Time Warner Cable tries metering Internet use

You're used to paying extra if you use up your cell phone minutes, but will you be willing to pay extra if your home computer goes over its Internet allowance? Time Warner Cable Inc. customers -- and, later, others -- may have to, if the company's test of metered Internet access is successful. On Thursday, new Time Warner Cable Internet subscribers in Beaumont, Texas, will have monthly allowances for the amount of data they upload and download. Those who go over will be charged $1 per gigabyte, a Time Warner Cable executive told the Associated Press.

Metered billing is an attempt to deal fairly with Internet usage, which is very uneven among Time Warner Cable's subscribers, said Kevin Leddy, Time Warner Cable's executive vice president of advanced technology. Just 5 percent of the company's subscribers take up half of the capacity on local cable lines, Leddy said. Other cable Internet service providers report a similar distribution.

"We think it's the fairest way to finance the needed investment in the infrastructure," Leddy said.

View: Full Article @ Associated Press

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Breast Reduction Angers Age of Conan Players

Next Story

Bill Gates to deliver Tech-Ed Developers keynote today

98 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Age of Conan alone is 25 gigs. A lot of games are getting rid of their production costs buy offering downloads, so games like Conan would eat up my Internet allowance right off the bat. I imagine the sizes are going to continue to go up. How is it cell phones are starting to get to the point where you can get unlimited use while Internet is going from unlimited to pay as you go? Greedy corporations that's all.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but in Australia plans where if you go over, you have to pay for the extra use..

I don't know why people are going on about it to much because 1$ a giggabyte isn't that much...try 25 cents per megabyte (thats in australia) and if you are on unlimited, your plan slows down after you reach a certain limit.

I think its pretty much the same fear in the early days of the internet that the major powers were going to charge a per minute fee in order to use their bandwidth. I don't think that $1 seems like a lot, but it can be. A major Linux ISO if you were over your limit would cost you about $4 extra for the install and updates. Will Microsoft have to subsidize its customers when they release major service packs?

Example: You have a $29.95 plan with a 5gig cap. You burn through this cap in about a week. You than go on to use about 5gigs worth of data a week. You know have a $44.95 bill for essentially 40gigs of data. If you were to go with 250gigs that would cost you $245 dollars extra (and can put a real on your pocket book if you subscribe to all three services together).

Finally, you have to basically trust them on how much bandwidth you are using. Don't think for a minute that you can actually measure your own usage and than submit a report (many do have nice weblogs to review) but the appeal process can be nasty. You usually have to pay upfront until they determine whether what they charged you was in error. If it is, you are usually issued a credit toward the next months bill. This process of course varies by corporation.

I think all this will do is set us back technology wise. More and more companies are turning to the web to bring us exciting new possibilities, such as movie downloads and music downloads. This is just the beginning, but this will deter future expansion.

If Verizon would get their service out to more people they could make a killing. They're like the rebels of the large corporations and I respect that

This, will be the one and only one time I'd back the movie/music industry if they were to bring a lawsuit against Time Warner for loss of music/film sales via the internet due to throttling costs applied to the consumer.

The day they try to pull that where I live will be the same day I call and cancel all of my services with them (both Internet & TV). We are the consumers, and we don't have to put up with it. I'm already annoyed with Time Warner for their pathetically slow roll out of HD channels.

I'm kinda trapped by that now, because I have Hughes.net satellite service, where I have a 320MB daily limit. They aren't too bad about violating it (slowdown to 56k u/d for 8-12 hours), and they don't actually charge for it yet, but I'm sure it's coming.

And that will be the day I either go back to 26k dialup, or a give up on internet access forever.

Truth is, we're all at fault on this, because we've allowed our government to be run by these corporations, and we've allowed them to set the rules. And now they're going to try to push through a new set of long-term rules that will guarantee them some nasty-high short-term profits (like the oil companies), so the execs can retire rich and let the rest of us pick up the pieces. And what's left will make us wish we shot them all first before they rammed this crap down our throats.

Bottom line is, it's going to be up to us to stop this, by talking with our dollars and only using those providers who don't lock us down and charge us 'til we scream.

So, grab up the pitchforks and torches, time to take back control!

Doesn't sound right to me, that they claim that 5% of the users use all the bandwidth, yet they put the limits to all people? I find it kinda hard to believe that 5% of users account for the vast majority of their bandwidth, but there is no doubt the bandwidth use is uneven among users.

The whole digital downloads era collides with this ideas. I dont think there are bandwidth problems that can't be resolved with the obscene amount of money this companies get from their customers.

Besides, it's difficult for a user to control the bandwidth with services such as youtube.. you never know how much you are using!

"Time Warner Cable had said in January that it was planning to conduct the trial in Beaumont, but did not give any details. On Monday, Leddy said its tiers will range from $29.95 a month for relatively slow service at 768 kilobits per second and a 5-gigabyte monthly cap to $54.90 per month for fast downloads at 15 megabits per second and a 40-gigabyte cap. Those prices cover the Internet portion of subscription bundles that include video or phone services. Both downloads and uploads will count toward the monthly cap."

Pathetic. I think they might be able to justify the $1 per extra gigabyte provided that they had between a 250gig and 500gig cap (per month). I think a realistic cap should be about 1tb per month. This service is way over priced. Web providers from website hosting can give you a better deal. This of course would be comparing apples to oranges... but still. Again, pathetic.

I think this should teach people a lesson, however. Stay the hell away from cable companies. They provided lousy customer service, have poor TV channel selection, average voice services and now a growing number of them are moving to monthly caps. What was that old AOL jingle (like 95')... oh, yeah... Goodbye!


OHhh how great is live in honduras my isp "experts" don't know how to meter my internet and im happy with that

Why should 95% of the customers be paying the same rate as that 5% of the customers who are really using all the bandwidth? A more diplomatic approach from the provider would be to lower the costs of that 95% instead of raise the costs of the 5%. Or maybe offer cheaper plans for the casual user to subscribe to.

Is it $1 a gigaBYTE or gigaBIT? Something tells me it is gigaBIT despite what the article says.

This has been the model in Portugal since ... the Internet came.
You pay about 25 € and you have a 4 GB limit international and unlimited national.
Note that almost all websites are internacional in Portugal.

There are two major issues I have with this:

  • Data is NOT a finite resource. 10Mb or 100Mb through a router makes no difference to it's running costs
  • Why should they cap you when they can't even provide a completely open pipe in the first place? Port blocking, lack of decent spam filters and network AV, slowing torrents

Gas, Water and power are finite resources and having fixed tarrifs is a measure of control to slow down the use of this resource. The ISP's are providing a pipe, but no content. They don't provide anything other than a data connection. That data does not come from them. A high-end Cisco router that has a capacity of say 100gbps does NOT cost twice the amount that a 50Gbps does - so why the caps?

There are no bigger costs associated with me downloading 10Gb or 100Gb a month. It may cost the ISP more in terms of switches, routers and peering but there is no reason why this cannot be built into a £20, £30 or even £40 a month subscription. The fact is that the ISP's have been basing their "all-you-can-eat" packages on the average data downloaded per consumer back in 2004/2005. However with the advent of High Def, YouTube, BitTorrent, BBC iPlayer, 4OD, more remote workers and ever increasing interest from consumers into the high-tech arena (drivers, updates, researching, blogging etc.) the average person is using more of the pipe than they did.

Just because the roads are getting more congested doesn't mean I should pay more road tax. More cars = more tax payers = more cash that should be invested back into expansion. The same should be applied to internet connectivity - more subscribers (and there has been a steady increase in the last 10 years that nobody can deny!) means more income. If the ISP's take all the profit from the monthy subs into their own million pound bonus's without taking a slice for further investment it should not come back to me to pay again for further expansion.

As the ISP's have been lead by the marketing departments rather than the network operations centre there has been such a low subscription rate whilst keeping shareholders happy that there has been no cash to continually expand and increase the network capacity. Instead we are all expected to pay more to make up for the lack of foresight on the ISP's management.

Regardless if it has a direct impact on me or not is neither hear nor there - it's the principle that the ISP's want more of our cash for the lack of investment in the past 5 years which is due to a poor business model and lack of proactive capacity-based growth.

(stevehoot said @ #1)
There are two major issues I have with this:

  • Data is NOT a finite resource. 10Mb or 100Mb through a router makes no difference to it's running costs
  • Why should they cap you when they can't even provide a completely open pipe in the first place? Port blocking, lack of decent spam filters and network AV, slowing torrents

Actually, data is finite. Go back to the old analogy that the internet is a series of pipes/tubes, like water. But made of fiber and copper. Lets say you have 100 people downloading at 1mbs per second... you need a 100mb pipe so they can get the full bandwidth. And increasingly larger pipes for more people. The "costs" come from the hardware and support of that hardware.

Same thing with your water pipes at home. They only so big. Lets say you run two showers and your dishwasher, your water pressure goes down. Also, do you expect the city to provide you a Brita water filter on each of your sinks to filter out the bad taste in the water, they just make it drinkable. The same with internet providers. AV, spam filtering is YOUR responsibility, so either do it yourself or pay someone to do it for you.

There are many other costs your not thinking about.. i.e. electricity. With the costs of oil and other forms of power increasing no doubt the service providers are seeing problems with this additional cost too.

I could keep going on, but I won't. I don't necessarily agree with them moving to a pay per MB use.. But then again isn't everyone saying that the Cable companies should do this with their tv stations, with ala carte? Pay for the channels they use?

If shaw ever did this in my area I would be in trouble; using 350-600gb per month. (those HD/Bluray rips use alot of bandwidth)

when i had bell lite the cap was 2gb/m i used over 60gb every month probably higher but thats as high as they tracked. also I was not using BT or p2p just on-line gaming and surfing the web.

this charging by the gb is a very bad idea if we are moving toward a digital home.

English please. No one cares to read that garbage in a forum ... and yes I know what you meant. Is it really that hard to type it all out?

(QuarterSwede said @ #34.1)
English please. No one cares to read that garbage in a forum ... and yes I know what you meant. Is it really that hard to type it all out?

k for your appeasement

Die in a fire, Time Warner Cable/Road Runner

im very confused. i have earthlink, but they have to go through timewarners lines. I live in austin, so we dont have these limits... yet... but, would i get them? if i have trouble with my internet, i have to even call timewarner tech support. I hope i dont have to go to dsl.

This is just insane, all it is going to do is cause people to switch to a different provider. I could see if we had blazing speeds on our uploads and downloads then I could see the justification on this but for the most part it just isnt justified in doing this.

ISPs in the Netherlands followed a different patern though.

They started with packages that had limits e.g. 3GB/month and above that you had to pay extra.

From that model they moved on to 'fair use'. So there was a limit but you didn't know.

Later on they moved on to 'unlimited'

I moved from the Netherlands to the United States last month where the infrastructure is obviously a lot poorer. And it has nothing to do with population density since I live in Manhattan. Max speed is uncomparable to the Netherlands, neither are the prices.

Looks like, instead of upgrading the infrastructure they decided to downgrade their customers. And the reason why they can do it is simple: Lack of competition. While you have I-don't-know-how-many ISPs in NL where you can get broadband connection (a country of 17 million people), here I have two choices: cable and ADSL from the local telephone company.

(ricknl said @ #28)
ISPs in the Netherlands followed a different patern though.

They started with packages that had limits e.g. 3GB/month and above that you had to pay extra.

From that model they moved on to 'fair use'. So there was a limit but you didn't know.

Later on they moved on to 'unlimited'

I moved from the Netherlands to the United States last month where the infrastructure is obviously a lot poorer. And it has nothing to do with population density since I live in Manhattan. Max speed is uncomparable to the Netherlands, neither are the prices.

Looks like, instead of upgrading the infrastructure they decided to downgrade their customers. And the reason why they can do it is simple: Lack of competition. While you have I-don't-know-how-many ISPs in NL where you can get broadband connection (a country of 17 million people), here I have two choices: cable and ADSL from the local telephone company.

Pretty much hits the nail on it's head
And the sad part is that they could give us now Euro/Japan speeds IF they wanted to but claim it costs too much even if they already have the equipment to do it installed

I moved from the Netherlands to the United States last month where the infrastructure is obviously a lot poorer. And it has nothing to do with population density since I live in Manhattan. Max speed is uncomparable to the Netherlands, neither are the prices.

The is a slight difference; the United States is pretty big compared to most countries around the world. So many places offer DSL (or at least sat) as their high speed, and you can get this in the mountains or on your farm in Nebraska. There's a whole lot of area to cover, so it's somewhat understandable that it's not as fast as it could be in most places. However, here in Sacramento.... you can get Sure West fiber optic. They offer 50 meg access, down to 5 meg, and it's about the same price as Comcast or AT&T's best speed.

There's so many things I love about the US. The technology infrastructure is not one of them.

^^^^^

Yes a lot of people will be angry about the limits. Now those college students in Texas can say goodbye to Halo 3 :P

Neztea

What about gaming? How much would a game like TF2 use up per hour? Hopefully the people in Texas will complain. TW and others are always raising rates without notice... I can just see them doing the same for this.

Most online games don't use any more than 50mb an hour. From what I can find XBOX live is only around 10mb an hour.

(Zoue said @ #26.1)
Most online games don't use any more than 50mb an hour. From what I can find XBOX live is only around 10mb an hour.

Cool, then I have nothing to worry about.

What exactly is the limit? Depending on the limit, not many people will be hurting and will cut down on the "zomg must download/upload 100s of gigabytes on bittorrent" people.

This is a step backwards to the so-called "Good old days" when you paid so much a minute to go on-line, Compuserve, and a little later when you only had two hours per day usage and you paid $50 per month to go on the Internet. Corporate greed at work again.

Metered internet access has been in Portugal ever since broadband started coming out. They even differentiate between national and international data transfer and apply different limits, and most of them charge you for every 100MB over the limit.

It's Time Warner; one should expect this. I do understand that $1/Gig doesn't seem bad initially - that's beside the point. Given how the big industry push is to stream everything into the house digitally, space will come at a premium. People will be charged for movies/games/music from the parent site, then charged again by the carrier?! This doesn't seem like anyway to fill a potential cravat; rather just another chump way to make sure it's a bang up fiscal year. People can get used to "anything" if need be, but only if they let companies take advantage of them. Power is in the people. If users didn't want this to happened, it wouldn't have to...

And some wonder why the US is in such trouble now. They trust the corporate more than their government and of course it used them to its advantage. One also has to wonder about those who don't see anything wrong in what the Corporate is doing as well.

(Foub said @ #21.1)
And some wonder why the US is in such trouble now. They trust the corporate more than their government and of course it used them to its advantage. One also has to wonder about those who don't see anything wrong in what the Corporate is doing as well.

No, it's the people in office that are bribed and "influenced" by corporations. Our government is pretty corrupt tbh.

Except you're assuming anyone important will be ticked off about this- "anyone important" meaning a reasonable amount of TW customers. If anyone's going to get p!ssy about it, it will be the top 5% of downloaders that are using 50% of the bandwidth. Guess what TW will say when the top downloaders threaten to leave, taking their bandwidth consumption with them?

"You'll be missed!"

(Foub said @ #21.1)
And some wonder why the US is in such trouble now. They trust the corporate more than their government and of course it used them to its advantage. One also has to wonder about those who don't see anything wrong in what the Corporate is doing as well.


When a Business screws you over you actually have options here to deal with it, when the Government screws you over that politician somehow gets reelected by the morons in his district, even if it harms the same morons that keep reelecting him/her

(Digital Monster said @ #21)
People will be charged for movies/games/music from the parent site, then charged again by the carrier?!
How is this any different than buying gas for you car to drive to the store to buy something?

Nestea, although i'm sure the execs probably have a vague grin on their faces about the prospect of more charges from the consumer, we must realise that the internet isn't an infinite commodity and that it costs a massive amount of money to keep running, and that unfortunately with the advent of such feature rich content exploding onto the internet in the form of music, film and game content downloads someone was going to have to pay for all that extra bandwidth, and who other than the ones that use it? sorry but we're not living in a utopian society where anyone can access the internet from anywhere for free, that is just a fantasy (at least for now and the forseeable future).

Sometimes I wish we could (Just like in Star Trek :P)

But of course. Technology will always upgrade and revolutionize in the way we are transferring information from another. Yes, There are hardware limitations to the amount of data we can transfer, but that is slowly being changed (Cables -> Fiber optics -> -maybe the use of quantum mechanics-) in some select regions so far, but what if we could spread that technology to every single person, and then they could get the hardware, and then they could pay a small percentage of their earnings to maintaining the service in that area (like 0.10 dollars if it is in a region where they make 4 dollars a day or something).

I'm going to make an example of this. In India, they have a huge population boom in which they're reaching an excess of over 1 billion people. Now, if everyone in that country could pay at least 0.10 cents thats 10,000,000 dollars for the sole purpose of maintaining the internet and the hardware (fiber optic cabling and whatnot). And that is for India, which mind you, in which not everyone is wealthy.

Now if we do the same for Canada for example, we have a population of 30 million, now, if we ask them to pay 10 dollars (which Canadians can afford) that would be 300 million solely on maintaining the internet and cover the costs of cabling with fiber optics.

Of course, this is all just theory. of course not everyone is going to have a computer to hook up the internet and not everyone is very interested in the internet. But I'm just saying hypothetically that if we did live in a perfect Utopian society in which everyone had everything, this could be a viable system in which internet should be handled.

besides... isn't putting a price on the amount of data you can transfer a bit discriminatory to the Wealthy?

(Nestea_M@n said @ #19.1)
Sometimes I wish we could (Just like in Star Trek :P)
Now if we do the same for Canada for example, we have a population of 30 million, now, if we ask them to pay 10 dollars (which Canadians can afford) that would be 300 million solely on maintaining the internet and cover the costs of cabling with fiber optics.

That won't go very far!

(Nestea_M@n said @ #19.1)
besides... isn't putting a price on the amount of data you can transfer a bit discriminatory to the Wealthy?

Now you're really grasping at straws.

(Nestea_M@n said @ #19.1)
Sometimes I wish we could (Just like in Star Trek :P)

But of course. Technology will always upgrade and revolutionize in the way we are transferring information from another. Yes, There are hardware limitations to the amount of data we can transfer, but that is slowly being changed (Cables -> Fiber optics -> -maybe the use of quantum mechanics-) in some select regions so far, but what if we could spread that technology to every single person, and then they could get the hardware, and then they could pay a small percentage of their earnings to maintaining the service in that area (like 0.10 dollars if it is in a region where they make 4 dollars a day or something).

I'm going to make an example of this. In India, they have a huge population boom in which they're reaching an excess of over 1 billion people. Now, if everyone in that country could pay at least 0.10 cents thats 10,000,000 dollars for the sole purpose of maintaining the internet and the hardware (fiber optic cabling and whatnot). And that is for India, which mind you, in which not everyone is wealthy.

Now if we do the same for Canada for example, we have a population of 30 million, now, if we ask them to pay 10 dollars (which Canadians can afford) that would be 300 million solely on maintaining the internet and cover the costs of cabling with fiber optics.

Of course, this is all just theory. of course not everyone is going to have a computer to hook up the internet and not everyone is very interested in the internet. But I'm just saying hypothetically that if we did live in a perfect Utopian society in which everyone had everything, this could be a viable system in which internet should be handled.

besides... isn't putting a price on the amount of data you can transfer a bit discriminatory to the Wealthy?


I can tell you've never seen the prices for that equipment, 300 mil will go mighty quick. Worked at a Telecom's warehouse, just a simple interface card cost in the 10,00 range, and that was for non fiber connections, the price list for the fiber stuff was mind boggling, a medium sized pallet of equipment could easily be worth 4=5 mil, and we shipped out 20-30 a day, and this was for a private regional company doing installs for businesses internal networks and WAN connections, not internet which would have required more expensive hardware for the setups

Is it the fault of the average consumer? no it is not, Time Warner should deal with the bandwidth hogs and leave everyone else alone, but they are money hungry and want to fleece people for everything they can.

i dont really understand it... if you pay for the service and you dont use it then that's your problem. if you pay for the service and you use the hell out of it, then youre getting the best bang for your buck. how is this fair to other users?

yeah, $1/1GB isnt bad, until you start downloading game demos and movie trailers... ie: legal stuff.

slowly tightening control of the internet... little by little so people can get used to it.

Internet should be free to begin with and no one should be without it. It allows all of us to be connected to each other and its just money grabbing executives trying to milk the consumer for all its worth. It should be that you pay for the hardware and then pay a little service free for maintaining the internet like 10 dollars, and it should give you 100Gbps down/up with no limit.

Everything should be "free" then according to those standards.

I find this absurd! Why is it that they're charging now per gig for using the internet? It doesn't make sense, Cause then this is hindering the amount of information we are allowed to gather from others from around the world in the form of pictures and film. Yes, we are basically relying more on the internet for our film and music needs. So what? I have to pay more to my server to purchase music from the itunes music store (even if its gigs of music that I purchased legally on the internet). Or downloading a film from the xbox360 console which that by itself is a few gigs to stream and purchase it for the meantime. and forget about downloading DLC from the Playstation store or for the x360 store cause if you download a few gigs from there its game over (your over your limit). It sucks.

Internet should be free to begin with and no one should be without it. It allows all of us to be connected to each other and its just money grabbing executives trying to milk the consumer for all its worth. It should be that you pay for the hardware and then pay a little service free for maintaining the internet like 10 dollars, and it should give you 100Gbps down/up with no limit.

But alas, for where there is money to be made, people will exploit it :(

Neztea

It costs Time Warner millions and millions of dollars a month to run and maintain servers for you to connect to the internet. Who do expect to pay for that? You think Time Warner should do it out of the kindness of their heart? Or how about we just raise taxes?! Money doesn't just magically appear and things don't just magically pay for themselves... I'm going to guess you still live with mum and dad.

(Zoue said @ #15.1)
It costs Time Warner millions and millions of dollars a month to run and maintain servers for you to connect to the internet. Who do expect to pay for that? You think Time Warner should do it out of the kindness of their heart? Or how about we just raise taxes?! Money doesn't just magically appear and things don't just magically pay for themselves... I'm going to guess you still live with mum and dad.

And yet they're still making billions in profits. Its no different than when companies outsource their workers to where they are paid next to nothing just to make their profits higher at the expense of the American people who lose their jobs.

(Foub said @ #15.2)
And yet they're still making billions in profits. Its no different than when companies outsource their workers to where they are paid next to nothing just to make their profits higher at the expense of the American people who lose their jobs.

You'd rather have Time Warner losing more money which would lead to people losing their jobs and even more outsourcing? You can't have it both ways. Regardless of utopian, socialist ideals Time Warner is a business and needs profits to stay running. Without profits, millions would be out of work.

(Nestea_M@n said @ #15)
Internet should be free to begin with and no one should be without it. It allows all of us to be connected to each other and its just money grabbing executives trying to milk the consumer for all its worth. It should be that you pay for the hardware and then pay a little service free for maintaining the internet like 10 dollars, and it should give you 100Gbps down/up with no limit.

But alas, for where there is money to be made, people will exploit it :(

Neztea

And how do you plan on connecting? someone has to "own" the access points to the internet, please don't tell me you thing the Government can do that and do it right

(Zoue said @ #15.1)
It costs Time Warner millions and millions of dollars a month to run and maintain servers for you to connect to the internet. Who do expect to pay for that? You think Time Warner should do it out of the kindness of their heart? Or how about we just raise taxes?! Money doesn't just magically appear and things don't just magically pay for themselves... I'm going to guess you still live with mum and dad.

You're arguement is flawed with the fact that they already provide this, unlimited use and STILL MAKE A HUGE PROFIT !!!

Justify the cost increase to the consumer when speed is not increasing, service is the same, and you're limiting use.

A server costs the same to maintain whether you have traffic going through it or not.

(Rohdekill said @ #15.5)

You're argument is flawed with the fact that they already provide this, unlimited use and STILL MAKE A HUGE PROFIT !!!

Justify the cost increase to the consumer when speed is not increasing, service is the same, and you're limiting use.

A server costs the same to maintain whether you have traffic going through it or not.

owned.

(Rohdekill said @ #15.5)
Justify the cost increase to the consumer when speed is not increasing, service is the same, and you're limiting use.

If you RTFA, Time Warner states the increase is to fund infrastructure upgrades, which will increase speeds and service. Upgrades that are seriously needed, our tech infrastructure is seriously behind the rest of the technologic world.

(Zoue said @ #15.7)

If you RTFA, Time Warner states the increase is to fund infrastructure upgrades, which will increase speeds and service. Upgrades that are seriously needed, our tech infrastructure is seriously behind the rest of the technologic world.


Time Warner is a horrible company to deal with here in the midwest, their tech support is the worst I've ever experienced and their lines have needed upgrading since 1975 in many areas.
They charge more and more each year while performing ZERO upgrades, none, zip, now with this latest fleecing scheme they will rack in even more money while the consumers get less and less of their moneys worth.

*IF* they are worried about bandwidth hogs then they can simply cap their lines, if a user is a continual hog then cap their lines to a lower speed, it's not rocket science, don't fleece the rest of the users for it, it's just another excuse to screw the consumer.

Time Warner is a company in dire need of being put out of business by a competitor.

What are all you illegal torrents going to do now in that part of Texas? Find a way to bypass the meter like the grow ops do with the hydro meters? lolz

Back in the day, they charged you $4 for you to download 1mb from your own PC. People don't realise how good they get it these days.

i got used to it when i came over to Australia. i never realised how much i was downloading till i had to schedule my downloads. still $1 per gigabyte is really nothing unless you're downloading 100gigs a month which i highly doubt is anything legal.

(Kushan said @ #9)
Boggles the mind why they don't have a pay as you go internet service WITHOUT a subscription fee.

How hard is it to figure out $40 a month + overages + any other fee they can tack on = $$$$$$$$

In the early days of dial up they used to charge by the hour, but people wanted a simpler model so they started using flat rate plans and it has stuck since.

If it is anything like the UK you will have control panel you can log into which will contain usage information.

Indeed, most UK ISPs also estimate how much you are going to use that month based on the rate at which you are using it each day, this gives you time to cut down on usage before the end of the month so you don't get an unexpected bill.

Welcome to the rest of the world, we've had metered usage down here in Australia for years now. Something you need to live with...

As long as they don't claim to be unlimited and hide the pay as you go part in small print (i.e. a micro dot), I don't see the problem

Indeed. I'd rather them be open about what level of usage is acceptable on each package before I purchase.

People who use hundreds of gigabytes a month should pay more if you ask me.

(TCLN Ryster said @ #4.1)
Indeed. I'd rather them be open about what level of usage is acceptable on each package before I purchase.

People who use hundreds of gigabytes a month should pay more if you ask me.

Completely agree. I'm not sure how people even manage it, judging on my own (fairly heavy) usage.

(SniperX said @ #1)
Oh well. Once one is brave enough to do it and face the heat from their customers, the others normally quickly follow.

and when everyone gets used to it... someone will come up with unlimited plan again and they all will follow as well

(0sm3l said @ #1.1)

and when everyone gets used to it... someone will come up with unlimited plan again and they all will follow as well :)

For more than you are paying now no doubt.

(SniperX said @ #1)
Oh well. Once one is brave enough to do it and face the heat from their customers, the others normally quickly follow.

What I like to do is set a bear trap in my backyard, then call Time Warner to send out a tech to look at the line. I've got a trophy room with a dozen Time Warner techs mounted on the wall. Even caught a couple of level 3 techs.

Another thing I like to do is tell them my cable box is in the basement and lead them down there in the dark. Little do they know that I keep my alligator pit there.

**** the cable companies. Not only are they lying about running out of capacity, they should drop prices.

This is what lack of competition does every time. The FCC handed our ***es over to the cable companies in the 1980s and this is the result. Consumers have no choice!

I'm going to go call Time Warner, I think there's trouble with my line...

On-line Services tried it and went down the tubes starting in mid 93. AOL was saved by the internet and going back to a flat fee for unlimited. Millions left their services seeking out the flat rate hold outs. Seems funny that Time Warner is trying this since they had the ties with AOL.

(SniperX said @ #1)
Oh well. Once one is brave enough to do it and face the heat from their customers, the others normally quickly follow.

And they say the DVD format is dead, because people will download films etc. instead - What utter rot!

(FredEx said @ #1.4)
On-line Services tried it and went down the tubes starting in mid 93.

Indeed. Though now all bur forgotten Prodigy (the service, not the band) had the largest share of users until they went hourly. The service was very slow, so users dropped it. If ISP move to hourly, what would stop them from slowing the bandwidth to get us to use more hours to get the same action accomplished?