said by dhthwy :

The notion that if you're a heavy downloader means you're a software pirate is utterly ridiculous.

Just because YOU don't doesn't mean that everyone else that does is doing something wrong.

Streaming music at 128kbps running at 8 hours per day = ~ 13GB's a month by itself.

Did you know that many applications nowadays are available for download? Does this mean it must be pirated? No.

I'm guessing you never downloaded an album off of any site like itunes. Or used any movie download service. But under your thinking those that use those services on a regular basis should be booted just because they were given unlimited service and chose to use it. Oh, and if they voice concerns over a possible change in billing scheme then they're automatically labeled a pirate. Because legit users don't complain about such things, right?

For a single person the highest tier at 40GB is pretty generous. If this person happens to use over that , then this person could very well have a legitimate reason. There is plenty of ways to go over this cap, and downloading illegal software is just one of many.

However, people also have kids. Did you know that? There might be several computers in a single household. Jimmy might download a game now and then off steam and play video games a few hours a day on the internet using his PC or Xbox, etc. Jimmy could use a few Gigs a month just by playing those games himself. Sarah might have an Ipod where she goes to itunes and downloads a few albums a month. Their parents might subscribe to the netflix service where they download a few movies a month. Sarah also likes to stream music on winamp. Maybe this family has webcams streaming, some people like to leave their webcams on. Oh, they also have unlimited VOIP and their phone is practically tied up all night long. Add all that up and you can easily go past that 40GB mark.

People want unlimited service, even if they dont use it all. Many people get VOIP just to get cheap unlimited calls. Just because people have concerns over a possible change to a tier plan doesn't mean they're heavy downloaders, it doesn't necessarily mean they're downloading illegal software. You'd have to download a bunch of illegal software to approach the 40GB cap. I don't know anyone that sits there and downloads 40GB of illegal software every month.

If company X offers unlimited, and company Z offers a tiered plan. Which one would be the best value for your money? Regardless of how much you download, unlimited is the best value. It gives you peace of mind. Knowing that you don't have to worry about whats running on your comp so you don't wake up the next day and find that you're mysteriously used up 20 GB.

said by Mele20 :

Hey! You are typical **^%#@ yourself if you think everyone using BitTorrent is a thief. BitTorrent now has lots of pay for movies, games, music, etc. Plus, I suppose you are also a die hard Windows user who hates Linux or a BUNCH of other LEGIT software that the author asks that you download via BitTorrent...ever heard of 3DMark, ever use MajorGeeks for downloads or Softpedia, etc and see a BitTorrent download? Guess not. What do you do to use so much bandwidth?

said by kfsutops :

Drop the upload on P2P connections. I could care less. You are still under the belief that everybody that uses high bandwidth services is a P2P user. Typical cable crony. If you use the service you pay for, you must be stealing something. It's just not true.

said by hobgoblin :

[
This site appears to hate what Comcast are doing (Shutting off High Bandwidth users and employing what is said to drop upload P2P connections) and now they hate a pay per use model. I guess that is because this site contains a much larger percentage of top 5% users than most places.

Hob

said by jegesq :

If they try this in a more competitive market like Los Angeles, people will drop them so fast it will make their heads spin. Bewkes is nuts to try this. No offense to the fine folks in Beaumont, but it's not quite the same sort of market as Los Angeles and the rest of Southern California.

said by ucrazy51 :

I'm from the Beaumont, TX area and have verified that this is not true. They just upped our RR speed to 7000 kbps from 5000. They don't test anything in Beaumont market. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, or Austin maybe but not here...

said by Mele20 :

My usage above 5GB is primarily BT seeding and, of course, the more I seed the better my BT download speeds.

said by NormanS :

I doubt it. None of the other ISPs are considering per byte charges. If the RIAA gets their way, the model will be more as AT&T has announced: Packet filtering of the P2P protocols. That is not a supposition, that is an actual AT&T announcement of cooperation with the RIAA.

said by swintec :

It's just for sales huh.

said by kfsutops :

]Sure it does? This is a test on new customers (sales).

said by swintec :

t does not make sense to start something of this magnitude in a large city like LA or NY.

said by Dominokat :

That product is now every were. It is known as "VOIP" AKA: Time Warner Digital Phone Service. :)

said by kfsutops :

Then again, why do a test in a small market? Why not test it in LA, NY, or Florida?

said by hobgoblin :

Of course TW wants valid useful results from its test - They are running a business and would not want to roll out something that would put that business at risk.

said by B :

Well sure, we're agreed on that. But do you too endorse the bizarre claim that they don't want / intend / plan to roll it out nationwide? It's not just "a possibility" out of the ether; they want to do it.

I mean, it was in writing and everything. :)

-- B

said by hobgoblin :

Lets try this again.

The leaked memo did not state an intent to roll it out nationwide as you posted.

It stated an intent to evaluate the results.

But of course that doesn't fit with what you want people to believe does it.

said by hobgoblin :

"We will use the results of the trial to evaluate results for possible future nationwide rollouts"

Means that there are no plans beyond the test.

Other than maybe a plan to evaluate something!

said by B :

Factual?? I'd say it's clearly a lie -- the leaked memo very plainly stated their intent to roll it out nationwide.

Now they're lying/backpedaling and saying "there are no plans beyond that test". He's a weasel.

-- B

said by B :

Factual?? I'd say it's clearly a lie -- the leaked memo very plainly stated their intent to roll it out nationwide.

Now they're lying/backpedaling and saying "there are no plans beyond that test". He's a weasel.

-- B

said by Anonymous_ :

i see there stock going to "0" soon

as it all ready lost 50% in the past year

as every one will be jumping on ATT deal of 10/1.5 :D

it maybe a few more $ but it's worth it for all i can eat
/+0.5mbps more upload

said by Mele20 :

you brought it up by stating that TW isn't preventing other providers from providing cable TV in a given area which perhaps is true in YOUR area but not in Hawaii.

said by MacLeech :

That [Sherman AntiTrust act] doesn't apply... TWC isn't keeping other providers from offering broadband in the area [Beaumont, TX]. It's managing it's own network.

said by dmchose :

Now if TW unloads a pricing tier like what we are reading about

said by djrobx :

quote:

---

Ya know, this is going to have severe impact on movie down loads from not only Apple/Itunes ( 300 is a 1.4 gig file) and HBO/TW/AOL ( just announced) market.

---

Time Warner would much rather you purchase 300 through their On Demand service. As for HBO/TW, TW can always add an exclusion to their bandwidth meter, much like a telco does toll free phone calls.

said by Baseline :

Well, I can't wait for some more people from Beaumont, TX to jump on this thread as soon as they get a bill explaining the new pricing model.

said by Pizz :

You 2 work for TW or have alot of equity in the company?

said by jarschmi :

how the heck am I supposed to keep track of my usage?

said by Baseline :

Well, I can't wait for some more people from Beaumont, TX to jump on this thread as soon as they get a bill explaining the new pricing model.

said by Matt :

Ignore takes care of her ridiculousness quite easily.

said by hobgoblin :

I'd respond Melee but its so off topic.

Hob

said by hobgoblin :

I'd respond Melee but its so off topic.

Hob

said by MacLeech :

That doesn't apply... TWC isn't keeping other providers from offering broadband in the area. It's managing it's own network.

If it did apply then it could apply to telco, electric, water, gas, and any other provider that uses metered service.... even possibly your local all you can eat buffet charging for take out by the pound or container....

said by Pizz :

and in the end, he who gives the most service for a cheap cost wins. who will do it?

said by Matt :

They do advertise that tier now in most markets:

»www.timewarnercable.com/piedmont···ing.html

What I find interesting, is AT&T will now sell you a 768Kbps naked DSL line for $19.99/month with no contracts.

That must be a lucrative tier because Time Warner and AT&T are fighting for it.

said by Ramadear :

5gb light and 40gb heavy? Thats laughable. As a gamer this is a smack in the face. To give a estimate of what I use per month you would have to factor in gaming demos(which are around 1gb average now), game updates(big for mmorpgs 3gb sometimes), youtube, veoh, occasional newsgroups and general surfing. Then my connection is shared around the house, so it will easily add way over 40gb per month.

I imagine that 5gb is for someone who checks their mail and one website daily. lol TWC is a joke and if this goes through I will be leaving, no doubt. The whole idea negates the purpose of paying for premium services such as Fileshack, Fileplanet, Giganews, IGN for high res videos etc. I might as well not have any of those services at all if they cap the internet.

said by Anonymous_ :

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply

said by tiger72 :

TW has RR lite/RR768. This unadvertised tier gives users who are looking to save money a cheap alternative which is still broadband and frankly more than sufficient for gravy mom and pop customers. As it's not advertised, people haven't moved to it. If they did advertise it, they would get more users to pay about 34% less for 90% less speed. I'd consider that a good profit!

The ONLY reason why TW wants to have data caps instead of (or on top of) speed caps is so they can advertise ultra-high (50mbps+) speeds while not having to actually provide those speeds consistently.