# Roadrunner testing capped Broadband in 4 more cities



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

San Antonio,TX being one of them (along with Austin, TX, Rochester, NY & Greensboro, NC)

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm

I can't help but feel that Internet based VOD services like what DirecTV provides has had a hand in these changes, along with the influx of Internet based video sites like Hulu and the big 4 networks own websites. People using SlingBox contribute to this as well.

Where I live, it's Roadrunner from TWC-San Antonio, or nothing else when it comes to broadband. If it wasn't for that fact, I would cancel my service when they institute these caps.

*UPDATE:* (_also posted on page 2 of this thread_)

DSLReports.com is now reporting that Time Warner may have decided to not expand their trials at all (and actually end the trial in Beaumont as well), after earlier deciding to push the Trials for Austin and San Antonio back to October.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/T...chester-101948

http://stopthecap.com/ (site is very slow)

Time Warner is expected to release an announcement this afternoon.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

This really sucks! I download HD movies several times a month on Apple TV. Guess Time Warner will be losing a customer soon.


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

Richard said:


> Where I live, it's Roadrunner from TWC-San Antonio, or nothing else when it comes to broadband. If it wasn't for that fact, I would cancel my service when they institute these caps.


+1 I live in the same city. We do have AT&T but TWC speeds can't be matched.

This sucks.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

Thanks for ruining my day. :-( Looks like I'll be f****d. I'm actually near Waco but TWC considers me part of the Austin market. Here are two stories discussing this disaster. 5gb is the cap for the lowest price! So much for DTV VOD. I won't ever be using that again. The real killer for me is what it will do to my LocationFree (similar to Slingbox) viewing. Like OP, I don't have a DSL or other cable option. For broadband, it's TWC or satellite internet and we know that satellite is not an option.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Expands-Metered-Billing-101655?nocomment=1

The DSL Reports story really puts it into perspective.

It's just a few markets currently but you can bet that Time Warner will do this in every market where there's no FIOS competition.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Bob Coxner said:


> It's just a few markets currently but you can bet that Time Warner will do this in every market where there's no FIOS competition.


Which would include my area. TWC came calling a couple of weeks back looking for me to migrate from Verizon DSL. The salesman was just a bit too pushy and I declined, but I gotta say I'm sick of the 1.5Mbps cap of DSL, but RR is my only alternative. Sad really.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

What you really should be concerned with is "WHAT" happens if you go over your (FAP). AT&T (used as example) will bill you $1 for each extra 1mb over (FAP) without your knowledge for being over your limit, so when you get your monthly bill you might want to be seated before you open it.

Hughes- has a 139 MB (FAP) Daily what they do is cut you service to either NIL or slower than dial-up for 24hrs- however no added expense.

Wireless (cell Service) 5gis and billed Higher for exceeding ---


It's goona be a real Revenue Generator for the ISP providers--until the law suits start about bougs over charges based on the ISP's records


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Chris Blount said:


> This really sucks! I download HD movies several times a month on Apple TV. Guess Time Warner will be losing a customer soon.


Yea, but to where? AT&T has also said they are looking into usage based pricing for their DSL and UVerse services. Local WISP's might be an alternative but many of them also have usage caps due to the nature of the service.

I don't like the plan at all, but what really is the capper is how much over their actual costs they want to charge for the 'excessive' usage.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

WestDC said:


> What you really should be concerned with is "WHAT" happens if you go over your (FAP). AT&T (used as example) will bill you $1 for each extra 1mb over (FAP) without your knowledge for being over your limit...


And that's the most unfair part, how will it be determined that you've exceeded your limit?



RAD said:


> Yea, but to where?


That's the thing. Every time it reaches late Winter/Early Spring people on this board complain about their TV providers rate hike, but they all do it and, unfortunately, this will probably just be another instance of that.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Boy…

Talk about throwing the proverbial wrench into the machinery of progress. Here we are in the era of increasing internet usage for downloading and/or streaming of video along with HD becoming the standard format now. And service providers are putting in these pathetically low d/l caps for metered BB access?

Well… I guess all I can do is now hope and pray that in So. Cal. at least there is enough competition from uncapped FiOS to give TWC some serious pause from implementing metered usage here. Whatever the case though, I have no leverage in this regard since the ILEC for my area is AT&T, and therefore Verizon FiOS is not allowed in.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Honestly, it's not so much that they will meter the usage, it's cap they are trying to place on the plans. 5GB for the lowest price plan is insane. The $54 plan that caps at 40GB is still just stupid. If I'm going the pay $54 a month for service, I would expect a cap of at least 200GB. 

The good thing that might come out of this is that if other ISP's do the same thing, we might end up with a "cap war". Tranfer caps will start at 50GB, then go up to 100GB, 200GB and so on.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

HoTat2 said:


> Talk about throwing the proverbial wrench into the machinery of progress. Here we are in the era of increasing internet usage for downloading and/or streaming of video along with HD becoming the standard format now. And service providers are putting in these pathetically low d/l caps for metered BB access?(


That's basically what I said when I wrote my state rep about this. Don't know if anything can be done at the state level but worth letting them know about this ASAP in case there is something that can be done.


----------



## elaclair (Jun 18, 2004)

bidger said:


> Which would include my area. TWC came calling a couple of weeks back looking for me to migrate from Verizon DSL. The salesman was just a bit too pushy and I declined, but I gotta say I'm sick of the 1.5Mbps cap of DSL, but RR is my only alternative. Sad really.


bidger, have you checked with Verizon lately about what speeds are available. Don't know about your area, but they've been upgrading left and right where I have Verizon and are currently offering speeds up to 7.1Mbs down/768K up. Still nothing compared to FIOS, but certainly adequate for VOD...


----------



## cjever19 (Jun 2, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Boy&#8230;
> 
> Well&#8230; I guess all I can do is now hope and pray that in So. Cal. at least there is enough competition from uncapped FiOS to give TWC some serious pause from implementing metered usage here. Whatever the case though, I have no leverage in this regard since the ILEC for my area is AT&T, and therefore Verizon FiOS is not allowed in.


That's my hope in San DIego too, but, the only other reasonably fast option, AT&T Uverse, I apparently can't get unless I also sign-up for Uverse TV as well. I can get Internet service with them but only DSL, not Uverse. (as of about 4 months ago) Sucks! I hope they change this. I'd like to get my home phone service through them as well but they haven't implemented the phone side of U-Verse in my area yet. Maybe when they roll out Uverse phone, it will be an option??


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

elaclair said:


> bidger, have you checked with Verizon lately about what speeds are available. Don't know about your area, but they've been upgrading left and right where I have Verizon and are currently offering speeds up to 7.1Mbs down/768K up. Still nothing compared to FIOS, but certainly adequate for VOD...


Thanks for asking and, yes, I certainly have checked to see if any upgrades are available, they even sent me a mailing to call about an upgrade to 3 Mbps down, but when I called I was told, "Not in your area. Keep checking back."


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I've seen that AT&T has mentioned that they might go down this route also. I wonder if you bundle DirecTV along with AT&T DSL if they would elminate the cap so DirecTV can still have a usable VoD service?


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

RAD said:


> I've seen that AT&T has mentioned that they might go down this route also. I wonder if you bundle DirecTV along with AT&T DSL if they would elminate the cap so DirecTV can still have a usable VoD service?


That would be something to consider if it would allow you to avoid the cap. However, when I moved last year and had to use the uVerse internet for a month before the cable was turned on in my neighborhood, I had spotty service. They couldn't figure out how to set up my internet to go to outside servers (TW Roadrunner) where I still had an account. AT&T was good when they were still a phone company but aren't worth much now that they are trying to do everything IMHO.


----------



## Arative (Jan 8, 2008)

Charter has bandwidth caps if you have the 16 meg service it is 150gb, if you have the 20mb service it is 250gb and if you have their 60mb service there are no caps.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Bandwidth restrictions are like having a giant bottle, putting a cork in it, and saying it holds alot of water. :eek2:


----------



## stephenC (Jul 18, 2007)

Let's not forget that according to former Senator Ted Stevens the Internet is just a system of tubes. Now, when those tubes get full something has to give and that will be us as the users. We have to give more to make our tubes not be so full.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

stephenC said:


> Let's not forget that according to former Senator Ted Stevens the Internet is just a system of tubes. Now, when those tubes get full something has to give and that will be us as the users. We have to give more to make our tubes not be so full.


That's the same fellow who is current under investigation and potentially going to jail, right?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

FYI for anyone in the Austin area, KEYE-DT says they're going to do a story on this tonight on the 10PM news, at least that's what they said in an e-mail got from them.


----------



## Groundhog45 (Nov 10, 2005)

RAD said:


> FYI for anyone in the Austin area, KEYE-DT says they're going to do a story on this tonight on the 10PM news, at least that's what they said in an e-mail got from them.


Thanks, *Rad.* I have it set up to record.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

A much as I hate AT&T, in myy area it is either them or TWC... I thought deregulation would stop this type of Duopoly..


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

RAD said:


> FYI for anyone in the Austin area, KEYE-DT says they're going to do a story on this tonight on the 10PM news, at least that's what they said in an e-mail got from them.


They didn't say much, just basically said what was in the BusinessWeek story. I was hoping that maybe they had interviewed a few folks about this and what the impact would be on their use of the net.


----------



## Juppers (Oct 26, 2006)

The problem is the price the service providers pay for bandwidth to the internet far exceeds the cost subscribers pay. In the past, oversubscribing solved the price difference, selling each megabit 20 or more times, because not everyone uses all their bandwidth all at the same time. With VOD and file sharing now using more bandwidth at more times, they have to cover their expenses to provide enough bandwidth for their entire customer base. The best way to do this is have the people that use the service the most cover the shortfall, paying closer to the actual cost of the service they are using. Notice I said closer. You are still paying far less than what the ISP is paying for the bandwidth, typically $2000-$5000 per 100mbit.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

This morning on WOAI in San Antonio, the news director stated that the real reason is that downloadable video content threatens the cable side of the business. He said that Time Warner is trying to put a crimp in people who watch TV through downloads.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Juppers said:



> The problem is the price the service providers pay for bandwidth to the internet far exceeds the cost subscribers pay. In the past, oversubscribing solved the price difference, selling each megabit 20 or more times, because not everyone uses all their bandwidth all at the same time. With VOD and file sharing now using more bandwidth at more times, they have to cover their expenses to provide enough bandwidth for their entire customer base. The best way to do this is have the people that use the service the most cover the shortfall, paying closer to the actual cost of the service they are using. Notice I said closer. You are still paying far less than what the ISP is paying for the bandwidth, typically $2000-$5000 per 100mbit.


OK $2000 to $5000 for a 100Mb connection. That's 12,500,000MB/second or 750,000,000MB/minute. So in 3/4 of a minute you could work up tp the 1GB threshold where TWC wants to charge the extra $1.00. In 1 hour that 100Mb connection could do 45GB of data, $45 in extra charges. With 24 hours in a day and a 30 day average per month that's 720 hours so 720 x $45 is $32,400, so even using your top end $5000/month that's $27,400 extra profit for TWC. OK, due to overhead, latency and all the other things that happen in a network you're not going to have that pipe actually passing that much data 24x7, just pointing out that TWC is charging a LOT more for that extra GB then it's costing them to provide.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

From the DSL Reports story:

In reality, Britt is pursuing metered billing because it gives him a way to monetize and/or control Internet video, which poses a very serious long term threat to his cable television revenues. The pressure to shift to metered billing also comes from investors, who obviously love the idea of charging consumers more money for the same (or less) service in an age where the cost of bandwidth and network hardware continues to drop. Keep in mind that Time Warner Cable has yet to officially announce DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades in a single market.

The question remains: will metered billing only be something Time Warner Cable imposes on less competitive markets, where limited choices mean consumers can't vote with their wallets? Or do company executives really think they can bring 40GB (or even 100GB) caps to bear in markets where they compete with uncapped (so far) and speedier Verizon FiOS?

So far they're avoiding "big red" markets like the plague.

All five of these trial markets have limited or no FiOS availability. Rochester is home to financially-troubled Frontier, who (judging from posts to our forums) can barely offer consumers more than 3Mbps, and has been exploring 5GB caps. The other Time Warner Cable trial markets are in AT&T territory. AT&T is also testing metered billing, imposing caps from 20 to 150GB in two trial markets, charging customers $1 per gigabyte in overage fees.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

Chris Blount said:


> This morning on WOAI in San Antonio, the news director stated that the real reason is that downloadable video content threatens the cable side of the business. He said that Time Warner is trying to put a crimp in people who watch TV through downloads.


Given the fact that an emerging Generation has no use for traditional multichannel television, it's probably accurate.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> This morning on WOAI in San Antonio, the news director stated that the real reason is that downloadable video content threatens the cable side of the business. He said that Time Warner is trying to put a crimp in people who watch TV through downloads.


Well, if that can be proven (and it would be great if it can be), then that surely amounts to anti-competetive behavior.


----------



## stephenC (Jul 18, 2007)

bidger said:


> Given the fact that an emerging Generation has no use for traditional multichannel television, it's probably accurate.


But, doesn't that demographic generally use their portable Wi-Fi device (iPod) for watching video?

Also, what about hotspots (Starbucks)? Will the ISPs limit commercial accounts? Probably not, so we could always buy a commercial account tier product and continue with VOD undeterred.


----------



## SParker (Apr 27, 2002)

I'm not a big fan of government intervention but they may have to in these cases. 5GB might have been fine around 5-8 years ago but today they are way too low! On demand movies and downloading game demo's can use that cap in a few days!


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

At least Qwest is giving some competition in their service area. Cox is the cableco in Arizona and Qwest is offering up to 20M ADSL2 connections. I have their 12M/892K service


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

SParker said:


> I'm not a big fan of government intervention but they may have to in these cases.


I tend to agree with this mainly because these companies will be lining up at the government trough for recovery $'s. Please help us build our networks, while at the same time we make it more expensive to use, sorry don't buy that.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Let's also not forget that these companies really brought much of this problem upon themselves. They introduced VOD to the market, which spurred others such as DirecTV to make it available to customers thereby infringing on the cable company's broadband bandwidth. Further, not only are are the caps an attempt to try to control the loss of customers on the cable side by making it more difficult to watch shows via video streaming and VOD but they are also trying to protect from overload the weak broadband network infrastructure that they have over the years failed to update and build up to deal with the increased demand. Of course, now the customers get to deal with the problems and their actions.


----------



## rebkell (Sep 9, 2006)

Hansen said:


> Let's also not forget that these companies really brought much of this problem upon themselves. They introduced VOD to the market, which spurred others such as DirecTV to make it available to customers thereby infringing on the cable company's broadband bandwidth. Further, not only are are the caps an attempt to try to control the loss of customers on the cable side by making it more difficult to watch shows via video streaming and VOD *but they are also trying to protect from overload the weak broadband network infrastructure that they have over the years failed to update and build up to deal with the increased demand. Of course, now the customers get to deal with the problems and their actions*.


Don't we always, the reason they were able to take over so much of the broadband, was because the telcos didn't use all the money they got for build out and instead stuck it in their pockets to please investors.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

It's kind of funny. Read this thread thinking I'm stuck with TWC RR service and I get home today and find a note that Verizon is installing FIOS. Never thought they would venture into our subdivision given that the houses are about an acre apart from each other. High cost for them given how the homes are spread out. Good to have some competition or least an alternative now.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> _"...if you don't have many other viable competitors (and change the laws to keep it that way), you can do, well, whatever the hell you'd like."_


...and, like 'Murphy's Law', if things can go wrong, they will. Greed is the new standard; subscribers are just sheep to be sheared, and the customer is not only no longer always right, the default corporate position is that the customer is always wrong. If your problem is not addressed in our FAQ, tough - don't bother us - you really don't matter unless you cancel - then we'll get busy and bug the hell out of you with teaser deals until you come back, then we can resume ignoring you.

The grass isn't always greener, it just looks that way. The day of unlimited bandwidth is over. The future information superhighway will be narrower and cluttered with arbitrary _Nixonian_ speed limits, but you can go as fast as you want to -- that is, if you don't mind ponying up for all those speeding tickets.

Just beware of those _Ludowician_ speed traps.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Sounds like Time Warner is starting to listen. Packages are a bit better but still need work:



> 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.
> 
> ...


*Full Story*


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

So they up the price of the Turbo (more then what I'm paying now), put a cap on it and lower the speeds. Makes me want to stay with TWC/RR for internet service


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

So let's see. They offer DSL-Barely speed (768K) for $15 with a 1GB cap. I'm getting almost 20 times that download speed with no cap and 15 times the upload speed for 3 times the price.

Thankfully my fiber line hasn't had problems since Verizon sold their NH/ME/VT assets to FairPoint - people who've had problems are having a devil of a time trying to get them fixed.


----------



## Hansen (Jan 1, 2006)

Here's a good article on MSNBC about metering and caps. Covers many of the arguments and points of view. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229181/


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Hansen said:


> Here's a good article on MSNBC about metering and caps. Covers many of the arguments and points of view. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30229181/


You are right. That is actually a good article (even for msnbc) .

If ISP's start going to metered billing, they will need to make the caps attractive enough. 40GB is rediculous. They will need to attract the average user with something like 200GB or more.


----------



## Richard (Apr 24, 2002)

DSLReports.com is now reporting that Time Warner may have decided to not expand their trials at all (and actually end the trial in Beaumont as well), after earlier deciding to push the Trials for Austin and San Antonio back to October.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Backs-Off-Metered-Billing-In-Rochester-101948

http://stopthecap.com/ (site is very slow)

Time Warner is expected to release an announcement this afternoon.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Well this is interesting after all of the hoopla about this metering thing. I received an e-mail from Time Warner yesterday and they told me they have upgraded my RoadRunner Turbo package for free. I went from 10 mbps down and 1 mbps up to 15 mbps and 2 mbps. I'm not sure I understand why they did this especially since it seems they want to limit internet usage for people. I'm not an extremely heavy user but I do download several HD movies a month on my AppleTV. 

Heck, I will take the upgrade I guess but it does seem a bit odd.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

I'm glad TWC heard the uproar and decided to shelve this nonsense. Just come up with tiered subscription levels clearing spelling out monthly usage and I think folks will be fine with that.


----------



## Bob Coxner (Dec 28, 2005)

They haven't permanently shelved it, they've just postponed implementing it. Their press release talked about educating customers on the benefits of metering and clearly implied that they eventually want to do it.

This is something we will have to keep an eye on.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

"The concept of paying for consumption is fair"

Except that people know how UN-metered other countries are. While it's not TOO well known yet, countries like South Korea and even Estonia are providing faster internet access than I have (and I have fiber) and doing it cheaper than I pay (and I pay $50). Wilson NC is showing the cable companies that they can do internet service far faster, better and cheaper to the point that the local cable company want to OUTLAW the town's municipal service!

Amazing what happens to prices when you're not paying for bloated executive salaries, marked up dividends to inflate the stock price, and huge debt loads to cover all the companies you bought.


----------



## cjever19 (Jun 2, 2007)

rebkell said:


> Don't we always, the reason they were able to take over so much of the broadband, was because the telcos didn't use all the money they got for build out and instead stuck it in their pockets to please investors.


They sure did, big time. (See article below)



RAD said:


> OK $2000 to $5000 for a 100Mb connection. That's 12,500,000MB/second or 750,000,000MB/minute. So in 3/4 of a minute you could work up tp the 1GB threshold where TWC wants to charge the extra $1.00. In 1 hour that 100Mb connection could do 45GB of data, $45 in extra charges. With 24 hours in a day and a 30 day average per month that's 720 hours so 720 x $45 is $32,400, so even using your top end $5000/month that's $27,400 extra profit for TWC. OK, due to overhead, latency and all the other things that happen in a network you're not going to have that pipe actually passing that much data 24x7, just pointing out that TWC is charging a LOT more for that extra GB then it's costing them to provide.


Wow!



djlong said:


> "The concept of paying for consumption is fair"
> 
> Except that people know how UN-metered other countries are. While it's not TOO well known yet, countries like South Korea and even Estonia are providing faster internet access than I have (and I have fiber) and doing it cheaper than I pay (and I pay $50). Wilson NC is showing the cable companies that they can do internet service far faster, better and cheaper to the point that the local cable company want to OUTLAW the town's municipal service!
> 
> Amazing what happens to prices when you're not paying for bloated executive salaries, marked up dividends to inflate the stock price, and huge debt loads to cover all the companies you bought.


Exactly...

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...s-revenues-dont-support-data-cap-argument.ars


----------

