- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
It is cheaper every year, we just were naive enough to think that would mean we would get it cheaper, not that they would pocket more profits.
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
You're a huge troll.
Comcast = 250 GB for $60 = $0.24/GB
TWC = 100 GB for $75 = $0.75/GB
Alternately, if you're looking at the unlimited plans...
Verizon FiOS = Unlimited for $45
TWC = Unlimited for $150
How can charging 3x as much for the same shit possibly constitute a deal, much less a "freaking deal"? Unless you're a troll/shill/retard, of course.
Aikouka
Lifer
- Nov 27, 2001
- 30,383
- 912
- 126
I find it odd that they talk about people possibly suffering from other people's Internet use. I mean, has anyone on TWC's Road Runner service ever experienced severe enough degradation that they couldn't do anything? I don't live in any of the trial areas, but I've had no problems maintaining a good speed regardless of the time (being off-hours or peak use).
This is what I've been asking since this whole thing about caps began. Would the average user even notice if a page loaded in 2 seconds versus 1?
If Comcast ever implements something similar to this I am bolting ASAP.
Vote with my wallet, I can guarantee you that as Internet video takes off more and more people will become frustrated at these kind of practices and jump ship as well. I hope TWC/Comcast all go bankrupt, they are the worst kind of monopoly.
Vote with my wallet, I can guarantee you that as Internet video takes off more and more people will become frustrated at these kind of practices and jump ship as well. I hope TWC/Comcast all go bankrupt, they are the worst kind of monopoly.
Yeah sorry $150 for unlimited it highly ridiculous. I can slightly see $100/month for unlimited and maybe $80 for 500gb or something like that. I'm sorry but bandwidth is NOT as expensive as what they say. As far as spidey's comments - why don't you just stay quiet, you sound more and more like you actually work for TWC anyway and are trying to justify this with your "oh bandwidth is so expensive if you get over 1gb per month you should be paying $100's of dollars a month for that priveledge..." nobody wants to hear from you anymore. There is no reason Cable company A can have a cap of 250gb for x amount while company B has a cap of 40gb for more money each month. Consumers are not stupid. I am just very thankful I'm in an area with multiple ISP's and also have FIOS. Funny how they're not pulling that crap where I am - people would just switch to another company in a heart beat
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
Does anyone know if this will impact Brighthouse customers? My understanding is that Brighthouse is at least partially owned by Time Warner and that Time Warner Road Runner is what Brighthouse sells for internet connectivity.
FIOS can't come to my area fast enough.
FIOS can't come to my area fast enough.
Queasy
Moderator<br>Console Gaming
- Aug 24, 2001
- 31,796
- 2
- 0
Yep. TWC's pricing structure sucks only 1% less after this revision. There's no way a consumer of TWC can't look at this and conclude that their prices are horrible in comparision to other providers. I feel bad for people that live somewhere where TWC is the only real option.
AT&T putting caps on U-Verse
FIOS will be next.
"These bandwidth caps in the two trial cities do apply to U-verse customers, but only to the broadband Internet portion of U-verse (so you can still watch HDTV all day). "
FIOS will be next.
"These bandwidth caps in the two trial cities do apply to U-verse customers, but only to the broadband Internet portion of U-verse (so you can still watch HDTV all day). "
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
I doubt they will be as big of rip-offs as TWC's caps. It's impossible to compare without knowing what prices they'll charge, though.
And again, that's ignoring the fact that TWC charges 3x as much as Comcast for bandwidth.
And again, that's ignoring the fact that TWC charges 3x as much as Comcast for bandwidth.
SSSnail
Lifer
- Nov 29, 2006
- 17,458
- 83
- 86
I understand the ISP wants to rape everybody with their bandwidth caps, and understand they want to make money while not upgrading shits, foregoing innovations, etc... What I don't understand though, why is spidey slobbering on their knobs? It's not like he gets something out of it?
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
What really gets me is that he seems to love TWC the most of all of them, even though they offer by far the worst deal of them all. I don't know, maybe he gets off on the thought of cash-strapped proletariats sending their hard-earned money to large corporations so he can berate them for being poor and for being cheap, simultaneously.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
He's kind of right, though. Go price a dedicated line, it's definitely not cheap. Residential ISPs can keep prices low because they oversell. For example Verizon's FiOS network is state of the art, and even they only have 622Mbps available for each node (spread over 32 households, that's like 20Mbps per house). I don't know the exact numbers for the cable companies, but I'm assuming it's a lot less available bandwidth per house. Residential internet service is based on the assumption that usage is in bursts and that you're not constantly maxing out your connection.
I try to educate you guys on how all this stuff works and how expensive it is and dispel all the misinformation that just about every post in this thread is by people that have no idea what they are talking about.
Regarding the common and complete lie that they are not upgrading their infrastructure even TWC is moving to DOCSIS 3.0 and that requires quite a bit of upgrading.
I did see a link that said overage charges are $1/gb per month - UP TO $75? Is this correct? This is atleast some sign of relief atleast it's not like cell companies where you go over and then suddenly get a thousand dollar phone bill, if that is actually correct of overage charges of up to $75/month. Again, I'll re-statement my above statements, I am ok with caps, as long as they are reasonable. 40gb cap for $55 and 100gb for $75 is not reasonable. Comcast is more reasonable at 250gb/month. I just hope those caps go up with time as bandwidth usage is sure to keep increasing. What's the point in having a super high speed bandwidth line if your cap is only like 40gb/month "We'll give you a 50mb connection but you can ONLY use 40gb/month so watch out)"....ok, um, no I'll go somewhere else thank you.
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,648
- 2,925
- 136
The TWC plan is $75 for 100 GB. Then it's $1/GB beyond that. Once you've racked up $75 in additional charges, they no longer charge you. That means, in effect, you get 'unlimited' for $150.
Actually, it's a better pricing plan for the consumer that just saying "Unlimited for $150". If you buy unlimited for $150 and use 101GB, your marginal and average costs are too high (compared to the TWC plan being offered).
That's not to say that I like or endorse the newly proposed TWC plans, but I am saying "It could be worse".
10/1 for $75/mo with a 100GB? Wow, ripoff. It seems like to me that new Turbo tier is the same as what you currently get for 30+% more money and with a 100GB cap. Ridiculous. Well all of the tiers are pretty damn stupid. Either lower prices or 2x the caps and I'd be okay with it.
edit: Looks like I'm finally going to get one of those bandwidth monitors and see what I average per month just because it wouldn't surprise me if within a year I have caps. I don't use Netflix, I do a little bit of online gaming, a little bit of Youtube, and download or stream a couple of TV shows per week (but they are not on every week). But if with that alone I start getting close to 40 GB (the proposed cap for the RR Standard), then that is ridiculous because I don't want to be almost hitting that cap with such little usage and no room for options in the future like more TV shows, Netflix, etc.
edit: Looks like I'm finally going to get one of those bandwidth monitors and see what I average per month just because it wouldn't surprise me if within a year I have caps. I don't use Netflix, I do a little bit of online gaming, a little bit of Youtube, and download or stream a couple of TV shows per week (but they are not on every week). But if with that alone I start getting close to 40 GB (the proposed cap for the RR Standard), then that is ridiculous because I don't want to be almost hitting that cap with such little usage and no room for options in the future like more TV shows, Netflix, etc.
The sad thing about this whole thing is that TWC's argument is that they're trying to make it more affordable so the little granny that doesn't use hers should have to pay the same price as someone using 100gb but the problem is, they aren't LOWERING prices, their keeping prices basically the same and then adding caps and then adding higher cap tiers (if higher is appropriate here) and increasing the prices. I still fail to see how 100gb in bandwidth really costs them that much. If comcast is able to get 250gb for the price their changing, TWC should really change upstream providers to a cheaper one. But again, I really do believe this is all to try and get people avoid from online video streaming so they don't cancel their cable tv service. TWC is afraid of losing business to free or cheaper online video streaming so they're making people think twice of doing it, what better way than to implement caps in which I'd say 20% or more of their user base will exceed their monthly caps.
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
- May 14, 2003
- 9,943
- 107
- 106
OK, I just got off the phone with Time Warner Cable. I had called Earthlink a short while ago to switch to their internet service (subleased directly from TWC), dealt with their customer service and was told everything would be switched and I won't even have a disruption in service. He then transferred me to TWC customer service to finalize everything. Earthlink rep was professional, competent, and explained all the details (no caps, no contract, monthly costs, etc). He then explains he'll need to switch me to TWC, and he puts me on hold.
Now, after being switched to TWC customer service, the Earthlink rep had already discussed the situation with the TWC rep, thanked me, and said goodbye. The TWC rep then says she can't finalize the transition and that I needed to go to one of their payment centers to complete the order. "Uh, what? Earthlink rep said you guys can do it, and now you are saying you can't?"
"Yes, I thought this was a new installation, but since it isn't then I can't help you. You'll have to go to a payment center."
Well, ok, bye then.
:|
So after a few minutes stewing about what just transpired, I called TWC back. This time I spoke with a different rep who told me he could in fact make the transition for me and that I did not need to visit a payment center. I rattled off my info and he was processing everything when my call suddenly got dropped. Since I am using Skype, I immediately assumed my internet got cut off and refreshed the page on ATOT but it worked just fine.
I called back and spoke with another rep asking to speak to the last rep I spoke to and explained the situation to him. The other rep was on another call so this rep checked and everything had been taken care of. I told him our call had been dropped and that I was using Skype and he said that was when the transition happened.
"Oh, ok. So everything is taken care of and I am on Earthlink now?"
"Yes"
I thanked him and we ended the call.
So now I am with Earthlink for $29.95/month for the first six months, $41.95/month thereafter, with no caps, using the exact same hardware and cables as I was using with RoadRunner, which they are charging $44.95/month for. There was no threat of caps in my area yet, but it would only be a matter of time if TWC doesn't get the message that their customers don't want ridiculous caps on their service. I am voting with my wallet.
Now, after being switched to TWC customer service, the Earthlink rep had already discussed the situation with the TWC rep, thanked me, and said goodbye. The TWC rep then says she can't finalize the transition and that I needed to go to one of their payment centers to complete the order. "Uh, what? Earthlink rep said you guys can do it, and now you are saying you can't?"
"Yes, I thought this was a new installation, but since it isn't then I can't help you. You'll have to go to a payment center."
Well, ok, bye then.
:|So after a few minutes stewing about what just transpired, I called TWC back. This time I spoke with a different rep who told me he could in fact make the transition for me and that I did not need to visit a payment center. I rattled off my info and he was processing everything when my call suddenly got dropped. Since I am using Skype, I immediately assumed my internet got cut off and refreshed the page on ATOT but it worked just fine.
I called back and spoke with another rep asking to speak to the last rep I spoke to and explained the situation to him. The other rep was on another call so this rep checked and everything had been taken care of. I told him our call had been dropped and that I was using Skype and he said that was when the transition happened.
"Oh, ok. So everything is taken care of and I am on Earthlink now?"
"Yes"
I thanked him and we ended the call.
So now I am with Earthlink for $29.95/month for the first six months, $41.95/month thereafter, with no caps, using the exact same hardware and cables as I was using with RoadRunner, which they are charging $44.95/month for. There was no threat of caps in my area yet, but it would only be a matter of time if TWC doesn't get the message that their customers don't want ridiculous caps on their service. I am voting with my wallet.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter