Your opinion about paying for internet service based on usage?

PenguinoMF

PenguinoMF

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
UPDATE: http://stopthecap.com/2009/04/10/br...ce-the-massa-broadband-internet-fairness-act/

Congressman Eric Massa has introduced a bill that would ban IPs from charging based on usage.

----------------------------------

Time Warner announced that they will be rolling out a tiered payment system that is based on your usage.

See the following articles if you want:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090402/BUSINESS/904020342

So instead of the current unlimited plan for $30-50 (based on deal when you signed up) you have to select a plan for either 5GB, 10GB, 20Gb, 40GB, or 100GB.

The prices (at least according to the second article) would be:
5GB - $29.99
10GB - $39.99
20GB - $49.99
40GB - $54.90
100GB - Unavailable

Plus $1 for ever GB over your limit.

What is your opinion about this new setup?

Do you already have to pay for internet based on usage? If so, what do you pay? How much data do you use? Do you play your 360 or PS3 online? Stream Netflix? Download music?

I worried that I use a lot already and this is going to cost me an arm and a leg. Between Live, streaming Netflix, streaming TV shows, and downloading music I feel like I'll use too much.

---------------------------------

Feel free to sign the petition against TW: http://www.petitiononline.com/twcfedup/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fuck no. Never. I would get rid of the internet (or ISP) if they did this to me. With Xbox Live, WoW, streaming (hulu, netflix, etc.), VoiP, etc. that I do I'm sure I go over these plans. fuck that shit. screw time warner and any other company that does this. I wouldn't succumb to that, and I still have some control over these shitty ass companies, namely my wallet/dollar.
 
$1 for each GB over? Making their entire price structure useless since if you pay $30 for the 5 GB you can get 10 GB for $35 and 20 GB for $45 rather than paying $40 and $50 respectively?

I have probably never used over 20GB in a month, usually between 5 and 10 I would guess, but it would still blow to pay by usage, it's a huge step backwards.

And really if they wanted to charge by usage they should start at nothing and charge by usage rather than having a starting point and charge more if you go over, as I'm sure they're not going to "rollover" that shit or refund you money if you don't use your quota. They're not doing this shit because it's becoming more expensive for them and they need to keep up, they're doing it because it's more profitable and people are becoming more dependent on the internet, so they have no choice.
 
This is wrong on so many levels. But then again, it is no surprise to me. Over the more recent years companies have gone the way of making money at any cost, even if it means fucking their customers in the ass. They take services that are becoming near necessities and exploit them for money.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']It's fucking bullshit, plain and simple.[/quote]

Agreed, and if they actually end up doing this nationwide they can say goodbye to my money.
 
I've been a Time Warner customer for yearssss. Right now I have their Road Runner Light plan which is something they don't even advertise. It's their cheapest broadband plan that I know of at $24.95 in the Columbus area. The only downside is that the download is a 768Kbps.
 
Time Warner just rolled this out near me. If they put it out here, I'll switch to DSL. And DSL is shit.

Before this, I think most people considered Comcast more evil than Time Warner, but I think they have a single cap of 250 GB for ~$50.
 
[quote name='darthbudge']Rabbitt said it best.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm just paraphrasing David Lynch.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exli6rGldBc[/media]
 
Well hopefully they just keep the cap in Greensboro and leave Raleigh alone, if not.. I'll go to DSL if I have to. I'm a pretty big downloader and find the levels just ridiculous. If they were to put the comcast 250 gb limit, that seems alot more realistic. But, $55 for 40 gb of data? What fucking year are we in?
 
Since I use the internet FAR more than anyone ever should, I would never be able to afford paying for my usage. It's just preposterous to even think about. If it came between paying by the usage and not having internet at all, I might have to choose the latter because that's freaking highway robbery.
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Hell no. You've seen internet service in other first world countries? Why don't the companies get off their ass and improve the bandwidth.[/QUOTE]

Oh please.

This is like asking them to make less money and be happy with it while also spending money to make the service more expensive to run (but better for their customers). It's not something they've considered at all.

The problem with these tier plans is that so few people in America give a damn about the 'net. It's still stigmatized as a nerdy thing (outside of stuff like Facebook and ...ugh, Twitter). Likewise, since we are generally a country of tech-illiterate idiots, most of them won't understand, care, or bother with creating an uproar about tiered packages.

So if 99% of your current customer base doesn't care and goes with the cheapest plan, then there's very little to tell Time Warner that this sucks and they are damn criminals for considering it. They'll do it, the people who care get screwed, TW swipes bigger profits, and no longer has any incentive to upgrade their service.

The scary thing about all that is that they'll start a trend for everyone to go the same route. We look like cavemen already to the rest of the world in this arena - this'll make us look like we never climbed out of the ooze.

Edit: The prices remind me of how much a drink costs at a movie theater. Four bucks, with promises of medium for only another fifty cents, and then a large above that for only another quarter. It effectively eliminates wanting to get a small because the price for upgrades is minimal. I can see all the TW reps saying "But for only ten bucks more you can get double the bandwidth." And even though that statement is bullshit in a number of ways, it'll work.

Never mind that most people never finish half those damned tubs of soda.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm kinda surprised they haven't put that cap in Charlotte, NC considering TW has a cable monopoly down here.

40gb is not a lot, especially in the age we live in. Putting caps on your flat fee is fine with me, but where they put the cap is the problem. 250gb is fine, 40gb is not.
 
As a time warner customer, I am also saddened. It sucks further because DSL is my only alternative. I'm waiting for FIOS or U-verse to become available to have another option.
 
So I downloaded a program that shows how much data you use.

I just watched 2 episodes of Lost on abc.com in standard def. A total of 1.7GB for both episodes. This is a fucking joke. I don'tcan't afford to have cable so I have to watch shows online. They better change this plan because if they don't I will have to cancel or seriously change my internet usage.
 
29.99 for 5GB?! Are they crazy? 5GB for 9.99 sounds more reasonable. This crap is ridiculous, and I hope that other ISPs don't follow their example. But I have a feeling that others will.

It's annoying to see that in other countries people are getting double or triple the speed we get for half the price. Yet, we keep getting gouged by companies like TW.
 
[quote name='homeland']Curious what they do if people have unsecured networks.[/quote]

Interesting point. I can just see everyone leaching off them one month and once they get the bill...

If Time Warner does this in my area, which seems likely considering the OP's Links, I'll be choosing another ISP ASAP.
 
Well I know that I can blow by the first three tier in no time at all due to:
1) Netflix streaming
2) Podcasts (I listen to quite a few a day)
3) Online gaming
4) Downloads of legal software and tools (I'm a software developer so I tend to download anything and everything that could help me).

I'm seriously considering switching to AT&T Uverse and already was due to time warner cable's complete shit fest of TV service (Their HD offering is a joke). I can blow through the first three tiers of the cap with just netflix streaming, podcasts, and normal browsing. I haven't received anything from Time Warner informing me of when this is going to take effect so I have some time to find out what the Uverse service is like.
 
I just hope that enough people get pissed off about this to force any company considering this to change their minds. Otherwise we'll have a situation like strell described.
 
[quote name='PenguinoMF']So I downloaded a program that shows how much data you use.

I just watched 2 episodes of Lost on abc.com in standard def. A total of 1.7GB for both episodes. This is a fucking joke. I don'tcan't afford to have cable so I have to watch shows online. They better change this plan because if they don't I will have to cancel or seriously change my internet usage.[/quote]

Which program did you use?
 
Those caps are really low, pretty much all the PC games I buy these days are from Steam and I would be screwed with those kind of caps.
 
[quote name='Kaijufan']Those caps are really low, pretty much all the PC games I buy these days are from Steam and I would be screwed with those kind of caps.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Looking at my steam folder it is already at about 50 gb in size with everything downloaded, so if I got a new computer and wanted to put my collection on it I couldn't even download everything with the $45 plan. I would definitely switch to DSL if this happened.
 
[quote name='homeland']Curious what they do if people have unsecured networks.[/QUOTE]

TW (like any other ISP) won't view it as their problem. If you're running unauthorized hardware to split an internet connection (which ISPs view routers as) you're still responsible for the usage. Pleading ignorance regarding an unsecured network you're running in violation of your service agreement won't get you anywhere.

Your ISP will say you should know how to use your own aftermarket hardware better, highlight the violation and legal clause regarding usage of such hardware, and still ask you for the amount due. There's going to be a lot of shit hitting the fan over things like an unsecure network, but the ISPs can and will get away with it.

I'd be furious if my ISP was imposing the usage tiers that TW is. I currently have Comcast and I'm not too thrilled at all about the 250GB cap, but I've yet to run over it and we've got a lot of devices that run through our router for internet access. Compared to the usage tiers and pricing TW is going to use though Comcast is suddenly a total bargain.
 
[quote name='captainfrizo']I currently have Comcast and I'm not too thrilled at all about the 250GB cap, but I've yet to run over it and we've got a lot of devices that run through our router for internet access. Compared to the usage tiers and pricing TW is going to use though Comcast is suddenly a total bargain.[/QUOTE]

How many GB have you been using each month? I would be fine with 250. 40 or less is ridiculous.
 
This is bullshit; Comcast has talked about this to in Philadelphia.

I don't support the limit of internet usages at all, but have tiers as your pricing structure and not use the same pricing model of utilities service like water and power. These are two services that also have a similar consumable coming into your home. Why would you want to scare your costumer off your product wouldn't you want as much of your service being used as possible.

Also how can this work with business? I'm guessing they would have larger cap but now you have to make sure your employee is wasting your rare and most precious of all the natural resources the internet. I in vision TW guys in the Amazon digging for a rock and the one screams "i find it more internet, porn for everyone!"


And another thing with things like cloud software and OnLive which the people working on it one day envisioning it being brought to the corporate environment and have companies like Adobe, Autodesk and Microsoft software use it. Why if OnLive could be most viable option to stamp out pirates in years would they every not try to stop this at all cost.
 
My 2009 usage:

Code: 
[U]Date[/U]	        [U]Download[/U]	 [U]Upload[/U]	         [U]Total[/U]
Apr 2009	10.01 GB	0.89 GB	        10.90 GB
Mar 2009	127.06 GB	25.05 GB	152.11 GB
Feb 2009	71.83 GB	8.89 GB	        80.72 GB
Jan 2009	89.64 GB	16.28 GB	105.92 GB

on comcast, they complain if i go >250gb/mo.. i don't really do anything excessive. hulu, porn, videogames.. a couple torrents here and there but not much
 
[quote name='Strell']Oh please.

This is like asking them to make less money and be happy with it while also spending money to make the service more expensive to run (but better for their customers). It's not something they've considered at all.

The problem with these tier plans is that so few people in America give a damn about the 'net. It's still stigmatized as a nerdy thing (outside of stuff like Facebook and ...ugh, Twitter). Likewise, since we are generally a country of tech-illiterate idiots, most of them won't understand, care, or bother with creating an uproar about tiered packages.

So if 99% of your current customer base doesn't care and goes with the cheapest plan, then there's very little to tell Time Warner that this sucks and they are damn criminals for considering it. They'll do it, the people who care get screwed, TW swipes bigger profits, and no longer has any incentive to upgrade their service.

The scary thing about all that is that they'll start a trend for everyone to go the same route. We look like cavemen already to the rest of the world in this arena - this'll make us look like we never climbed out of the ooze.

Edit: The prices remind me of how much a drink costs at a movie theater. Four bucks, with promises of medium for only another fifty cents, and then a large above that for only another quarter. It effectively eliminates wanting to get a small because the price for upgrades is minimal. I can see all the TW reps saying "But for only ten bucks more you can get double the bandwidth." And even though that statement is bullshit in a number of ways, it'll work.

Never mind that most people never finish half those damned tubs of soda.[/QUOTE]

Well said. Your analogy works well, too.
 
jay_sherman_it_stinks.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The worst part about all of this is that most people only have one choice (maybe two) when it comes to ISPs. So companies like TW and Comcast have absolutely no competition.

Where I currently live there is only one choice for broadband (cable company), so if my ISP decides to implement this, I don't even have the option of switching to something else like DSL.
 
Lack of choice will be what screws a lot of people over when it comes to things like this. What can you do when your only option changes it's pricing scheme?
 
As a gamer, I would go through 5GB like water. I just bought two games off Steam last weekend during their sale, and I think they came in at 4GB apiece. That doesn't include the game videos or anime (off Hulu) I watch all the time.

ISPs are morons for adverting download rates of 10Mbps or whatever, and then complaining when people start using half that bandwidth on a regular basis. If their network can't handle it, fine. Throttle people back to 2Mbps or whatever, and offer the higher speeds at higher rates. But the idea of paying per GB is just BS.

I'm using Time Warner in Syracuse NY, which is pretty close to Rochester. If they roll this plan out here I'm instantly switching to Verizon FIOS. I'd switch now except it would cost me a little more per month for faster speeds I don't really need. I might wait until they announce a cost structure change, just to make a statement.
 
the market won't let them anyway it's no problem.. their competition will run commercials underscoring that with them you get unlimited 'net while TW limits how much you can use it.. it's marketing suicide.. even the grandmas that only use 1gb/month don't wanna worry about having a limit.. look how popular unlimited cell phone plans are, even with ppl who'd never even approach their limit. customers hate limits.
 
yeah this is crap.
This pay per usage will only do well if 250gb/month was what we are currently playing, 50$. 250gb is an artificial cap by comcast/cox where they will flag you for abuse of fair use policy at least thats what I have heard around on the internets.

I make sure I am under that limit, so if you can save you money I am all for it. Anything like the pricing the OP had is not gonna fly.
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']The worst part about all of this is that most people only have one choice (maybe two) when it comes to ISPs. So companies like TW and Comcast have absolutely no competition.

Where I currently live there is only one choice for broadband (cable company), so if my ISP decides to implement this, I don't even have the option of switching to something else like DSL.[/quote]

I don't even have the choice of DSL. I've got Time Warner, but I haven't heard anything yet. This will suck if they do it here. On the other hand, DSL in the area is Fair Point, so maybe tiered fees won't be so bad.

TBW
 
[quote name='ChibiAcer']I'm using Time Warner in Syracuse NY, which is pretty close to Rochester. If they roll this plan out here I'm instantly switching to Verizon FIOS. I'd switch now except it would cost me a little more per month for faster speeds I don't really need. I might wait until they announce a cost structure change, just to make a statement.[/quote]

I can't believe that you live in an area that offers FIOS and are still with Time Warner. A little more in fees would be worth it to get away from the cable companies.

TBW
 
[quote name='Koggit']the market won't let them anyway it's no problem.. their competition will run commercials underscoring that with them you get unlimited 'net while TW limits how much you can use it.. it's marketing suicide.. even the grandmas that only use 1gb/month don't wanna worry about having a limit.. look how popular unlimited cell phone plans are, even with ppl who'd never even approach their limit. customers hate limits.[/QUOTE]

I can see it either way. Most people just don't consider the 'net as indispensable (mostly the older generations), and I could see them saying "I just have to use it every other day." Not quite like phones, which have been around for a long time, and are far more practical to the less technologically inclined.

But then again, maybe TW's competitors will air commercials that specifically say TIME WARNER IS GOING TO RUIN YOUR SHIT, in which case, I hope they go down in flames, sending a strong message to anyone else bastard enough to want to try this.

I just hate the fact that, generally, you pay different prices based on how much speed you want. But ISPs can't even deliver in that area, and now instead of solving that issue, they are moving right on toward bandwidth limits, which is completely counterproductive in the tech-oriented future that marches on more and more each day. Seems like gouging in a big picture sort of way.
 
This is bullshit. I'm in the rochester market (not the metro area though) so my only other choice is shitty verizon DSL service. TW has already been pissing me off with connection speeds that seem to get worse by the day and half my HD channels are not coming in properly. If FIOS were in my area, I would gladly pay double what I pay for TW if they just advertised the same capabilities and actually delivered. Hell, I'll proably just end up living with the DSL and switching to satellite. fuck TW!

Update: I just checked out verizon's service availability tool and the fastest plan they offer in my area is only 1.5 mbps. DAMNIT!!!!

/endrant
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='PenguinoMF']Networx.[/quote]

Hey, thanks for this!!:D Looks like some good freeware...my friend showed me one not too long ago, something like Bandwith meter, but I think you had to pay for that one or it was limited use or soemthing like that
 
GAWWD! We'd be so Fed. Me AND my roomate have Steam, play MMOs, watch Hulu, and then some. We reach most of those limits in a week.

On a side note, I have DSL and don't see the problem with it. Especially since we live in an apartment and to my knowledge wed be slowed down by other apartments with cable if we had it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top