said by munky99999: said by elray:
Nonsense. TWC's rate proposed a $15.00 fee for 1GB cap. The current "basic" access rate is more than double that. We would save more than $200 a year under their plan. As would my folks, my sister, brother, and half the in-laws.
If you use less then 1 GB cap... you arent using the service. So they pretty much are being billed for service they dont use.
Regardless. I'm still going to call shananigans on you; I feel pretty good in saying you are somehow an employee or similar to an ISP and are trying to get this pushed in.
Uh, no. I kick myself sometimes for not investing in these "evil" firms when they're down, but no, I have nothing to gain except as a consumer. But thanks for resorting to the usual refuge of a scoundrel, and calling me an industry shill, rather than discussing the actual merits (or lack of) of the case.
In a system where usage, capacity, and demand are a factor, and with cable modems and internet in general, they are, how is it "fair" to charge low-volume users the same price as high-volume users?
We seriously don't use 1GB. Mom doesn't turn on her PC but once a week. My sister doesn't either. We all want an "always on", reliable connection, as provided by cable modems or DSL, but the data volumes and speed requirements are a fraction of that used by the typical "power user" found here.
I'm not cheering for caps, just for a structure that has a very low cost, entry-level tier. I think, in the end, telco and cableco will offer both capped and unlimited plans, but you'll have to pay a premium for unlimited bandwidth, and it will be throttled.