i just got back from twc yesterday about a "price lock" that i had from june 2008 (because talking on the phone with them is even more pointless than seeing them face to face)

evidently somehow it "disappeared" about 4 months ago (pretty much jan 1 2009) and of course even though i have a confirmation number and everything they have NO RECORDS of anything and are gonna have to get a "team to pull the phone call and check"

to which i told them, "well good, then there shouldn't be any sort of 'termination fee' when i get rid of your services in a month or two"

4/11/2009 10:58:48 AM

Quote :

"I was wondering about this as the "price lock guarantee" would save us about $60/month. Is there any more information on this? I'm just afraid to be stuck with TWC for the next two years if they decide to pull some bullshit like this."

Sounds like you should absolutely do it. You get 60 days after you start to cancel, and after that there's an early termination fee of $150, which gradually goes down as you near your two years. The reason you should do it is that by saving $60, you'll easily make up the $150 in savings pretty quickly.

4/11/2009 11:38:57 AM

^^nice

4/11/2009 11:44:37 AM

^^ Yeah, I looked into it more and went through with it last night. I realized it was actually a savings of $40/month rather than $60 but definitely still worth it.

4/11/2009 5:07:20 PM

Yeah I did the same thing. I am pretty sure I'm going to cancel before the 2 years is up, whenever uverse gets to my neighborhood, but since I'm betting it will be > 6 months, I might end up saving some money. Plus I shouldn't get the stupid bandwidth caps whenever they roll those out in raleigh.

4/12/2009 12:55:22 PM

even if they do have a cap on U-Verse by that time, it will start at 150gb.

4/12/2009 1:59:55 PM

I hope we can get some competition before this happens so I can switch shit as fast as possible.

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 2:30 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2009 2:28:03 PM

I probably download at least 150GB a month.

I need Uverse bad.

4/12/2009 2:35:12 PM

what do you guys download that takes up the most gb?

i'd say watching tv/video takes up most of mine

4/12/2009 2:38:31 PM

Games/Movies/Music - I probably download at least 40GB a month from Zune, 40GB a month from game demos (PC/XBOX) and then who knows what watching videos from Netflix/Hulu.

4/12/2009 2:44:33 PM

I don't download anything specific, and I have no idea how much bandwidth we use. We watch the standard youtube shit, but we don't really download music or whatever. HOWEVER I just completed a 120 GB upload to mozy.com, so that would have definitely fucked us.

4/12/2009 5:45:04 PM

According to my router I've downloaded ~90GB this month and uploaded 70GB (streaming video over the interweb).

4/12/2009 5:59:17 PM

TV/Video shit and Xbox stuff - demos, game add-ons, what have you.


I also find myself downloading Linux ISOs quite a bit

4/12/2009 9:00:16 PM

ETA on when I have to switch in Raleigh? We're about to renew our sub for a promo price and I don't want to be locked in and fucked.

4/12/2009 9:15:15 PM

earthlink may not have the caps

4/12/2009 9:50:10 PM

how do i check how much internet I use through my router? I have a wrt54g linksys...

i went to the setup but didn't see anything

4/12/2009 10:09:16 PM

you can't with the factory firmware

4/12/2009 10:16:42 PM

Quote :

"earthlink may not have the caps"

That's what I was thinking...could be their chance to break back into the market

4/12/2009 10:20:31 PM

^^^ get tomato or dd-wrt

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 10:39 PM. Reason : -]

4/12/2009 10:38:53 PM

So the price lock won't help?

http://tinyurl.com/cjv8wv

Quote :

" Statement from Landel Hobbs, Chief Operating Officer, Time Warner Cable RE: Consumption based billing trials 4-9-09 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. 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. With the ever-increasing flood of content on the Internet, bandwidth consumption is growing exponentially. That’s a good thing; however, there are costs associated with this increased Internet usage. Here at Time Warner Cable, consumption among our high-speed Internet subscribers is increasing by about 40% a year. As a facilities based provider, we’ve built a network that must be maintained and upgraded. We have increasing variable costs and we have to continue to invest in the network itself. This is a common problem that all network providers are experiencing and must address. Several other providers have instituted consumption based billing, including all major network providers in Canada and others in the U.K., New Zealand and elsewhere. In the U.S., AT&T has begun two consumption based billing trials and other providers including Comcast, Charter and Cox are using varying methods of monitoring and managing bandwidth consumption. For good reason. Internet demand is rising at a rate that could outpace capacity within a few years. According to industry analysts, the infrastructure may not be able to accommodate the explosion of online content by 2012. This could result in Internet brownouts. It will take a lot of money to fix the problem. Rather than raising prices on all customers or limiting usage, we think the fairest approach is to move to a tiered model in which users pay more if they use more. If we don’t act, consumers’ Internet experience will suffer. Sitting still is not an option. That’s why we’re beginning the consumption based billing trials. It’s important to stress that they are trials. The feedback we’ve received from our customers has been very helpful. We’ve made changes to the terms in our current and upcoming trial markets as follows: * To accommodate lighter Internet users and those who need a lower priced option, we are introducing a 1 GB per month tier offering speeds of 768 KB/128 KB for $15 per month. Overage charges will be $2 per GB per month. Our usage data show that about 30% of our customers use less than 1 GB per month. * We are increasing the bandwidth tier sizes included in all existing packages in the trial markets to 10, 20, 40 and 60 GB for Road Runner Lite, Basic, Standard and Turbo packages, respectively. Package prices will remain the same. Overage charges will be $1 per GB per month. * We will introduce a 100 GB Road Runner Turbo package for $75 per month (offering speeds of 10 MB/1 MB). Overage charges will be $1 per GB per month. * Overage charges will be capped at $75 per month. That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage at Turbo speeds. * Once we implement this trial, we will not immediately start billing customers for overage. Rather, we will first provide two months of usage data. Then we will provide a one-month grace period in which overages will be noted on customers’ bills, but they will not be charged. So, customers will have an opportunity to assess their usage and right-size their service packages before usage charges are applied. * Trials will begin in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in August. We will apply what we learn from these two markets when we launch trials in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, in October, but we will guarantee at least the same level of usage capacity in these trials. * As we launch DOCSIS 3.0 in the trial markets, we plan to offer a 50/5 MB speed tier for $99 per month. Again, the Internet is dynamic and continually evolves, so our plans will evolve as well and aren’t set in stone. We appreciate the feedback we’ve received. We’ll look forward to more dialogue as we progress in these trials. You can send us your comments at realideas@twcable.com. Answers to Your Questions Will my bill go up? This is not a rate increase. Rather, it gives each level of Road Runner service a generous amount to use each month but, if of someone goes over the monthly usage allocation, they have to pay a slight fee. That’s the only way your bill would change. How will this impact my Price Lock Guarantee? The plan will not impact your Price Lock Guarantee price, but it could mean a small incremental fee that will vary by month depending on how much you exceed the megabit usage that goes with your level of Road Runner service. How can I know if the plan is fair? Time Warner Cable simply wants to make sure only those who use large amounts of data either upgrade to a level better for them or pay for incremental amounts they choose to have each month. This ensures others don’t have to pay for or subsidize those heavier users. Why do I have to pay more for Road Runner? You won’t be paying more if you are like the average user. These new fees will only be charged to the small group of heavy users that the rest of RR customers are effectively subsidizing. "

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 10:14 PM. Reason : link]

4/13/2009 10:04:30 PM

in other words they better fucking drop the termination fee if you have a price lock and don't want to deal with this bullshit.

4/13/2009 10:28:21 PM

I have to admit that's not nearly as bad as I originally read.

4/13/2009 10:30:24 PM

dont know if its been posted but the cap is 75gb now

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 10:34 PM. Reason : according to engadget or some tech blog]

4/13/2009 10:32:25 PM

whatever. don't go back groveling to them like a bettered wife. make the switch to something else. these assholes deserve to die

4/13/2009 10:42:58 PM

Will my bill go up?
Best case, no. Average case, yes. Worst case, cha-ching!

How will this impact my Price Lock Guarantee?
We'll still charge you the same base price. So no worries there. We'll also tack on our fees. I guess it all depends on how you define "price lock guarantee".

How can I know if the plan is fair?
When only considering the spectrum of TWC internet subscribers it is indeed fair to about 30% of our customer base that was subsidizing the other 70%. When considering there is no other ISP you can switch to, it is fair to approximately 0% of our customer base.

Why do I have to pay more for Road Runner?
Because we can charge you more.

So in the past they had the scenario where everyone was paying (made up figure) $30 per month, regardless of use. They introduce the fees and now the heavy users are paying their fair share while the people that are light users (forget this "average user" nonsense) are still paying their $30 per month. I thought the light users were subsidizing the heavy users. Shouldn't their bill go down now that the heavy users are no longer being subsidized. Maybe their bills are going down, I haven't read all the fine print. If not, then yeah, it's a rate increase.

4/14/2009 7:27:32 AM

Quote :

"I thought the light users were subsidizing the heavy users. Shouldn't their bill go down now that the heavy users are no longer being subsidized."

that's exactly what i was thinking...part of my job is reviewing content from interviews, press releases, etc., and i never would have let his "[t]hese new fees will only be charged to the small group of heavy users that the rest of RR customers are effectively subsidizing" line be published because it's a crock

4/14/2009 8:35:50 AM

When the cell phone providers upped the fee for text messaging it was viewed as a breech of contract and customers were allowed out of their contracts without penalties. Should not the same apply here?

4/14/2009 9:52:18 AM

if they don't , they should be looking forward to a class-action lawsuit

4/14/2009 11:29:19 AM

Congressman wants to ban download caps:
http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/04/congressman-to.html

Quote :

"New York Democratic Rep. Eric Massa called TWC's proposal to switch its 8.4 million cable broadband customers to metered internet billing an "outrageous plan to tax the American people.""

This guy, he's a thinker.

4/14/2009 10:20:52 PM

ding ding ding

although in all honesty i wouldn't want the gov't telling them what they can't do

4/14/2009 10:29:15 PM

Yeah, I know it's a tough issue. I'm not a fan of the government getting any more entrenched in anything than they already are, however I hate TWC. Tough call indeed, lol.

4/14/2009 10:37:02 PM

That New York rep should check out all the new taxes that New York has been putting into place before calling this an outrageous tax by TWC. Price discrimination, when applied effectively, is a good means to achieve more efficient markets; the real issue is not that they're putting caps into place, it's that the caps they're proposing are ridiculously and outrageously low (even the new ones they keep revising every day lately) for the prices and speeds they're setting. It's a stupid move where they have competitors to undercut them, and a move likely to rev up the ire of Joe Broadband where they don't have competitors, which brings them unwanted attention from regulators concerned with things like abuse of monopoly power.

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 12:06 AM. Reason : ]

4/15/2009 12:05:29 AM

in all honestly i DO want the government telling them what to do

4/15/2009 12:16:11 AM

I'd rather let the people decide the switch, and TWC LOSE a bunch of money, instead of the gov stepping in and letting them avoid this fiasco

4/15/2009 8:16:52 AM

Until all the ISPs collude, right?

4/15/2009 8:24:04 AM

i know i'm a socialist because i like the idea of SOME services provided centrally by the federal government (health care, for example)

that said, until intarweb access is like that, i don't necessarily think it's the government's place to step in and dictate the operating practices of an INDUSTRY...the fact of the matter, though, is that there are some places that don't have a choice in their broadband ISP, and so TWC's proposed actions in a monopoly situation are out-and-out price gouging that effectively rapes the consumer and a government intervention isn't so much regulation of the industry itself as it is the protection of (in some cases) consumers who have little choice in the matter

sure, you can argue that if you don't like it, you don't have to have high-speed intarweb, but anyone who truly believes that, in this day and age, people can effectively and competitively forgo high-speed when they have it available is a bit out of the loop

this whole thing has very little to do with their infrastructure costs and very much to do with TWC trying to retard the progression of multi-faceted intarweb access and utilization as a replacement of (or, at least, a significant supplement to) their cable services

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 8:43 AM. Reason : .]

4/15/2009 8:42:48 AM

I'm also worried about the collusion with other ISPs. Seems as though AT&T has also been testing this and Verizon has chosen their words carefully regarding metered billing. At the end, I hope consumers are just willing to drop any and all internet services to hurt the bottom lines of these companies. I know that's wishful thinking because other than that, legislation is the only way to stop this from happening.

4/15/2009 9:04:01 AM

Given the fact that TW is effectively a monopoly in the areas it operates and no other mainstream provider of net access in a position to challenge them, it kind of makes it difficult for the public to force them to not do the things it does by leaving them.

So I get why the government feels the need to get involved. But I still don't quite like it.

4/15/2009 9:07:35 AM

How is this issue shaping up in the rest of the world? Isn't the US far behind other nations when it comes to internet access. I'm a bit short sighted on this issue, but it seems like doing this would push us further behind. The rest of the world would move on and we would be stuck with something that looks comparatively silly, like a dial-up connection currently looks, because we don't want to get charged to oblivion to gain access to new content/features that would push the average user past the 75GB/month (or whatever they are saying now).

4/15/2009 9:26:05 AM

I have no problem with the government getting involved in broadboand if the end result is increased competition. They don't pull this shit where there are viable competitors

4/15/2009 9:31:44 AM

Quote :

"How is this issue shaping up in the rest of the world? Isn't the US far behind other nations when it comes to internet access. I'm a bit short sighted on this issue, but it seems like doing this would push us further behind. The rest of the world would move on and we would be stuck with something that looks comparatively silly, like a dial-up connection currently looks, because we don't want to get charged to oblivion to gain access to new content/features that would push the average user past the 75GB/month (or whatever they are saying now)."

From the little information I have gathered in the last couple of days of reading this issue...

-I think Japan and Korea have unlimited plans with higher speeds for lower prices (when converted to US$).
-Canada is screwed since there are monopolies that have caps and overage charges.
-TWC wants to emulate New Zealand and Australia broadband services. Caps and overage charges.
-UK has lots of competition in the DSL market. For about 22USD they get 8mb connections with soft caps of 100GB. Users are warned if they repeatedly have excessive use. No overage charges.

I forgot which country it was but they had caps and after a user exceeded that cap, their connection was throttled down.

4/15/2009 10:09:07 AM

Some providers in Britain would throttle down your speeds if you went over your cap... or at least, they did back when I lived there.

I hope that the backlash from this causes them to end their trials early and decide against this kind of pricing. I would normally hope that they stick with it and lose a lot more customers, but then those people would really get shafted because it's pretty clear they're rolling out their "trial geographies" in a predatory manner, in places where they have very little real competition. The national media circus surrounding this issue will do the work of damaging TWC's reputation, but I don't want it to come at the expense of people in the areas getting screwed over by this experiment.

4/15/2009 1:53:05 PM

Protest in Greensboro this Saturday.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/04/15/article/time_warner_cable_protest_planned_for_saturday

Quote :

"The protest, from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. at 1813 Spring Garden St., will happen at the same time as a demonstration in the also-affected market of Rochester, N.Y."

4/15/2009 2:14:26 PM

A protest, really? It's a fucking service. If you don't like, don't use it. This deserves another

4/15/2009 3:22:10 PM

this is just time warner getting at ppl like me that dont have cable, but watch shit like daily show, colbert, meet the press, etc

4/15/2009 3:33:17 PM

^^ Well, just like Progress Energy, it is not really a service, but more a public-private partnership. Afterall, go try starting your own cable company and see how far you get before being sued and ultimately arrested for violation of some franchise agreement with the city.

As I understand it, Fios and U-Verse are only allowed to compete because they are operating under the guise of being phone companies with their own monopolies.

4/15/2009 3:51:12 PM

"Go without" is an option.

I don't see anyone protesting other things that are too expensive and there is no "reasonable alternative". Cable service is a luxury, not a utility.

4/15/2009 4:07:51 PM

TWC throws hissy fit and tells FCC to fuck off about net neutrality:
http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/04/time-warner-cable-to-fcc-shut-up-about-net-neutrality.ars

4/15/2009 4:30:43 PM

^^ What does it being a luxury have to do with anything?

That said, it may only be a luxury because of our regulatory regime. They have managed to arrange a good regime in Great Britain with lots of competition among DSL providers. UK ISP Tiscali offers 8mbps for $22 a month with a 100GB cap. What they do to provision quality service to users that need it is throw away net neutrality and prioritising all traffic by purpose.

Could it be that TWC is going down the route of imposing low caps because they believe they would be prevented from prioritising traffic?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/choose-your-poison-bandwidth-caps-or-throttling.ars

4/15/2009 4:47:47 PM

Packet shaping is a much much much better way to handle destructive protocols like bit torrent. The funny thing is all the retards getting butt hurt about packet shaping dont realize that if done properly there's almost no impact to torrents. In peak usage times torrents will get throttled in favor of stuff like web traffic or voip, but for off hours they go full throttle.

What most dont realize is that when they say "throttling torrents" they're not talking about some guy with a lever turning torrent speeds from high to low, they're talking about making all other traffic higher priority. While the end result during peak times is that torrents have less available bandwidth, its due to high usage of other protocols.

If bit torrent weren't such a dick of a protocol it wouldn't even be a problem.

4/15/2009 4:54:49 PM