Stop the Cap!
Update: Time Warner cancels plans for tiered Internet pricing! WIN! More details here.
As a Rochester company, we are in tune with a lot of what goes on in our hometown. We don’t usually meddle in local issues but this is a topic we are all passionate about so we wanted share it with all of you.
Time Warner Cable announced that it would be switching from a flat monthly rate for Internet access to tiered pricing that is based on consumption. The $29.99 plan will be capped at 10GB of bandwidth and you will be charged $1/GB for any usage beyond that. If you want your good ‘ole unlimited bandwidth Internet access you will end up paying as much as $150 per month!
So how much is 10GB anyway? They make it sound like they are only doing this to stop all those software-pirating BitTorrent users. Here is a legitimate use case. If you purchase the high-def version of Quantum of Solace on iTunes, that is a 3.54GB download. Buy three movies in one month and you hit the 10GB limit.
Besides the above use case, there are innovative new products launching every day that require large amounts of bandwidth. Services like streaming video on Netflix or Hulu, video conferencing, and gaming are all going to suffer. Innovation in general will suffer because you are limited in the kinds of applications you are able to create.
We are not alone! New York Congressman Eric Massa announced the Massa Broadband Internet Fairness Act, which would prohibit unfair tiered price structures and countless people are voicing their opinions in various ways.
So what can you do? Share your thoughts in the comments section. Having a discussion about the issue is how you create awareness.
If you are a local Rochesterian, there will be protest this Saturday that you can attend to make your voice heard! Here are the event details:
- Facebook Event Info
- Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009
- Time: 11:00am – 5:00pm
- Location: Time Warner Cable Store
- Address: 71 Mt. Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY
Bill Martin Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Right on Digsby!
Deborah Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Wow, that would just about shut down my business (I’m a website programmer/developer), and I’m on 24/7 creating videos for my clients and uploading/downloading them. YIKES. I certainly hope this doesn’t happen for you and the other states to follow. I live in a TimeWarner area (Rio Grande Valley).
zerokul175 Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
I totally support you guys and congressman Massa, tired pricing for bandwith use is total crazyness. The whole idea of surfing the net, watching online videos, online gaming and tons of other FREE applications the internet is used for, is because it is supposed to be FREE. Theres just too many greedy companies out there….Lets hope this can be stopped.!!!!
Ortzinator Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Basically, you need to contact your local government and get them to put an end to these localized monopolies that ISP’s have.
BPartch Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
Yes this is not good news, I have nightmares about this happening with my ISP.
That’s funny you mention “Quantum of Solace” I saw a preview for it right after reading this. :p
Digsby Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
@Deborah: Time Warner is first doing it in a few test markets including Beaumont, San Antonio, Austin, Greensboro, and Rochester but will eventually roll it out to other markets.
Powerstream Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Another thing this effects are online backup companies. I know most people don’t backup 200gb like I do, but I don’t think 25gb would be to far off. So it will take you 3 months to back up, then if you need to restore it will take you another 3 months.
Justin Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
There’s no way this is going to fly with the consumer market. Consider the huge sector of people with wireless routers that are uneducated as to how to set up WEP/WPA. It leaves their network open to outsiders and therefore unauthorized use of their capped bandwidth. It doesn’t matter how much education they give the public or how many disclaimers they put in their service agreement, there are always going to be people who can’t understand how to use this and this alone is going to cost Time Warner millions in reparations or lost customers.
Tom Hearn Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
This is a ridiculous scheme for theme to make more money off of services that are already established as an industry norm. Europe is YEARS ahead of us in bandwidth and it is about 5 times cheaper. Putting caps like this on bandwidth also limits another service that is rapidly becoming popular: Online storage drives. In the case of myself, I use LiveDrive, which would make my monthly storage costs outrageous.
Tim Hibbard Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Sunflower Broadband here in Lawrence, KS does this too. It’s crap and they justify it, by saying “normal users will not have an issue with the cap”
Digsby Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
@Powerstream: Didn’t even consider the effect on backup companies like Mozy and Carbonite. Good point!
Justin Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
This is a fundamental marketing error, an inability to understand how to price a service based on how the user consumes it and an inability to act intelligently in a depression economy at best.
Bradley Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Sounds like crap to me. What if you live with friends and everyone there likes to surf the net, watch videos, use iTunes, do backups, video/audio calling with Skype/Yahoo/etc? Hell, what if you’re just a normal family and you and your wife and two kids all do that? 10 GB is nothing. Where I live right now, we burn at least 6 GB per day, just doing legit stuff.
Bradley Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
It’s all about greed Justin. These companies see a way to screw their consumers and there aren’t any laws to stop them, so they’re going to do it.
Joel Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
This happens in the UK already, though there is usually an additional plan for “Unlimited”, which usually enlists our friend mr. fair usage policy, meaning actually you don’t get unlimited.
Fight the power!
JeremyB Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Since overages are capped at $75, if you know you’ll exceed it, it would be cheaper to buy the lowest-capped plan ($39.99) and just max out the overage fees. It’s $115, but still less than $150.
Also, at $1 per gigabyte, it’s cheaper to burn a DVD and mail people data.
Sergei Tulentsev Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
People, it’s not the worst thing that can happen to you. Look at Russia. If it is not Moscow, prices are up in the sky.
On the Far East, for example, you’ll have to pay around $80 for a 128 kbit channel. And even it is said to be unlimited, there is a ‘hidden’ limit, upon reaching which the ISP throttles your speed.
And in many cities there are no unlimited Internet access plans at all.
However, situation is getting better quite rapidly. So, soon you guys will be jealous of us
Tom Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
As unpopular as this may be, I think that people should pay for the bandwidth they use. It makes no sense that I, as a frequent movie downloader don’t pay more than my mom who only does basic web-surfing and email checking.
I’m not sure why we expect to be able to download as much as we want for free. We don’t get unlimited calling minutes for free. We don’t get unlimited electricity for free. We don’t get unlimited water for free (unless you have your own well).
I do agree though, that the prices they’re charging seem quite high. Why are the first 10GB priced at $3/GB and each one after that is cheaper? If these prices actually lined up, in some way, with the ISP’s costs, I’d have much less of an issue with it.
Robert J. Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Go Digsby…
I watch a HD movie through my XBOX360 every couple days which range from 5-6 gigs a piece for just 720p… not to mention a 1080p version.
This is an outrage… I hope Verison uses this opportunity to get fIOS in my area.
Danny Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
That’s racist yo.
Robert J. Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Sorry for double post, but I am in Austin Texas… one of the test markets. *tear*
Seb Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
This will KILL any further online innovation! It will already cripple present services, what about services to come?
Jonathan Z Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
This must be stopped. Listen up Time Warner!
JR Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Wow! I had no idea you guys were a Rochester company. I went to RIT and I’ve been hearing from several friends that they are having issues with TWC changing their plans. To me, the worst part is that there really aren’t any other options in Rochester. Hmm, I wonder if they only picked markets they have a monopoly in to test this new pricing scheme.
FlintZA Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
I’m sorry but i can’t help but chuckle at this. Where i come from (South Africa) uncapped access is the exclusive privelage of the very wealthy. Most of us pay around ten dollar (us) a gig or more, and there are actually products with caps measured in megs!
I really feel your pain, caps are not inherently bad, but with the kinds of legitimate services around today in the states, 20 gigs is really limited when you’re used to uncapped. good luck with your protest!
Jimmy Lee Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
I’m in Raleigh-Durham area, which is close to Greensboro and I’m terrified of this thing gaining steam. I stream netflix and make heavy use of Xbox Live. I’m constantly downloading demos and videos not to mention using my three computers for connecting to the internet and working from home through a VPN.
This will literally cripple me if Time Warner adopts this in my area. I won’t be able to work, as I’m constantly syncing multiple code repositories and will be forced to commute more, meaning I’ll be paying more money for gas.
I refuse to let them do this and will do everything in my power to protest this unfair practice. I’ll even consider switching to DSL *shudder*
Chris K Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
I feel the same as you guys are only an hour away!
Tim Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
As said, it’s been in the UK for a while and there’s no stopping it. Caps and other limits (bandwidth throttling) are here to stay, especially when ISPs can’t or don’t want to fork out for fatter pipes to cope.
There was outrage of course in the UK at first, and still is with each ISP that introduces them (most have now), but as the bigger ones invest and the pipes get bigger, the caps get bigger.
My ISP has various options, some are “unlimited” in that there’s no cap, but does throttle heavily in peak periods so downloads are slow, and others are less throttled but capped in peak periods. Off peak (overnight), almost anything goes though.
Of course ISPs that own movie studios are going to be more concerned with stuff like torrents
Randy Aldrich Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
This is a load of crap. Time Warner is doing this to generate more revenue and drive out video streaming competition to their archaic cable TV network.
STOP THE CAP!
I wrote up a much longer description of why this is happening and what the effects are at:
http://randyandrachel.com/2009/04/06/time-warner-has-a-problem/
Please read, and tell your local representatives what you think!
Brian Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
I’m so glad to see Digsby taking this stand! AWESOME! Can’t make it to NY this weekend but will be there in spirit.
Anthony Baldarelli Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Note that while I do not like the idea of paying for bandwidth personally, strictly speaking it is unreasonable of us to expect unlimited bandwidth when bandwidth costs so much. I sort of agree with what Tom said above. Note that I do NOT like the idea and would try to find the ISP with the best tiered plan. But I also realize that the ISPs have to recover some of their cost. Some people use way more bandwidth then is reasonable, which costs the ISPs. I hate it and hope it does not happen, but I sort of understand the need.
That said, I think 10GB limit is kind of unreasonable. Like Tom said, $3/GB for first 10 GB, and then $1/GB after that, is kind of odd. The pricing just seems excessive. So I sort of understand the need for a cap, but I think they need to consider the pricing and the actual cap a little better, and be fairer to the customer.
Of course, ideally there would be no cap, ever
.
David C. Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Using the latest standard DD-WRT firmware on my router has let me see the bandwidth usage per month. It’s been going since November 2008, gives daily reports. I have standard Comcast Cable in Northern Illinois. I believe Comcast caps us at 250GB then bottlenecks speed if we go past. I see 250GB quite reasonable for the common user, and my heaviest usage in December of 2008 was 31.6GB, with 5 regularly used computers in the house. I’m not saying there aren’t people who will even cap 250GB, but it’s kind of ridiculous that they’re doing it at all. ‘Fair use policies’ are a load, if my grandmother doesn’t do much but e-mail on the internet, she shouldn’t be worried about her neighbor getting all of the local bandwidth for frequent gaming and entertainment. But having internet access means the subscriber has access to any information, at any time. Everyone’s promised the same service. Fair enough.
Brian Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
To the folks out there that think this is fair, I disagree 100%. This change is not being motivated by some odd concept of being fair to people who don’t use a bunch of bandwidth, this is greed, pure and simple. This is TWC looking at a market in which people are viewing the Internet as more of a necessity than a convenience, and they are trying to figure out how to make as much money as possible to provide it.
First, “the normal user” will certainly feel this cap. I use my Internet as a way to watch TV so I don’t ahve to subscribe to cable. I easily stream more than 10GB in a month just from this. The execs at TWC look at this usage of the internet and they wonder how they can make up for the fact that people like me don’t pay them exorbitant rates for TV too. This is what they’ve come up with.
Second, it is not that expensive to maintain a network infrastructure from a cable provider’s standpoint. This is one of the reasons they claim this bandwidth capping is necessary, which is crap. I work on a management level for a cable company (not TWC) and I can tell you that our Internet is easily our most profitable service, and that’s after the reinvestment into network integrity.
Third, TWC is perfectly aware that people are going to hate the change, yet they are forcing it on people anyway. They’re starting in these “test markets”, which are markets where they have no competition from Verizon or Comcast (though Comcast has been testing their own bandwidth caps – 250GB in my area, much more reasonable). This allows them to force people to use their capped service in their overpriced tiers without too much worry of people switching providers.
The whole thing is dirty, and I truly hope that Congressman Massa succeeds with the proposed bill.
Kyuta Syuko Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
Gees glad I’m not with TWC. That would totally suck for me since I’m downloading a new MMO like every week and those clients can be pretty big, hell the AoC Client’s 12Gbs by itself…
Mohammed al-Safi Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
I’m gonna call Eric Massa and ask him to pass a law to prevent the Digsby team from trying to make money off of a great software. I love Digsby, but I wish the team would just be content with ramen noodles and living in basements.
Sunny S. Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
We can no longer rely on our industrial power to be the driving economic force. We have to rely on our technological and scientific creativity to make us competitive in todays market. Creating a two tiered system to internet access limits this.
I do not want to tell my children to look abroad to Banglore and Beijing instead of Boston, Seattle and California for future careers in technology. Its in everyones best internet to have a one-tiered system with cheap access to the internet!
I hope that this plan is as successful as AOL’s “Walled Garden” concept of the internet.
Hamish Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
I live in New Zealand (and have lived in Australia for 2 years which is also the same) and all internet plans have always been capped with different prices for different caps (in both countries) – it is the norm for all internet plans.
Maybe you’ve become spoilt with unlimited internet
I actually think if it was unlimited it would be too easy to go off the rails and download needlessly everything you can find on the internet onto ones new multi Terrabyte drive just because one can 
The people needlessly downloading things they don’t actually need (because they are “getting their moneys worth”) would probably slow the service down for everyone else, too. I guess it all depends on how much of the current internet pipeline to America is being utilised? If it’s maxing out – then I guess they need to do something, if not, then maybe it’s just monetary reasons.
port Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
God, I can’t wait for fios to come to my area, TWC is the devil.
Eric Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
When you are a limited monopoly power as the government allows, the trust that goes along with that power indicates that you will only charge a fair price for the services you provide. THIS IS NOT FAIR!
Anthony Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Had no plans of leaving TWC but did in November due to the talk of bandwidth limits and contracts. They did me a favor. Now I have many more HD channels, internet that has higher bandwidth and lower latency on Verizon FIOS. It is not too late TWC you can still go with all fiber. The cost of maintaining the coax portion of that HFC network must be eating into your bottom line. All those resources and manpower wasted on maintaining a coax network. *shakes head* Every time the cable company upped the bandwidth over the years my latency got worse. Latency was originally 15 ms inside Dallas on Comcast 5 years ago. In November it was 70 ms inside Dallas on TWC. That is unacceptable. Verizon i get less than 15 ms inside Dallas. And now they want to charge people more for lower quality bandwidth. If they want to tier service then they need to offer higher quality service. Road Runner turbo is the worst, give a boost to 16+ Mbps for about 5 seconds then it drops to about 5 Mbps. Before RR Turbo I would get the 10 Mbps I was paying for. I live in Texas where Verizon and TWC coexist. For those in the test market with no competition I wish you the best of luck. TWC needs to rethink their strategy or competition will step up and challenge them.
KO Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
This is the system we already have in Australia, and our internet speeds are slow comparatively to the rest of the world. When I lived in London a year ago, I finally understood how wonderful fast, unlimited internet is. At the moment the best deal I can find is 50gb/month (25gb peak and 25gb off peak) for $49.95 on ADSL2+. I’m trying to figure out if there’s a catch to this deal, as it is by far the best you can get. All plans have caps with shaping speeds after the cap has been reached (this speed is usually 64kbps!) As far as true unlimited goes… Well, I’ve never heard of it in Australia! I hope you win the fight. And I hope one day we have a better system.
Chris Said,
April 15, 2009 @ 11:17 pm
That is so messed up! I bet this is just gonna turn customers away. Up here in Canada, we get a limit as well – but, it’s MORE than 10 gigs. I’m with Shaw – and, i’m on a 150 gig limit a month. And, even with that, there are times i go over. There’s also an unlimited plan…but, like the states, it’s about $95 a month. Don’t even get me started on Telus lol. I think it wouldn’t be that bad down there if the big ol’ government and industry wasn’t so afraid of BitTorrent technology. Not to mention any technology that basically doesn’t charge users. But, now, ya also have these legal services that spring up that require the bandwidth.
There’s so many other reasons they’re doing this too, not just the obvious reasons. Maybe they’re pulling an iTunes/Steve Jobs thing. It sounds like they’re trying to copy that with the tiered pricing thing. But, the way to go would be MORE bandwidth – not less.
But, leave it to Time Warner to be among controversy again.
jeane4u Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
hello
krishna Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Here in chennai, India, we get a 2mbps connection with a 2.5GB limit (its free between 2.00 am – 8.00 am) for $20
krishna Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
..and moreover after the 2.5GB you be charged per MB and not per GB
(
Paul G Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Apparently the complaints worked in Texas, TWC decided to temporarily hold off on the tiered pricing bandwidth caps, pushing the rollout to at least October.
Tim Wicks Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
i wish i could be there. I went to RIT with a lot of your folks. That cap is ridiculous!! i’m trying to remember but what other cable alternatives do you have? The best protest will end up being leaving the service and hitting their pocketbooks.
Shame on them.
JR Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
It looks like TWC is going to reverse their decision according to Senator Charles Schumer.
http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S882395.shtml?cat=566
Mike Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
i just saw a similar story, JR ( http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20090416/BUSINESS/90416024?source=twitter-dandc ). great news!
Eric Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
As much as I wholly disagree with caps, that is capitalism and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it. The US government isn’t (or at least shouldn’t) step in and say that cable companies can’t cap. It’s an obstruction of capitalism and downright illegal. And technically, the cable companies aren’t a monopoly unless you can’t get any other internet where you are at. It sucks, but it’s inevitable.
Katrina Said,
April 16, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
Wow, I’m a teleworking – does this mean I have to pay to work?
David Said,
April 17, 2009 @ 12:17 am
@Eric Said,
That’s pretty ironic considering the cable companies love to get the government to step in and make it difficult for towns to start their own low-cost alternatives, or for competitors to move into their areas.
The government supposedly broke up Ma Bell to prevent its anticompetitive practices, but instead of having one big national monopoly, we often have many smaller local monopolies.
I really don’t think there are that many people who are giving up their TV’s to watch things on Hulu. I do, but I’ve never actually ordered cable since living on my own. Most TV programming is awful, and they have tiered pricing so one is forced to pay for a bunch of awful junk to get a few good shows. It’s really like the record companies/RIAA, who try to claim that music downloading is killing their bottom line. The thing is, most of those people would not spend exorbitant prices on CD’s. They’d either get it some other way, or just listen to the radio or something. If I’m stuck in the untenable position of having to choose between 10 GB/month and nothing, I’ll choose the latter, and just use email on my phone.
TDuck Said,
April 17, 2009 @ 9:27 am
Meh, they are slowed for now, but the tiers will be back with a different brandig and slightly different wording. Americans should just start getting used to it.
JustinC Said,
April 21, 2009 @ 2:08 am
It looks like many here do not understand that getting government involved in things like this is much worse then what Time Warner wants to do. Once government steps in and passes a law on something like this, even if it’s a “good” law, the door will be open for lobbyists (funded by companies such as Time Warner) to push for modifications, such as taxes or requirements that would make it harder for smaller companies to compete. This is exactly how government monopolies are created and is exactly how corporations and government become bed buddies.
Look, there is a market operating here. Us internet users vote with our wallets to decide which ISPs succeed or fail. This would be a stupid move for Time Warner because many of us would flock to their competitors, and if there aren’t enough competitors this would create a strong demand for more. On the other hand, many of us may actually end up paying much less for internet, or may end up using it more responsibly — oh the horror.
Please don’t fall for scare-tactics like this and let regulators, lobbyists, and corporations get their foot in the door with internet regulation.
Yonah Said,
April 21, 2009 @ 4:30 am
This isn’t a win for everybody. $29.99 a month is a hell of a lot cheaper than getting raped by Comcast for $59.99 a month. In many places, you pay that, or you use dial-up. 10 Gig cap? Only faggots downloading anime torrents and other worthless bullshit would have a real problem, and it would STILL be cheaper than using Comcast.
Like a spoiled child, you cry if you can’t take as much as you want, at the same time begin too fucking stupid to realize you are paying for more than you need. Stick to covering Digsby related news. I’ll go to live journal if I want to hear a bunch of whiny pussies.
Aleon Said,
April 21, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Yonah,
So you are basically pissed because you have to pay more for your anime and she-male porn torrents? You do need to stay on Live Journal or curb your homosexual appetite.
Sheila Said,
April 21, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
This is terrible I am a single mom of 4 kids that use the desktop for there homework, games, etc. and I have a laptop that I use for my college work. It’s hard enough paying for regular day to day expenses let alone paying for internet usage. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. This can’t happen.
Mike Said,
April 21, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
digsby needs myspace im! i mean really theres facebook on social also myspace but only facebook insatant message service is available on digsby………………..also integrate windows live into digsby(good idea right) for example theres an msn service on digsby but everyone uses hotmail anyway…just something to ponder
Riza Said,
April 22, 2009 @ 4:34 am
Hey Yonah, there’s no reason to put everyone who likes anime torrents down. I’m sure there’s people who think what you download is “worthless bullshit” too. In a way, this does relate to Digsby, because if you somehow go over your cap then you’ll be cut off, thus not allowing you to use Digsby. There, see? It wasn’t THAT hard to find a connection now was it?
Anyway, please keep up the good work, Digsby staff.
Mike Said,
April 22, 2009 @ 10:36 am
oh interesting now how about some real updates digsby? distractions will only work for so long.
Steven Said,
April 24, 2009 @ 12:15 am
I’ll put in my two cents.
I have a small tray app that monitors my bandwidth usage, up and down, throughout the day. My computer’s current uptime is 9 hours. I’ve used 283 MB of bandwidth since I turned it on today. The only application on my computer that has accessed the internet (other than Digsby) is Google Chrome. In my Chrome history for today, I’m seeing lots of Facebook, two YouTube videos, email, eBay, Wikipedia, and several others. No torrents. No rar’d music downloads. No streaming movies.
On an average day I’d probably have streamed something from Netflix, backed up my hard drive, fooled around on Xbox Live. As it is I’ve been fairly busy today and I’ve used… well, a significant amount of bandwidth.
I’m not going to take a stance regarding TW and also the government intervention, but to me the pricing plans they planned to introduce would absolutely cripple my MODERATE and LEGAL use of the internet.
@Yonah: Please die in a hole.
hf Said,
April 25, 2009 @ 9:43 am
either this or they raise prices, but good luck regulating pricing schemes for private business. i mean you are a fucking moron, so obviously that makes sense to you.
Rick Said,
May 13, 2009 @ 2:57 am
This really seems like a strange pricing strategy to me these days. A lot of companies used to charge for bandwidth outright, but I thought part of the point of their new pricing strategy revolved around internet down/up speeds, which was their main cap. For instance, I use TW now and I have a 10Mbit down, 3.5-5Mbit up (don’t remember what it is now), which inherently has a limit… that is what I pay for, so that is what I get. For them to re-charge on bandwidth already purchased seems strange. However, for some small-time internet users, this might actually be a money-saver.