dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-03-10 11:57:15: You might recall that Time Warner Cable saw a bit of a public relations disaster when in 2009 they tried to impose caps as low as 1GB and overages up to $2 per gigabyte. As with most of these efforts, the ISP made things worse for itself by assumi.. ..

prev page · 1 · 2
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

$50 Price point

I think metering is a good thing, IF AND ONLY IF it is applied only to price points below $50. If cable providers wants to compete against cheap DSL plans with a 10GB capped plan or something, the more power to them. And if they want to cap and throttle D2 modems to push people onto D3, I'll buy a D3 modem. Fine. The $50 price points and up should be unlimited, however. I'm kind of torn on Comcast's approach, as I am the only one in the house who uses a lot of bandwidth, so it's a non-issue, but fundamentally I believe Comcast should support unlimited downloads for people who have D3 modems.

I have no issue paying legitimately to support the network for what I use, but when it turns into a game of ripping people off, then it's not OK. And I think the $50 price point with a user-owned D3 modem is where the line is there.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

1 recommendation

An overlooked point...

The one thing that always gets overlooked in these discussions is that EVERY internet account already has a cap, imposed by the speed you pay for.

If you pay for xxMbs, that determines how much you can download in any given month. If you pay for 10Mbs service, then 10Mbs is your top download speed. There are no tricks that would allow you to go over it, so your cap is determined by how much you could theoretically download in a month. Admittedly, that's quite a lot, certainly more than any cap currently offered by any ISP, but that's kind of the point.

The ISPs offer these different speed tiers, knowing full well that there is already a practical limit to how much can be downloaded in a month, and then they turn around and tell customers that they gave them too much and will have to limit how much they can use.

When was the last time you went to a buffet, filled up your plate and sat down to eat, only to have the manager come over and tell you that you'd only be allowed to eat 25% of the food that you took?

What if you paid for 10 gallons of gas, but were only allowed to pump 6 gallons into your car?

How about if a company quoted you a price for painting your entire house and then stopped after only doing half of it because they claim it's using up too much of their paint?

All of the above would be against the law and the companies involved would be fined. So why are ISPs allowed to do exactly this? They sell you an account with "up to" xxx amount of usage each month and then place an artificial limit on the account, which is much lower than the actual limit that you paid for. Why isn't this illegal?

And don't give me the old argument that no ISP could support every user being allowed to use their account to the fullest. If that's the case, then they shouldn't be allowed to sell accounts that they can't support. Imagine what would happen if a cable company was selling 500 channel packages, but could only deliver about 100 channels to each subscriber because they'd over-sold their capacity. I'd like to see someone try and defend that business model.
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

Re: An overlooked point...

Every time this comes up, most just hold their hand out and say let me have it for free. The fact is you DO NOT pay for an unlimited account, you are on a shared system with others on an infrastructure. Internet access is LIMITED by technology, and physical infrastructures. Millions if not BILLIONS are invested into private companies network infrastructures each year.

It comes with a cost.... You want it, Pay for it.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: An overlooked point...

said by gunther_01:

Every time this comes up, most just hold their hand out and say let me have it for free. The fact is you DO NOT pay for an unlimited account, you are on a shared system with others on an infrastructure. Internet access is LIMITED by technology, and physical infrastructures. Millions if not BILLIONS are invested into private companies network infrastructures each year.

It comes with a cost.... You want it, Pay for it.

Advertise it as such. The account is not unlimited to start with, but ARTIFICIAL limits are imposed, often post facto.
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

Re: An overlooked point...

I'm sure if you read your Terms of service, they are allowed to do so.. And you may even be able to get out of the contract after the fact.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it illegal or un-fair. And definately doesn't turn a company that brough you a service (you may have not been able to get previous to them) into crooks and thieves.
I'm not standing up for "Time" directly. But most of you are believing media hype and socialist agendas based off of myths that it doesn't "cost" an ISP anything. Or that they can provide this content for nothing. That is absolutely FALSE.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net
rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

Re: An overlooked point...

I could write a contract saying that I can kill you if I want. Even if you sign it that doesn't mean I can kill you. Just because it's in a contract that doesn't mean the contract term is legal or enforceable. Companies are routinely sued for putting illegal terms in contracts, it happens ALL the time. Courts routinely throw out contracts or contract terms (if the contract is severable).

Mr Nobody

@rogers.com
Slight correction. Isp's don't provide content. They provide access TO content. Also, no one is advocating getting something for free. The contention is that the costs charged be fair and inline with costs plus a reasonable markup. Proposing to a captive market that 1000% to 10,000% profit be paid for a service where costs are declining is both unconscionable and criminal.
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

Re: An overlooked point...

Your out of your mind with 1,000 10,000% mark-up. Again, believing the "hype" and fake, unsubstantiated numbers. Go purchase a T-1 (1.54mbps up and down) for your home. Then tell me if your $50/month for non-guaranteed bandwith is WORTH what you pay.

Look it up, then reply by all means.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06
TWC collects almost $20 billion, so "investing millions if not BILLIONS" is hardly extraordinary. They raise rates every year, and are profitable, so it seems that everything is paid for, no? Maybe if they want to offer gigabit fiber to the home they should have a monthly cap of 10TB while the costs are paid off...
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT
said by gunther_01:

Every time this comes up, most just hold their hand out and say let me have it for free.

No, we're saying "Be honest!" Don't advertise a 10Mbs+ account if you don't have the capacity to actually let people use it. What's so hard to understand about that?

said by gunther_01:

The fact is you DO NOT pay for an unlimited account, you are on a shared system with others on an infrastructure. Internet access is LIMITED by technology, and physical infrastructures. Millions if not BILLIONS are invested into private companies network infrastructures each year.

The problem is that the limitations aren't being imposed by the technology, they're imposed by the company.

As for money being invested into the infrastructure; No ISP invests money to be able to deliver what they advertise. They invest money to be able to advertise fantasy accounts that their infrastructure can't handle.

Have the infrastructure to handle 5Mbs to every house? Advertise a 15Mbs tier! Infrastructure to handle 10Mbs? Advertise 30Mbs! Infrastructure for 30Mbs? Advertise 100Mbs!

said by gunther_01:

It comes with a cost.... You want it, Pay for it.

I do pay for it. What I object to is paying for xxx capacity and then being told that they have to place limits on my account because they can't handle the capacity that they sold me. (if that's even true)
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

Re: An overlooked point...

said by Rekrul:

said by gunther_01:

Every time this comes up, most just hold their hand out and say let me have it for free.

No, we're saying "Be honest!" Don't advertise a 10Mbs+ account if you don't have the capacity to actually let people use it. What's so hard to understand about that?

Internet Access for residential accounts is sold on the basis that it will not be used 24x7 like a commercial account. That is why it is (1) not Guaranteed, and (2) not hundreds of dollars a month because you have near dedicated hardware and circuits to be able to provide that bandwidth to you as a commercial account

said by gunther_01:

The fact is you DO NOT pay for an unlimited account, you are on a shared system with others on an infrastructure. Internet access is LIMITED by technology, and physical infrastructures. Millions if not BILLIONS are invested into private companies network infrastructures each year.

The problem is that the limitations aren't being imposed by the technology, they're imposed by the company. This is only partially true. There are limitations on infrastructure with cable line systems, DSL systems, and Wireless systems.. Even Fiber optic systems. Each with it's own maximums available to "share" between multiple customers all at once.

As for money being invested into the infrastructure; No ISP invests money to be able to deliver what they advertise. They invest money to be able to advertise fantasy accounts that their infrastructure can't handle. Not true

Have the infrastructure to handle 5Mbs to every house? Advertise a 15Mbs tier! Infrastructure to handle 10Mbs? Advertise 30Mbs! Infrastructure for 30Mbs? Advertise 100Mbs!

said by gunther_01:

It comes with a cost.... You want it, Pay for it.

I do pay for it. What I object to is paying for xxx capacity and then being told that they have to place limits on my account because they can't handle the capacity that they sold me. (if that's even true)

You don't pay for xxx capacity.. You pay for a maximum "allowed" capacity. Not a guaranteed capacity. Again, I will challenge
you as well to go price a T-1 to your home. That is guaranteed bandwidth you can use all day every day for whatever you want. I bet you will not be willing to pay for that.



The FACT of the matter is people are ticked because they want service for near free when it DOES cost money to deliver it. No matter what you think, or how you think it "should" work, companies are in business to make money.. PERIOD.. I suppose everyone here thinks it's so unfair that a company, designed to sell a service, and make money off of it actually makes a profit.

So do car companies, restaurants, mom and pop stores of all sorts Etc... But I suppose you will go running in to their place of business and demand that you got ripped off because they make a profit also.

The Internet delivery market place has changed DRAMATICALLY in the past few years. ALL of that has been caused by the content available online. ALL of it. If you really stopped and looked at what you have available to you now online, and put a percentage of available content (increase) figure on it, how much would your bill have been adjusted if the two were proportionately raised??? HOW MUCH!!!

Oh yea, it really hasn't has it? Not unless you choose to utilize everything available to you. And then you will pay extra. Just like you should
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Re: An overlooked point...

said by gunther_01:

Internet Access for residential accounts is sold on the basis that it will not be used 24x7 like a commercial account. That is why it is (1) not Guaranteed, and (2) not hundreds of dollars a month because you have near dedicated hardware and circuits to be able to provide that bandwidth to you as a commercial account

In other words, while an ISP will be more than happy to sell every user a 30Mbs account, they don't actually want the customers to USE those accounts. Moreover, they can't actually support customers using those accounts.

So basically, they're selling a lie. They tell you that you'll have speeds "up to" xxMbs, knowing full well that the users won't be able to achieve those speeds. And if they can achieve those speeds, the ISP will take other actions, such as imposing caps, to prevent the users from fully utilizing the account that they were only too happy to sell them.

said by gunther_01:

This is only partially true. There are limitations on infrastructure with cable line systems, DSL systems, and Wireless systems.. Even Fiber optic systems. Each with it's own maximums available to "share" between multiple customers all at once.

Yes, except that the company over-estimates how much can delivered to any one single customer. What they advertise is the theoretical maximum, not a realistic estimate of what they'll actually be able to deliver.

said by gunther_01:

As for money being invested into the infrastructure; No ISP invests money to be able to deliver what they advertise. They invest money to be able to advertise fantasy accounts that their infrastructure can't handle. Not true

Absolutely true. My friend pays Comcast for a 15Mbs account ("up to"), however his maximum download speed is usually under 900K/s. While he occasionally gets "up to" 1,500K/s, it's usually much lower, sometimes by as much as 50%. Comcast can't deliver a steady 15Mbs to customers who pay for that speed, but are they upgrading their infrastructure to be able to actually provide that? No, they're upgrading so that they can offer 100Mbs accounts, which they also won't be able to actually provide.

With most cable ISPs, you have to pay for twice as much speed as you can actually use most of the time.

said by gunther_01:

You don't pay for xxx capacity.. You pay for a maximum "allowed" capacity. Not a guaranteed capacity. Again, I will challenge you as well to go price a T-1 to your home. That is guaranteed bandwidth you can use all day every day for whatever you want. I bet you will not be willing to pay for that.


I challenge you to find me a single average person who looks at the ads promising blazingly fast internet access and thinks "Gee, I'll probably only be able to utilize a small portion of such an account."

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, outside of ISP employees and tech nerds, looks at those ads and expects to get a significantly more limited account than the ad appears to promise.

Not to mention that the internet industry is the only one that is allowed to use the phrase "up to" in such a way. If a buffet restaurant advertises that you can eat "up to" 5 plates of food for $10, it is understood that each customer may eat 5 plates worth of food if they so choose. It doesn't mean that the management can come over and take away two of your plates.

If a store runs a sale on a particular item where you can buy "up to" 10 units for $1 each, you don't get up to the register and the cashier will only sell you 4 of them.

said by gunther_01:

The FACT of the matter is people are ticked because they want service for near free when it DOES cost money to deliver it. No matter what you think, or how you think it "should" work, companies are in business to make money.. PERIOD.. I suppose everyone here thinks it's so unfair that a company, designed to sell a service, and make money off of it actually makes a profit.

Then they should be honest about what they can deliver.

Look at Comcast's products page for Internet service;

»www.comcast.com/Corporate/Learn/···&pos=Nav

I see no mention of actual speeds being up to 50% slower than advertised. Sure, there's a brief mention down in the fine print that actual speeds may vary, but nobody interprets the word "vary" to mean that they will get half what they pay for. Also the US FTC has ruled that burying limitations and exceptions in fine print doesn't prevent an ad from qualifying as false advertising. Nor do I see any mention, even in the fine print about Comcast's 250GB usage cap.

And if a user signs up for a 20Mbs account and can only get a download speed of 10Mbs, shouldn't they only have to pay half their bill?
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

Re: An overlooked point...

You really miss the whole point here.. you are not guaranteed anything.... Commercial accounts are however.

What is happening is because of consumer demand, the added content, and added compitition pushing the market to faster speed. Reduced capacities are a direct result of sustained usage. Improvements are made because of it.

Here is what will happen by all the complaining people want to do in regards to slow service.. your speeds will go down, and your prices will go up, end of story. If you even remotely understood the ISP market place, bandwidth, infrastructure, labor costs, businesss, Etc.

Once you guarantee something, extra costs are involved. Now again, I'm not condoning poor business practices, and not delivering at least close to a reasonable amount of their proposed speeds. It even sounds like they are upgrading to increase those speeds??.
I use a cable modem at home and it works well. I sell Internet that works well.. Do I check my speeds all the time at home? No I don't, I don't need to, and I realize its not guaranteed. If I paid FULL price for guaranteed, you better believe I would care about it, and I would scream over it if I did not get it. But in any other case, I have more important things to worry about. Like my water,electric,gas,food,transportation, and anything else I need to survive.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Re: An overlooked point...

said by gunther_01:

You really miss the whole point here.. you are not guaranteed anything.... Commercial accounts are however.

What is happening is because of consumer demand, the added content, and added compitition pushing the market to faster speed. Reduced capacities are a direct result of sustained usage. Improvements are made because of it.

I understand that. What I don't understand is ISPs selling service tiers that they know in advance that they can't support. And then placing artificial limits on those services.

If a given tier can't actually support real-world usage by their customers, why are they offering it? In other words, why are ISPs signing up entire neighborhoods for 15-30Mbs service when they know that the speed will degrade to 5-15Mbs once enough people have signed up and start using it? Shouldn't they be selling accounts based on what they can actually deliver?

And why are the allowed to advertise that their service is ideal for streaming video when they place caps on the account to make it impractical to actually watch streaming video?

said by gunther_01:

Once you guarantee something, extra costs are involved. Now again, I'm not condoning poor business practices, and not delivering at least close to a reasonable amount of their proposed speeds. It even sounds like they are upgrading to increase those speeds??.

If their infrastructure can't deliver 15Mbs to the people that pay for that service tier, how do they expect to deliver a service that's 7 times faster? If they have the bandwidth to offer 100Mbs service, then shouldn't they have plenty for the people who are only using 15Mbs?

Somehow it never works that way though. All service tiers deliver less than the advertised speed.

Also, what's the point of offering 100Mbs service with a 250GB usage cap? So people can blow through their monthly quota in 7 hours? Come on, nobody is going to pay for a 100Mbs account without the expectation that they'll be able to download massive amounts of stuff, or watch hours of streaming HD video.

said by gunther_01:

I use a cable modem at home and it works well. I sell Internet that works well.. Do I check my speeds all the time at home? No I don't, I don't need to, and I realize its not guaranteed. If I paid FULL price for guaranteed, you better believe I would care about it, and I would scream over it if I did not get it. But in any other case, I have more important things to worry about. Like my water,electric,gas,food,transportation, and anything else I need to survive.

I have AT&T 12Mbs U-Verse service and at this point in time, it works well and I always get the advertised speed. I imagine that's because not too many people around here have signed up for it. When I download from the newsgroups, my software indicates a steady 1,100-1,400K/s download rate. Of course I get less from other sources, but that's their fault, not the ISP's.

Almost all of my friends have traditional cable internet service from Comcast, Cablevision, etc, and they all get significantly less download speed than they supposedly pay for. Plus, Comcast imposes a 250GB usage limit each month.
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

Re: An overlooked point...

said by Rekrul:

said by gunther_01:

You really miss the whole point here.. you are not guaranteed anything.... Commercial accounts are however.

What is happening is because of consumer demand, the added content, and added compitition pushing the market to faster speed. Reduced capacities are a direct result of sustained usage. Improvements are made because of it.

I understand that. What I don't understand is ISPs selling service tiers that they know in advance that they can't support. And then placing artificial limits on those services.

If a given tier can't actually support real-world usage by their customers, why are they offering it? In other words, why are ISPs signing up entire neighborhoods for 15-30Mbs service when they know that the speed will degrade to 5-15Mbs once enough people have signed up and start using it? Shouldn't they be selling accounts based on what they can actually deliver?

And why are the allowed to advertise that their service is ideal for streaming video when they place caps on the account to make it impractical to actually watch streaming video?
They don't know (exactly) what the network will support. They have a good idea, but you also really need to look at current trends in bandwidth usage. They are changing VERY fast. I, like a lot of other providers have doubled my bandwidth we purchase 3 times in the past 6 months. That means say I started at 10 Meg, and went to 20, then 40.. Compounded my doubling. (I used those numbers for ease) The "problem" is that in average use, you buy all this bandwidth and it does NOT get used.. It goes to waste.. I paid for it, but I HAVE to buy bandwidth based on a balance of peak usage and non peak usage. No body can build and buy for peak usage, and charge residential rates.. NO BODY. So we use what's called a contention ratio. Basically (if you don't know) we take the customers, times the speed sold, divided by available raw speeds purchased. Not that long ago you could provide service with a 50+:1 ratio. Now it's down to 10:1 or less, in a pretty good network. The key factors now are how many customers (in a particular area) and also if you can get, or have the bandwidth to insert in to your network. It's been this way for ever. It's noticeable now mainly because of the demand and wide spread usage of the Internet.

Marketing is great isn't it.. I hope to don't believe everything you see on TV


said by gunther_01:

Once you guarantee something, extra costs are involved. Now again, I'm not condoning poor business practices, and not delivering at least close to a reasonable amount of their proposed speeds. It even sounds like they are upgrading to increase those speeds??.

If their infrastructure can't deliver 15Mbs to the people that pay for that service tier, how do they expect to deliver a service that's 7 times faster? If they have the bandwidth to offer 100Mbs service, then shouldn't they have plenty for the people who are only using 15Mbs?
NO, because of technology. With cable modems there are limitations to how many, and how fast you can modulate data across a cable line (as is the case with every technology). If they are upgrading, lord knows what they are planning or how they are going about it. Docsis3? Fiber? Both, Fiber to the head end or around town to Docsis3 mini distribution then to homes? It really depends. But chances are it WILL get better. Market demands, demand it.
Somehow it never works that way though. All service tiers deliver less than the advertised speed.
They will for the most part. Only if that area is not being congested, or used heavily. Some companies, and areas are obviously better then others

Also, what's the point of offering 100Mbs service with a 250GB usage cap? So people can blow through their monthly quota in 7 hours? Come on, nobody is going to pay for a 100Mbs account without the expectation that they'll be able to download massive amounts of stuff, or watch hours of streaming HD video.

You know how I have been talking about congestion? Higher speeds (generally) mean that your download will take less time to download. Thus lowering the amount of time that the network is fully overloaded by the whole group. In turn, the network is then NOT overloaded as much, and everyone (in theory) is able to enjoy it without huge lags in performance. Example: Take 20 people on a 10Meg Internet connection. Tell them all to download a Netflix movie at the same time on that 1 Ten meg connection. Doesn't work that great would it. Now try it with a 100Meg connection. It works better. Same principle, but in a larger scale

said by gunther_01:

I use a cable modem at home and it works well. I sell Internet that works well.. Do I check my speeds all the time at home? No I don't, I don't need to, and I realize its not guaranteed. If I paid FULL price for guaranteed, you better believe I would care about it, and I would scream over it if I did not get it. But in any other case, I have more important things to worry about. Like my water,electric,gas,food,transportation, and anything else I need to survive.

I have AT&T 12Mbs U-Verse service and at this point in time, it works well and I always get the advertised speed. I imagine that's because not too many people around here have signed up for it. When I download from the newsgroups, my software indicates a steady 1,100-1,400K/s download rate. Of course I get less from other sources, but that's their fault, not the ISP's.

Almost all of my friends have traditional cable internet service from Comcast, Cablevision, etc, and they all get significantly less download speed than they supposedly pay for. Plus, Comcast imposes a 250GB usage limit each month.


--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net
gunther_01
Premium
join:2004-03-29
Saybrook, IL

Re: An overlooked point...

Another thing to consider, since no-one seems to bring it up.

There is about 10% TCP overhead in data transmissions. Most speed tests just send a file and figure out how fast that file got back to them. NOT the overhead as well.

Again, not saying a 9meg reduction in speed is 10% in your friends case.
--
»www.wirelessdatanet.net

MIABye
Premium
join:2001-10-28
united state

No To Metered Broadband!

I love my TW connection, and I fear for it *sniff*
gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

where can we email this ass or someone in spime warner

i think it is a good idea to send these greedy asses some emails.got any addresses add em here and we can all check.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Metered bandwidth

Then will come the "weights and measures" portion of the game, whereas they'll have to come up with a way to properly measure everyone's usage. I have Comcast and the data light on my cable modem is flashing, even though the computers are turned off and it's just background stuff that is being transmitted by the router that is turned on all the time but is idle. Then there will be the issue of retransmits and lost packets, are those going to be included. So in my opinion, there is no accurate way to to measure usage. I have Verizon Wireless mobile broadband, but that is only turned on when I am actually using it and it VZ Access Manager tells me how much data I've used in the current billing cycle when I connect. Metered billing will be a costly disaster in the long run because of angry customers and customer service issues related to billing. Then there is the Debt Collection issue when a customer refuses to pay an how are they going to prove that the data was actually initiated by the customer and not some background transmissions that the customer is unaware of. I would much rather have the 250 GB cap as opposed to usage based billing, especially with the nature of cable modems because they are left on all the time, whereas cellular modems are only on when they are being used. And I don't use anywhere near the 250 GB cap but that may change because I am now using Netflix.
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

Only inevitable if TWC wants blood in the streets

Low caps and high overage charges are only inevitable if TWC and other ISPs buy politicians and if that happens there will blood in the streets!
genzoulv

join:2004-10-05
Las Vegas, NV

1 edit

Re: Only inevitable if TWC wants blood in the streets

Umm.. no need for violence. Enough people cancelling will easily solve the problem. Just be willing to go without Internet or shitty net for awhile. Speaking with your wallet is what hurts corps the most. People can complain all they like, but if they're not willing to take action as simple as this nothing will change. It's exactly why cell companies can charge UBB now. People can bitch all they like, but when u have your shiny new toy and you're not willing to sacrifice going without internet on it to show how disgusted you are with their new pricing model then why should any company change if you don't take any action? They have no reason to if you're still shelling the money out. You can cry about it all you like, but you're still contributing to their actions by paying your bill each month and not going elsewhere.
grafenberg

join:2002-02-01

Bring on the caps.

The telecoms should be allowed to implement caps only if they are required to advertise their speed as the maximum data rate that would be sustainable under the cap. You're not really getting 10Mbps if you can't get 10Mb for every second.

So for example, there are 2,592,000 seconds in a month(60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 30 days).

If the cap is 25GB the company should not be legally allowed to advertise their connection as anything greater than 25GB/2,592,000.

25GB = 25,000MB = 25,000,000kB = 200,000Mb = 200,000,000kb

200,000,000kb/2,592,000 seconds = 77.16kbps

Blazing fast broadband.

tbc518

@rr.com

Nobody has mentioned

Could you IMAGINE if you had a 10GB a month cap, and your computer got a virus, your box was rooted, and used to transfer warez?

Better get ready trying to convince customer care it wasn't your usage LOL
jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC

Metered Billing

Yeah, they wanted to implement a cap in Greensboro. But enough people sent them hate mail, hate calls, and scowling faces that they were forced NOT to do it. I won't do all that. If it is inevitable that they will implement metered billing then it is also inevitable that I will quietly leave as a customer and not come back.

TWC, do you really want to lose that nice monthly subscription revenue from me? It is OK if you do. Others would like my business as well. And I bet at least one of them would be willing to forgo the metered billing.

kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

Scum of the Earth TWC: $4B+ profit with $130M bandwidth cost

Disgusting, rotten piece of sh!t lying corporate scum - we need to crush these like cockroaches. ALL of them, without mercy.
ImBatman

join:2004-04-21
Lancaster, CA

How arrogant

This is what I despise about corporations: "It's going to happen whether the consumer likes it or not"
THAT alone is sufficient to tell TWC to go to hell again.
Or, any other company that thinks they are too damned big.

I do not care how large a company is, they should not be so arrogant. Of course, if the consumer sits back and takes it, then I guess we get what we deserve.