And frankly I think companies that make their money (or future money) from the internet need to get involved. Hulu, CBS, ABC, FOX, Youtube/Google, ect.. Sure those can be ad driven, but if you are afraid to exceed your download limit then you’ll stop visiting them. I don’t know if there is any legal ground to stand on, but they should certainly put pressure on the ISPs.

Are you opposed to the use of capping on the plan, or is it the prices they plan to charge (or both)?

To be honest, i admit i have trouble with understanding why people are opposed to limits on their download usage, but maybe that’s because I’ve lived with it all my life.

Also, you were quoted in the article as saying:

Capping data is an effort to stay the tide of video on demand on the Internet. It’s an effort to keep people from using things like YouTube, Hulu and Netflix.

I’m going to have to disagree with you there. I live in Australia on a 30GB capped plan, and it certainly does not stop me from using Youtube(though we can’t access Hulu or Netflix), and i actually rent movies from iTunes once or twice a month. In fact, our internet is shared by two IT tech people who browse alot of high bandwidth sites, and we very rarely reach our limit. It does however make me think twice about whether the thing i want to watch or download is worth it, and if we go over the cap we get shaped our ISP provides an easy way to un-shape by allowing us to buy blocks of quota($5 AUD($3.5USD) for 2G).

You make an interesting point about Verizon because this is being tested in several places where Time Warner is the only choice for broadband. It’s hard to take a stand and change providers when there is no other option. It’s also interesting to note that services like Netflix streaming and Hulu use up large amounts of bandwidth and are threats to a cable company’s primary service.

All ISP time is sold by capacity, and very few ISPs have unlimited plans.

But we have an excuse – a shitful monopoly. You guys need to make noise – alot of it – to stop the “information industry” reversing itself. Capped plans are not good for the growth of highdef downloads (for instance), among many other things.

We (australia) also need a large western market we can point to and say “they manage without caps!”, especially if Au gets this fibre to the door network the gov’t is attempting to build.

And that is downloading legal things, too. Add the illegal (well, TV and TV only) video d/loads and I can kill the cap.. almost instantly. Heh.

But thinking anything over 10-15gb will interfere with browsing or heavy YouTube watching is a bit absurd. It’s really only torrenting that borks it up.

At least with my ISP they don’t meter uploads – as soon as they do that, change ISP.

I’m a Canadian living in New Zealand, so I moved from a world of “unlimited” bandwidth, to paying 130$ for 50GB a month. Wholesale costs down here are higher (due to the oceanic pipe), sure, but there is pretty much NO plans offered without bandwidth caps.

When I mention my plan to 99% of people that live here, they are amazed I need that much.
I really hope the rest fo the world falls in line with this (or the opposite) as it is very frustrating dealing with large companies located in the states, who believes everyone has access to unlimited bandwidth..

Of course, this won’t stop people from going to YouTube or Hulu, but it adds a mental transactional cost, meaning the customer thinks twice about downloading or using a service outside the TWC bubble.

TWC offers TV, VOD, & VOIP service. Now, see a problem?

As the US continuously falls behind other nations in broadband service, do we want our telecom companies to stifle innovation and customer demand? I don’t.

-Jonathan

I’m completely stunned that companies still don’t make hdd based stand alone DVR units. I know there are a few left, but people seem so content to “rent” something from the cable company.

WTF. I’m not paying like $60 a year or more for something that isn’t mine. Something I can’t upgrade or hack. I guess these are the same people who lease cars.

And one other thing. When we moved into our house, about a year ago, and had the cable “turned on” they allowed us to have two rooms turned on for free!. How F’n convenient. My TW cable box sits on the side of my house with the cover about to fall off. It’s not like I couldn’t just connect up which lines I want on…

Or better yet, get rid of their BS splitter and put my own powered splitter in my residence. (And I still had to help the tech setup the cable modem…)

can tell when and how much data you used on the WoW session, or whatever. Not difficult to manage, just totally fucked up that you have to manage it at all.

I read a lot of comments saying just vote with your account, quit TWC, go to a competitor. This is not a completely bad idea but it fails to inform TWC why or get public attention. I will move from TWC, but before I do I will do my best as their customer to convince them they are going about this the WRONG way.

City Council has voiced its disapproval, but there’s not much they can really do. Until a more capable competitor moves into this market (Verizon FIOS or AT&T UVerse) the citizens are stuck with TWC if they want high-speed broadband.

I hope Rep NY(D) Massa’s bill gains ground and hopefully we can get our reps to sign on as well. Asside from cancelling service & emailing TWC, calling our local govt & Congr. Reps is the best thing we can do.

This protest is to raise awareness! To raise the public’s awareness, but also TWC’s. Maybe we can make some change happen. They might think dissent is isolated to the internet, but we want to prove this wrong. We are mobile now; I have internet on my iPhone ;)

The proposed charges are simply outrageous and unfortunately Greensboro is a captive market for them. Too bad for Time Warner, however, that we are not a quiet market.

Cheers, all! Thank for the support. Cya on Saturday.
-Jonathan @guidedbyvoip

Citing a need to better educate customers about its policies, Time Warner Cable this afternoon shelved plans to test a consumption-based billing model which would have charged the MSO’s broadband subscribers based on how much bandwidth they used. “We continue to believe that consumption based billing may be the best pricing plan for consumers,” said TWC CEO Glenn Britt at the announcement, ” we want to do everything we can to inform our customers of our plans and have the benefit of their views as part of our testing process.” NCTA CEO Kyle McSlarrow applauded the decision on his blog, writing that it is up to the consumer to decide whether new service models (like consumption-based billing) survive and thrive or are thrown into the “dustbin of history.”

I am for a combination of raising awareness AND voting with your account. Perhaps better stated as “voting with the accounts of many, and trying to forever increase that vote”.

But I do think that *both* components are necessary– they won’t care about just-one-person , as they won’t care about someone who will only complain yet still send them money.