Posted 10/21/09 at 04:55:08 PM by Bart Salisbury

It makes sense: you pay for what you eat. But if a restaurant offers an all-you-can-eat buffet, then decides you’re eating too much and should be charged more, it doesn’t go over too well. It seems something similar is afoot with Internet providers: the promise of the all-you-can-eat buffet is cutting a bit too deeply into their bottom-lines, and now they think you should pay more.

The problem is one of expectations. Internet providers set up unlimited access as a method to attract people onto the Internet. And it worked. The Internet not only became populated, it began to offer a wealth of services that changed the nature of the retail marketplace, and is on the verge of doing the same for the media industry. Unfortunately, as the opportunities to be online expand, so to did our appetite for bandwidth. Meeting those demands has become something of a problem for Internet providers.

Because the federal government won’t allow Internet providers to differentiate traffic that moves over its hardware: porn and The New York Times must be treated with equal deference, Internet providers must find other ways of limiting the use they encouraged. "A flat-rate, infinitely expandable service is unachievable," Dick Lynch, chief technology officer of Verizon Communications Inc. (So to is a flat-rate, infinitely expandable brick of cheese.)

Earlier this year some Internet providers put monthly caps on usage. Comcast, for example, said no more than 250 Gbs a month. Comcast says this only impacts a small number of high-usage customers. AT&T, in Beaumont, Texas and Reno, Nevada, is offering tiered-pricing structures, with penalties for going over your monthly allotment.

More radical are plans by some, AT&T and Time Warner Cable, Inc. for instance, involve a return to usage-base pricing: you pay for what you eat. The problem with this approach is customers don’t like it. They really, really don’t like it. So much so that Time Warner was forced to shut down a pilot metered Internet program last year. Further, online businesses won't be thrilled. It could put a serious crimp into online browsing, leading to a downturn in Internet business. And Netflix probably won’t be too keen on the idea, with all it has invested in streaming video.

No resolutions as yet, but it seems certain that something is bound to happen. Maybe not metered usage, but something that involves taking more money out of our wallets is a given.

Read More

Posted 04/23/09 at 05:28:29 PM by Andy Salisbury

Well, it looks Time Warner’s bad streak is far from over – it wouldn’t just end with their undeserved feeling of superiority. In the small city of Wilson, North Carolina, they’re working to destroy local Internet providers, just so that they can inject their own overpriced offering.

Available today in Wilson, NC, you can get expanded basic cable with 81 channels, 10Mbps (download and upload) Internet service, and digital phone service with unlimited long distance to the U.S. and Canada for $99.95. A similar package from Time Warner comes with six less channels, lower upload speeds and costs $137.95 as an introductory rate (which will no doubt skyrocket after a few months). But now, with some help from the North Carolina State Senate, Time Warner is working a bill that will potentially cripple or ban local service, and even prevent local services from getting any funds from the broadband portion of the stimulus package.

In response, the city has spoken out big time against the move, creating a blog that’s pushing for the state government to prevent the bill. Brian Bowman, Wilson’s Public Affairs Manager writes, “I have a 10Mbps up/down connection at my house. Can’t get half that from the cable company. I buy it directly from the City of Wilson. After less than a year of residential service, almost 3,000 Wilson citizens are subscribing to Wilson’s fiber optic network. Local businesses can get up to one Gbps.” He continues, “Bottom line, these companies are using your state lawmakers to protect monopolies. It was wrong in 2007 when a similar bill died in the house and it’s wrong today.”

Honestly, Time Warner. Have you no shreds of decency? This is genuinely despicable behavior.

Read More

Posted 04/17/09 at 05:08:17 PM by Andy Salisbury

Boy oh boy, what a tumultuous few weeks it’s been!

So, for those of you just tuning it, not too long ago the minds over at Time Warner Cable decided to experiment on placing diminutive bandwidth caps (as low as 1GB/month!) on not only their customers in Texas, but others as far out as Rochester, NY.

But, after much public uproar, Time Warner’s own Cable Chief Operating Officer took it upon himself to repeal the negative press by writing an open letter to all of Time Warner’s customers, as well as others interested in the matter. His claim was simple: providing the Internet gets costly, and without capping the bandwidth hungry beasts that broadband users turn out to be, it’s just not going to work out in the long run! Still, the public outrage wasn’t quelled.

And, now, thanks to the power of the geekerati, the absurd bandwidth caps at Time Warner have been completely removed. Ultimately this uncapping could be temporary, because, in their own words, Time Warner states that they are holding off on the trials “while the customer education process continues.”

Sounds mighty condescending to me, but at this point, a win is a win.

Read More

Posted 04/16/09 at 04:34:15 PM by Andy Salisbury

Oh, Time Warner. When you’re not imposing some ridiculous bandwidth caps on your customers, you’re fighting for them in the war against net neutrality! And, while the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it’s nice to know that Time Warner Cable might actually have some.

“Now is not the time, nor is this the appropriate proceeding, to engage in a debate about the need for net neutrality obligations,” two Time Warner lawyers said to the FCC earlier this week. “Debates in this proceeding about new net neutrality regulations would only divert attention from these important goals, delaying the distribution of funds while generating considerable contention when the Commission should instead be fostering a spirit of collaboration.”

According to the two lawyers, the money should strictly go towards broadband deployment. This, in turn, would give them more customers (for them to impose miniscule bandwidth caps upon), and, according to their logic help pump some more of that much needed money into the ailing economy.

Read More

Posted 04/13/09 at 04:37:01 PM by Andy Salisbury

It wasn’t long ago that numerous tech news sources (including us) reported on Time Warner’s miniscule bandwidth caps, and it would seem that all this press caught the attention of some higher ups within the ISP.

Landel Hobbs, Time Warner Cable’s Chief Operating Officer, wrote a lengthy reply to those that had reported on the matter. “Some recent press reports about our four consumption based billing trials planned for later this year were premature and did not tell the full story,” he states. “With that said, we realize our communication to customers about these trials has been inadequate and we apologize for any frustration we caused. We’ve heard the passionate feedback and we’ve taken action to address our customers’ concerns.”

The post continues to paint a picture where the ISP is stuck in a situation where the growing demand of the Internet causes them to charge such enormous rates and cap users at such small amounts of bandwidth. The post divulges, “…at Time Warner Cable, consumption among our high-speed Internet subscribers is increasing by about 40% a year.”

Strangely enough, at a later point where Mr. Hobbs is dissecting the reasoning behind a very small, very cheap 1GB capped plan for $15 a month he mentions, “Our usage data show that about 30% of our customers use less than 1 GB per month.” Hm.

Self-contradictions aside, the reasoning behind capping the bandwidth does hold some water, it’s just unfortunate that they should come at such colossal prices. If you’re interested in reading the whole message, be sure to check it out here.

Read More

Posted 04/03/09 at 06:03:47 PM by Andy Salisbury

Bandwidth caps are the latest and greatest ways for ISPs to keep people in check, and while some ISPs do have admittedly sizeable caps (such as Comcast’s 250GB/month and AT&T’s slightly less impressive 150GB/month), Time Warner’s is a pathetic 40GB/month, and starting soon, those living in the Lone Star State won’t be the only ones subject to it.

Austin, San Antonio, Rochester, NY and Greensboro, NC will be the next cities that will have to deal with the diminutive bandwidth cap. And, a note to people in these locations, every gig you go over your cap, it’ll cost you a buck.

Now, that’s not to say that a buck all on its own is a big deal, but when you consider that downloading four conservatively sized HD movies, at 5GB a piece, takes up half of your monthly allotment, there’s something to ponder. And, if you enjoy the perks of HD video on Hulu and YouTube, there’s more to worry about. And gamers, if you like to buy your games on Steam, you’d better watch yourselves too! Those megabytes sure can add up quickly, and so can your bill.

Read More