Time Warner Cable lays out broadband capping plans, says $150 for "unlimited" use

In a move seemingly designed to further our frustrations with broadband providers, Time Warner Cable has soft-announced an "unlimited" package once its new data caps go into place... for an affordable $150 monthly charge. Responding to criticism over the company's plans to start capping usage and charging for overages, Landel Hobbs clarified the provider's stance, letting users know that the capping would be limited to a $75 ceiling, thus (when paired with its top tier plan) would provide "virtually unlimited" usage. Virtually unlimited. Here's a rundown of what the COO proposes:

• A limited package for "light users" at 1GB/month, 768KB down / 128KB up, with overage charges of $2/GB/month.
• Road Runner Lite, Basic, Standard, and Turbo packages at 10GB / 20GB / 40GB / and 60GB caps, respectively, and overage charges at $1/GB/month.
• A big daddy, 100GB Turbo package at $75/month with overage fees of $1/GB, which, when coupled with that magic threshold of $75 in charges, becomes the "unlimited" plan.

We only have two questions, guys. First, how will you let end users know they're hitting caps? Right now there's no centralized solution for monitoring bandwidth. Even cell phones show minutes used, so will you give us the infrastructure for broadband monitoring? Secondly -- instead of giving users a "virtually" unlimited package, why not just sell an unlimited package at $150 a month? The impression we get is that you want to leave the door open for aggressive users, and that your capping of capping charges might be a moving target in the right situation.

[Via eWeek]

[Phil @ Apr 10th 2009 10:32AM]

Glad I have FiOS, the 20Mb/20Mb static IP business service @ $139.99/mo suits me nicely.

[Ghen @ Apr 10th 2009 10:45AM]

Sorry to top-post but I use DD-WRT router firmware that tracks my internet usage. I basically use 200gb / month with spikes of 270gb when I get crazy. (download and upload combined)

What do I do? well, netflix basically. but I also download games and basically live off my computer. So virtually unlimited at 100gb is a woefully inadequate statement even at today's standards let alone by this time next year when everyone starts streaming HD content... or when my daughter grows up and wants a computer of her own.

Thank goodness comcast hasn't said anything about my downloading, they're all bark and no bite so far with their 250gb cap.

[Ken @ Apr 10th 2009 11:11AM]

Shit I use 2GB a month on 3G on my friggin phone. I don't even want to think what I use broadband.

[Josh Warner @ Apr 10th 2009 12:46PM]

Apologies for slightly off-topic response to top post, but this needs to be seen. The trouble is, quite simply, that as we find new ways to use more and more bandwidth, yesterday's "outlier power-user torrent freak" turns into today's Joe Sixpack. HD video streams, OnLive's entire business model, hell the next patch for World of Warcraft alone is probably going to use a month's worth of their new "baseline" policy. Oh, you want to download the new Ubuntu 9.04 install DVD? Well, that just cost you about $10. Fully using that baseline 768 kb/s policy would let you do this practically overnight with absolutely no warning on how high overcharges have gotten, until the shock at the end of the month. Oh, and I hope you have a TiVo because Hulu and other such services are no longer going to be feasible with these connections.

Also, anybody checked their bandwidth usage for just normal surfing these days? Flash video ads everywhere, just look at this site for example! I bet that an avid Engadget user - without ad blocking software or using a RSS aggregator, refreshing the site itself - would blow over 1 GB per month. This crap will drive more people to block more ads, as they are PAYING TO VIEW THEM, and may consequently kill a lot of the ad-driven free service models.

These caps are disgusting and a mess. Like most cell phone companies, they're trying to get into the business model of "sell something hard to measure (bandwidth instead of minutes) and charge through the nose once they go over the cap." I bet there will be NO easy online monitoring tool to tell how much you've used of your month's bandwidth. If you're currently using Time Warner, please inundate their call centers saying in no uncertain terms that unless they rescind this ASAP, you will terminate service. If you don't have another broadband provider, band together with your similarly broadband-starved neighbors and create your own small ISP; it's not all that difficult and will end up far cheaper (and more importantly, actually usable in today's online environment) than how this will end up.

[pharaoh @ Apr 10th 2009 1:56PM]

I'm kinda like Ken. I avg 3-5 GB per month on my mobile phone. Man this is stupid. However, it's just a round-a-bout way to push net neutrality.

[Pip @ Apr 10th 2009 2:10PM]

I use DD-WRT as well. I have Netflix, a 360, PS3, Wii, and an HD-Tivo. We also have two desktops, a laptop, and an iPod touch in use as well. All of these are regularly used over the net. I stream from Netflix a few times a month. I download game demos on my consoles. I even buy games over Steam (Dawn of War 2 was my latest purchase.) and music from iTunes. I do not torrent anything.

What is my average usage?

Around 28GB a month.

There have been spikes of upwards of 40GB, but that is rare, and usually when I am reinstalling an OS, and all the patches need to be pulled down again, and when Steam needs to be reinstalled and all the games pulled down again. But it is rare. There are two of us living here and we are constantly on the net doing everything. I would consider myself a heavy user.

[Gojulas @ Apr 10th 2009 2:42PM]

Amen to 20/20! I wonder how long before cable companies realize that broadcast television is rapidly being deprecated for streaming and VOD services. Verizon is on the right track; first big name to offer FTTP and they aren't capping it at all. It baffles me as to why cable companies continue to cling to their decedent services and shaft their customers rather than trying to meet consumer needs.

The people who 'abuse' cable connections and use upwards of 250GB in a month might be the minority now, but they won't be forever. More and more users will become savvy and realize that unlimited bandwidth is a necessity, it's inevitable. And when those users aren't willing to pay gouged prices, Big Red will be waiting around the corner to soak them up.

[jperezjr @ Apr 10th 2009 2:33PM]

At the bottom of the article it has an email where you can send them feedback. ;-)


http://www.woai.com/content/news/newslinks/story/Time-Warner-moving-forward-on-usage-based-fees/8SdwGZ0T1U6l-rTKHPn5Mg.cspx

[Dave @ Apr 10th 2009 2:43PM]

Same here. What a lot of people don't think about is that, with modern ads, you often get audio and video. Yes, you can often block them (unless you're trying to watch a video and the ad precedes it)--but that's a constant arms race.

Why are they doing this? I think it's because they can see the writing on the wall for traditional cable TV. Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, etc. You want a show or movie? It's a click away. In five years, everyone will be doing it--so they've elected to get their money by bleeding the customer rather than adapting.

I don't have any other options where I live. I'm going to have to go DSL--but I'd rather do that than be capped. I also canceled my cable TV with Time Warner and have switched to satellite. When I explained why, the rep said, "Well, if you don't mind my asking, where are you going to go?" I said, "I'd rather use AOL dialup than be manipulated. As soon as you guys put the caps in place, I'll figure something else out."

They're going to get some calls. The people who stay on who "don't know any better" are the same people who don't know how to secure their Wi-Fi connections. I hope TWC plans to expand the number of people working support.

[Coby W. Jones @ Apr 10th 2009 3:25PM]

I don't have TWC and now I never will. This is dumbest move I have ever heard of.

Note to all. Look into a local provider and/or someone else. They may not be able to provide as fast as Verizon's fastest, but they sure can give you what you need for a fraction of the price and probably without the caps.

STUPID STUPID TWC.... isn't Engadget owned by them?

[John @ Apr 10th 2009 3:32PM]

Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are not related (anymore). TWC (Time Warner Cable) is not a TWC (Time Warner Company). Tricky, eh

[Tico @ Apr 10th 2009 9:10PM]

Agreed. I thought for sure I would be no where near 100GB, so I looked at my usage. I thought a"ll I do is check email, surf, nothing major right." I forgot about my xbox, netflix, wii, VPN into work.

Time Warner, this model blows. Luckily I no longer live in a Time Warner market. What are telecommuters supposed to do? Dumb idea.

[fischju @ Apr 10th 2009 10:33AM]

Because if you consistently go to $150 and higher, they will probably cut you off saying that you are reducing network performance for others.


If you have a good router, the tomato firmware can show bandwidth usage.

[Carl M @ Apr 10th 2009 2:56PM]

I have a problem with the terminology used. "Bandwidth" implies a rate, not an amount. In fact, I would probably prefer an arrangement where they have tiers for rates, and leave the amounts unlimited. Instead, they want to advertise the maximum rate, then charge for the amounts used. If they didn't have monopolies in lots of markets, this wouldn't fly.

Of course, what really matters to them is congestion, which is a product of rate * amount * number of simultaneous users. And why do they worry about congestion? Because it lets them avoid upgrading the infrastructure. Rather than build bigger pipes, they'd just like to say "look, the pipes are getting crowded; let's keep the supply constant and let the increase in demand drive up prices." This makes more sense to them than increasing the supply (building bigger pipes).

In the end, the only solution may be to increase competition.

[Jason White @ Apr 10th 2009 4:57PM]

Hell, CableOne here has a per frickin day limit ... it's just sad. I think it's just a little over 1300mb per day and then they cut your available bandwidth in half or more. I'm provisioned for just a little over 8mb/s down and 512kb/s up and when I cross that cap they automatically put me on the 3mb/s tier. You know, I hate Verizon's wireless business model but their landline infrastructure cannot be beat. Rot in Hades you greedy cable bastards!!

[kevin @ Apr 10th 2009 10:33AM]

that's outrageous. you hit a college nerd house that has 4 computers playing wow, and a couple of xbox 360's playing online multiplayer and you'll shatter that in about 2 weeks.

[FOREX @ Apr 10th 2009 10:40AM]

Poor nerds... Don't we all feel sorry for them. Perhaps they will join the real world.

[basroil @ Apr 10th 2009 10:41AM]

Hell, my non-nerd parents go through that in a week on occasion... they filled up 750gb of space in a month with downloads.

Pretty soon time warner is going to realize that they are loosing more customers than the cost of extra bandwidth costs, especially in areas where netflix online, itunes, or youtube addicts are found in large numbers. 100gb/month is two dozen full dvd streams or maybe twice that in netflix quality.

[Pastry Chef @ Apr 10th 2009 10:56AM]

@basroil

But bandwidth costs for them is decreasing. At least that's what they claim in their SEC filing:

http://stopthecap.com/2009/04/10/why-is-time-warner-saying-costs-increasing-to-consumers-but-decreasing-to-stockholders/

[Ignatius @ Apr 10th 2009 10:50AM]

FOREX, you obviously don't realize you're posting on Engadget.

[Gnaget @ Apr 10th 2009 11:10AM]

Oh FOREX realizes where he is posting, just a troll. Vote down and move on

[JAmerican @ Apr 10th 2009 3:51PM]

They are implementing this in upstate, NY at RIT where you find a lot of nerds doing what you said.

[Dave Chappelle @ Apr 11th 2009 12:41AM]

"Hell, my non-nerd parents go through that in a week on occasion... they filled up 750gb of space in a month with downloads."
WTF!? r u cereal?
what on earth did they download? i download 20gb a month so am i like a complete pimp if they are non nerds then?

just a question whats the most engadget readers have downloaded in a month?

ME.
Month: 20gb (plan gets shaped for me)
Day: 3.4gb

[Zane @ Apr 11th 2009 4:16AM]

@Dave:
Month: 400GB
Day: 5GB

That's between 2 desktops that are powered on 24*7 and another laptop that's used for surfing the web.

[majortom1981 @ Apr 10th 2009 10:34AM]

Why doesnt time warner just hand over their sunscriber base to verizon. Heck verizon doesnt even have to lower prices or anything. Just let time warner and comcast self destruct.

[hexydes @ Apr 10th 2009 10:41AM]

Agreed. The cable industries are so paranoid about turning from a content distributor into a pure ISP, that pretty soon they're going to be neither.

[Gnaget @ Apr 10th 2009 11:14AM]

I'll tell you, I am moving and I canceled a move to a complex where the only broadband available was TWC. I explained to the complex that TWC was the AOL of broadband, and I will not be locked into them. The agent had the owner call AT&T and got confirmation that DSL service from them would be available as well as UVerse.

I think it is time we start berating TWC users like we did AOL back in the 90s. Hopefully we will get to the point that no self-respecting internet user will allow themselves the stigma of subscribing to TWC. Soon they will be sending out CDs with "20 Gig Free" advertised

[Paul @ Apr 10th 2009 11:43AM]

I just did the same thing while house shopping. If FIOS wasn't available, it wasn't on the list.

[Steve Ross @ Apr 10th 2009 12:13PM]

@gnaget - all fine unless, like me, you live in a Time Warner monopoly. They are my only choice for broadband. My alternative is dial up.

[ekwmin @ Apr 10th 2009 1:16PM]

Agreed, if they are going to be so strict about this, is it going to go both ways? Will you get the advertised bandwidth? I have been in tree different neighborhoods with TWC and I always got half of the advertised bandwidth. Ummm... Cable companies confuse me. First they cripple everyone on the same node if one person triggers the throttle. Now they somehow have a way to monitor and control each subscriber's connection? The only reason I'm didn't get U-verse or FIOS was the price. But I guess now it makes sense to switch.

[nikster @ Apr 10th 2009 7:28PM]

America Broadband initiative hopefully will KILL all monopolies. Australia is doing it right - put in the infrastructure for everyone, then, the government OWNS it. And keeps it. Then it leases it to ISPs. Monopolies gone forever.
The problem comes when the infrastructure is owned by a private company - then it's very expensive for other private companies to move in, and the monopoly-owning company has every motivation to gauge their customers for all they are worth. Witness America today.

[cuby @ Apr 16th 2009 4:38PM]

@nikster: did you just say that once the government owns all of it, the monopolies are gone forever?

would you like a moment to rethink that idea?

[squirrelking @ Apr 10th 2009 10:37AM]

Just called and dumped Time Warner for Internet and Cable, petitioning the owners assosication to see if we can get rid of TW and get a different provider in here.

[Guy @ Apr 10th 2009 10:35AM]

And here Japan is getting 160Mbps for $60/month with no usage cap...

[squirrelking @ Apr 10th 2009 10:38AM]

lol know anyone hiring computer animators over there?

[Kennyb123 @ Apr 10th 2009 11:09AM]

Uhh, ever heard of Anime?

[754Boy @ Apr 10th 2009 11:35AM]

Damn, time to move to Japan!

[r3loaded @ Apr 10th 2009 11:43AM]

Damn, and I thought UK was quite okay compared to the US. 10Mbit down/512k up on cable with Virgin Media, unlimited usage (almost, you get throttled for downloading over a gig in the evening), £20/mo which is less than $30/month.

[Kanos @ Apr 10th 2009 10:37AM]

These local cable monopolies have to go! They pretty much have free reign over anything they do.. there is not enough competition in areas and people usually have to suck up their greedy companies pricing because there is no alternative :(

[bamboo @ Apr 10th 2009 10:36AM]

I'm really not happy about this. I'm stuck using TWC, and would blow through most of those tiers in a week with all the Hulu/Netflix streaming, downloading games and patches on Steam and on other games, and all the software programs I like to try out. I'm already paying $60 something.

If there is any good news about this, there will be such an uproar over this that hopefully gov. will step in and make it so there are more options than just the local monopoly cable company on your pipe. I would say I'm looking forward to Wi-Max, but it will be a very long time before I could get that in this area.

[oversteer325 @ Apr 10th 2009 10:42AM]

Who do you think started the monopoly in the first place by assigning each cable/phone company a region.


Answer: The gov.

[68newyorker @ Apr 10th 2009 11:22AM]

What oversteer said. All the gov. needs to do is end their regional monopolies.

[Paul @ Apr 10th 2009 11:58AM]

The allocated area agreements actually made sense at the time they were constructed. No one knew if cable TV was going to be a success, but everyone wanted access to it. The only way to guarantee said access was to provide the cable company the incentive to spend the capital to lay the lines was to promise them exclusive rights to a given area. Largely the terms of those agreements are expiring (hitting the 50 year or 25 year exclusivity agreement) allowing other players in to the market. Concurrently new technology is being developed that allows one to enter that market without violating the exclusivity agreements i.e. FIOS.

It was a very good system at the time, and a brilliant way to get private industry to foot the bill for wiring a large portion of the country. However, the time for it to die has come, and the exclusivity agreements will continue to do so over the next few years.

You couldn't make cable cheap enough for me to get it ever again (over FIOS) but i still give credit to a business model that was very positive for a long period of time.

[Pip @ Apr 10th 2009 2:38PM]

In the state of WI we recently passed a bill that sets up a group of people who "Okay" a cable provider to sell in the state. Once they are okayed, they are allowed to set up shop and sell their services ANYWHERE IN THE STATE. It was hailed as a great way to open up for competition and lower prices. I live in Madison and we've always had a single cable provider that was contracted to the city up until this was passed.

It's been a year. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

Charter is still the only cable provider in Madison. We were expecting by this time we would be able to choose from Time Warner, Charter, Cox, etc. They all sell in the state, but only in specific cities. It's almost as if they have a pact to not go into each others markets.

I have a feeling if this was done on a national scale, the same thing would happen. Those stuck with a single cable company will still be stuck with them.

[Justin @ Apr 10th 2009 10:36AM]

Let the exodus begin. AT&T, I'll be knocking...

[Juan @ Apr 10th 2009 10:42AM]

I was just about to switch from AT&T to TW, but it looks like the lesser of two evils just swapped.

[jdharo @ Apr 10th 2009 10:37AM]

time warner makes me sick.

[whowhatme @ Apr 10th 2009 11:05AM]

time warner can take those obscene prices and shove it

[Phil @ Apr 10th 2009 10:37AM]

Of course you all know this is just to try and squash competing VOD streaming services and the future of IPTV. It's only in their best interests.

[wjousts @ Apr 10th 2009 11:18AM]

That is exactly it. TWC charges about $4 for a movie-on-demand assuming their crappy STB wants to actually work, Netflix gives me one dvd at a time and as many streaming online movies as I want for $9/month. If I watch three movies a month, Netflix is clearly a much better deal. However, if TWC puts bandwidth caps in place, they can at least make streaming Netflix more expensive vs TWC's VOD "service".
To me, it's clearly anti-competitive behavior from TWC.