Why Cable ISP Capping is the New DRM, and Suck

[Lans]

This is not progress and the US needs to be a technological leader in order for continued prosperity. If countries like Japan can do 100+ Mbps for under $50 USD then why can't TWC and other do it? Seems more like won't instead of can't.

I was pretty outraged by the initial numbers such as 5GB for $30... that is way less than usage for slightly less than what I am paying. Now if they are profitable as is, why I am getting screwed? And what is wrong with just capping users at 10 or 20% of (speed cap) * (time in a month), for example? (Probably roughly what 250GB per month would be for most plans.) They are sort of doing that already (example there doesn't seem to be a simple formula for it)! I download more than 5GB but nowhere near 100% of speed cap 24/7... Probably under 40GB so $55 under proposed plan for me...

People should also realize even at 56kbps (or ~7 bytes per sec) and 80 hrs (20 hrs a week) of usage per month, that is almost 2 GB per month. Never really measured how much bandwidth online games I play take but I am willing to guess it takes more than 56kbps over a month just for game data. Web browsing/e-mails/sending or uploading pictures? Pages are filled with images/flashes/etc nowadays that is not really hard to add up to 5 GB... Then there is Windows update (Linux too but is by a different name for different distro). And there goes the idea of downloading new distro of Linux now and then for me... And what about iTunes?

Unfortunately there probably isn't much data on this front I suspect as most people, myself included, wouldn't bother thinking twice about it before (save for people in countries that have restrictive ISPs already but even then do they track everything or just watch some meter?).

I liked the idea of pooling together and paying the $150! I doubt ISPs will do much about data you didn't request, etc. I suppose big businesses will have same sort of deal here but what about the start ups?

The only bright side I see for this is it makes connecting through mobile devices/plans more viable. Of all the mobile plans I looked at, it has a cap and is billed much like a mobile phone (5GB, overages, etc).

 

[tuannguyen]

trucmuche4 -

If it is so obvious that HDCP is bad news for movie enthusiasts, it shouldn't be hard for you to include in your article at least a line on why you think it to be so instead of just making such a bold statement

Please read: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-itunes-movies-hdcp,7335.html

In regards to each one of your numbered arguments:

1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed.

4.

Current infrastructure does not allow for the current number of web users, let alone an increasing number, to continue exchanging more data, faster, forever.

Did you not read my link to TWC's earnings report where in 2008, it received 10-percent more subscribers but cost of infrastructure did not go up?

Please see: http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/time-warner-cab.html#previouspost

5.

Now instead of throwing sophisms at me, why don't you answer the following questions : How will ISPs, or, who will, pay for those required infrastructure improvements if ISPs do not charge those who use it? How is charging proportionally to the amount of data downloaded unfair? Why should speed be the only criterion for an internet plan?

OK. I will answer. It is paying for itself already. TWC is protecting its TV programming business. Its new cap plans don't have anything to do with network infrastructure costs. The infrastructure costs are already established with headroom to grow.

Wonder why TWC's capped plans are many times higher than that of AT&T's proposed prices? Because TWC has a much larger vested interest in TV networks.

I'm sorry Mr. Nguyen but your "because I say so" just won't cut it.

Fair enough:

http://www.freepress.net/media_issues/internet
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/time-warner-cab.html#previouspost
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq
http://www.freepress.net/node/42937
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
http://www.openinternetcoalition.com/
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

"In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."--Google.

/ Tuan

 

[Guest]

Wasnt there an ISP in the 80's that offered a free 10Hr per month email internet modem connection, that was sued by customers that had gone over their 10hr cap, and were charged for the overage by the hour. I think the customers won, and the ISP was forced to pay back the over charges and agree to provide a popup program on the customers computer to give them the opportunity to not continue past the cap. This maybe an incorrect memory, but if it isnt, then this is going to be a future money and tech problem for these cappers. In any event, I believe that the opportunity to not continue past the cap will become a thorn in the side of the cappers.

 

[Guest]

Those practices are normal up here in Alaska. If you want a slow connection with unlimited downloading it will cost almost 100 a month. The cable company up here allows unlimited downloading only by signing up with one of their large packages which forces you to get cable tv, and phone service as well. For what I pay to get a 6 megabit connection (unlimited) I could get triple that down in the states. Almost 200 a month. I hope TWC loses many customers. Ugh.

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]stromm[/nom]I've been a TW customer for my whole life. As a kid, my parents subscribed to CUBE (back in the 70's). Personally, I've had Roadrunner since about '95 when there were only about 30 of us. Back then, I paid $24.95 for unlimited, unrestricted cable modem Internet. Every day I saw speeds of 10mb receive, 2mb send. Over the years my fee has gone up and the speeds and service have gone down. I now pay $65.00 for Turbo at 12mb/768kb. Prior to last October, my service was rated at 6mb/512kb.Now, TW wants to charge me another fee for using the capability I already pay for. Worse, they've altered their own websites and services such that simply accessing their services means a significant increase in my "usage". In other words, they've intentionally put more multimedia crap on their pages and webmail services knowing full well that they were going to end up charging me for that extra data even though I don't want it.Sadly, I have no control over ALL the data I will be charged for. The nature of the Internet means that there is a constant stream of data hitting my cable modem. Viruses, broadcast packets (of which TW is a source), etc. are all part of that. Someone could flood my connection with data thereby causing my usage to exceed my plan. Where is the technical info on what I will be charged for and what I will not be charged for? What measures is TW going to take to protect me against unrequested data? Do they even have the capability to do so? Will I be able to set a limit such that when I hit the cap, my service shuts down so I don't end up with overages?Being a network engineer, I have serious doubts that TW will even be able to itemize my charges. If they are going to hold me accountable, PROVE my usage as mine and not "noise".The government needs to force TW to define this change with specific terms of service and include protections for customers.[/citation]

Said Perfectly. Something for all those dumb ass's that think 40GB is fine cuz who really uses that much surfing the web? just a single DDOS attack could cost you $200 hell if your not home? get ready for that $1000 bill hell what if you dont notice and then after the attack you become a internet zombie DDOS'ing others?! anyways like i said this post says it all.

 

[enforcer22]

O and all the people blaming this on pirates vs the "honest" consumer.... get a freaking clue ffs. being ignorant of the truth is one thing but you guys sound out right retarded.

 

[drizztvd]

Boohoo... You spoilt brats. I have a 386kb/s line with a 1GB cap for the equivalent of $29 a month (South Africa). Your problem is nothing to cry about really.

 

[Rancifer7]

Sounds like some people need to have their bright ideas ended.

 

[gamerk316]

I wonder if you could make a case the TWC was using monopolistic practices to protect its cable business...

Its worth persuing, me thinks...

 

[Guest]

This really suck. I'm glad I am in Romania where my ISP offers me unlimited download at a speed of 5Mbps down and 1Mbps up externally (outside Romania) and up to 30Mbps with peers from my country. This is the cheapest plan an I only pay $9. The other plan offers 10/2 Mbps and 50Mbps internal at $13. Network is build with fiber optics, switches, UTP-cables, etc. This is the real progress.

I hope that you can make them to stop with this crap. It's crazy to put the cap right now when all the videos, movies, etc. are becoming HD, when all good games are at least 6 GB, when YouToube and other are so popular.

Good article Tuan!

 

[Guest]

Interesting to note: Forbe's reported TWC CEO Britt's salary was not $16 million, it was $1 million in 2007, with additional incentives making total compensation = $16 million. Britt's total annual compensation is not guaranteed.

I love it when anti-corporate ranters can't even get their own facts correct. You amuse me like a clown.

 

[Guest]

"Letting feelings aside for a minute, I think it's fairly obvious to charge a consumer based on how much of something he actually uses (been to a gas station lately), but from a consumer standpoint it just sucks to get a new restriction imposed all of the sudden, maybe it wouldn't hurt as much if it was something reasonable, like Comcast's 250 GB cap, but 5 GB or 30 GB is just ridiculous, specially at those price points."

This is a bad comparison. With gas I am actually buying something. With bandwith I am just using. The reason for the caps is for control and like the atricle said to make us watch TV more.

 

[PrangeWay]

Go DSL, or call/push your local phone company to provide DSL. I wouldn't expect DSL caps anytime soon as they want to gain back market share on cable, and move into the whole online/mulit-media distribution buisness. AT&T, Verizon, etc are probably drooling at the buisness and market share Time Warner and Charter are about to send their way. I'd expect advertisements from them about how they offer "uncapp'd" access.

 

[Guest]

The math seems off -- to get a $200 charge for downloading 7.25 hours of video means you have the $55 40GB option plus 145GB overage at $1/GB. For this to work out would mean your videos are 185GB/7.25, or 25.5 GB/hour.

Just be be clear, B=byte, b=bit.

 

[Guest]

Australia has the slowest most expensive internet in the world. And if you go over your allowance, they hit you with huge per/mb $$$$$... My sister didn't understand how much she uses, like most non computer people, she just surfs and waits for the bill. One month her $20/month turned into $100.... they should slow the speed down and not charge you extra per m/byte

 

[Guest]

I can see about a dozen unsecured wireless networks from my house. Sorry neighbors.. I'm going to leech your bandwith if this hits my area.

 

[Master Exon]

I hate to say this, but DDoS might be the solution. How will TW handle 10,000 customers who went 100GB over the limit on pings alone? How many customers would accuse TW of scamming them?

 

[brettski74]

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Did you not read my link to TWC's earnings report where in 2008, it received 10-percent more subscribers but cost of infrastructure did not go up?[/citation]

So what? They didn't spend any more on infrastructure this year. Do you think this situation will continue forever? Do you think they do not need to plan for infrastructure expansion and raise the funds to do this somehow?

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]OK. I will answer. It is paying for itself already. TWC is protecting its TV programming business. Its new cap plans don't have anything to do with network infrastructure costs. The infrastructure costs are already established with headroom to grow.[/citation]

This is conjecture on your part. I've seen no authoritative information you've provided to pack up your statement that TWC has enough headroom in their existing infrastructure to meet future demand and/or competitive pressures.

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Wonder why TWC's capped plans are many times higher than that of AT&T's proposed prices? Because TWC has a much larger vested interest in TV networks.[/citation]

Thank you for pointing out your real complaint. You don't like TWC's prices and you think that other companies are offering better for less. Great. Stop paying TWC and go buy your internet service somewhere else. Free markets are great, aren't they?

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Fair enough:http://www.freepress.net/media_issues/internethttp://blog.wired.com/business/200 [...] eviousposthttp://www.savetheinternet.com/=faqhttp://www.freepress.net/node/42937http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.htmlhttp://www.openinternetcoalition.com/http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html"In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online."--Google./ Tuan[/citation]

Thank you for finally writing something about net neutrality that speaks to what the issue actually is. Volume caps have nothing to do with net neutrality and if you keep muddying the definition like this you stand a good chance of losing the debate. Net neutrality is about charging different amounts for different packets depending on what the payload is. Volume caps don't care what the payload is. They just care about how much service you use. As you so correctly pointed out in one of your earlier comments, you get to choose what you use your volume for.

I'm with you on net neutrality, once you figure out what it actually is, but as for volume charging, it's perfectly fine on wireless plans. What's next? Is it ok for the phone companies to charge for voice services based on the number of minutes we use or should we also start railroading the phone companies over their long distance and wireless plans?

 

[Guest]

TWC is bucking to be the first broadband carrier to be regulated as a public utility.

When that happens, TWC will be allowed to charge a "facility fee" of about $10/month to residential users, but will only be allowed to charge around 2x what it costs them per gigabyte.

Their stock price will drop through the floor once ONE state decides to make them subject to public utility regulation.

 

[AdamB5000]

Cheers for the article. We also need an article about being overcharged. I have 1.5meg cable internet (180kbps dl) and as soon as the promotion is expired I'll be charged $42/mo. I live in a rural area and have no other options.

.. at which point I'll consider canceling and will just get online when I'm at work.

 

[hankydysplasia]

This could create some really funny situations with people who have unprotected wireless routers...

 

[brettski74]

[citation][nom]__-_-_-__[/nom]Internet is already an human right in some countries, but not for everyone.[/citation]

You are kidding me, right? Yes. Internet access is a human right, just like big-screen TVs, surround sound, and 3D video acceleration.

 

[coverfire]

no more folding at home? or SETI.... I think alot of corporations outside of home users would be a bit pissed.

 

[mustwarnothers]

You know what is just the icing on this inflated, greedy corporate swine cake?

I don't know about you guys, but my Cable service (and all of my friends nearby) SUCKS.

They distribute this POS Scientific Atlanta box which freezes up all the time, the Guide channel occasionally takes 5-10 seconds to come up and remote control input responses are so slow, you can barely even enter a channel higher than 2 digits.

All of these symptoms come and go, so its obviously not JUST the box. The data/service is apparently very flaky.

So because Hulu and Netflix etc are barging in on Time Warners market, they try and gouge the $hit out of their customers on the Internet end, to make up for the losses in profit on the Cable TV end.

Real effing nice.

 

[csuftech]

Well I use Dropbox for backup services and pay them for their 50GB of continuous online backup. Now Time Warner is going to charge me overages because I want to keep my data safe? The tiers that TW is proposing are ridiculous!