SubscribeI’m still getting over the shock of learning this morning that once again, Rochester NY is going to be ground zero over a major broadband usage cap nightmare. After spending a large part of last summer battling Frontier’s ludicrous 5GB usage cap, which they have suspended implementing, at least temporarily, I get the news that Time Warner is about to devastate this, and three other communities, with the same kind of outrageous bandwidth capping they’ve dropped onto the good people of Beaumont, Texas.
Coming later this summer, according to an article in Business Week magazine, Time Warner will introduce usage caps similar to what is in place in Beaumont. For the average Time Warner customer in Rochester, Greensboro, North Carolina, and Austin and San Antonio, Texas, this means standard service customers paying $40 a month will be limited to 20GB per month, those paying $54.95 a month are limited to 40GB per month. Exceed that at your financial peril – overage fees are $1 per gigabyte.
You don’t need this, and I sure don’t need this. If you review this site, you’ll read the whole sordid history of just how outrageous of a gouge on customers this represents. It’s rank profiteering, not “cost sharing” as their marketing people like to put it. For my western New York city and hometown of Rochester, this is absolutely devastating to our competitiveness and image as a high tech city in the ever-struggling western half of this state.
While upstate and downstate cities from Buffalo to the suburbs of Long Island will escape cap free (for now) because of the aggressive development of Verizon’s FIOS network, Rochester is stuck with the dreary and uninspired Frontier Communications with a DSL product that can never come close to hoping to compete on an even keel with Road Runner, yet had the nerve to try cell-phone like usage caps on their customers last year.
With competitors like that, Time Warner can do whatever they please in Rochester. Frontier again has an opening for marketing gold to drop the idea of usage caps and run an ad blitz telling Road Runner customers they’ll never have to worry whether they can watch Hulu, or play someone else online, or download something from iTunes, because they are not going to throw a draconian cap in your face. The stampede exiting Time Warner would be a sight to see. Frontier can bring themselves a massive new customer base. Alas, I have little confidence Frontier is that inspired. Perhaps they can prove me wrong.
Barring that, Frontier will foolishly bring back their own crazy cap and stick Rochester in the broadband doghouse for years and years. When Penn Yan has unlimited FIOS and Pittsford has a father yelling at his son his five minutes of Internet time is up because of the cap and the cost for exceeding it, we’ll all be down the rabbit hole.
One thing is certain, I cannot fight this battle alone. I am going to need article writers, folks to help organize people not only in Rochester but in the other affected cities, as well as outside help from those who may not have the cap today, but soon might tomorrow.
Broadband policy in this country cannot be allowed to deteriorate into de facto duopolies which ration access at ridiculous prices. Consumption based Internet access only works and is justified when the mark-up is nowhere close to the prices Time Warner and other companies want to charge. A better policy recognizes that no cable company or telephone company has gone broke with their current pricing model. To the contrary. Investments bring profits. Enhancing your existing service with add-ons like Road Runner Turbo is a quick and easy way to bring an extra $10 a month and make everyone happy. Heck, I’d suggest a whole lot of moderate users of Road Runner would rather see an across the board $5 rate increase than these kinds of caps. Or at least the potential of a rationally priced unlimited plan offering, which is simply not available with these kinds of usage caps.
Today’s announcement from Time Warner is a broadband game changer akin to a category five hurricane for many online users. It’s literally the end of things like Apple TV, Slingbox, Netflix’s set top box, and even frequent viewings from Hulu and other future video providers. The bandwidth allowances just make using those products and services untenable. And it only gets worse if you’ve got a family with computers around the house. Those are just more chances you’ll exceed the cap.
The Pearl Harbor moment from this company today brings a day of shock, surprise, and contemplating your options, if any. Tomorrow it brings anger, conviction, and organization to make a difference and send a message that no company can be allowed to get away with this sort of thing. I hope you’ll join the fight.
Other stories of interest:
I say we look in a new direction. Let’s instead focus our attention on showing verizon that they have tens of thousands of interested consumers in our town. I imagine that would humble our two local utilities. It would seem to be the easiest way to “stop the cap” In truth, regardless of which service you use, this affects you. We need to bring a third party into this madness. We’ve needed it for a long time…
In some senses I agree with the first commenter — Chris — that we need more competition, but I don’t think one competitor in the cable market alone will do it, we need at least three to keep them honest (or in a federally-recognized conspiracy).
Moreover I see this as a blatant act of ignorance (or malice) on the part of TWC by trying to hold back the tide of “new millennium” users who are more connected and Internet-bound than ever before. They are trying to price heavy Internet use out of reach instead of upgrading their hardware with government funds (which have been granted specifically to upgrade infrastructure).
The people who should be most enraged are the online content providers and business owners who will suffer. If I’m faced with bandwidth caps you can bet my days of surfing and browsing ad-heavy and image-heavy sites will be over thereby hurting those businesses that may have gotten my attention.
I also don’t see how this can’t be anti-competitive if TWC doesn’t count their digital phone users’ bandwidth as part of their Internet usage — and if they /do/ then that’s double-charging for the same bandwidth usage.
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
When I heard the news report this morning announcing the policy from TWC, I seriously thought it was an April fools joke. Then I checked, and realized it was not a joke… but instead, a nightmare.
Sounds like TWC has been taking tips from the US government. This ISP version of a cap-and-trade tax will be yet another stupid policy that limits America’s technological movement.
You know the saying “My enemies enemy is my friend.” Might be a good idea to reach out and talk with ISV/SaaS companies (i.e. Hulu, YouTube, Netflix) and inform them of the restrictive policies from ISPs. Undoubtedly, this will have a huge impact on their profit. Just maybe, they would see the benefit of helping ‘the cause’.
I agree with both you. Verizon should be writing a check out of petty cash, buy Frontier in Rochester, and get on with it. Years ago, that would have been heresy for me to suggest because the NY Tel/NYNEX days were ones with very high prices and not the greatest service, but those days (along with Rochester Telephone) are long since gone.
We are now stuck with a largely rural telephone company that is hampered by inadequate market coverage and capital to build the kind of advanced fiber network that will soon spread across virtually the rest of the entire state. Buffalo, Syracuse, Albany and NY City are all going to be FIOS ready, with Binghamton coming up the rear. NY’s third largest city, Rochester, will NEVER have access to this kind of technology from a company like Frontier. A buyout is the only answer.
I do not see an overbuild by a competing cable or telephone company as very likely because of the enormous amount of red tape and construction work required to deploy the infrastructure. In this economy, it’s never going to happen. Wireless would be the only possible solution, but all of the wireless players either already have slower speeds, usage caps, coverage limits, or all three. Let’s be realistic – wireless is not going to be a real high speed solution for a metro area and likely can never do battle on the issue of usage caps.
I strongly agree with the notion that content providers (and equipment manufacturers) should be spending a LOT more money lobbying against usage caps. In a capped world, companies offering Slingbox and Hava are dead in the water. Apple TV is a waste of time. Netflix’s entire evolving business model is kaput with set top boxes. Even some niche “cable-like” providers, as I’ve detailed in earlier articles here, are simply not sustainable with these kinds of usage caps.
Where are they to protest this gouging? Do they expect customers can face down over a legislative solution to this? Of course not. You need to come with check in hand for access to Washington these days.
And net neutrality is absolutely an issue, even if dismissed by some as an X Files-like conspiracy. I don’t believe in some evil corporate plot to control all information. But they do recognize that in much the same ways wired phone lines are threatened by wireless cellular providers, traditional cable television delivery platforms (which ironically the force us to take on an all-you-can-for-one-price basis), will be threatened by on demand online program delivery.
TW knows this and is developing their own broadband content portal. What happens when they exempt this content from usage caps (and their digital phone service) and competitors who don’t sign contracts with them are stuck trying to compete against an outrageous usage cap? They die, either with venture capital drying up or simply by gradual loss of market share.
The overall question Americans have to ask is whether it is right or not for de facto duopolies to completely impact the lives of so many people who have come to be sold on the benefits of the Internet by those same companies who now wish to ration access? I think that is such an important issue on so many levels, government regulation or an agreement for government resources to go towards network improvements and development in return for guarantees of equality of access at rational prices.
Josh, your comment came in at the same time I was writing mine. Let me agree with you. I got a phone call this morning about it and was literally sick to my stomach. So much of my day is spent online now. I’m a loyal TW customer with most of their video channel offerings, and yet I spend most of my day sitting in front of the computer running a home-based business, listening to online radio, downloading content from the BBC or elsewhere to load my iPod for my daily walk, and then spending many evenings browsing Hulu, Joost, YouTube or some other provider watching content on-demand. From first thing in the morning until I go to bed at night, the Internet has become crucial to keeping my life and affairs in order.
To suggest these kinds of usage caps are at all reasonable is a slap in the face to every loyal customer who takes a full package from Time Warner (I even have Turbo, mostly for the upload speed), and treat us with such contempt is the most shocking thing Time Warner has ever done, worse than the annual rate hikes and occasional service glitches. And for company officials to suggest customers have gotten “spoiled” on their business plan is just another insult. Their own marketing for the past decade has conditioned customers just like me to “download at the fastest, blazing speeds,” “listen to online radio,” “watch videos,” and get the best Internet access in town.
And now for customers like me, the cost for doing that goes from $39.95 + $9.95 a month for Turbo to WELL beyond the $100 a month level based on what I do online. And a $1/GB is outrageous gouging for something that costs them less than 10 cents per gigabyte to deliver.
It’s simply inexcusable, which is why we have to fight.
I just heard about this and I’m scared and angry and not sure what to do.
Just switch to Earthlink, which uses the same pipes but has different contracts. I just spoke with an Earthlink rep and he verified that they do not have any plans to institute caps. Right now their rates for Rochester are:
Up to 768Kbps – $29.95/mo.
Up to 7.0Mbps – $29.95/mo. (First 6 Months*; $41.95/mo. thereafter)
Up to 10.0Mbps – $72.95/mo.
So… there’s still a glimmer of hope.
Matt, thanks for the input. There is a lot of pondering what Earthlink is going to do about caps. At this early date, it’s actually too early to say whether Earthlink is going to keep their promise to you. This story literally went public late last night and a lot of the players have yet to receive their marching orders.
Earthlink, if subjected to a wholesale rate designed to simulate bandwidth expenses residential Road Runner customers are about to experience, may be forced to abandon their cap-free service plan locally as well.
At this point, since the ETA of the usage caps is not until around September 1st, I think we should keep Earthlink in the back of our minds as an option, but not jump just yet.
I am going to have a possible alternative up after I verify some things by phone tomorrow. But when I have those facts together, I will definitely include your findings in that article as a possible alternative.
Thanks for the great research.
Ryan, thanks for your candid admission about being upset about this. Trust me you are not alone. I’ve heard from many people who are literally hitting the roof and petrified their online life is about to devolve to 1998 with dial-up modems. What TW doesn’t honestly care about is the fact their quest for profits will fundamentally change a lot of lives in our community, and not for the better.
I know of many people who have stopped going to movies or other events, cut back on their premium channels and cable package, and are terrified they are about to lose their job and/or home. Their entertainment is literally crowding around a computer screen at night and catching up on some of their favorite shows online. And now that is about to be a real problem.
During this incredibly lousy economy here in western New York, for TW to put this kind of usage rationing plan into effect is beneath contempt for this community and their customers. And we’re not alone. The good people of Beaumont, Austin, and San Antonio Texas are all in the same boat, as are the folks in Greensboro, North Carolina, only they are getting the cap even sooner than we will.
We will be researching EVERY possible alternative, and with your help and others, raise a major public stink about this, as well as talk to our elected officials and potential competitors. We will help you every step of the way in locating the best possible alternatives, and teach you how to get them at the best possible price. If TW wants to treat people in this and other communities this way, we need to demonstrate what an incredibly costly mistake this company is about to make to its loyal customer base.
I agree that this is just awful.
First we had the elimination of Usenet service (two which I say: how often does an attorney general come along and demand you reduce service in a way that saves you scads of money, but allows you to keep your rates the same?). And now, this.
What I don’t understand is how TWC is going to ensure that the “garbage” traffic that constantly flows into my router from all over the Internet (people trying to gain access to my computer – although thankfully never getting past my router) is going to be distinguished from (and not included in) my “paid” traffic.
In other words, even an Internet connection with nothing other than a cable modem generates traffic. It’s an IP address, and it gets attacked/pinged/etc. constantly.
Until they can guarantee that they will only charge me for the traffic I genuinely invoked, then I maintain that I am getting ripped off.
Has someone ever posed this to RR? This needs to be questioned.
Drew
Good point Drew. If they want to institute caps, they had better provide detailed analytics to each customer on their bandwidth usage. I want to know which device on my network downloaded every kb, and at exactly what time.
I to am now worried how this will effect me. I have a very limited budget. As I get a little older and sicker each day my needs are small but the net is all I have. Im almost a shut-in. Case in point just had the car inspected used 300 miles last year. I do not go far. I use the net to read news sites CBS ABC NBC BBC many news and technical web sites. My videos are the small clips from the news sites and im a big fan of NASA streaming TV. I really do not have a clue how much BW I use but now I could be charged extra for doing something as American as watching NASA TV? Don’t seem right. I can see Phil’s point about Pen Yan having fiber before Rochester. Putting fiber in an area this big can be a nightmare. Perhaps a one time charge would help with the infrastructure required but then again if you want the business you have to invest in it first. Im all for it. TW is making money hand over fist as we speak. Some people spend more money on their cable bill then they do on their mortgage given they can’t live without those $5 PPV movies every day. But who can blame them? Anything that is free viewing is all junk filler as you will. I see a day when the NFL games will cost you per game. This has got to stop before it begins. The AG’s office seems like a good place to start.
I feel for you folk. I’m a netizen and I do a lot of stuff online. But truthfully?
I don’t have tv…. at all. Rabbit ears can’t pick up a damn thing anymore, and the switch to digital? Well, my formally crappy signal went dark. Got my box, but nothing. Oh well.
Spring is here. Can’t wait to get out in the garden.
Keep up the “fight,” but its hardly the end of the world. Its just another big corporation telling you to bend over and take it. When are we going to see that its not Time Warner…. Its big corporations in general!!
(case in point – all the outrage at the AIG bonuses?? What did you expect?? You give a corporation some money, and an executive is going to put a bit of it in his pocket…. business as usual… NO SURPRISE!!)
One question: who pays for all of the ads I get on my webpages?
Maybe we might need to involve the ad brokers in this discussion as well.
The government regulatory body for filing a complaint is New York State Public Service Commission. Rate changes/increases by utilities with limited competition need to be approved by the PSC.
FIRST: Call Time Warner and tell them the Cap is unfair and does not seek to cover their costs, but to stifle competition with movie and TV providers in favor of Pay-Per-View. Request that they do not institute the cap. Record the day date time of call and with whom you spoke.
SECOND: register a complaint with
http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/ocs/itgate.nsf/webDPS_Complaint?OpenForm
and fill in the information from above.
Sorry but as much as we would all like to see FIOS come to Rochester and compete with Time Warner. That will never happen as long as Frontier is the ILEC in this area. The reason that Buffalo and Syracuse have FIOS is because Verizon is the ILEC in those areas. If Verizon were to aquier Frontier then we would be talkin FIOS!!!
So what options do we have at this point? I have been with Time Warner for a very long time now, and this is it. I quit. Not only that, i will quit with a vengence. I am switching to dish for my TV, easy answer there. But internet? I run a small business out of my home, and admittedly use a lot of bandwidth doing so. I transfer video files back and forth for editing usually 2 times a day. Plus using Netflix, Itunes, and Hulu for movies 40gb per month is the most absurd insane cap limit. Stupid, greedy and idiotic. Not entirely sure how to get much more angry. I would certainly call and complain at length, but from a few posts I have seen around, some people who use a higher percentage have been placed in “watch” lists. Basically you use a lot of bandwidth so you must be file sharing illegally. Honestly? Legitimate uses in this day and age hit way over 40gb easily. I get a netflix movie, 5gb. Yeah, 5gb, one night. What if I want a movie night with friends…….can’t ever do that again. SCREW YOU TIME WARNER!
Please check out some of our more current articles. You’ll find lists of alternative, uncapped providers to whom you can take your business. I am working on lists for several cities, so if yours isn’t up yet, it will be soon.
I have checked the list. Thank you for organizing that. It is very helpful. The only issue I have in particular is the lack of services that actually compete in speed and reliability.
Check out Windstream. Got a flyer from them last week. They advertise 12mb speeds, and all sounds great, but I can’t seem to find a single positive review of the reliability. Most of them are dated reviews, and I think my neighbor just switched, so I will talk to him and get back to you guys with my findings. Thanks again for your hard work here.
I feel like trying to get everyone to boycot Time Warner for a month or so and watch them come crawling back to us begging us to user the service they provide. As a matter of fact I think I will start with posting this website on my facebook page just to show Time Warner that there are people like me willing to stand up to the things I believe in. This idea of capping is so rediculous, it almost reminds me of when we used to have to keep track of every second we used on our cellular phones. We have evolved from that to unlimited for an increased price. I would rather see that then have them CAP us, isn’t this A STEP BACKWARDS???
This cap thing is B.S. you are better off getting a wireless card if you have a laptop(even thought they already have a cap), but at least you’ll have internet service anywhere. And anything to stick it to Time warner and their never ending rising prices for long time customers and cheaper rates for someone who has no history with them. I’m all for the boycott Tracy.
[...] capital of upstate New York — Rochester. The city was in the news in April when Time Warner designated Rochester as one of the “test cities” for an Internet Overcharging experiment. The plan was [...]