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

Posted 11/04/08 at 11:54:30 AM by Paul Lilly

Whether you place the blame on ISPs for not upgrading their infrastructure or the small number of bandwidth hogs clogging up the pipes (with all legal content, of course), metered bandwidth looks to become the norm rather than the exception. AT&T becomes the latest to jump on board and will begin trials for metered internet access for subscribers living in Reno, Nevada. But that's not the half of it.

Those of you who were outraged at Comcast for having put a 250GB cap in place might want to stop reading now. According to a letter filed electronically with the FCC, AT&T attorney Jack Zimmerman says the size of his company's bandwidth caps will vary based on the service level. Customers on the 768kbps plan will be hit the hardest and have just 20GB to work with, while 6mbps subscribers will be capped at 150GB, or 100GB less than what Comcast is allowing. Should customers go over their service level's limit, a $1 per gigabyte charge will be assessed to the monthly bill.

Customers who want no part of the caps can choose to cancel their service and have their early termination fee waived. We imagine there are readily available alternatives in Reno, but should AT&T's test run spread to other areas, finding another ISP may not always be as easy. AT&T boasts 14.7 million subscribers, enough to rank the company as the largest ISP in the U.S.

Is AT&T going to far? Hit the jump and sound off.

Read More

Posted 08/29/08 at 12:26:30 PM by Paul Lilly

Comcast made it official today by announcing it will introduce bandwidth caps to all residential customers starting on October 1, 2008. The ISP describes the 250GB per month cap as "an extremely large amount of data," noting that a large majority of customers will never cross it. Or will they?

Comcast says that the 250GB cap is enough to send about 50 million emails, download 62,500 songs, download 125 standard-definition movies, or upload 25,000 hi-resolution digital photos. Put into that kind of perspective, 250GB seems plenty for all but the most bandwidth hungry users, who tend to be up to no good anyway. The ISP also notes that the bandwidth cap represents the same policy that has already been in place, except with more explicit numbers outlining what is and isn't allowed.

"As part of our preexisting policy, we will continue to contact the top users of hour high-speed internet service and ask them to curb their usage," the company told ArsTechnica. "If a customer uses more than 250GB and is one of the top users of our service, he or she may be contacted by Comcast to notify them of excessive use."

Previous speculation of Comcast's impending bandwidth cap pointed towards a $15 fee for every 10GB customers go over the limit, but a cursory glance at the company's FAQ page doesn't appear to make mention of overage penalties.

What are your thoughts on Comcast's decision to cap bandwidth?

Read More