mdillenbeck
Distinguished
First, I can see why high speeds with a low cap could be useful. Take the casual user with Microsoft Windows as an OS - they need to be able to browse the web and get their emails, especially the ones where the kids send them a big photo of their new grandchild, as well as have their OS run automatic updates. They don't need a lot of bandwidth, but do they really want to wait 10 minutes for an email or 2 hours for an update to complete?
Second, capping is not an uncommon or unwarranted option. We all accept it with other telecommunication systems - with a land-line or cellular telephone, I select my calling plan type based on my expected usage. I can get it cheap and pay for all my minutes (or number of local calls), I can buy a plan with x minutes (or x number of local calls), or I can pay for unlimited plans. (With cell phones, I also can choose between local region or national/free roaming plans.)
Thus, paying for a certain amount of bandwidth on a shared network system is not unreasonable. If the pipeline will only support y GB/s of usage, and 10 users want to use y/4 bandwidth all the time, then there will be a problem - and a solution must be found.
Where Time Warner has failed is coming up with a reasonable solution. They should follow the cellular phone company's example. Separate peak time from off peak time, and keep unlimited usage during off peak (or charge $5/month for unlimited off peak time). Use tiers, but make them reasonable amounts. For their system, 250 GB/mo would cost $265/month before fees! Give customers another option - either have usage throttles when 90% capacity is reached to ensure they don't go over, or allow them to pay a reasonable overage fee.
There are solutions. In Time Warner's case, they are gouging their customers because of their often regional monopolies rather than seeking these reasonable solutions. However, what can one do but go without? (For example, my area I have a few choices - Charter Communication broadband, Cellular Mobile Broadband that frequently drops for 3G speeds down to dial-up speeds, or Verizon dial-up because they won't put DSL in our community of 2000. Thus, Charter is the only broadband option and they have a monopoly over residents of my community - they can charge whatever they want and give crappy service with little repercussions.)
Second, capping is not an uncommon or unwarranted option. We all accept it with other telecommunication systems - with a land-line or cellular telephone, I select my calling plan type based on my expected usage. I can get it cheap and pay for all my minutes (or number of local calls), I can buy a plan with x minutes (or x number of local calls), or I can pay for unlimited plans. (With cell phones, I also can choose between local region or national/free roaming plans.)
Thus, paying for a certain amount of bandwidth on a shared network system is not unreasonable. If the pipeline will only support y GB/s of usage, and 10 users want to use y/4 bandwidth all the time, then there will be a problem - and a solution must be found.
Where Time Warner has failed is coming up with a reasonable solution. They should follow the cellular phone company's example. Separate peak time from off peak time, and keep unlimited usage during off peak (or charge $5/month for unlimited off peak time). Use tiers, but make them reasonable amounts. For their system, 250 GB/mo would cost $265/month before fees! Give customers another option - either have usage throttles when 90% capacity is reached to ensure they don't go over, or allow them to pay a reasonable overage fee.
There are solutions. In Time Warner's case, they are gouging their customers because of their often regional monopolies rather than seeking these reasonable solutions. However, what can one do but go without? (For example, my area I have a few choices - Charter Communication broadband, Cellular Mobile Broadband that frequently drops for 3G speeds down to dial-up speeds, or Verizon dial-up because they won't put DSL in our community of 2000. Thus, Charter is the only broadband option and they have a monopoly over residents of my community - they can charge whatever they want and give crappy service with little repercussions.)