly. I'm currently paying 30 a month and have zero desire to pay double (for the slightly more reasonable 40gig) for lesser service. If I have to downgrade to DSL or some other setup I'd rather do that than put up with capping.

 

[antilycus]

im curious as to how TW is going to handle the OVERAGES. If I go 6GB and lose my internet service, you better not cut me off, you better let me know via email and let me konw that I will be moved up teirs for that month and will go back down to my default tier next month.

 

[antilycus]

and if you dont like it QUIT YOUR SERVICE. THATS THE ONLY WAY THINGS WILL STAY THE SAME, IS IF TW STARTS LOOSING A BUNCH OF CUSTOMERS/MONEY. But lets face it you arent really willing to take the time to xfer internet and email accounts, so TW will totally get away with this.

 

[mustwarnothers]

Just another example of the greasy corporate swine sucking every cookie and crumb they can from their consumers.

My girlfriend and I just moved into an Apartment with a 1 year lease, so we opted for Time Warners "TV Phone Internet" package, which was 29.95 for each, for 1 year.

If they institute anything like this nearby, I'll be more than happy to take advantage of Verizon's 100 dollar package with all three services.

I have the option of Time Warner, Verizon Fios (just recently), Optimum and the very minimum.

Try and fuck me and you lose my business, it's quite simple.

 

[formin]

lol 40 gigs is a joke
i watch 40 gigs of streamed porn a day
i dont think we should be throttling our internetz when the asians have internet 100 times faster than ours. its just technological crippling us and holding us back.

 

[00101010]

Esquire, Joex444 and WyomingKnott all make very interesting points.

If we were to consider the analogy of the buffet, it makes perfect sense that if we all pay the same price but eat a different amount, no-one complains that one person ate more than another, it's all the point of the buffet. If we look back on the days of dial-up popularity, it was no different where some used dial-up constantly whereas some didn't use it much at all. Why not keep the "all you can use" option if people are willing to pay for that freedom, and are going to use it? I for one do use significant bandwidth daily.

Joex444 made an excellent suggestion of offering the tiered levels on top of the current structure. why not keep what people already use, but give additional options for lighter usage persons? You keep the base that already enjoys the service you have, and adopt a larger customer group with more options, not less. I have many family who would love such an option of fast internet but in limited usage amounts while others would go for the "full monty".

And last (but not least) WyomingKnott makes a valid statement about the fact that this is a business, and as such they are trying to turn a profit as well as maintain a highly reliable and costly service. At the same time I respectfully disagree that we should pay for "what we use". If that is the case, then why am I paying for cable capability that was run to households who chose to buy satellite, U-verse, or rabbit ears? Does that mean the cable company owes me a refund for what I paid for and is not in use by me? It is the company's choice, and as such they chose this model of business, and yet need to remain competitively priced.

I feel the flat rate unlimited use model is not only enjoyed by many, it's expected by many as well. Just like unlimited models of cell phone texting and other services, business competition will cause someone to continue an internet unlimited model. I hope T.W. will consider this for the sake of their business.

 

[3p0ch]

I think that anyone who had the service before the caps were put in place should be allowed to continue the unlimited service at no extra cost as long as they wish. That if they are going to put caps in place, that only people who signed up for their service, knowing that the caps would be there, should have to suffer the penalty of those caps.

 

[truehighroller]

I say some one puts together a petition and we let the President know about this situation and bring the fact that ISP's are monopolized to the light of him or our Congressman or whomever needs to know and can do something about this because I just tried switching to Verizon and they don't have service in my area and I want to switch now.. We need to all take a stand now and tell TW to shove their none sense making plans where the sun does not shine!