dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Charter: No Plans For Metered Billing Or Cap Enforcement
Though carrier is working on a bandwidth consumption meter for users...
by Karl Bode 11:06AM Wednesday Feb 24 2010
Back in 2008, Charter CTO Marwan Fawaz told attendees of the CableNEXT conference in Santa Clara that "eventually, we will go to a usage-based solution." In February of last year, we reported how Charter planned to impose a 100GB cap upon any Charter connection of 15Mbps or less, and a 250GB usage cap for broadband tiers "over 15 Mbps up to 25 Mbps." Charter's Eric Ketzer subsequently confirmed the plans, while noting that their $150, 60 Mbps DOCSIS 3.0 tier wouldn't have a cap.

We have no plans to introduce metered billing...we have not enforced and do not have plans to enforce (caps).
-Charter
But instead of new caps, Charter fell into bankruptcy. Still, even as recently as last November now-departed CEO Neil Smit stated that Charter would be considering "consumption based billing" once they emerged.

However, there have been no announcements concerning a migration to metered billing, nor has the company been enforcing their caps, according to users in our forums. Such "soft" caps generally allow the carrier to reserve the right to warn or terminate users on a market by market basis as regional congestion warrants. From Charter's acceptable use policy:
quote:
Excessive bandwidth is usage beyond a reasonable level for the service subscribed to. Residential service usage will not exceed 100GB of bandwidth per month for Customers subscribing to Services of 15 Mbps or less per month and 250GB of bandwidth per month for Customers subscribing to Service over 15 Mbps and up to 25 Mbps. Charter reserves the right to revise usage limits or to implement additional usage limits. In the event residential usage exceeds the above-described limits Customer will be notified and required to either limit Customer’s bandwidth consumption to permitted levels/limits or subscribe to a Service with a higher monthly bandwidth limit if a higher limit subscription is available.
The last few months however we've repeatedly heard from Charter employees that there are rumors circulating that Charter still hopes to engage in metered billing trials sometime in 2010. None of these individuals have been willing to go on the record (even anonymously), nor have they been able to provide evidence that Charter is planning such trials. These rumors among technicians appear to be unfounded, as Charter officially tells Broadband Reports that not only are there no metered billing trials planned, but that the company has no plans to begin enforcing their current caps.

"We have no plans to introduce metered billing," Charter's Eric Ketzer tells Broadband Reports, who also says no metered billing trials are planned. Ketzer did confirm that the company is working on a tool to help Charter users track their bandwidth consumption. "Right now we are gathering requirements to develop a resource so that customers can monitor and control their bandwidth resources," says Ketzer. "This was something that our customers have been requesting," he claims, "and we want to meet that need." Ketzer also told us Charter has no plans to begin enforcing their soft caps.

With Time Warner Cable's failed efforts to impose metered billing on its customers still fresh on the minds of broadband ISP executives, many ISPs have put plans to impose similar plans in a holding pattern for fear of suffering a similar consumer and media beating. Earlier this week we noted that AT&T appears to be shelving their metered billing trials in two markets, with one source informing Broadband Reports that the trials may have been shelved due to high hardware and support costs.

Companies (like Comcast) are instead working to "educate" consumers about their consumption, offering tools that try to better inform customers about how much they consume per month. Comcast is slowly unveiling a bandwidth meter on a market-by-market basis that allows users to see how close their are to Comcast's 250GB cap. Comcast has had the meter independently tested for accuracy before launching, and we'd assume Charter's exploring a similar process. Such tools don't preclude (and may even aid) an eventual shift to metered billing, but for now those ambitions are on hold.

view:
topics flat nest 

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

a Lie

'"This was something that our customers have been requesting," he claims'

Nope.
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: a Lie

if all this could save me $$$$ down the road i'm all for it...why should i have to pay for someone else's 5T downloads worth of data a month? Make them pay for it, not me!
--
www.two-pugs.com www.twopugsbrand.com
djhexer

join:2002-10-07
Reno, NV

Re: a Lie

Your missing the main point. Prices will not lower and service will not get better. Right now as it is you pay the same as someone who dwnloads 5 tb when these meters are in place you still pay the same and getthe same service. All this is doing is retarding growth and upgrades and keeping mney in charters pocket.

If I'm wrong please explain how it would save you money??
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: a Lie

said by djhexer:

Your missing the main point. Prices will not lower and service will not get better. Right now as it is you pay the same as someone who dwnloads 5 tb when these meters are in place you still pay the same and getthe same service. All this is doing is retarding growth and upgrades and keeping mney in charters pocket.

If I'm wrong please explain how it would save you money??
Annnnnnnd.. this big giant evil corporation that's in bankruptcy has tons of money in their pockets, right?

It still costs to move data.. do you not understand that? They still have to be able to try to get their customers up to advertised speeds, do they not? If you have people using 5tb of data in a month, which they really don't, but if they have people way over saturating above typical residential use in any given area, do they not have to spend money to correct a single node so that one or two users don't impact the other 200 or 300?

Think about it...

All this chasing around of abusers costs money. That's not money that is taken into account for your monthly service - this is an expense on the operator's part. If that expense starts to get out of hand, where do you think they are going to go to get it? .... you, the subscriber.

Rates you pay each month are for the service and normal budget operation costs.. The network was designed for an implied use. if that implied use is not being met by some customers, anything over and beyond that is considered additional expense which will get passed on to the rest of the subscriber base in rate hikes. It's simple business 101.

This is pretty much the same as why they now change you a fee to call in and talk to a rep to make a bill payment. Collecting payments has always been a thing of "mail it in".. they don't staff people to take payments. They now have websites that don't cost human resources to operate like call centers. So, since they see a huge spike in people calling in to take payments, that takes time away from the rep to help customer trouble calls, answer billing related problems, OR!!! .. .sell additional services to grow their revenue.

It's not a dig at you.. it's just an explanation.. a valid one.
zed2608
Premium
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
kudos:1

Re: a Lie

charters not in bankruptcy any more and they actuly made a little profit last month 13 mill not much but beats losing 60 or so mill
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: a Lie

While it may be true.. the fact is that most people's minds forget anything beyond yesterday... the company did go through bankruptcy.. they had no profits... the OP, and many others, sit here thinking that Charter has "all this money" and are just greedy... the fact is, they've been one of the hardest hit... and 13 million.. they can blow through that in no time at all.. but yea, it's better than losing money.
NeoandGeo

join:2003-05-10
Harrison, TN
Yes. It is all about saving people like you money.

I don't know how I can be any less sarcastic.
cooldude9919

join:2000-05-29
kudos:5

Re: a Lie

Apparently he hasnt read any of Karl's other posts about this topic.

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
said by hottboiinnc:

if all this could save me $$$$ down the road i'm all for it...why should i have to pay for someone else's 5T downloads worth of data a month? Make them pay for it, not me!
You're not going to save money. Charter isn't going to LOWER prices. If only 5% of their customers are going over the cap are you seriously suggesting they will lower the price for the other 95%? HA!
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: a Lie

So.. that one customer that pays about $40 a month for internet goes way over their implied soft limits, and it causes service performance issues for another 200 to 300 people who also pay for that service.. use it fairly and in accordance to the TOS/AUP.. those customers call in and use CSR resources which generate technical visits to the home.. and then they ultimately loose customers becuase those who are also paying $40 a month are fed up with sub-par performance DUE to the abusers.. and then the operator has to spend thousands to split a node to save the other customers... um, yea, I can see how that 1 person's $40 bill for HSI service is justifying the head ache an operator has in keeping up with that 5%..

Prices aren't going to go lower unless you earn that.. which is done in bundling. Costs go up.. why would they go down? Upgrades are usually always ongoing and the cost to maintain also don't go down. Even if your service remains the same, your price won't go down. The industry and technology is evolving pretty quickly and the price/cost to keep up or even maintain will also rise.. so why would it really go down? .. not at this point and time at least.

mmainprize

join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Charter

1 edit

Re: a Lie

said by fiberguy:

So.. that one customer that pays about $40 a month for internet goes way over their implied soft limits, and it causes service performance issues for another 200 to 300 people who also pay for that service.. use it fairly and in accordance to the TOS/AUP.. those customers call in and use CSR resources which generate technical visits to the home.. and then they ultimately loose customers becuase those who are also paying $40 a month are fed up with sub-par performance DUE to the abusers.. and then the operator has to spend thousands to split a node to save the other customers... um, yea, I can see how that 1 person's $40 bill for HSI service is justifying the head ache an operator has in keeping up with that 5%..

Prices aren't going to go lower unless you earn that.. which is done in bundling. Costs go up.. why would they go down? Upgrades are usually always ongoing and the cost to maintain also don't go down. Even if your service remains the same, your price won't go down. The industry and technology is evolving pretty quickly and the price/cost to keep up or even maintain will also rise.. so why would it really go down? .. not at this point and time at least.
When did it become my problem that ISP's sell me and 200 to 300 others a 20 meg service and then say oh but don't use it or it won't work for others as we all have to share it.

The fact that you can buy a 20meg service from a node that could only support say 2 to 16 people at that speed full time is not a problem in your eyes.

When did they start handing out time slices for each user so we don't use it at the same time as other use there internet connection.

The point the OP is making if it is to be metered billing then it should be fair metered billing. Those that don't use much should pay less not the same. Those that use more should pay more but not be racked over the coals and get fined and be told not to use it.

Michael C

join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX
oh you actually think your bill will go down? show me a service plan that any ISP has ever REDUCED in price.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: a Lie

said by Michael C:

oh you actually think your bill will go down? show me a service plan that any ISP has ever REDUCED in price.
(grabbing a soda and a cigg for this one cuz it's going to be fun!!!)

Pacific Bell - when I got DSL back in 1998, it was $300 to install, $100 for the modem, a 2 year plan, $400 ETF and $80 a month for 384/128. The price went down to $59 a month, $100 install, 1 year term, and free modem. AT&T purchased PacBell. Care to tell me how much DSL is today? I do believe a 1.5/384 line was retailing for about $14.95 a month with a free modem and no commitment.

Verizon - Plans wer about $69 a month - I saw them as low as $9.99 for 768K service.

Comcast - Used to be $69 a month bundled. 1.5/384. Today, it's about 12 on average with a price tag of $42 a month bundled.

TWC internet used to be $79 a month - about the same service as Comcast listed above.. how much is it today? .. would it be $79? or is it a lot less than that?

Sprint Mobile Broadband Cards - Used to be $99 a month for non 3G speeds. I pay $49 a month, now, for 3G speeds.

Shall I go on? Need any more examples of price reductions?

Actually I will. AOL - Used to be $19.95 per month plus a per minute connection fee. They changed it to unlimited for the same price and then dial up for $9.99 at the end. (you DID say ANY isp... so this would qualify as an example)

(That was easier than I thought)
djhexer

join:2002-10-07
Reno, NV

Re: a Lie

they didnt reduce price for the sake of reducing... it was because back then it was new technology.

I could argue the point that back then I was paying for metered dial up at 25.00 a month and overages over 200 or so houes a month now days is unlimited for 9.95.

price is dictated by demand. if they are going to have 1 GB up and down they will charge a boatload until it becomes avail to the common user and everyone has it.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: a Lie

said by djhexer:

they didnt reduce price for the sake of reducing... it was because back then it was new technology.

I could argue the point that back then I was paying for metered dial up at 25.00 a month and overages over 200 or so houes a month now days is unlimited for 9.95.

price is dictated by demand. if they are going to have 1 GB up and down they will charge a boatload until it becomes avail to the common user and everyone has it.
ALL irrelevant... not a single thing you said matters in context to what the OP stated.. he clearly stated ....

"oh you actually think your bill will go down? show me a service plan that any ISP has ever REDUCED in price. "

... and I did. Did I not?

When you speak in a forum, speak directly and say what you mean... the ONLY thing that people can go on is the black and white text in front of them. He made a direct statement and he was factually incorrect.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2
Not quite. I'm sure some people don't have DD-WRT on their routers and want to see how much traffic they're pushing over their network to the Internet with Charter, since Charter has nominal caps.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

Re: a Lie

C'mon now. The only reason the general public would care is if caps are implemented. Otherwise, it's completely useless information to them.

Geeks love the data. The public doesn't care.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX
kudos:2

Re: a Lie

But see, the caps *are* implemented. They just aren't enforced.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: a Lie

That's the equivalent of not having caps to the general public. Have a law on the books that is never enforced.

No one pays attention to it as it's not serious. Start enforcing it and people WILL ask for something to track their usage...or just switch providers. Until then, it sounds like PR business talk.
bluedyedvd

join:2007-04-15
Overland Park, KS
said by morbo:

'"This was something that our customers have been requesting," he claims'

Nope.
they prob where asking for a meter when your announced your caps

knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
said by morbo:

'"This was something that our customers have been requesting," he claims'

Nope.
Of course customers want a bandwidth CAP, that's why my ISP has honored that request with our 100,000,000,000 gigabytes / month bandwidth CAP. Give the other ISP a run for their money.
»endless-sphere.com/
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data
XEvilWyvernX
Premium
join:2004-10-28
Parkersburg, WV

:-)

Caps are the devil.

Lets cap our users because we don't want to pay out for speed upgrades.

Hey if our network isn't saturated then we don't need to upgrade

Blah

Personally I would think most places would want to give out faster connections. Less time downloading something means less time using up network resources therefore limiting the time each user is using up network resources.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: :-)

said by XEvilWyvernX:

Caps are the devil.

Lets cap our users because we don't want to pay out for speed upgrades.
I think they want to - but kinda hard in bankruptcy isn't it?

Hey if our network isn't saturated then we don't need to upgrade
See above..

Personally I would think most places would want to give out faster connections. Less time downloading something means less time using up network resources therefore limiting the time each user is using up network resources.
In VERY light theory, this is correct. People don't consume more just becuase the speeds are faster - they simply get things done faster. Speed doesn't ALWAYS equate "more".. HOWEVER - this is kinda like a "BUT"... with the increasing demand for video on line, and more content providers pushing out video to consumers, yes, speed is in demand for those applications - I mean, who wants to watch a movie and 5 minutes into it, it stops to buffer more? Talk about annoying.. AND, lets not forget that those video content downloads ARE in fact more data as well.

You always need to try to plan out for your weakest link - and in this case, it's large video. Additionally, it's the user that's abusing the TOS - which I see as a non-issue anyway.. those who violate the TOS/AUP should be booted, plain and simple. That would solve the problem for both the company AND the rest of the consumers.

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

I don't have a real issue with Comcast

as I find their cap to be quite high and unreachable from the high, high, high majority of home, non-business users

On top of that, Comcast doesn't seem (per users here) to be going after those who go above that

What worries me is that Comcast and others will either keep the cap there in the future OR lower it all the while continuing to push activities online thus increasing the chances of reaching the cap (at some point in the future that is)

mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Turnabout...

I think it's only fair, then, that the customers get to determine what constitutes "excessive" profit. I mean, if it's still "their" bandwidth (even after they sell it to us), then it's still "our" money (even after we pay it to them).

DeathK
Premium
join:2002-06-16
Cincinnati, OH

Re: Turnabout...

said by mod_wastrel:

I think it's only fair, then, that the customers get to determine what constitutes "excessive" profit. I mean, if it's still "their" bandwidth (even after they sell it to us), then it's still "our" money (even after we pay it to them).
Hehe

WiseOldBear
De gustibus non est disputandum
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Phoenix, AZ
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

1 edit
Perfectly stated. Too bad the captains of corporate greed are both illiterate and too self-centered to read it.
--
My perception is REALITY
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
said by mod_wastrel:

I think it's only fair, then, that the customers get to determine what constitutes "excessive" profit. I mean, if it's still "their" bandwidth (even after they sell it to us), then it's still "our" money (even after we pay it to them).
Very silly!

It's their NETWORK.. they've given you what they consider to be acceptable.. did they not? So.. if you go above what the worthless AUP/TOS states, that's not their problem.. it's their NETWORK. You have the right to use the Bandwidth in accordance to the service outline (TOS).. but just becuase you pay them money doesn't give you un-inhibited rights to use it HOW you want once you exceed the TOS.

You're not buying bandwidth in a residential environment/product. You're buying a "service" and that service use is defined by the TOS. If you want to buy "bandwidth" then you should look at a T1 or other connection where you truly buy "bandwidth".. there IS a distinct difference.

Second, excessive profit? .. this is the third time, I think, in this very topic alone that I had to remind someone that the company is in bankruptcy.. so, please, demonstrate to me where the "profit" is in this case.... Profit is defined by the money they have left over when all bills are paid.. does it not?

mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

Re: Turnabout...

Tongue in cheek, perhaps... but not silly. You're silly, though, to confuse "network" with "bandwidth". Also, without customers buying bandwidth from them (though, actually, we don't buy "bandwidth", we buy "access" at some speed "tier"), that network of theirs would be useless; in fact, most customers with "excessive" usage are categorized as such because they make use of their connection when the "network" would otherwise be mostly unused--so you're saying that's a bad thing(?). They sell a product: bandwidth (again, "access"). They should expect that their customers are actually going to use that product, for all of those wonderful reasons for which Internet access is useful--to the customers... not to the ISP.

Get real.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: Turnabout...

Um... are you in the industry at all? I am! I deal with data and networks every day... in the "definition" of the internet, they are not selling you "bandwidth" .. there ARE providers in the industry that DO sell "bandwidth" and "data".. in a residential setting, you ARE buying "internet access"... now that times are changing, they are defining the amount of data you can use..

There is such thing as contextual terms.. just about every contract you deal with will tell you that the words/terms/definitions used in that contract are based on the industry at hand.

You get real.

mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

Re: Turnabout...

The reality is that you don't have to be "in" some industry to expect to get the product you're paying for, which is what every customer expects. As I said, we pay for access, we expect to get access; we expect to use that access for those reasons for which we get it in the first place. If an ISP cannot deliver on its contract to provide the service and/or product that it's selling, then it should probably go out of business... and good riddance. Someone else will come along with a better business model--like (1) being a dumb pipe (which is all we actually need when it comes to "Internet access") and (2) not over-selling the service to the point that they can't deliver what they've sold you--to take its place.

There's no such thing as "excessive" bandwidth usage. There is no "exaflood". There are no "data hogs". The ISP's network is first come, first serve--everyone has the same opportunity to use their connection as everyone else. Some merely choose to use theirs more, while others use theirs less. Of course, when an ISP over-sells and the best speed that any customer can get in "prime time" is only a quarter of their "promised" [up to] speed, well, the only one to blame is the ISP, not the customers--neither the ones who use their connection a little nor the ones who use their connection a lot. That's what a network is for... a real network anyway (and, yes, I know what it means to manage a real network).
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit

Re: Turnabout...

Annnnnnnnd you're acting like a completely uninformed consumer, which is your own fault. Sorry... but just becuase you think something should be a certain way, or want it to be a certain way, doesn't make it that way.

You're in denial... "there is no such thin as "excessive" bandwidth usage.. um... there is when you go beyond typical residential use.. there is when you're consuming tb's of data per month while everyone else is WELL below 200gb..

Again, you're in denial. Access is access.. data transfer is another.. the internet's use is evolving and so are they.. you need to as well.

And so you know.. that Utopian model you want out of an ISP... which, to be honest, would be be a nice thing to have, WILL come with a BIG premium.. with that kind of dumb pipe service, in my guess, would come with a price tag of $100 or more per month.

Believe it or not, there IS a reason why these providers charge what they do today.. most of them at least.. and it's not always to "screw" the customer.. think about it.. 10 years ago, we paid $20 for a crappy dial up line and MANY paid another $25 for a phone line.. for ONE computer.. today they're charging about $27 average for internet for multiple computers.. and yet you still complain about all these things and how ISPs aren'te delivering? wow.

mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1

Re: Turnabout...

What I deny is that you have any point. You've fallen for the "Big Lie": that it costs more to service the customer who downloads(/uploads) 1 TB compared to the one who downloads 1 GB... sorry you know so little about networking. Any usage-based billing model is "excessive" with regard to revenue. I would explain it to you except for not wanting to waste my time any further. The only time "excessive" is a term appropriate to be used by or about an ISP is when you're talking about the number of customers on a node or network segment--putting 500 customers (for example) on a node designed to support 200 customers (for example) and still provide acceptable (as in, contracted) levels of speed is not going to be very workable (for the customers, that is): demand will likely exceed supply when all 500 of them are "on" during prime time (but, that's the way the ISP designed it, so the ISP really shouldn't blame its customers for actually using their connections). I'm just amazed that there are customers (Group A) who are so concerned by how much usage other customers (Group B) are getting out of the connection they're paying for. Group B is using the network at times when Group A isn't... why, shame on them... shame, shame, shame. (OK... bored with you now.)

fact_check

@charter.com
said by fiberguy:

Second, excessive profit? .. this is the third time, I think, in this very topic alone that I had to remind someone that the company is in bankruptcy..
Charter is not in bankruptcy. They filed and emerged from Chapter 11 months ago.

Flibbetigibb

@lmco.com

A bit late

I canceled my Charter service as soon as they announced the "soft caps.," and I'll be staying away so long as they even hint at a future of metered billing (the retention rep who turned off my account tried the "every ISP is going to be doing this" line on me at the time).

Using the language of Charter's PR flacks, "I have no plans to pay Charter any money in the future."

••••
KoRnGtL15
Premium
join:2007-01-04
Grants Pass, OR
kudos:1

Correction.......

"Right now we are gathering requirements to develop a resource so that customers can monitor and control their bandwidth resources," says Ketzer. "This was something that our customers have been requesting," he claims, "and we want to meet that need." Ketzer also told us Charter has no plans to begin enforcing their soft caps."

That is correct. BUT. Customers only asked for a meter monitor if, they actually decided to ENFORCE caps. If they will not be enforcing. It is a waste of time and resources. So it can mean 1 of 2 things. They are telling a lie to us customers and plan on doing it. Or they will be going after the heavy users that go way over the cap.
titoyay222
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Cincinnati, OH

1 edit

1 recommendation

Caps

I do agree with most of Fiberguys post on this subject, however I'm still not a fan of these caps. I do agree that the ISP does provide a service, not bandwidth with their current pricing model. But if a customer is buying a certain tier they should be able to be within spec of the tier being sold to them. Even with the extra costs of a "heavy user" who exceeds the TOS soft caps, the prices that are invested into the network are fixed costs still. Unless it has been proven otherwise.

Yes, if a user is going over their limits it can cause other users to call in and have tech visits or even cut service because of the problems which obviously does cost the company money in the end.
Look at it this way though.. how could one user on a node cause so much congestion with constant downloading (going over the soft caps) cause the entire node to go slower for the rest of those 200-300 people? I would think that the node is simply oversold. Does one user who is downloading at 15mbps, 20mbps, 30mbps(24-7), slow down that node so much that people are cutting service or calling tech's all the time? If you cut that one user is it going to solve the poor service from the node? Even then, the ISP should be able to see that the node is congested with users without even having to send a tech out. On top of that, the ISP is selling a service at a specific speed tier. The techs on the phone can view the modem's signal levels and determine that it's not a signal issue, it's a congestion issue. If they would come right out and say it's congestion slowing you down, that would save the company money from having to send out a service tech to every home that has those issues.

I still don't see how this is going to save 95% of consumers money. The costs have gone down since broadband has been deployed over most areas but I don't think they have gone down THAT much. Even when they do go down they make another stipulation making it a bundled service. In my area It's always been around 46.50$ for service bundled with costs always going up. I just don't see how the ISP's will say that my bill will be lower. You do mention low prices for DSL but come on.. look at those speeds. For any house hold who has multiple computers and devices those speeds are too slow. Have other countries implemented caps? Why do I always see speeds that are so similar yet the cost of service is around $15.00, $25.00 for 100mbps sym. connections? Plus those prices you mention are most likely with a contract or just temporary price before they jack it up to at least double once the promotion is over.

In my opinion, if you want to see lower prices... There needs to be more competition in areas. Here in Naples FL, I have a choice of either Comcast or Century link or w/e its called. The dsl service is horrible for the florida area from what I've read during peak times.. not to mention its at least half the speeds. What competition is that? In my home town Cincinnati ohio they are the same setup. It's Cincinnati Bell's "Zoomtwon" DSL service which is slow still and horrible service. TWC has decent speeds but prices are just about the same as anywhere else. It wasn't till Cincy Bell decided to roll out Fiber to the Home for their entire footprint that TWC decided to add docsis 3.0 for only Business class customers. Surprise to see that, TWC which only has one other market with those speeds all of sudden upgrade a city like Cincinnati? Granted, its only for business class customers (prob. b/c they can't figure out how to get it working correctly yet). At least with Cincy bell I can get sym speeds 10/10, 20/20, and 30/30 bundeled with their IPTV services far cheeper than TWC.

Luna Saisho

@charter.com

Charter will educate?

I was on the phone with Charter maybe 4-5 months ago, and I asked them about the caps. First, they said there were none, then they told me that streaming video (Netflix, YouTube, etc) didn't count against the caps, because it's video. They didn't seem to understand themselves that it's still data, and still counts. I have no faith that they themselves are capable of educating anyone correctly...
Caboosey

join:2006-06-22
Pismo Beach, CA

Bandwitch Cap Needs to go!

The bandwith cap needs to go away or they will lose more customers!