TWC moves consumption-based internet billing to more markets

No, folks -- this is no prank. Time Warner Cable really is throwing caution (and public opinion) to the wind and moving forward with its evil consumption-based internet billing. If you'll recall, we heard that the operator was trialing the method -- which imposes premium rates on big broadband users -- back in early 2008, but now it seems it's quietly hoping to roll it out into more major markets. Starting this month, TWC will start gathering information on its customers' internet use in Austin, TX, San Antonio, TX, Rochester, NY and Greensboro, NC; if all goes "well," consumption billing will hit those markets this summer or sooner. We'll point you to the read link if you're interested in just how outrageous these capped plans look (particularly for internet TV viewers), but we'd be remiss of our duties if we didn't share this gem of a quote from TWC CEO Glenn Britt: "We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension." Thanks for clarifying, Glenn-o.

[Thanks Kevin, image courtesy of Corbis]

[Grus @ Apr 1st 2009 2:56PM]

Hah! April fools... I hope :/

[Dave @ Apr 1st 2009 4:06PM]

If this isn't a joke and they do go through with this then I too will be leaving Time Warner Cable for the greener grass...no joke. I already have my phones through Vonage and while my TV is through TWC it is only there because I still utilize them for the Turbo RoadRunner. But I'm still not impressed with RoadRunner now as I've been waiting forever for them to increase their upload speeds beyond 1 mbps so I can properly utilize both my SlingBox and the Orb app. Perhaps at this point I should even consider getting my hands on a couple of those digital conversion boxes since I wouldn't be opposed to going back to an OTA solution since I don't watch much TV anyways.

[darkstar @ Apr 1st 2009 4:44PM]

this is not a joke. Comcast did give me an unpleasant call cause i dl too much. i was forced to pay more or get terminated. so i dumped the service and went with Verizon. sure DSL is a lot slower than cable, but at least i can dl all i want. im in philly by the way. and that was over 3 years ago.

[jguilb @ Apr 1st 2009 4:45PM]

if you are in a contract with TW and they change service plans it will void any previous contracts. TW wont tell you about the change and if you send in a payment after the change they consider that an agreement to the changes. Read the small print on those inserts included with your bill, it will spell out that you have 30 days (may vary on where you live) to cancel your contract with no charge simply because they changed the contract. Then you are free to chose a better ISP provider

[BLee @ Apr 2nd 2009 12:50AM]

do you know in queens, we get speeds like 200kbps during evenings and TWC knows about this and openly says they cant do anything about it?? It's been that way for almost a year now...

Regardless of anything, we're moving off of roadrunner as soon as fios is available, the fact that its not available is ridiculous.. TWC needs to get their act together.

[loujob @ Apr 2nd 2009 3:15AM]

They're blaming it on torrent downloaders. But what they're really doing is making a move now so they can charge all internet users (especially those that don't pay for their combo tv packages to lower competition) more in the future. They just want more money. All I can say is, you have to admire a company a little with Big Brass Ones that don't give a F*** what their customers want. I guess they are taking lessons for Jobs

[inflames @ Apr 24th 2009 2:39PM]

HA! I have TWC and I'm glad I signed up with NO contract. Sure, I pay a little more per month, compared with other services, but they can't shovel shit like this down my throat.

[The WC @ Apr 1st 2009 2:59PM]

Looks like SOMEone did something wrong...

[Information Central @ Apr 1st 2009 4:33PM]

Yes, they used the string "trialing" in an article.

I'm denialing that this is a word.

[Pastry Chef @ Apr 1st 2009 3:01PM]

Just call Time Warner and switch your ISP from Road Runner to Earthlink and you won't be capped.

[brian @ Apr 1st 2009 3:51PM]

seriously? lol that's awesome i'll tell my dad to try that.

[Pastry Chef @ Apr 1st 2009 4:55PM]

Yes. Seriously. Road Runner caps. Earthlink doesn't. Just call and have them switch you. They don't even have to come to your premis.

[gqcarrick @ Apr 3rd 2009 1:02PM]

That won't work, I called Earthlink and since they go over TW cable lines they will be forced to cap also in that area.

[htowngator @ Apr 1st 2009 3:00PM]

If it's not a joke, they will lose a lot of customers.

[SKI @ Apr 1st 2009 3:00PM]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Nnam @ Apr 1st 2009 6:42PM]

This is one of the biggest reasons on live won't work...also we already got this in Canada.

[unzarjones @ Apr 1st 2009 5:28PM]

Streaming anything is going to get costly for the downloader. Plus the B.O. administration is going to tax away whatever is left. Change you can believe in.

[Raptor @ Apr 1st 2009 3:02PM]

If this is not a joke, this is such bullshit.

what are we back in the days when we had to pay by the hour? We pay 42bucks a month for 7mbit. For that i had better get unlimited downloads.

Such bullshit

[itlnstln @ Apr 1st 2009 3:02PM]

I'm from San Antonio. If TW rolls this out here, AT&T DSL might have a new customer.

[John P @ Apr 1st 2009 3:14PM]

I'm just about to rent an apartment in San Antonio, and AT&T can bank on having me as a broadband customer as well if this is the case

[aqtrans @ Apr 1st 2009 4:24PM]

Same here. I'm currently a TW customer in Austin. I can't really complain on the service, 20megs for $40 bucks and only been down once since September.
But if they start doing this I'll definitely be moving to AT&T.

[Xenoterranos @ Apr 1st 2009 4:49PM]

I don't get it. TWC actually has competition down here in SA, how could they make a move like this? I'm going over to Grande Communications. It's cheaper and faster. Also, if Guadelupe Valley covers your area (it's mostly for the hill country) they'll run fiber to your house for about $60~ a month.

[itlnstln @ Apr 1st 2009 4:58PM]

@xenoterranos

I wish I could get some of those competitors at my house. I would certainly take GVTC FIOS over DSL anyday.

[Xenoterranos @ Apr 1st 2009 4:59PM]

I tried to post this but it didn't show up:

Link to GVTC.com internet prices.

http://www.gvtc.com/residential/broadband/residential-product.php

[Justin Maldonado @ Apr 1st 2009 10:12PM]

Same here. TWC in San Antonio has been a great deal for me, but if this goes through then I'm jumping ship for sure. Uverse couldn't compete with TWC prices before, but after this even my parent's will be sucking down more than 40gb a month just watching shows on Hulu. Grande seems to have the best deals for me, but sadly haven't made it to my subdivision yet.

[V35_Pilot @ Apr 1st 2009 3:02PM]

This will make those in the Verizon FiOS markets leave TW in droves.

[Nate @ Apr 1st 2009 3:06PM]

How ironic that just after TWC starts pushing customers hard on their two-year contract agreements, they come out with plans to expand their rate restructuring. This is ridiculous. When can we get some competition in the NYC cable provider market?

[Matt @ Apr 1st 2009 3:05PM]

Why do you think that this is evil? ISP like TWC have to pay for capacity. Why shouldn't this cost be passed along to the consumer? It's the same as any other commodity - electricity, fuel, etc. Think about it this way - with consumption based pricing, they will have an incentive to give everyone the fastest internet connection. 18+ Mb/s for everyone. Yea, if you are a heavy user - torrenting videos and whatnot then this is going to raise your rates. But as it is, all of the folks who don't consume as much data are paying too much. This is a very fair system (as long as they have competition from DSL or other networks to keep their prices reasonable).

[Mark @ Apr 1st 2009 3:15PM]

not really true. ISP's pay for maintenance and such but they don't have to pay for bandwidth used or anything. If more bandwidth is used, it doesn't really cost them any more money, it just slows down the network. If their network is being slowed down too much, they should try to upgrade their equipment to handle the added bandwidth. When there's consumer demand(such as there is now for increased bandwidth to handle video and music streaming), companies should respond by trying to be the best at meeting that demand, not try to change society to fit their existing model.

[Amun @ Apr 1st 2009 4:48PM]

That, and IT DOESN'T COST ANYWHERE NEAR $1/GB. If this were a system where you would pay less if you used less capacity, but only paid a maximum instead of getting charged per gig, eg 0-50GB = $20, .... 250GB - inf = $60. Then you could be certain that you would never exceed $60/mo on internet service.

[z4t6nj_engadget @ Apr 1st 2009 3:26PM]

Should we centrally plan the US economy as well - its 'only fair' that everyone makes the same.

[htowngator @ Apr 1st 2009 3:25PM]

As Mark has already said, that comparison is incorrect. They set the pipe (bandwidth) size and run the server farms that route you, but it is irrelevant how much data you transmit. It is more costly to them to give you bandwidth.

This is nothing more than a way to get more cash out of you.

[Paul @ Apr 1st 2009 3:31PM]

its extremely naive to think this will make it less expensive on anyone.

[Matt @ Apr 1st 2009 3:40PM]

Nothing is free. They have to build a network that supports the bandwidth needs of their customers. They have to pay for a connection to the backbone. The more data their customers use the greater their expenses. Maybe one could argue that the marginal costs were 0 if they had a fixed network that never needed to be upgraded, but that's not the case. Yea, they might cram a few too many connections on a pipe and let performance suffer for a while. But eventually they will need to make the pipe fatter. It's much better to let people pay for what they need than to charge everyone the same . This way, they are aligned with their customers. Here's another reason that this is a good thing - they can offer decent performance internet for really low fixed monthly prices. This is huge for lower income families - they don't have to suffer with dial up or the 512kb/sec option any more. They can get a fast connection. They just need to not use it to download a bunch of videos.

[Mark @ Apr 1st 2009 4:04PM]

You're absolutely correct in saying that they have to upgrade their network to meet increasing demand. The problem is that this is a move to prevent them from having to do so anymore. Since they can effectively limit the amount of bandwidth used, they can keep it at a level where it fits their own pricing tiers. Their other option is to do exactly what you suggested and upgrade their network to handle increasing demand. It would be more costly up front, but would greatly increase speeds for everyone without imposing any limits and likely lead to greater revenues in the long run.

[bjsguess @ Apr 1st 2009 4:13PM]

I'd love to agree with you Matt but there is no way this is a truly a pay to play type deal.

I am all for paying for your usage but the floor better be really low. I'll stipulate to pay $70/month for unlimited if TW promises to deliver broadband for as little as $10/month to low usage customers. A model like that, while hurting me, would lower many people's bill and bring new customers into the fold - a clear benefit for many.

However, you won't see anything like that. TW isn't interested in giving low usage customers a break. They only want to rape high usage customers.

[Information Central @ Apr 1st 2009 4:41PM]

"Here's another reason that this is a good thing - they can offer decent performance internet for really low fixed monthly prices."

That's always the lie when new rip-offs are introduced: "It allows us to bring you lower prices." A year later, prices are right back where they started, the original service is irretrievably lost, and the service provider already starts to deny that things were ever any different.

That's how apologists abet the companies that are ripping us off, by not only failing to stand up for themselves and demand better, but also to heap scorn on those of us who DO stand up for ourselves.

Grow a nut.

[rudolphe @ Apr 2nd 2009 10:53AM]

Matt, your an idiot.

A 40 GB monthly cap at the TOP tier?? Hope you don't use steam to download games or download HD movies because you'll use that up before you know it.

[iancdp @ Apr 1st 2009 3:06PM]

hurry up fios

[Kevin @ Apr 1st 2009 3:06PM]

i was thinking of going to time warner's road runner but opted to upgrade to AT&Ts 6mbps elite connection. i amVERY glad i didnt move to time warner now and i do recommend at&t dsl. in the 4 years ive had their dsl service it always has worked flawlessly.

[James @ Apr 1st 2009 3:24PM]

how is 6Mbs an elite connection?

[The Fuzz 53 @ Apr 1st 2009 3:49PM]

DSL

That is pretty elite for a DSL connection. I have friends on Comcast that only get 6 Mbps

[nightspark @ Apr 1st 2009 3:10PM]

Ha, and i was thinking of switching from att to time warner. They may not have the fastest internet but they don't charge for what i use.

[Rocketboy @ Apr 1st 2009 3:09PM]

$hit... it's almost in my backyard now. It looks like I'll be switching from Time Warner. Also, gee, will the put a cap on my phone calls, as they handle them as well?

[Mark @ Apr 1st 2009 3:10PM]

Looks like this isn't an april fools joke, the read link story was written at 2:36PM yesterday. The only odd thing to me is the $1 per gigabyte charge. The difference in price between the 5GB and 10GB tiers better be less than $5 or there's no reason for anyone to ever get the 10GB one. All this said, if they actually do this they won't last long as a company. Hey Time Warner Cable: Instead of trying to make people use less data, how 'bout trying to upgrade your network?

[xsirxx @ Apr 1st 2009 3:23PM]

Your forgetting that our nice american laws keep cable companies like TWC alive in local markets by monopoly. Crap like this wouldnt happen if they let more than one "cable company" in each area. But i can see ATT and Verizon swooping up customers. TWC here is terrible, but most ppl have no other option.

[Marc @ Apr 1st 2009 3:27PM]

The problem with this is that it has nothing to do with preserving their bandwidth. Its a Cable TV company manipulating pricing to favor their content over web content. More and more people are dumping $70/month cable packages in favor of $45/month internet packages and getting all of their video from the web. That's what this is about.

[Jon @ Apr 1st 2009 3:14PM]

If twc would update their markets to fiber, they wouldn't even care how much people used and they'd be able to offer more services. I hope every single customer leaves them over this crap. The cost of bandwidth has decreased way too much to pull this crap.

[Word Up, North Korea! @ Apr 1st 2009 3:15PM]

So long as there's a sufficiently high cap I don't see the problem

I'm sick of only getting 175k downloads in manhattan because everyone on my block is running 25 torrents of porno each all day every day.

Those people SHOULD pay more

[tracknod @ Apr 1st 2009 3:21PM]

The cap is 40 gig on the highest plan.... That is not sufficient. RTFA