Why Cable ISP Capping is the New DRM, and Suck

[techn0babble]

TWC and other ISPs CAN NOT get away with this. I am all for ISPs getting their cut of the pie, but tiered download capping is not the answer. The internet is not just something people use for fun. It is used by schools, businesses, researchers...EVERYONE...in the U.S. and around the world!!! It is used for playing silly games and it is used for curing diseases. Some of these uses take up large amounts of bandwidth and that's just life. By putting a download cap in place, ISPs are restricting the end users ability to use the internet that they are already paying hefty sums for.

First, I can't believe that companies who make a living off of the internet aren't being more vocal. Apple, NetFlix, Valve, and tons more should be on the front lines fighting against this.

I understand that bandwidth is not infinite and the internet can't just magically tolerate people downloading infinite amounts of data, but there has to be a compromise. Most users aren't using the internet for much more than internet browsing, purchases, chatting, emailing and things that take up relatively little bandwidth. I guess a possible compromise could be that all speed levels start with a cap of 150-200GB/month and make it cost about $5/month for additional 50GBs. I personally think it should stay the old way, and price only varies with speed, but if there had to be a compromise I could live with something like I described.

 

[Guest]

So what company made that 3600 baud modem you started with?

 

[Guest]

I wish businesses would grow a pair and adapt rather than root themselves in the past. The only thing they are doing is pissing people off. Trying to force people not to change their habits? That is ludicrous.

Times change, TWC. Get a new business strategy, or die of and make it easier on everyone else.

 

[crystalized]

Although this is not news, great job Tuan for a very short and precise analysis of TWC practices.

 

[brettc]

To bad many places have monopolized their cable, but this could be a chance for telecom providers to gain market share offering unlimited usage. Especially those offering fiber service.

Also I could see cable providers using this more of to their advantage. For example, charging you bandwidth usage for downloading a movie from netflix, but you could download it from your cable provider/approved partner at no bandwidth charge.

Personally I think ISP's should kick their continuous extreme users, and let the rest of us have that warm feeling of unlimited internet.

 

[B-Unit]

Theres nothing wrong with caps, but they have to be reasonable, and clearly defined. Also, if your going to have caps, get rid of speed tiers, everyone gets full speed, you just only get so much full speed. E-mail and web browsing houses get a 25-50GB basic plan, Netflix/iTunes buffs get 500GB top tier plans.

Or maybe going flat-rate, $.xx per GB...

 

[truehighroller]

I say down with Time Warner. I will switch back to satellite if this hits my area.

 

[Guest]

This is straight up criminal what Time Warner is doing to their customers. If you are a TWC customer TURN YOUR SERVICE OFF!!! And make sure you tell them why when they ask. Punch these greedy bastard dead in the balls and don't use any service they have control of. ALL MEDIA CONTENT is going to the web and they know it. Its like the water company capping your water usage to 40 gallons a month and then charging you over the limit fees for every gallon you use over 40. BUT... They keep sending you a new pet fish every month in the mail with your bill!

 

[fausto]

f*ck time warner. they just trying to knock the wall down so we can be gauge on internet usage like the cell companies rape us now.

 

[echdskech]

the article offers a good insight.

if you think about it, this really is nothing new. having a speed cap already implies a monthly max download and speed caps have been present for as long as I can remember. doing some quick math, for every 1Mbps you have implies a theoretical max of a little below 330GB per month.

on the topic of conversions, you can actually put this in different terms. taking their 100GB "super tier" for example, you can think of it as a 303kbps unlimited connection or 1Mbps but only for 220 hours a month, 10Mbps for 22 hours a month, etc.

so while this is my take on things, I think that if Tuan is right cable ISPs continue down this path, consumers will get screwed. at least until non-cable ISPs realize that they suddenly have a huge opportunity to fill a demand created b this trend.

 

[zerapio]

[citation][nom]customisbetter[/nom]I 100% agree. But this is not news, it is a Blog. That is another thing that the internet has to learn. The difference between opinionated complaining and factual news.No offense, just saying.[/citation]

I too agree with what Tuan is exposing but don't feed it to me as an article when it's clearly not.

 

[Guest]

i need to move to S.Korea very very soon.

 

[jaragon13]

[citation][nom]horohoro[/nom]i need to move to S.Korea very very soon.[/citation]
Yeah, great idea.
[citation][nom]echdskech[/nom]the article offers a good insight. if you think about it, this really is nothing new. having a speed cap already implies a monthly max download and speed caps have been present for as long as I can remember. doing some quick math, for every 1Mbps you have implies a theoretical max of a little below 330GB per month.on the topic of conversions, you can actually put this in different terms. taking their 100GB "super tier" for example, you can think of it as a 303kbps unlimited connection or 1Mbps but only for 220 hours a month, 10Mbps for 22 hours a month, etc.so while this is my take on things, I think that if Tuan is right cable ISPs continue down this path, consumers will get screwed. at least until non-cable ISPs realize that they suddenly have a huge opportunity to fill a demand created b this trend.[/citation]
Sorry, what? I use a GIGABYTE _A_ DAY. MINIMUM.

 

[eklipz330]

signed petition, and posted it as my facebook status.

of course, i could always move to dsl if thats the case

 

[randomizer]

Wait, you only have caps for cable? Kind of odd that they don't do them for DSL as well (at least ADSL2+) like everywhere else. Oh well, it will happen in time I'm sure, which is unfortunate. It's amazing how angry people can get when something is taken away from them. I'm angry and I've always had caps under 25GB (usually under 15GB), you guys must be on the verge of rioting. :lol:

 

[megamanx00]

That just stinks. Normally on Mondays I watch Heros on TV, but sometimes I'll miss an ep and watch it latter on line, and latter in the week I'll watch 24 off the net in HD. I watch a number of shows of the net now since I can watch them when I feel like it. I don't want to be paying $40 a month and having to choose between downloading a game patch or watching a show I missed because I don't wanna go over a cap. This is ridiculous.

 

[Milleman]

I have always seen big monopoly companies as communist states. They want be soo big that thay own the market and tell people what they want, need and have to pay for. Just what the communist states do whit its population. I think America needs to go back to what it was founded on. Smaller companies that offer their services or products on a sound market where competition rules.

 

[San Pedro]

Yeah, I would be pretty upset if I was using TWC. The cap seems pretty low to me.

I think here in Japan some DSL service is like that, but you can pay more for unlimited plans. Like if you are using a fiber optic line, like my wife and I are, then you get unlimited usage. Although they do throttle torrents on the weekend and nights. Still can't complain when I test and get 25-30mbs down and 20-30mbs up for around $70. Now if I was given those speeds with a limited amount of bandwidth I'd be very frustrated because I want those speeds so I can use lots of bandwidth.

I also agree with the poster who talked about Valve, netflix, and other companies putting up a fight about this. The main reason people are going to be hurt by the cap is for using online media (a growing market especially as fiber optic becomes more prevalent), and once people start realizing they can't use netflix online anymore, or buy games on valve because of the bandwidth required, they'll likely want to switch ISPs. Hopefully TWC not only loses internet customers, but also their cable customers who will decide to get satellite.

 

[Blessedman]

I think it would be awesome for once if the consumers stood up and said we would rather not have internet (if TW is your only option) then to stand for this crap (i mean cap!). Watch their stock plummet (like it should with a bone headed move like this) and watch their CEO be marched out without a severance! In these economic times it doesn't make sense for a company like this to be giving their money away to a do nothing CEO instead of actually investing in expanding their network to handle the extra bandwidth (which ultimately leads to less cost on their side). Just ignorant and its time to show ignorance to the door!

 

[Guest]

Here in New Zealand your lucky if can afford more than 20GB per month. Most NZers are happy with this rather 'large' cap. Why? Because NZers are more carefull about what they download.

Maybe you guys should take a leaf out of our book considering broadband caps are rather common worldwide.

On the +ve side, hopefully this will tell people in the US releasing downloads and updates to keep their filesizes to a minimum as the average download size has just gotten too large over the last few years.

 

[randomizer]

[citation][nom]ljbade[/nom]Why? Because NZers are more carefull about what they download.[/citation]
I disagree. I'm Aussie and I say the reason why you can't afford more than 20GB is because you (like us) let the ISPs dictate what is and what isn't value for money. The population assumes 7GB per month is a great deal for $50/month thanks to advertising, and so the ISPs just go along with exploiting people's ignorance of our third-world Internet.

Being careful about what you download is a result of caps, not the cause. Why can't you have unlimited bandwidth if you're careful? Because the ISPs can't make money from ripping you off that way, and if you had unlimited bandwidth you wouldn't be careful anymore anyway.

There is a reason I have only one game from Steam, and there's a reason I have it backed up on DVD now. I simply can't afford to use up bandwidth and get slowed to 64k when I hit my puny cap.

 

[Guest]

Caps, in Australia, have been around since the dawn of broadband... You guys should try googling Telstra (australia's largest isp and owner of almost every phone line in the country) and check out their plans. 10gb per month is considered 'unlimited' and also includes uploads! Woohoo. Thankfully there are better isp's around, but unlimited basically doesn't exist here and that's the way it's always been. Sucks to be us, but like southoz says above 'People will not change what the download they will just have to develop less frivolous habits and utilize scheduled downloading to make the most of off peak bandwidth.' That means you can't download stuff you'll never watch/use/play anyway. btw, I'm on a 65gb plan and max it out every month, so I know how much caps bite, but it's not the end of the world like the author implies.

 

[crisisavatar]

now we only need some1 to stand up for the community, the facts are out. this is plain abuse and i demand better speeds for less no the other way around.

 

[Milleman]

I think the idea of setting up a fre private personal WiFi Meshes between people in a large city, is the right answer to the greedy ISP. If you got a wireless router, the hardware is already in your hand. It's only a matter of installing the open source software then. WiFi Meshes is going to be big in the near future!

 

[silenteagle]

My suspicion is that the cable internet providers are starting to worry due to the FCC and the start of their National Broadband Plan launching which would actually make broadband internet reasonably affordable again. They just want to squeeze money out of the consumer before they wont be able to anymore. Comcast has had action taken against it before for trying to mess with the internet by the FCC.