said by skj :

A reminder again, this topic is not about Charter employees, but about the prospect of Charter going to metered service. Let's please stay on topic.

said by MrMike :

I agree. It is a viscous circle.

Wish charter would upgrade their phone support to include a poll possibly after a call stating something like, was your rep courteous and maybe was your issue resolved.

said by BF69 :

So are you calling your boss a liar or an idiot?

"Eventually, we will go usage-based," predicted Marwan Fawaz, CTO of Charter Communications Inc., last month at the CableNEXT conference in Santa Clara.

said by BF69 :

So are you calling your boss a liar or an idiot?

"Eventually, we will go usage-based," predicted Marwan Fawaz, CTO of Charter Communications Inc., last month at the CableNEXT conference in Santa Clara.

said by Charterrep2 :

as a charter employee we are NOT going to a metered service,

said by Lazlow :

I do not see the FCC allowing any of the major player to buy Charter.

said by MrMike :

Granted, it isn't "proof" and I am not saying it is anything more than a coincidence. Ironic though.

said by MrMike :

They already cap my service with this policy. Of course there is not a description of what they consider excessive amount of bandwidth or who makes this determination. I get capped all the time. I pay for 5 meg service and do not get it due to this loophole agreement. I guess, 1 too many views of YouTube videos.

I haven't determined if it is just a tech making this descision or if it is just an automated process. I am betting on the tech, due to my bandwidth going down, but not going back to its "paid for" state until I call and complain.

But it gets worse. They disguise this capping with bandwidth test sites that use http protocol resulting in higher throughput. If I use a java or flash based test, it reflects a more accurate bandwidth. Tell me if I am wrong on this, as I go by feel rather than knowledge.

Do not consider this post as flaming Charter. Its just business. I should get what I pay for and should be treated as a customer rather than a violater of TOS.

Never received a notification of a supposed violation, so I guess it does not happen. Oops, it states I do not have to be notified either. I do however notice a lack of bandwidth. I realize I do not help the situation being an avid online gamer, a YouTube fan, rerun watcher of My Name is Earl from NBC. Anyway, lemme know what ya think of my rant if you want, or not. Thanks for reading this.

I know my reference to capped is incorrect, I mean reduction in bandwidth.

said by MrMike :

They already cap my service with this policy. Of course there is not a description of what they consider excessive amount of bandwidth or who makes this determination. I get capped all the time. I pay for 5 meg service and do not get it due to this loophole agreement. I guess, 1 too many views of YouTube videos.

I haven't determined if it is just a tech making this descision or if it is just an automated process. I am betting on the tech, due to my bandwidth going down, but not going back to its "paid for" state until I call and complain.

Never received a notification of a supposed violation, so I guess it does not happen. Oops, it states I do not have to be notified either. I do however notice a lack of bandwidth. I realize I do not help the situation being an avid online gamer, a YouTube fan, rerun watcher of My Name is Earl from NBC. Anyway, lemme know what ya think of my rant if you want, or not. Thanks for reading this.

I know my reference to capped is incorrect, I mean reduction in bandwidth.

said by UneedTinFoil :

If they implement such a service, they already have it covered in their TOS:

»www.charter.com/Visitors/Policies.aspx

12. NO EXCESSIVE USE OF BANDWIDTH

If Charter determines, in Charter’s sole discretion, that Customer is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Charter network infrastructure for Internet access or other functions using public network resources, Charter may adjust, suspend or terminate Customer's account at any time and without notice, or require Customer to upgrade Customer’s service level and pay additional fees in accordance with Charter's then-current, applicable, published rates for such Service.

said by WyckedKnight :

The thing about hidden caps, from my understanding is that they are illegal. Thus why the FCC is investigating Comcast for those invisible caps.

said by joker5656 :

i don't believe Charter has said, and even mentioned if they will go to this. i could be wrong, cause i think this whole thread started from an article that mentioned Charter in it but there was no confirmation from Charter on the subject.

said by DemonChicken :

What is the proposed GB cap, and how much does it cost if you go over? I don't want t scour the thread to try to find that info.

said by sadbuttrue :

haha. ownage. nice MacLeech :)

said by MacLeech :

Thank you for pointing out where you got that idea from, that's what I was asking for.

TWC spokesholes never said using more than 5 GB per month put a user in the top 5% of bandwidth users, so I was wondering where that came from. I see Lazlow seems to have made it up.

Thanks, I'll leave now.

said by MacLeech :

TWC spokesholes never said using more than 5 GB per month put a user in the top 5% of bandwidth users, so I was wondering where that came from. I see Lazlow seems to have made it up.

Thanks, I'll leave now.

said by BF69 :

You don't pay attention much do you?

said by MacLeech :

That "correction" doesn't change the premise of the statement.

Where did he get the idea that using more than 5 GB per month puts a user in the top 5%? He doesn't believe it, but who does he think said or believes that?

said by Lazlow :

If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb. It is not my number it is theirs. I agree the number sounds fishy because I do not personally know of anyone who uses less then 50GB per month (Including my 72 year old widow neighbor lady that I set up linux for) and yes I have checked those #s as well as my own. I did find the quote right out of their memo that said 5% of the users were using 50% of the total bandwidth. Which would (if true) put the 5GB number in the right ballpark.

said by joker5656 :

there i corrected you on what he really said

said by MacLeech :

Where did you ever get that figure from?

That 5GB a month made you a top 5% user.

said by BF69 SO :

downloading 1 HD movie is already putting you in the top 5% supposedly.

said by useless :

His number is pretty accurate, whether you agree or not. Remember, MSOs run their own DNS, there is caching and such. ( locally on machines and some networks )

said by mworks :

My concern with caps is that its just an excuse not to spend money on infrastructure and increase profits.

example:
A town with 5000 subscribers.
Your network can't handle them all at full usage so you cap them at 50GB.

A couple years later the subscriber numbers are now 6000.
Your network can't handle them all at full usage so you cap them at 40GB.

Where does it end ?

said by BF69 :

I don't care what they say, it's BS and I know it and you know it.

they have 4 speed tiers and 4 badwidth caps. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Satelite has caps and your cap is based on the speed tier you're on.

said by BF69 :

And yet you still use a cell phone. And as you say Charter is a BUSINESS. It's their pipe they paid for it. Who are you to tell them what they can do with it? You could always build you're own network if you hate it so much.

So Charter should let you do whatever you want because the other company refuses to even provide Charter's crappy level of service? Hmmmm. Why not complain to the even crappier company to improve their service? If McDonald's gives me a crappy burger I'm not going to demand that Burger King give me a discount.

said by dez_nutz :

If I am chicken little than you are captain stupid if you think that a business would not use something like this to the fullest extent to get more money out of its customers. Like going over in cell minutes, do they charge you a normal rate for minutes over? No they milk the hell out of it...

That's all great for you that you can just switch to at&t or someone else, but not everyone has that option. I have two companies that offer broadband in my area. Charter pipeline and a local telco who is overpriced and services are unreliable.

You sure post a lot pro charter crap and diss anyone that says otherwise not to be a fanboy ass kisser. I will have to take your word on that because I don’t remember your other posts.

Since this topic is about opinions on something that could be used to negatively impact me, I going to look at it that way. You and I are not the ones that will be setting the cap or deciding the fees so I like to expect the worst. Should they do it, hopefully it will remain within an acceptable range. Since I don't have the same fallback as you, don't expect me to be positive about it like you because I can't just up and switch companies... When you have been raped by a telco for as long as I was, seeing anything considered that could affect my alternative I am not going to welcome with open arms.

said by Lazlow :

BF69

If you go through the TW metered threads one of them gives that stats that 95% of their customers are using less than 5gb.

Personally I do not think charter needs to worry about bandwidth hogs any more now than they have had to in the past. I still have not seen anything from time warner that says that the tiers will be tied to certain speeds.

said by BF69 :

Seriously you are worrying over NOTHING. You sound like Chicken Little. Using VoIP is not going to put you over any cap. You also don't know what the overage fee will be. You also don't know if Charter will lower the price thus any cap overages you may incur you actually end up paying the same amount.

As far as I'm concerned if Charter cap makes the bandwidth hogs use another provider then by all means good riddance. You are also free to use someone else if the caps are too much of an issue. If they are super low I will use at&t instead. Charter's loss.

I'm not a Charter ass kisser as anyone that reads my posts should already know by now. So I'm not talking from fanboy perspective here. So I think my opinions are unbiased unlike most I am reading on this topic.

said by Lazlow :

You cannot add 16+2 because they get credit for the 2 so it would be 16-2=14 not 18. 1.75 (versus 2.25) 4536GB(vs 5695) which would be $453.60@$.10 for that individual user. But you also have to consider that they (ISPs in general) claim that 95% of users are in the sub 5GB per month category. 5GB*$.10/GB=$.50. ((95*$.50)+(5*$453.60))/100=$23.16 per customer cost average. $70-$23.16=$46.84 per customer average. Now you still have to account for overhead but even after that their should be plenty left over.

Even if they did not get credit for the two. ((95*$.50)+(5*569.50))/100=$28.95 per customer cost average. $70-28.95=$41.04 per customer average.

said by Lazlow :

Do you think this entire metered issue could just be a smoke screen to draw attention away from other issues? Maybe bandwidth shaping ( this all came up from Time Warners "leaked memo").

said by DannySSS :

I don't think anyone will use 5.6TB of data in a month.

At the most I think the average user will user 10-20gb a month, even if they're a fan of streaming media websites. (just pulled that out of my head.. but it seems right)

said by dez_nutz :

You can download the entire game using bit torrent... It's 2 gig and I like to keep the updated version. Although I do play online… I was using that as an example of a legal torrent download.

said by dez_nutz :

I have a wife and a daughter... Who do you think? I had to go to corr wireless because they have an endless minutes plan.. My wife can use more minutes on a cell phone and Vonage than I realized were in a month. Vonage is nice because it has international calling lumped into their packages… So she is on the horn with her family across the pond all damn night and on the weekends. During the day she is on her cell phone for work and god knows what...

said by dez_nutz :

Oh the horror... Charter is such a victim... They are advertising these high speeds and who would of thought, you have a bunch of people that actually want to use them... God what kind of world do we live in?

I either wouldn’t be paying for 16mbps and getting 1 by not being a charter customer… Or… I would be looking to jump into a class action lawsuit against charter since they have been charging people for a 16mbps and only able to provide 1mbps. I know, I know it’s a slight over exaggeration for effect on your part, but still… Kind of cut and dry there, cheese.

If you say I am paying for 10mb than I should expect that... Why wouldn't I? I wouldn't pay someone for four new tires even though they only had two or three, or pay someone to cut my yard even though they only cut half of it... Why should cable be held to a different standard? Because they are cable?

My big problem with this is I feel they will drop the level down until they totally fuck the customer because they can. They offer telephone service too, what an idea let's make the cap low enough that anyone using VoIP is having to pay a penalty fee... They may start high enough to not effect anyone, but they will also probably lower it and lower it until it cuts close to greatly affecting their bottom line because customers are leaving. If my options are: up the current rate or deal with a cap, I would prefer they up the rate. At least I know what's coming and don't have to worry about going over my bandwidth.

said by Lazlow :

"Think about it, that person is paying $70 and using $400 worth of bandwidth. "

BF69

The bandwidth (to the backbone) costs is sub $.10/GB.

said by BF69 :

Online gaming doesn't use up that much bandwidth.

said by BF69 :

Vonage? I suppose if you used VoIP 24/7 you would use up to 250 GB a month. Who spends 720 hours a month on the phone? I don't spend that much time on the phone in 5 years.

said by BF69 :

]If people can't see why they can't expect to pay $70 a month and use nearly 6 TB of bandwidth then nothing is going to make them understand.

peole talk about their "rights' ot download this and download that. wel ok have your waya nd when youa nd all your neighbors are exercizing your "rights" guess what eventually no one will have a good connection anyways because Charter won't be able to handle the load.
And you'l be bicthing about your 16 Mbps connection only going at 1 Mbps and it won't be because chater is throtaling you.

said by BF69 :

I don't think most people have a CLUE that their internet connection is a SHARED connection. think of it this way say you're in the shower. It's feleing good. Nice strong spray. then someon turns on the kitchen faucet, then someone else starts the laundry, then someone else keeps flushing the toilet, then someone else goes outside and decides to turn on the garden hose and let it run. What happens to your water pressure in your shower? What is your reaction going to be? You're going to be pissed and tell them to quit wasting water.

Same type thing with your internet connection.

said by jarablue :

And where is Charter financially and industry benchmarked in all areas? And the very bottom of the bin. And they will stay there until they close shop.

said by jarablue :

I am not going to do just this or just that I am going to do all of it. And guys guys. We are talking about Charter. Do you think they are going to be generous with the metering? It is going to be the exact opposite. Anyways like I said 7meg DSL w/ Fastpath is available here for 40 month and it is ALL YOU CAN EAT. The very second Charter rolls out metered service I am gone. As will a good amount of people.

said by dez_nutz :

This would affect people like me who use bit torrent for legal downloads like america's army (the free game that the army made...) among other things... Vonage would be affected... If they throttle my speeds it kind of beats the purpose of me having broadband...

said by DemonChicken :

Essentially, if they meter, their telling you what you can or can't do, you CAN'T pirate and you CAN'T watch media on your computer.

You can do anything you want with your electricity, water and other metered things. You say all ISPs will go to this pricing model? Hell no.

WTfawk is this, I would change away from my 250kb internet if they did this! Its my bandwidth, I own it, you sold it to me, I can do with it what I choose.

said by jarablue :

What about online streaming???? How about Joost, Miro and Babelgum to name a few?

said by Imeannothing :

although I do not work for charter i do have there service and I do work for another MSO in my area For sanitys sake I will not say which one... . Of course as luck would have it my employer does not have service in my city ( I commute one town over to work) so I settled with Charter.

said by Imeannothing :

One point though, alot of these isps are doing it because of torrent and p2p networks sprouting up just about everywhere. We do monitoring on a regular basis and if a certain host has a huge traffic spike over certain time it has to be a vast difference from other users in area, we will either turn their service to suspension for a while. heck my college monitored b/w and would turn your speeds down for every so much you used in a week. I remember getting cut to 56k for a week, i wasnt happy. We also suspend accounts if we discover a copyrighted material d/l over our network.

said by joker5656 :

i haven't found any program that works with XBOX LIVE. i'm sure thats a bandwidth hog and lets not include the movies i rent. i did an anverage and its about 12gb. thats if i don't do the HD versions.

said by BF69 :

All that "what about ads" stuff is a red hering. Do you use a pop-up blocker? If so no worries. At any rate say you had 1000 pop-up ads a day and each one was 250 KB that would use 7 GB a month. I doubt you get 1000 a day and most pop-up ads are FAR less than 250 KB.

I'm on the internet all the time and in the last 12 days I've had DU Meter running I'm on pace to use a whopping 14 GB a month. I suggest people actually measure how much they actually use before they get all in a tizzy.

said by Lazlow :

BF69

From the general definition; that would put you well into the 5% bandwidth hog category(they claim 95% use less than 2GB/month). If I remember correctly it would also put you into the third tier of the proposed (TW) cap, higher cost.

said by trancelgic :

I'm just curious when Charter customers will be charged per TV show they watch, since they're going down that road.

said by joker5656 :

after reading that it got me thinking, we have programs that need to update on a daily basis. granted it ain't alot but i run alot of programs on 3 machines. that will cut into my cap and how about pop up adds.

said by DA :

I just did a test, I applied an ACL to the inside interface of my router denying everything except SSH to the inside interface. I connected to it and watched the traffic on the external interface and it showed a 5 minute average of 7 kbps. Some rough math shows that to be 600mb (~75MB) of traffic per day that I am not using... So around 2.2 gigs of traffic per month that isn't mine?

Something regarding my test has to be flawed, that seems too high to me...

said by Kital :

lol, I read this whole stupid thread, and you made me bust up laughing. Nice :)

Also, the guys that keep mentioning 300-600GB caps.. There's plenty of ISPs that are capping now, have you ever heard of one capping that high? If they cap, it will definitely be low. I expect ~40gb area to be what they shoot for. Maybe 60-80 for their higher tiers if we're lucky.

I'll be quick to go back to dsl if they cap. It will be a nice way to get out of my contract anyway.

said by jarablue :

Then Charter should not even bother with deploying any more tiers if they are going to metered service. Who wants 16 megs when we will hit the cap that much faster?

"Charter doesn't make much of a profit from the $70 10 Mbps tier"

It seems Verizon is doing just fine on their 15/2 meg tier. But then again, that is Verizon and this is Charter. 2 different animals. In quality, service and pricing. All around different.

said by dks7 :

"Charter doesn't make much of a profit from the $70 10 Mbps tier"

How about when they charge $96.63 like they do me the cockroachcommiebastards!

said by jarablue :

Online streaming of TV and everything. I have a 1080p projector that is beamed onto a 130 inch screen. I watch and listen to tons of stuff streamed. Online TV is insane now. Just fullscreen Hulu and you do not need cable tv. They are going to put limits on this? This sickens me. What is the point?

said by Lazlow :

We know that they(HSI in gerneral) monitor the usage amounts of their customers.

said by jarablue :

"Metered bandwidth is, and always will be a band aid to cover up the real problem of not investing enough in infrastructure to support HSI."

It looks like Charter is headed straight for metered service then.

said by BF69 :

What do the last 6-8 posts have to do with the topic of this thread? Just asking? I think this site has other forums if you guys want to have your geeky IT babble talk.

said by DA :

I would like to point out that many large Fortune 100 enterprises have more users than the average Charter region (100,000+). So if you were referring to me with the "Office-Sized" Networks question I am sure I have managed much larger than 90% of the Charter regions.

said by DA :

It is still IP and the core equipment Cisco issues for Cable companies still uses the standard IOS from what I can tell so the basic items still apply they just scale differently.

said by useless :

I beg to differ...

Most or all Charter regions are a lot larger than 100k anything.

»www.forbes.com/lists/results.jht···category
»wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_is_the_···he_world

I am not counting employees and internal networking. I guess the definition of a region comes to play here though. 100k is small beans though when concerning an MSO.

I appreciate the sentiment, and understand you point. Your 100k number is BS though. (I never assume what anyone posting does or doesnt do or know ) The equipment normally discussed in here is generally different than that of companies not providing coax based services. Or maybe you did networking for China's army?

An example is the Cisco forum on this site. It is hard to find Cisco equipment there that is in wide use at Charter (concerning the fiber and coax)...when Charter is primarily Cisco.

said by MEuseless2 :

You've made great points, in this post and your others, but I'd save my breath if I were you. Some people around here just don't want to use logic. You're arguing with people who oversee office sized networks. Save your breath man. It's not worth the headache.

said by useless :

Nevertheless, the entire situation has been oversimplified here, which can be a bit distorting.

said by Lazlow :

Lets run some quick numbers. Lets assume that the average customer has 5meg service @$60/month and that 95% of the customers would be in the less than 5GB tier. A nuumber of posters have stated that they think that the cable companies will drop rates for the sub 5GB tier. So lets take a look. Just for ease of numbers lets assume that there are one hundred customers.

100 X $60 = $6000/month (now)

95 X $45 (a guess) = $4275/month

($6000-$4275) / 5 =$345/month for each customer in the 5% over 5GB/month.

I do not believe that for $15/month reduction most people will be happy (I could be wrong) for this lower service (even if they do not currently use it). Even if I am wrong on that, there is no way a significant number of th 5% customers will be willing to pay the $345/month for 40GB of download. These people will either drop down into the sub 5GB tier or will leave the cable company. Either way the cable company will loose money.

Basically this means that if they do install the caps they will not be able to afford to offer any significant discount from the current service rate.

said by Plattsburgh NY :

After years of Charter rate increases and the promise of better service only to still have nothing new, this takes the cake. I still only have 3 meg service and no telephone in my area.

said by Lazlow :

Xelloss

That may work for you but a LOT of us really do not have any other reasonable HSI choice. If they do this I think a lot of us will be in the situation where we will have to go to some sort of mobile solution.

said by Xelloss :

Capped system will not work for me, for one My house is a heavy bandwidth house, when it comes to Youtube or other websites. A Big list of bandwidth sites that I use is Revision 3, there videos can range from 50MB - 1 GB, I probably download 5 a week, then we have Xbox Live, a Demo, Moive download, trailer etc can range from 50 mb - 5 GBs. Gametrailers, Gamespot.com, IGN, Random downloads. Its adds up quck, this is just what I surf. If we include the rest of the family using the web probably another 20 GB ontop of that.

If charter goes to a capped solution then well I will drop not just Highspeed internet but probably TV, HDTV, 2 DVRs etc, along with I bet I can get at least 2 other family's to comply. Then talking crap about the company for the rest of my life, and boy do I know a lot of people that talk crap about Charter, well since I personally don't have no tech issues (most of the time) I can't complain.

said by forreal :

No offense, but you sound like a typical IT guy, not a network guy.

said by DA :

What you will get will be a limit on how much you can transfer before you be billed an "overage" fee. So it is doubtful that it will solve your issue in the long-run. In the short-run it will likely discourage heavy usage but the userbase will continue to grow and will eventually cause saturation problems again.

said by san123 :

During peak neighborhood usage, my 10 meg connection averages 2 meg. Metered service will be welcome here if I am billed for what Charters system is capable of delivering rather than an expensive set price unjustified by the actual service....BRING IT ON!!!!

said by Lazlow :

Sikmaz

Do you think this entire metered issue could just be a smoke screen to draw attention away from other issues? Maybe bandwidth shaping ( this all came up from Time Warners "leaked memo").

said by UneedTinFoil :

Fraud? On who's behalf? Charter's? Read the language ..Charter's sole discretion. This means they don't need "prove" their tools are correct or incorrect. It's their discretion. And it's not too hard to monitor BW on a cable modem, in fact, there is nothing to it.

said by UneedTinFoil :

Fraud? On who's behalf? Charter's? Read the language ..Charter's sole discretion. This means they don't need "prove" their tools are correct or incorrect. It's their discretion. And it's not too hard to monitor BW on a cable modem, in fact, there is nothing to it.

ISP's have tool sets for determining that too. Again, quite simple really. Not to mention, how does your example even fit? A remote PC is hammering your box? How could you even be billed for that? Network tools look at what your downloading. In other words, requests from your cable modes MAC and your PC's IP address. A DOS attack or malicious traffic is detected and dealt with at need be. So Charter would be able to tell if you were being attacked, or a heavy user.

btw - no worky for Charter here, just a docsis guy passing by

said by DA :

Everything you quoted looks fine BUT it does not protect Charter against valid cases of fraud if the tools are incorrect. That was the point BF69 was making.

said by DA :

Let me also ask this, how is Charter determining what is my use? For example if a remote PC (Not mine or under my control) starts hammering my box with requests attempting to infect it will I be billed for that?

said by UneedTinFoil :

If they implement such a service, they already have it covered in their TOS:

»www.charter.com/Visitors/Policies.aspx

12. NO EXCESSIVE USE OF BANDWIDTH

If Charter determines, in Charter’s sole discretion, that Customer is using an excessive amount of bandwidth over the Charter network infrastructure for Internet access or other functions using public network resources, Charter may at any time and without notice, suspend excessive bandwidth capability, suspend Customer’s access to the Service, require Customer to pay additional fees in accordance with Charter’s then-current, rates for such service, or terminate Customer’s account

They don't need to provide you tools. It sounds like they already have in place. This has been in their TOS for years now. You agree to this when you sign up for the service. It's not Charter's fault half you guys don't take the time to read and understand it.

said by BF69 :

well that's the whole problem. Will they even provide the tools and can they be trusted. As soon as someone goes over the cap they'll claim "You're tools are wrong" and god forbid they tools are actually wrong then you'll class action lawsuits. I don't think the ISPs are thinking this out to carefully and anticpating the headaches this will cause them.

said by DA :

I am relatively happy with Charter now but if they instituted caps that were not reasonable and did not provide VERY good tools to manage it I would leave them in an instant.

said by Lazlow :

Ok, YES all HD is compressed. When you get a HD DVD(whatever format) it is also compressed, that is how digital video is moved (99%anyway). As you pointed out it is the rate it is compressed. The OTA basically sends the signal out at the same compression that they receive it. Cable/sat crunch it down(reduce quality) further to minimize their bandwidth usage. OTA does not care about the amount of bandwidth it uses. They do not have to reduce the quality of the video/audio so that it will "fit in the box" like cable/sat does.

said by Lazlow :

Not only do they work just fine, but the HD from OTA is probably the best available. They do not compress OTA signal.

said by byebyebirdee :

An antenna won't work very much longer.
»www.pratttribune.com/articles/20···s/02.txt

said by SyNiSt3r :

Enough is enough.
Its time for them to stop nickle and diming us to death and start working on the issues they have.

said by mmainprize :

I will then drop cable TV and get netflicks and an antenna on my roof.

said by useMYbandW :

Electricity, water, cell phones, ect ..all usage based services. Are you really that surprised that MSO's are moving to this ...it was only a matter of time. All ISP's will move to this model eventually. Be it DSL or Cable. It's all about profit margins.

said by markopoleo :

Yeah that really is a convincing argument..lol

said by Mashimaro :

What about the source of anonymous charter employees posting in this thread?

You tell him to ignore polls and reports saying Charter is bad but one organization says Charter is good so of course believe that one. if that organization said Charter was the worst you'd be saying to ignore that one too.

said by readabook :

The same 100 or so people who are upset with Charter hang out here all the time. The other millions of customers are happily surfing the web. You give too much credit to DSLR polls and consumer reports findings. Charter was named MSO of the year recently ...explain that.

said by SyNiSt3r :

I dont represent everyone but there is a solid reason why that charter has finished last in service and customer support for years on end.
If your service works, Great, good for you but when you have the number of people that has issues with charter its hard to argue my points. Youre one of a few that might stand up and say charter is doing a good job.

said by Lazlow :

If they actually do this, they are going to almost have to have the cap tied to the speed. Something like 200GB for 5meg(lowest tier), 400GB for 10meg, and unlimited for 16meg(or whatever the highest tier is currently) would be acceptable. Unfortunately it looks like they are talking more like 5GB,20GB, and 40GB (all caps per month).

Edit: Another thing that could eliminate a lot of this problem is if they did not watch or keep track of the traffic between say 11pm and 7am. For the vast majority of users the system does not need to be "snappy" during those hours, so bandwidth hogs would essentially not effect the system for those hours.

said by useMYbandW :

Electricity, water, cell phones, ect ..all usage based services. Are you really that surprised that MSO's are moving to this ...it was only a matter of time. All ISP's will move to this model eventually. Be it DSL or Cable. It's all about profit margins.

said by jeffro :

If they sold out to comcast I could get my NBA League Pass and NFL Network. Sounds good.

said by SyNiSt3r :

The real question is can they afford to go metered.
They suck IMO, I think they suck and who is going to put up with suckie service that has a cap.
I guess time will tell but this crap has to stop.
Raising rates, Capped services. Enough is enough.
Its time for them to stop nickle and diming ME to death and start working on the issues they have.