TWC new broadband caps, $150.00 a month for unlimited use

Time Warner cable has revealed its intentions with its newly tested broadband caps. The short of it is that if you want "unlimited" internet it will cost you a staggering $150.00 a month.

The pricing structure breaks down as follows:

  • A limited package for "light users" at 1GB/month, 768KB down / 128KB up, with overage charges of $2/GB/month.
  • Road Runner Lite, Basic, Standard, and Turbo packages at 10GB / 20GB / 40GB / and 60GB caps, respectively, and overage charges at $1/GB/month.
  • 100GB Turbo package at $75/month with overage fees of $1/GB, which, when coupled with that magic threshold of $75 in charges, becomes the "unlimited" plan.
The days of using Hulu or Pandora for free may be over as the caps could cause you to start paying a lot more for their services. Don't even think about streaming HD movies from Netflix or downloading them from Xbox Live either!

Even more annoying for webmasters may be the revenue lost from advertisements. Many companies are now using flash based movies, all of which can eat a lot of bandwidth over the span of the month, which may force users to start blocking ads for fear of blowing their caps.

Time Warner is walking on thin ice here as it may lose high paying customers in droves. It's not your mom and pop type families that provide most of the revenue, it's the hardcore users who have the highest speed of internet, HDTV, DVR, and a couple premium channels that TWC may lose, by the boat load.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Students: How to get Windows 7 legally at a discount or free

Next Story

Microsoft extends Xbox 360 warranty for E74 errors

110 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

They are implementing this around my area in Central New York.

They try to hype it up in their commercials like it's something great, by referring to it as "Pay for only what you use"

Still it would blow my 1.5 mb/s - 180 kb/s satellite service with a 256 kb/s - 28 Kb/s upload out of the water, especially since satellite has Fap, which if you exceed the daily threshold of 200 - 500 Mb per month depending on your plan they reduce your speed to sub dial up speeds which makes simply browsing the web nearly impossible..

Also between 12PM noon and 12AM midnight, the internet is capped at 200 - 300 kb/s or 15 - 50 Kb/s..

I wonder if they use Bell Sympatico's definition of "unlimited"...they cap you at 60GB/month, but (according to a page burried deep on thier site) you can get unlimited for an extra $25...only, it's not really unlimited--it's still capped, but they don't document what that limit truly is (it's 200GB--it took me a good half-hour to get this out of one of their service reps)...by his own admission, there is no truly unlimited package, despite what all their marketing material claims.

Make of that what you will...

That is just absolutely rediculous.

The unfortuante part is I know there are weirdos out there that will gladly pay it and not think twice about it.

We've had this crap for years in Australia....

Telstra started using caps then one by one all the other major ISP's saw how much of a big profit they we're making and followed suit.

Currently I'm on one of the better plans on cable internet here 20gig peak (lunchtime till midnight) and because I also have my phone with the provider i get bonus data or 40gig (off peak - midnight till lunch) $64AUD ($45US) a month

There's a massive monolpoly held over here tho by Telstra thanks to Mr Howard selling the public telcom company off......now they have the majority of the market and charge what they like.

I still download loads but you have to plan them and take it easy or you get capped to 64kb/s which just isn't fun IMO

Baked said,
Telstra started using caps then one by one all the other major ISP's saw how much of a big profit they we're making and followed suit.


When ADSL first came out, the typical cap was 3gb/month, with all ISPs.

And what does FTC have to say about this really?

They're gonna let such a thing happen? That's just BS. If ATT and Verizon follow this trend, we're all f-ed.

People who are saying "just move to another ISP"... if a enough ISPs implement capping, all the high data users will move to other ISPs which don't cap data. Then, these ISPs will have all the high data users, resulting in their network becoming crap. Average users leave the ISP as the speeds become crap, making the percentage of high users even higher. This will result in the ISP being forced to implement capping, or it collapsing...

This is exactly what has happened to ISPs in Australia that offered "unlimited" services.

FTA "You can send us your comments at realideas@twcable.com."

That's going to be redirected straight to the circular file, I guarantee it...

FTA "As we launch DOCSIS 3.0 in the trial markets, we plan to offer a 50/5 MB speed tier for $99 per month."

At what CAP?!

No one is going to care if TWC provides a superfast Internet connection if...WE CAN'T USE IT FOR JACK-SQUAT!!!

What a load of sloblock!
I pay about $25 in Japan for a fibre-optic link, and the closest I ever got to a cap was a notification that I was not supposed to UPLOAD more than 30GB a DAY.

Time warner cable just upped my download speed to 20Mbps, but the upload stayed the same at 0.5Mbps. It used to be 7Mbps... I love the speed, but with these new caps it may not be worth it. My only other option is DSL, which isn't nearly as fast. I can't get FIOS or U-verse.

MaceX said,
Time warner cable just upped my download speed to 20Mbps, but the upload stayed the same at 0.5Mbps. It used to be 7Mbps... I love the speed, but with these new caps it may not be worth it. My only other option is DSL, which isn't nearly as fast. I can't get FIOS or U-verse.


That's nuts. They increase the speed so that you hit the cap that much sooner. TWC is really out to lose customers. They must have a death wish.

They just don't get it do they? A half dozen plans are going to just confuse the hell of the normal goobers. And what about the kids watching movies etc.?

And it costs them TWO CENTS a gigabyte and the "infrastructure upgrade costs" they tout are CHUMP CHANGE compared to what they were even a decade ago. Hell I've got a gigabit network in my home, ffs.

They just want to maximize profit (raping) with as little infrastructure improvement as possible, and they can get away with it because they've got monopolies in areas everywhere now.

CAPITALISM is NOT supposed to work this way! Where are the TWO+ cable providers in any given area to compete? How come WE the public don't get any say in this since WE the public paid HUGE subsidies to these companies to help them build these networks in OUR neighborhoods?

Municipal Wimax and Fiber Optic...your time has come.

I'm in Charlotte so I don't know when this would affect me if it goes forward but this could never work especially in the areas around my college on and off campus because oncampus residential internet is done by roadrunner and alot of the offcampus (like mine) places also use roadrunner and how it works at least in my particular apartment and lots of others is that although my internet is included with my rent I share it with my 3 roommates so there is only 1 modem. It wouldn't take that long to go over any imposed caps

Seriously... the 100GB cap is not so much of an issue for most average users. You are talking that would be over 3GB per day. That is a movie and some serious surfing everyday of the month. Drop the movie and that is all 4 members of a 4 person family grabbing 200 songs (@3MB) each per day and watching some streaming shows and surfing the web for a few hours each...

The price is outrageous though. I think it will spell their death or at least severely cripple them. With the oncoming of 4G, the mainstreaming of 3G and not to mention however many local providers, Fios, DSL... they are just asking for it. The consumers usually make companies like this pay for actions like this by finding alternative means if they are available.

The elephant in the room is the systematic screwing of small town users. For TWC or any other company to make someone in BFE pay $100 per month for subpar speed w/ download caps where 50 miles south in a more urban area where there is competition they charge $40 for the exact same service. That spells major lawsuit or class action to me...

Phone companies will start to die off in droves as more and more users switch over to combination land line/mobile plans and more and more drop their land lines altogether. Once over the air broadband speeds are significant enough to switch over to, droves will drop that other land line in favor of broadband that follows you. Even if it is slower many will still be more roundly pleased with their access following them as compared to being tied to a building.

Any family with kids is going to blow through these caps with just YouTube and music usage...

Add a cable bill with channels and you might as well just punch Middle America in the face on a monthly basis!

Not exactly the smartest business plan to alienate your core customer base.

bucko: you're talking about yourself, some of us have families and each has their own usages. I won't stereotype that the daughter uses it for x things and the son uses it for 'y' stuff, but as you can see, having a family of 4-5 you are already forced to get the most expensive package or end up with overages. Unlike anything else the web usage will increase exponentially, more things will be web enabled. USA already is behind the curve on accessibility and broadband, this exacerbates the issue.

TWC is basically enforcing users to use their dvr and cable to buy movies or go to the store, this effectively kills competition they have or forces these companies to share their revenue. Whichever way you look at it, the consumer will pay for what is simply greed.

Actually, this will FORCE families to just flat out cut the TWC cable portion of their bill and switch to online sources for all entertainment, netflix, hulu, etc. They can just plan on the $150 ($75 fee + $75 max usage) a month and call it a day.

I'm out. If anything they will lose me as a customer in spite of this decision. I'm not always out for the best deal. The absurdity of going from unlimited to limited just won't fly with me. There are enough alternatives in my area.

I give TWC $170/month. They will lose all this because of greed. With enough support we will show them that they cannot take advantage of us, even if they do have a monopoly.

As one of the very heaviest users (I work from home, etc.) I give $150 a month to TWC, even though I haven't watched anything on cable (except Obama's inauguration) in a year. So, the minute this happens, I'm just going to cancel the cable TV portion of my bill, go with the $75 plan and do everything via the Internet. In months of lower usage, I will save money on my bill (meaning TWC gets paid less). In months of heaviest usage, I will pay in total (max overage + plan) what I was paying before. So, in my case, TWC will make LESS money from me by instituting these changes. What a bunch of idiots. 8)

25GB a month here, even watching the odd Iplayer stuff I barely use half that cap a month. Seriously I dunno why but you guys must do a lot of downloading, fortunatly Zen have a broadband app that monitor it from there end on my PC it's great right now I have only used 7.2GB this month and I do loads of online gaming and browse interwebs every day. I guess if you use netflix/buy MP3's it uses a lot. But the only reason I can see unlimited for is I'm sorry to say either piracy or that people don't want to worry to much. At least Zen here give me an excellent ping on online games and actualy have a customer service that have the tools and people with brains to problem solve (only had to use twice but they are great).

When TWC implements those limits in my area I'll be dropping it like it's hot and switching to DSL even though it'll be slower. They'll also be losing me as a TV subscriber as I'll also be switching to Dish. So by doing what they're doing they'll be losing a customer who had been subscribing to all their top-of-the line services for many years.

This is why OnLive has no chance at all - by the time it's out (if ever) we'll all be paying mega bucks for our bandwidth and we won't want to pay additional subscriptions on top of that.

I do not have them but if i did i would drop them the second my contract was up. This is outrageous. If it catches on in the industry we are all ****ed. If it is an epic fail, then hopefully companies will think twice or of another way of handling the bandwidth situation.

I think they should just get rid of everyone using Bittorrent and then cap everyone at 150GB. 40GB is ridiculous and that is the bracket I will fall into. There are a lot of people complaining about caps but I don't mind caps, I just am against ones that are ridiculously low. The only competition TWC has here is ATT (which I think has a cap of 150GB) but I had DSL many years ago and I got terrible service.

Anyone know how this might affect roadrunner users on BrightHouse Networks? Time Warner is not the cable company here in the Orlando, Florida area. I believe Brighthouse bought up all their customer base here and is using the roadrunner infrastructure. I hope that this means they are exempt.

Perhaps the caps would be alright if they gave the same (highest) speed bandwidth to everybody. Instead of paying for speed, pay for the amount you download. That way you can always get the files you need right away, but if you don't download much at all, you don't have to pay as much. It's basically the same outcome, just in a different way. However, this bull**** going on now has to stop. It's outrageous that companies are putting such low caps on downloads. I could see these caps years ago when the network capacity maybe couldn't handle it, but it's 2009 now and speeds should be higher anyway, and without caps. Look at Scandinavia and Japan and Korea. They all have speeds many multiples higher than we do. I thought there was supposed to be "net neutrality." These companies shouldn't be allowed to regulate what you download and how much you download. A year ago there were high speeds without caps, and there wasn't any limit on what you could download. So why now?

Whear I am at we have comcast and they put a 250Gb cap on me but when i called they told me for another like $15 a (around $60 total) month we could have no cap not sure how true it is since they are known for giving out the wrong info all the time but if this is true then TWC figures are way to high i mean i live 60mins from a TWC area
Caps are killing the internet no more net flix or other high bandwidth sites so you will be forced to use the IP services (like on demand)
Not to mention web development is gona get crippled by this

I like to cite my sources, here are the two links that talk about .AU usage cap from way back when:

6th November 2002 03:26
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/06/is...ring_a_warning/
20 December 2001 12:38 PM
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communication...20262508,00.htm

And I am sure they are following in its pattern, - they cant survive, it doesnt hurt the consumers, costs etc. all lies. There is an article from 97 on BBC that talks about the dangers of this and the necessity of unlimited net access. The thing is that I won't be too shocked when TWC et all turn it up a notch and monitor each site visited and categorize it.

While I understand that caps are inevitable, I also think they should reconsider their pricing tiers given the current state of the economy. People just don't have the option to choose between rent or car payments and internet access, so they will lose customers.

ThaCrip - You bring up a good point with "sharing access" with your neighbor. I wonder how more prevalent bandwidth theft will become once these caps are put in place.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I really do hope people sue or stop using Time Warner if feasible because these companies need to evolve (to web 2.0) or die out... This is a ****ing quantum leap in the wrong direction

" * A limited package for "light users" at 1GB/month, 768KB down / 128KB up, with overage charges of $2/GB/month.
* Road Runner Lite, Basic, Standard, and Turbo packages at 10GB / 20GB / 40GB / and 60GB caps, respectively, and overage charges at $1/GB/month.
* 100GB Turbo package at $75/month with overage fees of $1/GB, which, when coupled with that magic threshold of $75 in charges, becomes the "unlimited" plan."

that's a joke... and the worst part is "1 dollar every 1GB you go over the limit" ... that could get extremely expensive!

in general nothing should ever be less than 100GB cap for a reasonable (as in, 50 bucks or so per month MAX) price... because to much under 100GB and your seriously limited on what you can 'get' ... personally if they do have limits i think they should just cap your internet lines speed to a slow speed if you go over the cap instead of screwing the customer with 1 dollar per GB they go over... as all that will do is pi*s alot of people off!

because with those limits in there plan i would rather have 40KB/s internet like i do now for 20 bucks a month because at least it's not capped in GB per month i can download so technically i could do roughly 100GB if i downloaded 24/7 on my 40KB/s (i.e. 384k) line.

heck, at least Comcast download cap is 'fair' as they allow up to 250GB a month (which still allows for quite a bit of downloading which is still more than enough for a heavy user. only the really heavy users would blow past that every single month) with NO over the limit fee's!... but i heard if you go over there limit more than 1 time per year they can close your account. (im on the neighbors Comcast line as i use there wireless to do most of my downloading since it's ALOT faster than my main internet line... and i monitor how much i download on my router since it's running DD-WRT firmware)

This is exactly what was predicted just a little over 10 years ago when Australia and New Zealand were capped, then it came to Canada and now it is USA. The thing is that they have successfully fleeced consumers and know very well they get away with it - they have proof, statistics, historical data, even researchers paid to prove that by making it a metered service it does not a) limit access b) make it expensive, rather it does the opposite. Of course we all know this is just TWC milking it, governments need to tear up their franchise licences that are 100 years long and auto renewable and also the non compete clauses so the consumers get one thing in return, if this is nothing short of extortion I don't know what is. In KC, one side of the river is Comcast, the other side is TWC. Neither will fight each other, its an agreement to stay out of each others neighborhood. Companies like SWB were successful in forcing state and local law in limiting dry line dsl - consumers have very little in options.

Also note that as the world wide web has gotten older and bigger, so too has content - if TWC and others can't get a piece of the pie from companies like MS, Apple, Google, Yahoo and the rest then they will hurt the consumer reminding them who holds their chain.

I really think grass roots cause needs to be taken as the time is right to ABOLISH/OUTLAW/BAN franchise licenses - they were a good idea decades ago but not anymore, they are abused and are pretty obvious enablers of cartels to keep their foot hold and competition out - carve a territory into two pieces, you service one area I'll service the other, but we both will get license from the local gov to keep others out. Isn;t that a perfect trinity?

Arielz said,
This is exactly what was predicted just a little over 10 years ago when Australia and New Zealand were capped, then it came to Canada and now it is USA.

Australia has horrible internet infrastructure, they just got cable internet which isn't widespread and Tivo this year. Their purchasing power is also about 1/10 of the USA.

Its not exactly the best example to be giving, this is America we still don't use the metric system either.

Unfortunately I was in the middle of this - a lot of my friends were from the pond on the other side and were very much agitated by it - regardless of their infrastructure, the fact remains the metered the service, a lot of them could not afford the bigger packages - if anyone is from .AU or .NZ can give their experience better than I can.

Prices/caps in New Zealand seem to be getting worse,not better. The plan setup for my ISP (and others arent much better)..
$70 - 1GB
$80 - 5GB
$90 - 20GB


I'll swear to my heart, bring it on and I'll disconnect all my TWC services, every single one. YOU wonna bet, I"ll put my wallet on a table!!!

+1 - I have changed my ISP the minute they introduced the download limit. I hope all users do the same. Let the ISP that introduce download limits go down the sink.

I've posted this video before and I'll post it again. Times are changing whether you like it or not.

You either have net neutrality and pay for the bandwidth you use individually or you have the content owners paying the providers for the traffic they use. Ultimately though, the unlimited model is unsustainable in today's era of net (sadly).

Turbo - 10MB/1MB for $75? That's ridiculous. I pay $45 for 10MB/1MB with TWC right now, turbo is 15MB/1MB...so users who have turbo now will possibly see a downgrade in service but be paying more. Add to that a 100GB cap and honestly, what's the point?

I'd dump FIOS in a heartbeat, but I doubt that will happen. Verizon has said time and time again they have enough excess capacity to pump an almost unlimited amount of data over their fiber (this stuff is made for the long haul).

I saw this problem coming when Verizon launched FIOS really. The cable companies shared bandwidth model was already problematic for them in the DSL days (they crumbled under peak load while DSL did not). They need to compete. So they are now offering 20+ megabit service over cable, but they are trying to keep those peak load problems minimized.

Realistically speaking what is going to happen is Cable ISPs will end up with stiff caps to keep their prices competitive and ISPs like Verizon will stay cap free...

I am probably really ignorant but isn't portugal a bit behind. If it was where the USA's tech industry was 10 years ago, that is why.

maybe it is. But we're catching up. Most services are offering up to 100mb and unlimited bandwith for not that much. I have unlimited bandwith with 10mb (enough for me till now) connection for 50eur month (that includes telephone and cable tv)

Dang, I was going to call TWC today to switch to them. I would of done it last week, but I was busy.

So much for getting their "Internet" services or any service from them.

C_Guy said,
Oh boo hoo! You want to use that much bandwidth then you can pay for it.


You must work for TWC don't you!! Don't lie. Spy!!!

C_Guy said,
Oh boo hoo! You want to use that much bandwidth then you can pay for it.


I don't have TWC, I used to work for them but not anymore. Luckily my provider isn't going to bandwidth caps.

Anyways, people do pay for it. They have tiered speeds. You pay more for more speed, you shouldn't also have to pay for more bandwidth.

It costs TWC TWO CENTS per gigabyte. And most people paying $40 a month cost TWC about 10 cents in hard costs. High bandwidth users are costing them as much as TWO or THREE DOLLARS...OMFG!!!! Maybe they need a bailout or something... /s

This is unfair, because I have TWC service (which suck anyways), but I also have digital phone service. I can see my bill now, as I have unlimited minutes with that phone service. I see a possible law suit or discussion amongst the government about this. Get enough people to complain, and this service may have to change its ideas, because the company may just drive away business.

One side of the ISP wants you to use them for everything (phone, cable, internet), the other side of the ISP doesn't want to pay anything for their simple cost of doing business. It's really crazy how badly they are shooting themselves in the ass here.

Municipal wimax is going to make a huge resurgence here...

Elessar said,
I'm hoping Verizon installs FIOS soon but i doubt they will in my small town.


I am with you Elessar. We need variety!

As said in the article, I'm sure this will make more people think about using ad blocking. Where does that leave TWC ? Will they loose a lot of ad revenue too ? I think so.

They don't care about ad revenue online. They are still stuck in the old world TV commercials world of advertising. Online ads are entirely Google's domain now.

I'm ****ed. I already have a hard time using Flickr (I have a pro account) and Youtube because my upload bandwith is 512k. Now RR wants to impose a cap. We need a Web 2.0 centered internet service provider. I fear the worst.

Well i think there is a bunch of reasons but the main one being that the way they are transmitted is different? It's not a copy of how the internet works.

People are canceling cable TV to watch their shows on the Internet, most commercial free. So this is how they want to either throttle the Internet by imposing caps (backdoor metering) or keep you on their cable+internet plans, where you're being ripped off either way.

Note that the ISPs pay 2 cents per GB according to recent estimates. Therefore that 100gb cap you pay $75 for costs them $2. Nice markup, eh?

It's even worse for SMS messages, which cost both the sender and receiver ISP/Telco NOTHING as it's just a piggybacked handshake packet that the phone HAS to send all the time to the cell towers whether you have text in there or not.

So when you pay ANYTHING for a text message it's INFINITELY profitable to the telco.

There is a lot people can do to stop it. It's called not using it. If as the industry slowly implements this, people leave in droves and go to the remaining companies that DO NOT do this, their will still be ISP's left that will not cap and screw you.

Except in the US, the companies have colluded to have monopolies in given areas, and because many (if not all?) are owned by big media megacompanies, they have little incentive to undo their dinosaur practices of the past 50 years. It's racketeering in the worst way. It will be interesting to see what the FCC, congress, and local municipalities have to say about this.

Always has. Don't think there's ever been an unlimited data plan in New Zealand,we've always had very restrictive caps. I pay $90 for 20GB a month. The average plan is about $40 for 5GB.

I wish there was such an option as unlimited broadband :cry:

The only true unlimited plans are business plans. Unlimited, with 4 up/4 down Mbps down is for $1900. otherwise there's 150GB data, 24 up/2 down Mbps for $249
:(

Almost all the major ISPs are toying with these kind of caps, not good for streaming media. I'll give up HULU and streaming Netflix before I give up online gaming and general Internet usage, and I'm not paying some exceissive premium.

bob_c_b said,
Almost all the major ISPs are toying with these kind of caps, not good for streaming media. I'll give up HULU and streaming Netflix before I give up online gaming and general Internet usage, and I'm not paying some exceissive premium.


I am with you on this issue bob_c_b.

I'm screwed. I live in Bell South territory, and they're looking to start capping as well. Makes it hard for me to hurt TWC with my wallet when I'm just running to a diff set of caps at slower speeds.

Funny that they say it's to help upgrade their network, yet the areas they seem to be upgrading the fastest are areas with FIOS. Hmmm, they don't plan on capping those areas now do they?

<face palm>

I read this is already instated in Beaumont, Texas, and that starting this summer it will be implemented in San Antonio and Austin (unfortunately, where I reside)

Spartan Erik said,
I read this is already instated in Beaumont, Texas, and that starting this summer it will be implemented in San Antonio and Austin (unfortunately, where I reside)


Yep, your right Spartan Erik. This is where I live, and we are seeing the effects.

Spartan Erik said,
I read this is already instated in Beaumont, Texas, and that starting this summer it will be implemented in San Antonio and Austin (unfortunately, where I reside)


Grande Communications, if you're lucky enough to live in their service area...

If i am going to pay that much money, I will simply invest in satellite. For about 75.00 or so, I will loose speed, but I will be independant from compnies like this, and I will also have unlimited service.

The XO said,
If i am going to pay that much money, I will simply invest in satellite. For about 75.00 or so, I will loose speed, but I will be independant from compnies like this, and I will also have unlimited service.


Hang on there cochese. I was on Satellite for almost a year. You get ok speeks at 650k down, but after about 200 MBs of downloading, they cap your speed and reduce you to 56 k. It's called their FAP or Fair Acceptance Policy. It's not a rosy as you might think.

I am so glad i have cablevision. No caps(they just recently stopped capping the uplaod for high users) . Cablevision also bad mouthed time warner for those rates and stated that they have no plans right now to start them.

no firm details were given but ive read that in areas where "FIOS" isnt an option...aka basically where there isnt stiff competition

bdsams said,
no firm details were given but ive read that in areas where "FIOS" isnt an option...aka basically where there isnt stiff competition

So then small towns where all there is...is TWC. I wouldn't be surprised to see lawsuits pop up if TWC goes through with this.

This is cheating at its highest! They just refuse to upgrade their own stone age era infrastructure to deal with today's bandwidth demands, instead choosing to rip off people like this...