dslreports logo
 story category
Time Warner Caps Go from Ugly To Invisible
Carrier booting Austin users without setting clear limits...

For half a decade Comcast customers complained about being booted from the network for consuming too much bandwidth, though Comcast never stated just how much bandwidth was too much. Only last October did Comcast replace their "invisicap" with the clear 250GB cap (insiders told us overages were considered). The new cap was imposed in part because the FCC and the State of Florida put pressure on Comcast to be more transparent about their network management practices.

Last week, while consumers were busy telling Time Warner Cable they didn't want to be billed by the byte, several cable executives breathlessly praised the company for their transparency. Apparently that transparency only went so far. Though the metered billing trials have been temporarily shelved, Stop the Cap tells us that three users in Austin are suddenly facing service disconnections for not-at-all-clear bandwidth hoggery:

quote:
Ryan Howard (says) that his Road Runner service was cut off yesterday without warning. According to Ryan, it took four calls to technical support, two visits to the cable store to try two new cable modems (all to no avail), before someone at Time Warner finally told him to call the company’s “Security and Abuse” center. "I called the number and had to leave a voice mail and about an hour later a Time Warner technician called me back and lectured me for using 44 gigabytes in one week,” Howard wrote."
Like Comcast of old, Time Warner Cable wouldn't tell Ryan what the exact limit was. If this is part of Time Warner Cable's new user education process, we appear to be moving backward, not forward. If you've been a long time Broadband Reports reader, you know that Time Warner Cable has a history of experimenting with caps long before this recent metered billing kerfuffle, as our report from back in 2003 highlights.

Such limits differed from market to market based on regional congestion, but were at least clear where they existed. This letter to a Nebraska Time Warner Cable customer is nearly six years old, but even it referenced a very clear 15GB limit. This new invisicap consumer education process may not sit well with either the FCC or State Attorneys General, who've made it clear that if you're going to limit users, it must be clear.

Time Warner Cable could have simply imposed a 250GB limit to curb network abusers, a path trailblazed by Comcast. Instead they decided to go right for the prize of low caps and high overages. When their nose was slapped by an angry public and populism-surfing politicians, they begrudgingly headed back to the PR drawing board. In the interim they decided it was a good idea to impose nebulous network limits to clarify things for users?

Certainly this all makes sense from within the halls of Time Warner Cable HQ, where the belief is that consumers are just being difficult if they can't see the genius in charging users $2 per gigabyte on the eve of HD video. You can almost hear CEO Glenn Britt and COO Landel Hobbs complaining that last week consumers were angry about clear caps, and this week they're angry about unclear caps. The insufferable insolence of the American consumer.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

4 edits

Anonymous_

Premium Member

they have not boot me off yet

April 2009 (Incoming: 205,248 MB / Outgoing: 90,514 MB)

only 50% is p2p got to watch my tv shows in Crisp HD(and other shows download for every one eles in the house)

Rest of it is youtube,web pages,gamming . etc... from the other computers that others use
watice
join:2008-11-01
New York, NY

watice

Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

said by Anonymous_:

April 2009 (Incoming: 200278 MB / Outgoing: 86134 MB)
same here. guess they leave areas where FIOS is being deployed alone.

March 2009 (Incoming: 97391 MB / Outgoing: 206600 MB)

xNPC
As Usual, Have Nice Day
Premium Member
join:2000-11-08
Errington, BC
·Shaw
ARRIS TG3482

xNPC

Premium Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

i loves my fios. and im not "stealing" anything.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102 to Anonymous_

Member

to Anonymous_
Is that number from TWC or your router ?

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

Anonymous_

Premium Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

router why?

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

Just wondering if TWC had a meter yet

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

Anonymous_

Premium Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

even if they did i would not use it as i do not check slowrunner email
innoman
-
Premium Member
join:2002-05-07
Seattle, WA

innoman to en102

Premium Member

to en102
The way to fix all of this would probably be to stage a cancel TWC day. If they get enough account cancellations, they will change their tune.

NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium Member
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

1 edit

NOCMan to Anonymous_

Premium Member

to Anonymous_
How about quit stealing content.

There are plenty of free legal alternatives now.

MrMaster
Rum Connoisseur
Premium Member
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI

MrMaster

Premium Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

said by NOCMan:

How about quit stealing content.

There are plenty of free legal alternatives now.
I have him beat and its all legit. technet subscription, linux distros and hulu.

no disconnection notice hear yet.

Lagz
Premium Member
join:2000-09-03
The Rock

2 edits

Lagz to NOCMan

Premium Member

to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:

How about quit stealing content.

Hmmm. Don't assume he is stealing because he is using P2P. To many legit things to get now and plenty of alternatives that are free. I use P2P for Linux distros and a variety of other legit stuff.

I have argued for years now that streaming media would come into its own and caps were a way to squash this. ISP's are starting to directly compete with old cable TV business models and these cable companies are not happy realizing what if's. What if most people move from current cable television to online television? Cable TV companies and even at&t, which is now deploying u-verse, will lose customers to the internet side as more and more people drop the current TV business model for an internet TV. These companies realize that they control the internet ISP side. You can guess what the answer is to stop these what ifs, yep caps and overage charges. Especially, as streaming media quality increases. As the speeds increase so to will quality which will put more people over or beyond caps. Anyone here imagine watching on demand streamed video content over the internet 15 years ago?

Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
MVM
join:2003-02-18
San Jose, CA

Nerdtalker to NOCMan

MVM

to NOCMan
said by NOCMan:

How about quit stealing content.

There are plenty of free legal alternatives now.
Please don't start with that nonsense, I implore you.

High bandwidth use != infringing use. It's that simple.

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1

2 edits

Anonymous_

Premium Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

said by Nerdtalker:

said by NOCMan:

How about quit stealing content.

There are plenty of free legal alternatives now.
Please don't start with that nonsense, I implore you.

High bandwidth use != infringing use. It's that simple.
the only option for "OTA TV" is internet or
TW rip off 50$ or more for basic cable is a rip off as most of the channels they get for free

200+GB is normal internet useage
as there is 6 computers

about 40GB permonth percomputer = 200GB

my brother and my Cousin game that they play uses 3mbps Total
Expand your moderator at work

MGMII
@sbcglobal.net

1 recommendation

MGMII to NOCMan

Anon

to NOCMan
Let me get this straight, We pay 42.95 if bundled or 52.95 per month for HIGH SPEED INTERNET. On Average 5 tp 12MB Service. There has to be a legit reason for giving this kind of speed to the paying public. So why cap it if you are paying for it. Broadband internet is extremely cheap. Get up off your high horse. Watching 2 hours of streaming video per day would put you way over cap according to them. Get a life and some common since you twit, Or are you working for them.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to Anonymous_

Premium Member

to Anonymous_
said by Anonymous_:

only 50% is p2p got to watch my tv shows in Crisp HD(and other shows download for every one eles in the house)
I run 9 PC's in my home, 2 DVR's, we game, watch youtube, watch internet content legally downloaded on to our DVR's from DirecTV and we use about 40GB per month.

The problem with your consumption, is it isn't "normal". Most homes download a few GB per month. The use my family gets from Comcast is much higher than normal, what you are doing is significantly higher network use.

When a bunch of neighbors have significant above "normal" use the provider must either limit access (put on caps) or build infrastructure (increase costs to customers beyond what would be justified for a "normal" residential user).

Torrent HD content may be nice (I've never used torrent so have no idea), however it likely isn't legally obtained.

Why should your neighbors suffer lower internet performance or higher bills to permit your probable theft of copyrighted video programs?
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

Pandora

ISPs do not pay by the GB they pay by peak Mbps. So ANY amount of GB download during non peak hours costs the ISP absolutely nothing (0) extra. Both the transit costs and the hardware costs are solely determined by peak Mbps.

Downloading EXCLUSIVELY between 11pm and 8am a 5Mbps customer can download over 500GB a month without slowing down his neighbors or costing the ISP anything extra. This is why the monthly GB cap does not address the issues of ISP costs or congestion. There are methods to control peak hour congestion (costs). One of these is to use proticol agnostic throttling during peak hours, Comcast now uses this during peak hours. The reason cable companies are pushing caps so hard is to protect their video product from the huge competition that is rapidly growing on the internet.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

SpaethCo

MVM

Re: they have not boot me off yet

said by Lazlow:

Downloading EXCLUSIVELY between 11pm and 8am a 5Mbps customer can download over 500GB a month without slowing down his neighbors or costing the ISP anything extra. This is why the monthly GB cap does not address the issues of ISP costs or congestion.
While the logic here is true, most people use their bandwidth during peak times... that's why they're called peak times.

The charge that is often made here is that bandwidth restrictions (either though caps or metered billing) is in direct response to demand caused by streaming video.

So either:

1) Everyone here is wrong and streaming video is not the concern, and capacity can be managed by pushing heavy transfers outside of peak hours.

or

2) The concern really is due to massively concurrent streaming video (ie, all concentrated in peak evening viewing times), and the per-GB numbers are based around the costs to expand the capacity of the pipe to meet peak demand.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to Lazlow

Premium Member

to Lazlow
It would make sense for caps to be instituted to peak times only. Excessive downloading during peak hours either costs more for infrastructure (increased rates) or results in greater congestion (lower performance).

People who regularly use a lot of bandwidth during peak hours are harming their neighbors IMO.

The case I responded to was a poster who admitted to using torrents to download HD video programs. Generally this is copyrighted material downloaded illegally. The usage was very high. He tried to explain it by claiming he had a lot of PC's.

I have a lot more PC's on my LAN, probably more game consoles, and also currently 6 VOIP accounts and use far less than half his bandwidth. I was pointing out that his use is excessive, despite his justification.

My provider (Comcast) has provided a definition of excessive as 250GB per month, which I think is very fair.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

2 edits

Lazlow

Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

espaeth

That the majority of customers use their bandwidth during peak hours, I would agree with. However, if you talk to the majority of high bandwidth users(the so called "bandwidth hogs") they are specifically avoiding peak traffic hours. They do this for two main reasons. First with all the congestion during peak hours they really do not get much downloaded (GB/hr) during those hours. Second ISPs have (for years) watched who is causing the problem(congestion) during peak hours on the channel and tend to go after those people first. Essentially if you do not cause a problem for us(the ISP) we will leave you alone. So the monthly caps do not address the congestion issue.

As far as streaming goes: the majority (at least today) of high bandwidth users are also usually on the high end of tech savvy. Virtually all streaming video can be saved to disk(if you are skilled enough). So for the tech savvy there is no need to stream during peak hours. When the less tech savvy users (non "bandwidth hogs") start streaming they will be increasing the load on the channel. As pandora pointed out, they are still below the caps. This means that peak Mbps will go up significantly without breaking the caps and you still need to upgrade the system to handle the load. Again it is usually not the few(1%) "bandwidth hogs" which are downloading a lot during non peak hours that are causing the congestion. It is the majority (85%?) all downloading a little bit (relative) all at the same time (peak hours) that causes the congestion.

Again I would point you to TWC's 10K, they are spending $146 million (for HSI hardware, bandwidth, etc) for revenues from HSI of $4.2 BILLION.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

As I said, bandwidth consumption when there is no contention has no cost. I agree with that. However, consumption during peak periods costs.

I'd be very supportive of a cap during peak times only.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

Pandora

There is a problem with using caps at all. When (and NOT if) enough people are streaming and you try to have set peak hours (for the cap), a large number of people will "discover" how to save to disk rather than live streaming. This will make peak hours become a moving target(4-10 this month, 10-2 next month, ect). This is why I think the only way out(other than just keeping up with system upgrades) is to use a congestion based, proticol agnostic, throttle (when the channel is congested everybody gets throttled back to their fair share). That way if there is congestion everybody gets throttled back and when there is not congestion you can run full steam. The risk with the throttle is that they will overuse it and not upgrade the system to keep up with traffic loads.

The other thing is to look at the numbers. The increased Mbps is NOT costing them all that much money (hardware or transit). Again, I will point to the 10K numbers, $146 million in costs(transit and hardware) for $4.2 BILLION in revenues. The costs of the extra Mbps is really a drop in the bucket. While labor is not included in those numbers, the increase in labor costs (excluding initial installation) will be minimal(the customer/labor ratio will remain essentially constant). It is a pretty safe bet that they will spend far more on PR expenses to recover from this mess, than the increase in labor would have been to manage the the extra equipment.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

A congestion protocol is necessary when there is contention. At the same time, users who take 10 to 100 times more bandwidth than average are likely causing congestion.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

That is just it. Those heavy users are usually very tech savvy and understand how things work. So they limit (for the most part) their downloading to off peak hours, which causes zero (0) congestion.

I am not sure what you mean by:

"A congestion protocol is necessary when there is contention."
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

Whenever there is congestion, a network will have to manage it. The solution Comcast came up with to derate those who are hogging bandwidth is a good one.

The supposedly highest tech hundred plus gigabyte users are most likely young males downloading pirated content over torrents. Not exactly the cream of the crop IMO. If they way, a commercial account could be appropriate.
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO

Lazlow

Member

Re: they have not boot me off yet

I agree that Comcast's proticol agnostic throttle during peak hours is a great idea. It actually addresses the problem of congestion. The are also (unofficially) handling the cap in smart manner. Those that exceed the 250GB cap and are causing congestion problems are generally the ones being kick out. Those exceeding the 250GB cap but are not causing congestion problems are generally being ignored(in many cases those in this second group are download MUCH more than those in the first group).

You should also be careful about the male/female thing. The person that I know with the largest library(by a HUGE factor) is female and she is not alone. But yes, those that are tech savvy are more likely (particularly when young) to be involved in these kinds of activities. It is usually more about meeting the challenge (king of the hill, fastest, the first one there, etc) than the actual content. Since they are not a business and what they are doing is not costing the ISP anything extra, I do not think a commercial account is necessary.

ropeguru
Premium Member
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA

ropeguru to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

A congestion protocol is necessary when there is contention. At the same time, users who take 10 to 100 times more bandwidth than average are likely causing congestion.
You people still confuse bandwidth with bytes downloaded. Just tell me where I can get 160Mbps to 1600Mbps more than my neighbor next door? My max bandwidth without powerboost on Comcast ir 16Mbps. There is no way that I can use 10 or 100 times more.

These operators need to plan for peak time and incorporate the cost into SLIGHTLY higher rates for everyone. If they manage for peak usage on their internet connections properly, then there will be no extra charge when getting into that 90% or 95% peak.

This low cap and per GB billing is nothing more then a cash grab.
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

k1ll3rdr4g0n

Member

And here we go again....

Do we as humans not learn from our own history?
Or I suppose that is only the stupid people.

*sigh* Anyone care to start calling their state reps? My suggestion is to at least file a complaint with the Attorney General .
rid0617
join:2003-07-20
Greer, SC

rid0617

Member

Re: And here we go again....

It took citizen complaints to break up the old AT&T. It took the Republicans to put it back together. It is now time for people to complain again and get these greedy asses broke up or under control
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

rradina

Member

Re: And here we go again....

Congress allowed it to happen and I think it's been equally controlled by both parties. Check the voting records of your senators and representatives. If they didn't stop it and you voted for either of them, you too contributed to "putting them back together".

If we're going to permit an oligopoly, we need better regulation. Otherwise the government needs to create more competition (tax breaks, cheap financing) to promote wireless. Wireless holds the most promise of rapidly-developed competition since it doesn't require the massive build-out cost and time of a hard-line network. We've been hearing about it for years but it seems to remain as just a bit of static on an otherwise clear monopolistic signal.

Ford Prefect
@bellsouth.net

Ford Prefect to rid0617

Anon

to rid0617
said by rid0617:

It took citizen complaints to break up the old AT&T. It took the Republicans to put it back together. It is now time for people to complain again and get these greedy asses broke up or under control
Yeah, that arch-Republican Bill Clinton, who signed the '96 telco bill. That neocon bastard!

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

great

Try to educate the public when charge more after the fact.

Tw is smoking a blunt too big and too fast. Nice buzz there TW?

uid1307457
Premium Member
join:2005-12-30
Tempe, AZ

1 edit

uid1307457

Premium Member

Re: great

Click for full size
said by hayabusa3303:

Try to educate the public when charge more after the fact.

Tw is smoking a blunt too big and too fast. Nice buzz there TW?

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

Re: great

Great find there
jnemesh3
join:2008-04-30
Kenmore, WA

jnemesh3

Member

TWC customer abuse

As much as I love having broadband internet at home, I would sooner use dial-up than pay one CENT to Time Warner.

If people organized a mass exodus from this company, they would quickly die and hopefully be replaced with someone who has more enlightened policies. I would call on ALL TWC customers to call up and cancel your service, even if only for one month. They will get the message!

••••

dib22
join:2002-01-27
Kansas City, MO

dib22

Member

sigh

guess it's time to switch away from time warner... what's sad is it was a great service... but the only thing they understand is money so I guess I have to switch.

sansri88
digital is here
Premium Member
join:2005-12-17
New York, NY

sansri88

Premium Member

can the hole get any deeper?

seriously, this is getting ridiculous. TWC keeps on digging itself an even larger hole.
45612019 (banned)
join:2004-02-05
New York, NY

1 edit

45612019 (banned)

Member

Lame.

I don't know how reliable a single anonymous story is. Sounds like you guys are a little too ready to jump on the anti-Time Warner bandwagon after this cap nonsense.

How about doing some actual journalism and getting some reliable sources to back this shit up?

•••••••
gnat9
join:2005-08-07
Houston, TX

gnat9

Member

GrandeCom

If I lived in Austin, I'd be using GrandeCom. I wish I were lucky to live in a place with a serious (similar speed, etc) competitor to the Goliaths of cable internet. Of course I'm in no better position using Comcast in Houston.

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium Member
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

fireflier

Premium Member

Awww, do the TWC execs need a cookie?

I think this is just more TWC pouting. They didn't get what they wanted with caps and overages so they hint that trial markets won't get DOCSIS 3.0. Now it looks like they're saying: "Fine! if you don't want to pay us extra for the bandwidth, we'll just cut you off as we see fit".

I don't particularly have a problem with ISP's pulling the plug on abusers but TWC is being pretty stupid to try the same thing Comcast got their ass chewed off for. Do the execs at TWC even read the news?

This is apparently turrning into a major pissing contest between TWC execs and the public at large.

EricOH
@rr.com

EricOH

Anon

...

As much as I want to jump down TWC's throat, it kinda diminishes the overall goal if this is in fact NOT true.
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL

Mr Matt

Member

TWC treats customers like mushrooms!

Yes TWC treats customers like a farmer would treat mushrooms, feeding them bullshit and keeping them in the dark. The best part about not being transparent, is that it allows the ISP to be arbitrary. Give a pass to those downloading the right kind of packets and dump those that are downloading the wrong kind. Set invisible low CAPS for those downloading IPTV and Music and let those using their broadband connection for the kinds of downloads that the ISP blesses alone, regardless of how much data they download.

It would be interesting to find out what kind of data Ryan Howard was downloading. Was it blessed or heretical. Time for the AG to investigate the mushroom farmers.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

1 edit

maartena

Premium Member

here we go again....

TWC can't just NOT mess things up, can they. They KNOW that they are on the radar of the press, and they go and boot people off of their network anyways?

Someone over there really needs to get their head out of the sand, and use it for a change.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

djrobx

Premium Member

Re: here we go again....

Agreed. It's so bad I'm just going to avoid their services altogether where possible, and encourage others to do the same. Their actions as of late really speak to the character of their business.

TW's 3 closest peers, Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, are all at least attempting to be market leaders in their respective fields. TW seems to want to do as little as possible, aside from pioneering a new way to screw over their customers. AT&T is taking a pretty cheap route too, but at least they're doing innovative things with U-verse and creating a solid competitive option for people. If I had invested in TW I'd be looking to sell. This CEO clearly has no vision for the future, and will be completely unprepared for the competitive forces that are coming. It will bite them in the ass.

Hpower
join:2000-06-08
Canyon Country, CA

1 edit

Hpower

Member

Jesus this is getting OLD already

This is lame, and it's getting worse. I am not sure if their exec's have their heads stuck somewhere or if they really are just that careless. lol @ 44 gigs in one week lecture. big deal. I go through about 20-30 gigs anyway in a week with all my family members using the connection. I barely download much anymore since I am busier now with my new job but on the days when I do DL torrents, I'd easily get 40 gigs in a week.

jadebangle
Premium Member
join:2007-05-22
00000

jadebangle

Premium Member

Re: Jesus this is getting OLD already

said by Hpower:

This is lame, and it's getting worse. I am not sure if their exec's have their heads stuck somewhere or if they really are just that careless. lol @ 44 gigs in one week lecture. big deal. I go through about 20-30 gigs anyway in a week with all my family members using the connection. I barely download much anymore since I am busier now with my new job but on the days when I do DL torrents, I'd easily get 40 gigs in a week.

I can do that in 24 hours with 5mbit
I can do that in 12 hours with 10mbit
What is time warner smoking? Are they doing this to minimize usage for all user? To piss of as many ppl as possible therefore shooting themselve in the foot as well?

duder
@rr.com

duder

Anon

can not see my bill

maybe a invisibill$$$ will work for them stop the crap people are getting fed up with this shit soon fios will be every where and then you will be inviable and no one will care so stop the shit i like you guys twc but please do not make us go to some other provider greed is killing the usa but no will see that till it is to late

•••••••••

Voyager2K2
join:2001-10-04
Wayne, PA

Voyager2K2

Member

Here Come FIOS

Verizon never cared about usage, In any TWC overlays, I can tell you TWC is done. I could go on but look at Comcast in the Western Philly suburbs. I get a mailing almost every single day. Cable stick a fork in you. You are done unless you quit being so cheap.
hottboiinnc4
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

hottboiinnc4

Member

it's RR that's kicking NOT TWC

RoadRunner has a separate abuse clause in their TOS/AUP. It's up to RoadRunner to decide what happens. They reserve the right on BrightHouse and Insight Columbus as well.

People should read their agreement for using the service. Granted its not stated but you get the TOS as soon as you sign up for service, in paper form.

Again TWC is not doing it. RoadRunner is. The ISP side. NOT the cable operator.

••••

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Netgear WNDR3700v2
Zoom 5341J

KrK

Premium Member

TWC's PR spokeshole said the cut-off is for ....

"Security Reasons" and not because of the usage as such; instead they say the usage spiked so they shut down the connection "temporarily" until they can speak with the subscriber and verify that their computer hasn't been hijacked and is being used as a zombie to send viruses or Spam etc.... They claim this is the long-standing TWC position and that it is "normal" to have your account "quarantined" due to "suspicious usage."

I call bullcrap on that....

••••

ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC

1 edit

ifarrell

Member

Within limits.....this month!

Date Download Upload Total
04/09 9.20 GB 11.22 GB 20.41 GB

Haven't been home much this month.
I have used 50-70GB on average in previous months.
No P2P just streaming Audio and renting Movies.

jadebangle
Premium Member
join:2007-05-22
00000

jadebangle

Premium Member

Re: Within limits.....this month!

said by ifarrell:

Date Download Upload Total
04/09 9.20 GB 11.22 GB 20.41 GB

Haven't been home much this month.
I have used 50-70GB on average in previous months.
No P2P just streaming Audio and renting Movies.
I use on average 44gb at 5mbit per day.
88gb at 10mbit
None of you user no matter how much are always below me LOL
What take most of you to consume in a month only take me 24 hours
Thats because most of you are casual user, not heavy or serious internet user
I should be in the book of Guinness record shouldn't I?
Give me 20,30,40,50, etc 100mbit and you will see what kind of a serious user I AM WOOHOOOOOOO

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Someone call the FCC

Comcast got bitch slapped with a nice fine for this. Maybe TW will get the same.

••••••••••

hushman
@charter.com

hushman

Anon

this united state or something else

well my question is where we live is not like usa isp companys try to put caps to the user we have to fight for our right have unlimited band we deserve i can believe in other country in latin american or other places dont have this kind of policies we living in a country is behind in the technology and speed i can believe in japan they have 100 mbts home user we only have 20 this the country who invented the internet or im wrong thats why this country have this kind of problems .. because the ceo have his head stick in the #!@#@! or somebody else and just think in make more money to have a better and more bigger bonus
page: 1 · 2 · next