Time Warner Cable = THE MAN

[Piano Man]

Well, I couldn't take it anymore. Ever since about 2 months ago, I have not been able to stream a single Netflix Movie. I have no other connection issues whatsoever. Speedtests put me at 15mbit down and about 1mbit up. I tried everything to fix it, nothing. So I called Netflix. I started telling the tech about my problem, and before I even say it, he asks the following:

"Are you using Time Warner Cable in Southern California?"

I said yes, and he tells me that TWC is throttling Netflix streaming, and that most of the calls they get are from TWC customers. He tells me with 100% certainty that TWC is throttling Netflix, and that the two companies are "in talks".


How can this be legal? I don't have any other cable providers in my area of Santa Monica. After checking around, I found out that I can get Verizon DSL (7.1mbitdown/768kbps up). I think I'll switch over, because this is just total BS.

Has anyone else had any other experience with TWC and Netflix? I've also heard that they are planning on rolling out "soft caps" for internet users starting at 50GB, and going up to 150GB for higher paying packages. After that, you get charged per GB. Isn't this just an excuse because they haven't upgraded their infrastructure like other countries? (ie South Korea).

I don't see how you can brag about a 15-20mbit connection, and then soft cap someone at 50GB. That's like giving someone a ferrari and telling them to not take it past the driveway.


ARGH!!!!!

 

[zerocool84]

Ugg crap. I live in the LA area and have TWC. I think I'm ganna have to move to something else if this is true. I'm not a fan of throttling at all but hell, is anyone? I don't have Netflix so I can't comment on that.

 

[Raduque]

Welcome to the future of broadband.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: Raduque
Welcome to the future of broadband.

yep, can't wait till this spreads further and we have to buy internet "packages" of certain content. Pretty sad.

 

[rivan]

Vote with your wallet.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: rivan
Vote with your wallet.

yeah switch to dial-up, that'll show em!

 

[40Hands]

Why upgrade their infrastructure when they can just throttle back and up their rates?

 

[Ns1]

I've been able to stream NF from TWC (90026)

 

[geno]

Originally posted by: 40Hands
Why upgrade their infrastructure when they can just throttle back and up their rates?

...
Profit!!!

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: rivan
Vote with your wallet.

yeah switch to dial-up, that'll show em!

Yea, exactly. I'm going with Verizon. Thank god they provide a semi-decent speed at 7.1mbit down. I was hoping FIOS was available, but no luck there. I just talked to a friend that has verizon and netflix, and he says there isn't any problems yet.

I wonder if TWC will disconnect the TV portion of the cable. I'd hate to have to give them any money at all. Unfortunately I can't get satellite from my building.

This crap happened with the Railroads back in the day. You couldn't get across the country on one companies RR lines. In order to move freight, these other guys would charge rates, and would even limit speeds on their RR lines. The govt eventually had to step in because it was hurting business and industry. I'm wondering if the same thing needs to happen here.

 

[OCGuy]

Thanks alot, pirates!

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Has anyone else had any other experience with TWC and Netflix? I've also heard that they are planning on rolling out "soft caps" for internet users starting at 50GB, and going up to 150GB for higher paying packages. After that, you get charged per GB. Isn't this just an excuse because they haven't upgraded their infrastructure like other countries? (ie South Korea).

Why is this a bad thing? You pay for what you use? If I download a fraction of 50 GB / month, why should my rates go up so that the cable company can accommodate a small number of high traffic users?

I don't see how you can claim that companies aren't upgrading their infrastructure. Comcast is rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 in test markets as we speak.

 

[DrawninwarD]

Canada's got it worse.

Rogers highspeed cable (which most people have) is 7 Mbit dl, but you're only allowed 60 GB traffic per month. It's $2 per GB after that I think.

Currently, I'm renting a place for a few months in Quebec. The ISP here is even worse. 7 Mbit dl, but only 20 GB dl and 10 GB ul allowed per month. After that, it's eight dollars per GB. Comcast's 250 GB limit is generous IMO.

EDIT: Oh, and Rogers and Bell have been throttling for years. I doubt they throttle Netflix though, that's definitely different from throttling torrents.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Has anyone else had any other experience with TWC and Netflix? I've also heard that they are planning on rolling out "soft caps" for internet users starting at 50GB, and going up to 150GB for higher paying packages. After that, you get charged per GB. Isn't this just an excuse because they haven't upgraded their infrastructure like other countries? (ie South Korea).

Why is this a bad thing? You pay for what you use? If I download a fraction of 50 GB / month, why should my rates go up so that the cable company can accommodate a small number of high traffic users?

I don't see how you can claim that companies aren't upgrading their infrastructure. Comcast is rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 in test markets as we speak.

:thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

If they are the FCC will smack them down pretty hard as it has done in the past.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Has anyone else had any other experience with TWC and Netflix? I've also heard that they are planning on rolling out "soft caps" for internet users starting at 50GB, and going up to 150GB for higher paying packages. After that, you get charged per GB. Isn't this just an excuse because they haven't upgraded their infrastructure like other countries? (ie South Korea).

Why is this a bad thing? You pay for what you use? If I download a fraction of 50 GB / month, why should my rates go up so that the cable company can accommodate a small number of high traffic users?

I don't see how you can claim that companies aren't upgrading their infrastructure. Comcast is rolling out DOCSIS 3.0 in test markets as we speak.

the thing is, your rates stay the same when they should be going down. It has to work both ways, but obviously they couldn't rip people off the same.

If you only use 2gb a month, should your bill be the same as the guy who uses 49gb?

 

[newb111]

Originally posted by: DrawninwarD
Canada's got it worse.

Rogers highspeed cable (which most people have) is 7 Mbit dl, but you're only allowed 60 GB traffic per month. It's $2 per GB after that I think.

Currently, I'm renting a place for a few months in Quebec. The ISP here is even worse. 7 Mbit dl, but only 20 GB dl and 10 GB ul allowed per month. After that, it's eight dollars per GB. Comcast's 250 GB limit is generous IMO.

EDIT: Oh, and Rogers and Bell have been throttling for years. I doubt they throttle Netflix though, that's definitely different from throttling torrents.

Cox cable in AZ: 12 mbit down, 1mbit up, 30gb a month DL, 10gb a month UL limits.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: ric1287
the thing is, your rates stay the same when they should be going down. It has to work both ways, but obviously they couldn't rip people off the same.

If you only use 2gb a month, should your bill be the same as the guy who uses 49gb?

I suppose. I imagine there are certain fixed costs that have to be accounted for for every user on the system regardless of how much bandwidth they consume. There are limits to how granular tiered pricing structures can get.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: ric1287
the thing is, your rates stay the same when they should be going down. It has to work both ways, but obviously they couldn't rip people off the same.

If you only use 2gb a month, should your bill be the same as the guy who uses 49gb?

I suppose. I imagine there are certain fixed costs that have to be accounted for for every user on the system regardless of how much bandwidth they consume. There are limits to how granular tiered pricing structures can get.

I'd be fine with that. If they want to start doing all this shit because they're greedy, then it should work like any other utility. Certain fixed costs for everyone + usage.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: ric1287
the thing is, your rates stay the same when they should be going down. It has to work both ways, but obviously they couldn't rip people off the same.

If you only use 2gb a month, should your bill be the same as the guy who uses 49gb?

I suppose. I imagine there are certain fixed costs that have to be accounted for for every user on the system regardless of how much bandwidth they consume. There are limits to how granular tiered pricing structures can get.

Verizon only charges 15 bucks for the lowest speed dsl.

 

[dud]

How can this be legal?

This cracks me up. If you don't like it then leave. Netflix users and other (who will remain nameless) use an abnormally high amount of system resources and this has led to throttling. Pirates, Netflix users ... call them what you will, they suck up more then their fair share of the pie. My guess is that shortly you will be able to do all the dling you want ... just like in Canada but for a FEE.

 

[Modelworks]

The reason they are doing this is clear:

http://www.dslreports.com/show...an-Broadband-TV-100998

Comcast, Time Warner Plan Broadband TV

According to a report in today's Wall Street Journal, both Time Warner Cable and Comcast are working with broadcasters on plans to deliver their customers TV programming via the Internet at no additional charge. According to the Journal's sources, the companies are concerned about the proliferation of free video content on the Internet, and are trying to adapt their business models.

As usual, ceaselessly-quoted Sanford C. Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett gets flushed and excited over the concept, telling the Journal the idea "kills two birds with one stone." Mr. Moffett apparently is suggesting the plan would lure in new subscribers, while giving cable an advantage over telcoTV or satellite. But with so much content already available for free online, it doesn't seem like it would accomplish either.

While the idea could be seen as a nice value added service for those who have no plans to cancel cable TV, it also doesn't really replicate the functionality of a Slingbox unless all content is mirrored and available. It's also not entirely clear how this would prevent customer defections, since customers who cut the cord and flock to piracy or legal systems like Hulu do so because they're free and there's either limited or no advertisements.

For the moment there's more questions (a huge one being whether this content counts against caps) than answers, until we have more detail. At the moment, this sounds like a belated attempt to appear cutting edge and capitalize on online video ad revenue by simply replicating existing online services. After all, any cable (or phone) company's worst nightmare is to be delegated to dumb pipe status by the time Internet video truly takes off.

Easier to sell their service if they make the other ones perform poorly.

 

[randay]

digital distribution at its finest.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: ric1287
I'd be fine with that. If they want to start doing all this shit because they're greedy, then it should work like any other utility. Certain fixed costs for everyone + usage.

It's tough to compare the two though. Think about how much network demand has increased for ISPs in the last 5-10 years. BitTorrent, YouTube, Hulu/Joost/streaming TV websites, iTunes, XBox360/PS3/Wii. I would imagine that the utility company has an easier time estimating the load on their infrastructure based mostly on the number and types of customers they have. ISPs have to contend not only with additional users but also additional applications and services that piggyback on their infrastructure.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Verizon only charges 15 bucks for the lowest speed dsl.

NetZero charges 10 bucks for dial-up. What's your point?