My first attempt at a "blog", whatever that means.

Time Warner Cable is going to start charging its customers extra to download games, watch videos or even update your games.  This is going to adversely affect any internet based business, regardless of actual cost to the customer.

Percieved pricing will prevent some customers from using services like Impulse and Steam. 

Imagine downloading a "free" 8 GB HD movie and having to pay $8.00 just for downloading it?  Yep, it's $1.00 per GB.

Time Warner did a test run of the price gouging effort in a few cities and is now poised to widen its grip nationally. 

Locally, a city council member has spoken out against Time Warner, but to what avail?

Leffingwell said not only will the plan have a significant effect on families who use the Internet to watch videos, download music or other activities that take up significant bandwidth, he’s also worried about the impact it would have on business owners, particularly those who work in the high-tech and creative services industries who need continued access to broadband Internet.

  Leffingwell chastises Time Warner for Internet pricing plan 

There's a loophole for some of us.  Even though Time Warner has the monopoly on cable and dsl internet service where I live, a secondary provider that uses Time Warner's infrastructure doesn't have to apply the same pricing scheme.  I got word from Earthlink this morning that they have no plans to copy Time Warner and that their customers are safe from the price increases.  A time Warner customer can simply switch over and still use the exact same infrastructure as before and maintain peace of mind while using the internet. You don't even need to change your cable or DSL modem. 

Hopefully, more customers will be able to find secondary providers like Earthlink.  I'd suggest that any TW customers switch to whatever secondary provider is in their area before this hits the fan.

 


Comments (Page 12)
12 PagesFirst 10 11 12 
on Apr 13, 2009

I'd already heard that they were rolling out the caps to other markets, but thanks for the heads-up that earthlink also services their networks. Just checked and they're available here, so if TWC decides to expand the caps to here I've got my exit plan

You should be aware that jumping to Earthlink may not give you a safe haven from bandwidth caps after all.

on Apr 14, 2009

I'am on Charter cable and the service Tech told me that all the internet providers were going to eventually put caps on the downloads as there are to many people using the internet.  Seems they are running out of bandwidth so they will be limiting people so everyone will beable to be serviced.  Charter hasn't done that yet.

You're wrong on several counts by the way.  It's well known that providers who use caps are only concerned about the people who never stop downloading, and Charter has already announced plans to cap.

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/02/charter-modifies-acceptable-use-policy-to-add-caps.ars

on Apr 15, 2009

TW just got spanked up in NY for trying this teired system in Rochester...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30232112/

on Apr 16, 2009

 

Loupdinour
TW just got spanked up in NY for trying this teired system in Rochester...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30232112/

That was some funny sh*t.

It's nothing but greed, they charge for internet at speeds their hardware can't handle. Idiots.

 

on Apr 16, 2009

They all do.  Common practice, that.  People just didn't notice.

on Apr 16, 2009

There are plenty of good carriers out there that actually provide what they're selling.  This doesn't mean they can provide maximum bandwidth to every customer simultaneously, but every customer isn't utilizing their full bandwidth at the same time.

 

It's only sensible to be providing a network based on actual use, and not a theoretical maximum usage from everyone at the same time.  The problem is they're trying to convince themselves that people are just using too much, instead of asking themselves how out of date their infrastructure is.  Modernization, or the lack of it, is the primary threat to an established organization.

on Apr 16, 2009

Interestingly enough, i just read an article that suggested Time-Warner was "shelving" their plans for implementing this hair-brained money-gouging scheme. Follow this link for the story. . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30252543/

All in all, a good day for the little guy. Kudos to all the angry Time-Warner who took the time to register their outrage  

on Apr 16, 2009

Excellent news, RexCasual!   

I had already switched over to Earthlink and then found that TW was going to try to impose the price gouging scheme on them.  My Congressman, both Senators and President Obama heard from me about Time Warner.  I'm sure they heard from many, many others as well.

One can bet that this will rear its ugly head again in the future.  Probably the near future.  I'm hopeful that it's really over for the time being though.  Maybe our representatives can do something proactively to nip it in the bud before we go through all of this again. 

Government intervention might be a bad thing in most cases, but there are times when it's better than leaving things up to greedy mega corporations like Time Warner.

 

on Apr 16, 2009

Glad I could share some good news for a change, MK -- and if you're one of the people who took the time to complain, then, as a Time-Warner cable subscriber myself, I'd like to personally thank you for your actions

 

I'd also like to agree with you on your other statements. I fear you're right -- this won't be the last time this ugly issue raises it's head, but it looks like the 'will of the people' will prevail for the time being.

 

And yes, much as I cringe at the thought of government intervention, someone has to protect us from these greedy mega-corporations (especially the ones with service monopolies). Now that we've temporarily tamed TW, let's sick the feds on the oil companies and their relatively abitrary price hikes, shall we? LOL -- sounds good to me  

on Apr 17, 2009

Yay for free market economy!

on Apr 17, 2009

Another victory for those who know how to vote with their wallet!

on Apr 17, 2009

As much as I dont like comcasts way of doing business in general, its still better then TWC.  They charge extra fees for downloads over 250GB (and some upload cap) which is more then most people should be able to do in a month unless you are downloading and backing up movies and games illegally.  Further, you get a warning when you are about to exceed this (supposedly) so you have some leeway before you go over.

In my area we have city wide wireless for half the price of comcast so I dont think they would pull that sort of bull here because alot of people are on the verge of moving to that subscription over the cable line.  I mostly keep comcast because I have multiple computers using my wireless and the city wide wireless can only connect one at a time (possibly 2) per subscription.  Further, I havent researched the speed of it in depth, but I cant imaging getting the bandwidth that comcast gives me even if I am paying twice as much.  With how much I use steam and impulse, I'd rather not be sitting here for half a day just to download a single game.

12 PagesFirst 10 11 12