I live in what was going to be a TWC Test Market for consumption based billing. That did not go over so well, with one of our state Senators getting involved and talking directly to TWC. Here's the latest from: http://www.timewarnercable.com/corp... Time Warner Cable Charts a New Course on Consumption Based Billing Measurement Tools to be Made Available 4-16-09 (New York, NY) -- Time Warner Cable (NYSE:TWC) today announced it would alter plans to test Consumption Based Billing, shelving the trials while the customer education process continues. Time Warner Cable Chief Executive Officer Glenn Britt said, “It is clear from the public response over the last two weeks that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about our plans to roll out additional tests on consumption based billing. As a result, we will not proceed with implementation of additional tests until further consultation with our customers and other interested parties, ensuring that community needs are being met. While we continue to believe that consumption based billing may be the best pricing plan for consumers, 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.” Time Warner Cable also announced that it is working to make measurement tools available as quickly as possible. These tools will help customers understand how much bandwidth they consume and aid in the dialog going forward. Britt added, “We look forward to continuing to work with Senator Schumer, our customers and all of the other interested parties as the process moves forward, to ensure that informed decisions are made about the best way to continue to provide our customers with the level of service that they expect and deserve from Time Warner Cable.”

0

@TrentM re: Well, not that I know of. According to speedtest.net, i'm getting 1.5 mbps download and 0.5 mbps upload. Please see responses #5 and #7. Bandwidth capping has nothing to do with download or upload speeds. What some ISP's are considering - or already using - is sort of like a cell phone plan. You'll get x-Gb of downloads/uploads for a set price and pay extra for anything above that "cap". The very first thing I thought of when I heard that I lived in what was going to be a test market for TWC was "How much bandwidth do I currently use and will I have to change my surfing habits to keep my bill the same?" TWC's statement (Response #7) shows me that I was not the only one thinking that. It'll be nice when they release the tools that we can use to see what our usage is. Before that, we're flying blind and can't make an informed decision as to what plan to choose.

0

Whoops! Thanks, DerbyDad03, I was thinking bandwidth capping was the reduction of download/upload speed. Download amount limiting, I have no idea. I don't download enough to care, anyway. I download probably about 50 MB a month. (Unless the loading of websites and streamed video counts, then i'm in trouble!) -Trent "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving may not be for you." -Our tour guide at Fenway Park in Boston, MA.

0

Yes, the loading of websites and streamed video counts, just like both incoming and outgoing calls count towards the minutes "cap" on your cell phone plan. I'm sure the average user downloads a giga-gazillion times more data than they upload. The ISP would be nuts not to latch onto that revenue stream!

0

I actually like the idea of "pay for play". It sucks having to share my internet connection with bandwidth hogs who are trafficking in pirated software, music and movies. Now those @#$Y$%$^ will have to pay more than me. I think that's more than fair considering they are thieves and should actually be arrested and criminally charged. It's always rubbed me raw that the thieves can ruin my online gaming because they suck up all the bandwidth on my segment and they pay the same per month as me. If this goes through, and all ISP's start doing it, people like me who mainly surf and do email and game, etc won't see an increase in our bill. But the thieves will have to pay more or stop sharing their illegal software/music/apps etc.

0

re: people like me who mainly surf and do email and game, etc won't see an increase in our bill. How do you know that? Have you been able to monitor your usage and compare it to the cap tiers that the ISP's are suggesting? I can monitor my cell phone minutes to see where I stand in relation to my plan limits, but until the ISP provides the tools for me to monitor my bandwidth usage and compare it to their proposed tiers, I can't say for sure whether my bill will change or not. I suppose the data is stored someplace in my router or on each system, but I don't know where to access it.

0

There is software available to track this kind of information. No, I don't know what it is offhand but I do know it's available simply because some friends and I run a game server which we have hosted in the US. We've changed colocation sites a couple times in the least 4 years and each time we've had to calcuate our bandwidth usage costs because those guys all do charge. When we've gone to move, I've spoken with the colocation people we were using at that time, and had them print out a report of our usage. This way we could figure out what bandwidth package we would need at the new location and figure out if their service was going to be cost effective. Generally speaking they (colocation sites) give you X amount of GB's per month and you pay dearly for overages. They usually offer serveral different packages ranging in the amount of GB's per month. The more GB's included in the package, the more expensive the package. So I have had opportunity to have a look. I suspect 2 people (referring to my wife and myself) gaming, surfing and doing email over the internet will not use as many GB's of data monthly as our gaming server does. At least I would suspect we don't and when you consider we run no less than 4 individual game servers on our box and each supports say, 30 simultaneous connections that's approx 120 concurrent sessions with data flowing both ways....and the last check we did about 4 months back it was less than 10 GB's a month. If memory serves me, our monthly average for a year was something like 7 - 9 GB's. However, file pirates who run P-to-P software and have people sucking files from them 24/7 will use a lot more per month than I do and in fact, more than our gaming server does. This is mainly due to the type, and size, of the data being transferred. If you're really curious, call your provider and ask them if they have a way to track, and report on, your usage monthly. I suspect they probably already have such monitoring in place and know which clients are the bandwidth hogging pirates too.

0

re: If you're really curious, call your provider and ask them if they have a way to track, and report on, your usage monthly. I'm in no hurry. As mentioned in the TWC statement I posted in response 7, these tools should be available from TWC before any capping is instituted. "Time Warner Cable also announced that it is working to make measurement tools available as quickly as possible. These tools will help customers understand how much bandwidth they consume and aid in the dialog going forward."

0

Granted there are some issues over the pirating of software and music/video files using P2P protocols.... but what about those that honestly purchase their music and download it to their computers through napster and other legal sites along with the legal renting/purchasing of downloading video for viewing. All of this is legitimate usage. The capping of bandwidth in the case of legitimate users will hinder the purpose of the internet. And what about plain cable television. It is nothing but a an internet as well but only for the viewing of certain broadcasting stations. Our cable has interactive programing with gaming and all that. Or they going to go as far as start charging you more as well. What I see from capping is nothing more than another way to force customers into paying more for the same services. Are they going to go to the extent that you are using bandwidth in increments as in minimum charges for cell phone minutes. How do you verify the usage that you are being charged with. In most utility companies there are meters installed on your property to verify how much electricity you used and water as well. Where will these meters be stored for verification and what recourse is there against over charging or just damn right lying about how much you actually used. I bust Sprint for overcharging me on how many minutes a call uses all the time. My phone has a minute counter and I compare what it says to what I am being charged with. I have busted them on claiming a 5 minute call lasted 12 minutes by their standards simply because the signal relating the disconnect does not always disconnect at their end. This is a very well documented practice. This is why they charge for a whole minute for any partial use there of. Change Is Good http://www.citizenlink.org/Stopligh...

0

What I see from capping is nothing more than another way to force customers into paying more for the same services. Well, the way I see it is, if you use more, then you should pay more. An average household surfs and does email. Maybe they download the odd files but for the most part, they use very little bandwidth when it's measure in GB's over the course of a month. Whereas the file sharing people (legal or illegal) transfer large amounts of data back and forth so I have to ask you, how do you consider the two the same? Think back a decade or two and think about long distance telephone calls. It used to be as expensive as hell.....at least in Canada it was where each province had a provincial telco and there was NO competition. When you have the market cornered, you can gouge....errr....charge as much as you like and the customer can take it or leave it. My point being, if you didn't make any LD calls, you didn't pay extra. If you did however, make LD calls, you paid extra over and above your normal monthly fee. These days there is competition for LD and I now pay a basic package rate monthly and can call anywhere in the US and Canada for that monthly fee. No limits on time. Which is handy because my in-law's all live in the US where my wife is from. The same applies to the internet. If I use on average 2 GB's a month....why should I pay the same amount as a someone who uses 10 times that amount, regardless of whether they data they transfer is legal or illegal? Are they going to go to the extent that you are using bandwidth in increments as in minimum charges for cell phone minutes. I can't say about that but as I pointed out previously, I really don't think a home that uses 2 GB's should pay as much as one that uses 10 GB's. As I said in my previous post, the colocation sites all have packages. 5 GB/month = $X amount, 10 GB/month = $X(more than 5 GB package) amount and so on and so on. Feel free to investigate a couple "colocation" sites to see how they do it and you'll get an idea of how it would on a pay-for-play basis with ISP's and home users. My question to you is, do you honestly think people who use more per month should pay the same as people who use less? Is that fair to the people who use less? How do you verify the usage that you are being charged with. In most utility companies there are meters installed on your property to verify how much electricity you used and water as well. Where will these meters be stored for verification and what recourse is there against over charging or just damn right lying about how much you actually used. As I said, there is software out there that's able to do this. Instead of a meter on your house, or in it, how about you download and install software that monitors your connection and the amount of data that travels through it. Your ISP will do the same. At the end of the month, you compare yours with theirs and if ther'es a difference, you call them and hammer it out with them. If you feel like they're trying to rip you off, you dump them and go with another, more honest, provider. ISP's would have to toe the line because if they get caught trying to rip off customers, well, I suspect you know as well as I do that after the dust had settled from the court case, they'd be out of business because who would stay with them, or start an account with them, if they were known to rip off their customers. Anyhow, I personally don't think it's a bad idea and it would certainly make me feel better to know that guy running the P-to-P software was paying for the huge amounts of data he goes through in a month instead of paying the same thing that I pay. Keep in mind too that this same P-to-P guy's activities suck up huge amounts of bandwidth which has adverse affects on everybody else who's on the same segment as him.

0

Let us use the same ideology as you with the phones. You pay a set amount to call long distance to your inlaws who as you stated all live in a different country than you do. You pay $xxx for that service. you use the service 1 call per day for a month someone else uses the same service they make 10 calls a day for the month. You both pay the same but I don't hear any complaints from you on that part. (nothing personal) The point being that in order to generate business the company looks at all the aspects of that instance and decide that they can do it a certain way. That is the way that they set it up....ok so what if someone uses a bit more or gets a bit more usage from it. It will happen because no matter what usage tier you will be in.... 1) there will always be someone getting more from it than you do. 2) there will always be someone getting less usage than you do Now if you are proposing that you pay a per usage fee as a constant....the same thoughts of long distance charges you referred to before you got the unlimited service.... 1)well where is the competitive rates so to keep pricing down 2) In certain areas now there is only one type of ISP available and you hear the complaints about that even in this thread. Totally limited speeds ...blah, blah, blah. In your proposal you are supporting the return to the single type charges for usage as in the long distance of old. Pricing was stale...people only made long distance calls on emergency basis or for holidays...there was no room nor incentive for competition...this is nothing but regression to a past way of pricing so as to have a controlled market place...I just don't see it happening... My ISP even advertises no capping...which i didn't know till I got to thinking about it from this thread...:P How about we allow you to do the pay for usage thing to make you feel better about what you are doing. The rest of us will stay in the competitive rat race so as to be able to get a bit more for our buck than what we pay for. Change Is Good http://www.citizenlink.org/Stopligh...

0

I am not currently capped but if it is proposed I will switch ISPs until I run out. In a way I agree with the idea of pay for play but if it is going to come to that then what I pay had better go down from where it is now if I have to monitor my usage. At the moment I have unlimited usage if it is to be limited then my bill is to go down. I am sure there are ways to beat this cap. I am also sure that a few ISPs will not do it as it would become a heck of a marketing play. I have no idea how much I use now but I would switch on principle alone. I can see most thinking this is a great way to rake in the big bucks in either direction.You charge nore for more usage the piggies will pay more because they can not do without. If you are say not a national ISP then you stay unlimited and just raise the rates overall and get everybody that is leary of being capped. So if I am paying $25.00 per month now and my national ISP goes with the cap I'll have to switch to Joe Shmoe local ISP and pay $40.00 a month for the same service. I have DSL light now if there is a cap I'll probably go back to dial up and find something else to do with my time. Practice makes perfect but only if you practice perfectly!

0

someone else uses the same service they make 10 calls a day for the month. You both pay the same but I don't hear any complaints from you on that part. (nothing personal) Hoist on my own petard! I hadn't thought about that to be completely honest. That's not the best comparison after all. BTW, nothing personal taken. It's an intelligent discussion (so far....lol) and I appreciate someone disagreeing with me. I can easily lock myself into a narrow view and prefer not to. Someone disagreeing, and providing a lucid argument makes me think and I frequently learn something new. I've never been scared to learn or to change. Now if you are proposing that you pay a per usage fee as a constant... I would prefer a tiered type. As you pointed out, there will always be people getting more, and less, out of it than me. However, it's the guys that use tons of bandwidth doing the file sharing I get annoyed by. Not the house with 4 kids and two adults who all surf and game. They don't hog up bandwidth like file sharing does, even though they do use more than me on a monthly basis. It's not the guys that use 2x or 3x that make me angry, it's the guys using 10x or 20x what I do, that make my surfing and gaming miserable because their P-to-P file sharing goes 24/7 and hogs up huge portions of the available bandwidth causing major lag and latency on my connection. With the tiered, we (me and the family of 6 that surf and game only - ie, no file sharing) would pay the same, but the bandwidth hog would pay more. Either by paying more for a larger bandwidth package, or by paying his overage charges. It wouldn't alleviate the problem with the bandwidth being hogged though, so I guess I'd still be annoyed at having to share a segment with those types as there's really no way to separate their traffic from the non-hog types. But, the cost might just make some of them stop sharing files (like the poor college kid) and thus reduce total "hogging". In your proposal you are supporting the return to the single type charges for usage as in the long distance of old. I was actually only using that as a comparison to make a point. I wouldn't prefer to go back to that. We had that when internet access first became available to the average Joe. As more competition came into being (ie: more providers, highspeed etc) the prices actually went down for "basic" packages which means a savings for everybody. Pricing was stale...people only made long distance calls on emergency basis or for holidays...there was no room nor incentive for competition...this is nothing but regression to a past way of pricing so as to have a controlled market place...I just don't see it happening... LOL - Boy do I hear that! I remember how we'd all gather around the phone on X'mas to call family that lived far away and what a big rush it was to talk to someone long distance because it was so rarely done. But I agree, I don't see it going back as we've come too far along in the other direction and there's just too much competition for a share of the market. This is good news for us end users. I am also sure that a few ISPs will not do it as it would become a heck of a marketing play. I have no idea how much I use now but I would switch on principle alone. I'm sure you're right....and the ISP's that don't cap would attract all the P-to-P file sharing types and leave those of us who don't to have more bandwidth to game and surf with on the 'tiered' capped ISP. Which suits me just fine. So if I am paying $25.00 per month now and my national ISP goes with the cap I'll have to switch to Joe Shmoe local ISP and pay $40.00 a month for the same service. From my point of view, this is great. As I said, I'd stay with the $25.00/month capped and be happy because I would never go over the cap and never have to pay more. Nothing for me would change. I'm surprised an intelligent guy like yourself feels he would have to change just on principle. To me it looks like you're cutting your nose off to spite your face (no insult intended, just saying how it looks to me). Why change and pay more when you could stay where you are and continue paying the same? Honestly, I don't understand that.

0

LOL.... I'm surprised an intelligent guy like yourself feels he would have to change just on principle. To me it looks like you're cutting your nose off to spite your face (no insult intended, just saying how it looks to me). Why change and pay more when you could stay where you are and continue paying the same? Honestly, I don't understand that. Ahhh but who is to say that I would be paying more. That is what competition does. Right now I am on a 3 part bundle of $89.95 (US) per month for : 1)Telephone...unlimited long distance nationwide 2) 15Gps uncapped Internet connection 3) Cable TV (all Digital) with HBO and Showtime 300 or 400 TV stations plus !00 channels of Music Plus interactive gaming channels and on call movies ($3 extra per) After taxes and all I pay just over $105 per month. And as stated above my ISP/TV/Phone has continued to provide us with top upgrades and faster and faster internet speeds and I just have no complaints what so ever about them....They have earned my loyalty with 1st class support. At the time, I don't think that it would bother me if they did cap the internet bandwidth as I don't think I have ever come close to attaining any great margin. There are 3 of us and we all do our thing and even at the same time and we have no noticeable drop in speed. We download movies to take on trips and music as well but I don't think it is an abundant amount. I have 9 grand kids and we do share lots of photos and videos that are home made...again, I don't think that we are being a bandwidth hog or even close to it. I know that if it reverted back to the same usage of having to wait till holidays and special occasions, I would most definately have a pissed off wife and a whole lot of grand .kids Change Is Good http://www.citizenlink.org/Stopligh...

0