Time Warner Net bringing "Beaumont" style caps to

Justin D. · Post by **Justin D.** » April 5th, 2009, 12:21 pm

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:
kerri wrote:I ve had grande for about two and a half years. I dont download illegal stuff that often but when I started getting heavy into the Wire two years ago and couldnt wait for the new episodes I started downloading it. After about four months Grande busted me and said they would cut our service and turn us in if we were caught again. Had this happen to a couple other friends too. So be warned, although i am sure you tech folks know how to not get caught.

typically when this happens its because they were able to upload media from your computer. If you set up your torrent programs to not allow users to upload from you, or to remove the torrent files after they've completed downloading you shouldn't have trouble. Or, if you aren't using torrents, apply the same settings to whatever file share program you are using.

I also like to use these forums
www.quicksilverscreen.com

Boo. I'm a moderator of a TV/Film board elsewhere and have spent the last few days editing posts and threads, or outright deleting them, because of links like that since the unfinished Wolverine movie was leaked on the internet in DVD quality.

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » April 8th, 2009, 4:27 pm

by the way...

...i've googled around a bit and the consensus seems to be that this crap won't affect anyone who has one of those 2-year "price lock" guarantees until after that contract period is up. we signed one of those when we added cable tv to our existing internet in october -- i wasn't too happy about it then, but now i guess it's a way to not have to deal with this stuff for a bit longer.

kerri · Post by **kerri** » April 8th, 2009, 4:39 pm

yeah i knew about the uploading thing i was just lazy one day.

Post by **bradisntclever** » April 12th, 2009, 4:33 am

Here's some additional info, I found via kotaku.com:

Time Warner Cable wrote:• To accommodate lighter Internet users and those who need a lower priced option, we are introducing a 1 GB per month tier offering speeds of 768 KB/128 KB for $15 per month. Overage charges will be $2 per GB per month. Our usage data show that about 30% of our customers use less than 1 GB per month.

• We are increasing the bandwidth tier sizes included in all existing packages in the trial markets to 10, 20, 40 and 60 GB for Road Runner Lite, Basic, Standard and Turbo packages, respectively. Package prices will remain the same. Overage charges will be $1 per GB per month.

• We will introduce a 100 GB Road Runner Turbo package for $75 per month (offering speeds of 10 MB/1 MB). Overage charges will be $1 per GB per month.

• Overage charges will be capped at $75 per month. That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage at Turbo speeds.

• Once we implement this trial, we will not immediately start billing customers for overage. Rather, we will first provide two months of usage data. Then we will provide a one-month grace period in which overages will be noted on customers' bills, but they will not be charged. So, customers will have an opportunity to assess their usage and right-size their service packages before usage charges are applied.

• Trials will begin in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in August. We will apply what we learn from these two markets when we launch trials in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, in October, but we will guarantee at least the same level of usage capacity in these trials.

• As we launch DOCSIS 3.0 in the trial markets, we plan to offer a 50/5 MB speed tier for $99 per month.

nadine · Post by **nadine** » April 13th, 2009, 11:07 am

The numbers are still meaningless to me.

How does it equate to watching online TV (non-HD) on Hulu? For 1 episode?

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » April 13th, 2009, 11:43 am

nadine wrote:The numbers are still meaningless to me.

How does it equate to watching online TV (non-HD) on Hulu? For 1 episode?

For hulu.com, which streams in flash at about 700 kbps for its non-HD content, I read that it would be approximately 230Mb for an hour long (46 min) show.

Lants · Post by **Lants** » April 13th, 2009, 11:50 am

I have the "Turbo" package so I guess I get 60, but that's still kind of low.

I have the Roku box which streams Amazon and Netflix movies to my set.
If I watch a 90 minute HD movie streamed to my set, that's about 3 GB right there.

Considering this counts toward television shows and the fact that I don't have cable means that watching a little bit of television per night along with an occasional download here and there could easily put me over.

Interesting that this makes cable seem cheaper, hmmmm, I wonder if Time Warner benefits from making it harder to watch Television and movies on the internet?

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » April 13th, 2009, 12:01 pm

The thing that worries me about the caps is not that they are miniscule -- I think that for most people, Time Warner is right: people won't go over them.

But I think they are trying to get this cap paradigm in place now, while most people (except Lance and me and probably some others on this board) would fall below them. But the sheer amount of data we consume on the internet has steadily grown since its dawn ...and will continue to grow. So even though you might not go over the cap now, who'd have thought even 3 years ago you'd be able to stream HD films and tv so easily and quickly? Or that there would be such a large shift from buying music in a physical format to instead purchasing high-quality mp3s? I think that the amount of data used on average will (or maybe should) continue to grow as technology and the uses for the internet grows. And then you will soon hit your 20/40Gb cap, and have to continue to pay more and more.

Brian makes a lot of salient points about all of this in his blog -- for lots of great information, check that or Omar Gallaga's posts about it in the Stateman.

Justin D. · Post by **Justin D.** » April 14th, 2009, 12:21 am

Lants wrote:Interesting that this makes cable seem cheaper, hmmmm, I wonder if Time Warner benefits from making it harder to watch Television and movies on the internet?

mcnichol wrote:The thing that worries me about the caps is not that they are miniscule -- I think that for most people, Time Warner is right: people won't go over them.

But I think they are trying to get this cap paradigm in place now, while most people (except Lance and me and probably some others on this board) would fall below them. But the sheer amount of data we consume on the internet has steadily grown since its dawn ...and will continue to grow. So even though you might not go over the cap now, who'd have thought even 3 years ago you'd be able to stream HD films and tv so easily and quickly? Or that there would be such a large shift from buying music in a physical format to instead purchasing high-quality mp3s? I think that the amount of data used on average will (or maybe should) continue to grow as technology and the uses for the internet grows. And then you will soon hit your 20/40Gb cap, and have to continue to pay more and more.

And this is most likely why the caps are being done. Commercial revenue has gone down considerably and with more people turning to downloading entertainment or streaming it on their computer, cable companies have to do something to stem the tide of money leaving their pockets. This is one of those things.

Frankly, while it seems a bit sleazy, it is a good business move, but only if all other competing cable companies make the same move.

TexasImprovMassacre · April 14th, 2009, 4:13 am

Oh no, but how will the cable companies make money? Customers should all just eat a big shitty cap sandwich and deal with it because the poor cable company needs to make more money?

I think its a pretty horrible business move. Its making customers unhappy. Unhappy customers aren't likely to line any pockets.

mcnichol · Post by **mcnichol** » April 14th, 2009, 8:13 am

Justin D. wrote:Frankly, while it seems a bit sleazy, it is a good business move, but only if all other competing cable companies make the same move.

Totally -- and some of them are, though with much higher caps (Comcast, AT&T). I just don't think Time Warner expected the national coverage of all of it and so suddenly. Besides the ongoing coverage in the affected areas (Rochester, Austin, Greensboro), I've seen/heard articles in the NY Times, the major networks online content, and now yesterday afternoon on NPR. The more negative press about it, the better...

PaulM · Post by **PaulM** » April 14th, 2009, 9:26 pm

Update: looks like TWC is delaying their metered tiers plan in Austin & SA - due to pushback from subscribers (like me, who left their crazy asses!)...

http://www.businessinsider.com/time-war ... xas-2009-4

On hold until October, though it's possible they're looking to roll out the structure in a larger set of markets.

Post by **bradisntclever** » April 14th, 2009, 11:23 pm

PaulM wrote:Update: looks like TWC is delaying their metered tiers plan in Austin & SA - due to pushback from subscribers (like me, who left their crazy asses!)...

http://www.businessinsider.com/time-war ... xas-2009-4

On hold until October, though it's possible they're looking to roll out the structure in a larger set of markets.

It's not on hold. They intended to roll the trials into different cities. Austin's not first on the list.

Post by **bradisntclever** » April 14th, 2009, 11:31 pm

Apparently, a freshman senator from NY is mad at TWC's goal to start doing the trials shortly in Rochester. He's working on a bill to make the caps illegal. The text of the bill will be available by the end of the week.

This will be an interesting battle of lobbies...

Justin D. · Post by **Justin D.** » April 15th, 2009, 1:26 am

TexasImprovMassacre wrote:Oh no, but how will the cable companies make money? Customers should all just eat a big shitty cap sandwich and deal with it because the poor cable company needs to make more money?

Yeah, sure, I guess that's what I said. What?

Also, while I'm not for this, a lot of complaints about this remind me somewhat of people saying that the big auto companies deserved to go under and should do so, while I was working for a company that had major contracts with American auto companies. Hard to agree that the "big, greedy company" should just collapse if you're likely to lose your job (I did) because of your company's connection to said "big, greedy company".

mcnichol wrote:
Justin D. wrote:Frankly, while it seems a bit sleazy, it is a good business move, but only if all other competing cable companies make the same move.
Totally -- and some of them are, though with much higher caps (Comcast, AT&T). I just don't think Time Warner expected the national coverage of all of it and so suddenly. Besides the ongoing coverage in the affected areas (Rochester, Austin, Greensboro), I've seen/heard articles in the NY Times, the major networks online content, and now yesterday afternoon on NPR. The more negative press about it, the better...

I'm blown away by Time Warner's ignorance when it comes to the immediate and widespread publicity about the caps. Not only are they planning to do this in tech- and creative-industry heavy cities, but they're messing with the actual means of communication many people will use to trounce them.