They are getting ready to charge us based on usage per month.
With a family of four, and at least 3 computers on at all times, I'm assuming my rates will be going up. Might be time to switch to Embarq.
Up my internet bill? No, Time Warner, up yours!
Sometimes I mistake this for a universe that cares. -- xkcd #625
Ozzie, your paradigm of optimism!
Go To Hell carolina, Go To Hell!
9F 9F 9F
I had Embarq for 4 years. I didn't have the highest speed offered but I doubt I download near as much as you family. I did get good service from them. I now use my Blackberry for my modem (Alltel) & love it. That is 30 a mo. I know that would be very expensive for your family but others might want to investigate. Our son has T-mobile & a wireless card & he gets charged by the amount of downloads. Not good. The nice thing about using a cell phone (it doesn"t have to be a blackberry) you can use it anywhere there is an Alltel signel
Hmm, let's see - Cable companies charging for bandwidth at levels that would be prohibitive for media consumption... hmm, why would a cable company want to keep someone from downloading movies?
It's total crap that they're running bandwidth tests in Beaumont, Texas. That is hardly a typical area for internet consumption; I'd be shocked if the majority population in Beaumont had more than one (if even one) computer in the home. Run a test in Cary, NC or Overland Park, KS, and I'd see that as typical usage.
But even so, typical bandwidth usage now is not what it's going to be in 1 year, when Hulu gets going; when Netflix On-demand and Amazon on-demand services take hold; when XBox Live video and Sony media and Apple movie services all get full consumer momentum.
Yeah, time to start finding a non-cable-company solution to broadband, as they're all going to do whatever they can to save their bread & butter cable business.
The moment my cable company puts any sort of BW cap or price/usage dependency on me I'm switching to FiOS in a hearbeat. I watch a lot of things on Hulu already and will probably sign up for Netflix on demand within a year or so.
Combine that with all the media-rich sites I go to and the fact that I often work from home and transfer a lot of data for work, I'm sure I'm in their sights if they ever decide to impose such a policy.
I have been looking for motivation to get rid of Time/Warner. A while back I got snookered into a deal with significant lower rate, but I had to commit to a two year deal. I'd like to think that being locked into a deal, the two year requirement would disappearwhen the plan is activated. Well, I'm will not be snookered by them again. If they go through with this I'm leaving TWC, totally. Who needs 'em.
It doesn't seem unreasonable that consumers who use more bandwidth should have to pay more. The question is, will those who use less end up saving money or will TWC use the current monthly cost as the new minimum.
Also, for current customers who are tied into long-term contracts, I wonder if TWC will hold them to their contracts after restructuring their pricing. I hope not, because it seems to me that TWC is violating their end of the contract by changing things up.
For those who say they don't use much bandwidth, think about this. Most of the internet is media driven nowadays, you are forced into watching videos even if you don't want to. With video ads running on sites, news sites posting video only stories, and your buddies emailing you videos of a chimp sniffing his finger, you probably use much more than you think. I've got several clients computers that recieve gigabytes worth of email alone due to all the videos and photos they forward back and forth. I wonder how much data is transferred watching or listening to a live ball game online, or listening to streaming music. If you are one of those that loves online radio...pay up!
Interestingly, might print journalism stand to benefit from this as well (if browsing the internet for news becomes too expensive)?
I think this is a real problem, but most people don't understand how much it will affect them, so instead of preempting the change, they'll just whine about it after the fact.
Any suggestions for non-cable based broadband? I guess the main options would be DSL or Verizon FIOS? I never really gave much thought to internet providers, up to this point Time Warner had worked fine. But especially since I'll be getting an apartment this summer I'll have to find a non-Time Warner solution. The $200 per month bill mentioned in the article is probably a low estimate for what I would pay, and there will be two other people in the apartment with me.
Does anyone see any possibility of this plan getting thrown out? It may be a good time for a boycott...just kidding. I'm pretty sure the country as a whole is too lazy and apathetic to actually have a successful boycott. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Edit: Oops, CB&B beat me to the "you use more bandwidth than you think" point. Doesn't hurt to have it here twice though, its important.
I'm all for companies setting whatever pricing scheme they want for their services when there's an open market. But considering how closed the home internet access market is, I worry about the small number of service provdiers available to me all going this way and leaving me no choice.
There may be other providers as well, Earthlink for instance, that would serve your home too.