Neowin.net

If that's the case, why wait? Vote with your wallet and go elsewhere.

Same here. TWC KC. Our HD DVR is a giant pile of poo. The one I have in my bedroom for standard def TV is actually useable, but it's SO LOUD. Their customer service is horrible. Hold times are always over an hour, they never call you back when they say they will, I've been stood up by their techs more times then I can count.

That said, their Internet performance is OK.

I had a TWC HD DVR, move to Tivo and never looked back

When these guys come out with Nuclius later on this year TWC, Comcast, Cox, DirecTV, Dish, TiVo, etc. will have a serious, serious problem on their hands. They will blow everyone away. I can't wait because Time Warner sucks to the tenth power. Spread the word. http://tr.im/ifEI

I tried the link (thank you) but when I put in my ZIP Code 10036 the page fails. (as does TWC, obviously)

I did find this url: https://www.twcnyc.com/index2.cfm?c=cust_su...contact_us_kana

The logic they have is when we purchase their TV, they know we will be using their cable listings. For the internet, people can use that to watch tv shows online when they otherwise should be watching it on tv. So by putting a limit on it, their hoping they will cut down some of those video downloads.

I don't have a problem with caps as long as their reasonable and affect only a very small percentage of heavy users, like Comcast's 250GB limit. But, when you put ridiculous caps that effect the mass population of regular users, they deserve to be flamed.

It's not THEIR place to tell us how we, the consumers, will evolve our spending habits.

They should be working to be competitive so that we choose them over their competition.

Restricting their services and jacking up prices (what CAPS ultimately do) is going backwards.

Since bandwidth costs THEM two cents per gigabyte and these caps are charging upwards of 50 times that, all they are doing is making it REALLY easy for a wireless competitor like Google to come in and just make the residential ISPs as extinct as the RIAA studios have already become when it comes to music distribution.

Adapt or die.

IMO No level of a cap is a good cap. I'm for limitless internet.

My guess is that the people at TWC that are being paid to make these decisions are very aware of how it will irritate plenty of their customers, but something tells me the probably also know a lot more about market trends and consumers than you do.

As for their bandwidth costs, what are your sources of this information? Did you ever think that it might cost a lot more than the bandwidth cost to get that signal to you? As irritating as bandwidth caps might be, you have to be realistic and remember that TWC is a business, not a municipal utility. Their whole goal is to make money, and their stock holders demand it. If you don't see this as a problem, take a look at what has happened lately to companies in which everyone has sold their stock. If you think that you can come up with a more viable business model and a way for them to increase growth and revenue, I suggest you get in touch with Time Warner and let them know that you have all the answers.

...and any modern family is going to blow through 2 or three times that.

It's not a good idea at all for these ISPs to **** off the vast majority of their customer base, especially in these economic times.

Yes, please! I would like to volunteer to have turn TWC turn off the UNLIMITED Internet service I have been paying them a TON of money every month for just so they can nickle and dime me into the ground from now on. 8P

Except in many areas there isn't any competition.

I find that hard to believe, I have more than 100 ISP's to choose from and I live in the middle of nowhere in South England.
As of today, I've just had optic fibre fitted - it's taken 2 years of me chasing Virgin Media, but they finally dug up the street for me to fit it.
So now I have another option, Optic, but ADSL has many.

Well, here in the states, the major players for ISPs are ATT, Comcast and Time Warner and Verizon.

I have ATT phone service and had to go with the highest speed DSL they offer because FiOS isn't available on my side of the street and I will never go back to Comcast. ATT won't lease the space Verizon needs to lay down the lines.

It's good that you have a plethora of choices for ISPs, but here in the states, we generally have less than a handful of choices, if that.

Oh its true Exosphere.. Where I live its to far from the central office to get DSL so theres only one alternative, cable. FiOS isnt here and probably won't be any time soon.

People in England seem to have trouble comprehending the size of the US and how spread out many areas are. Your entire country is only slightly larger than my home state in the US (Mississippi), and is much more densely populated. Covering smaller areas that have more people is much easier, economically, than covering large, sparsely populated areas.

thats the diffrence between UK and USA, im near Washington DC, there is only 1 Phone company, 1 Cable Company, but each have their own Internet service. the DSL cap is currently 10GB, 250GB for Comcast Cable ( unless they change it ) so either way your screwed unless you want to go the AOL Dialup route

This was why so many of us have been fighting against the FCC granted monopolies and media consolidation that accelerated under the Bush years. Hopefully, this is one place where the new White House, Congress, and FCC can work together.

The middle of nowhere in south England is probably like living in a metropolis compared to the north of England, Scotland, Wales and rural areas of the US.

Now if they would remove Greensboro, where it affects me.

Just as I mentioned to Exosphere above, completely covering the US with inexpensive high speed internet access is a daunting prospect because of the sheer size of the country. Small, densly populated countries like Japan, Korea, or England is much easier from an economic perspective.

LA, NY and Chicago could easily have 100mbps fiber connections. The greedy monopoly that is telecom in America just wants to milk their cash cow for as long as they can.

Try connecting all of Australia

Wireless technologies exist for the entire nation.

We did it for power and water. We can do it for the Internet.

Isn't the Australia government going to spend 45 billion to do that?

WTF?! Obama FIX something? You have got to be kidding me, man. Are you nuts? That effing moron could not fix jack if his life depended on it. He is the biggest loser since Carter. If the kind of "change" he is bringing to America, he and his followers need to move to a country that already has a Marxist government and leave the rest of us alone. This capping b.s. is EXACTLY the kind of thing I would expect his administration to bring as "change". Probably spins it off on some hare-brained theory tied to energy or the the global warming hoax.

:{

While those three cities make up a large population segment of the US, they are FAR from representative of the situation in other parts of the country.

If you mean satellite, then you are partially right (it's not unusual for someone NOT to have a clear view of the southern sky, which is required for satellite service). Otherwise, you are very very wrong.

Australia (2.9 million sq miles) is smaller than the US (3.7 million sq miles) although still rather large and sparsely populated.

Power to all homes in America was a decades long project (started during the Great Depression as a way to get people working) that didn't require anywhere near the technology that universal high speed internet would require. As for water, many rural areas aren't hooked up to the water system that exists in cities and suburbs, they have private wells.

Excuse after excuse after excuse...America should have a world class network that we all can take pride in.

I agree, we should. I'm just pointing out the reasons that it is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

You think Obama is responsible for your ISPs beginning to think like ISPs in the rest of the world, in that bandwidth caps are a good idea? Seriously, unless Obama has been travelling the world for the last decade whispering in the ears of ISP owners/managers telling them to do it, he is not responsible for it happening in the US.

[quote=duneworld said,]
You think Obama is responsible for your ISPs beginning to think like ISPs in the rest of the world, in that bandwidth caps are a good idea? Seriously, unless Obama has been travelling the world for the last decade whispering in the ears of ISP owners/managers telling them to do it, he is not responsible for it happening in the US.[/quote]
[/quote]

I never said Obama was responsible for bandwidth caps. I was merely commenting on Beastage's post that Hussein Obama might fix the bandwidth cap thing. It is unlikely he can or will fix anything with his modus operandi. All indications are that he wants to regulate everything and expand government control, so the notion he would fix bandwidth caps is simply ludicrous.

Greed and corruption are the only reasons it won't happen. The size of the country is just a lame excuse.

Not everywhere has access to running water or electricity, even in the US. Water is easily bypassed with a well and septic tank, but electricity can't really be bypassed, unless you can manage to live on solar power.

Mine already went up $3 recently.

not necessarily, with the TW proposed caps of 5, 10, 20, 40, one could exceed those numbers easily without doing any illegal downloading.

I would disagree, how about downloading a beta for xbox live, or streaming a couple netflix movies a montho would blow thru the 5 or 10 gig caps

You know, I'm am about fed up with your false accusations and baseless assumptions, thus have decided to use the wonderful magical ignore feature every forum software has..

It is easy to go over caps and use quite a bit of bandwidth with today's internet depending on how low caps are, you have Youtube, a variety of other video services, content rich websites with flash, javascript, animations, legal content distribution platforms such as Steam, Stardock, then if you have a console you have updates, downloadable content, then finally large Windows updates, or Linux, Mac updates, updates for all your installed software, patches for games, Linux Iso's, other free/open source software and games..

There is much more than what I mentioned but then if I included it, the list would be excessively long..

It's not very good to just assume that everyone who is using excessive bandwidth, is using it for illegal purposes such as piracy, and just makes you look uninformed..

C_Guy, you obviously don't even use the Internet for entertainment. I know families that would burn through those caps with just their children's Youtube use in a month!

C_Guy astounds us with his insight yet again!

They should rolled out fiber to homes 5 years ago. The only one who started is Verizon with their FiOS service. Some countries have 100mbps for $25.

If it happens, yes.

We're already hugely handicapped in the states by these ridiculous asynchronous download/upload restrictions (10/1, puh-lease). That hammers entrepreneurial businesses BIG TIME.

As has been stated over and over again in this topic, people in many areas simply don't have more than one or two choices for internet service. Where I live, I have exactly three options for high speed internet (Comcast cable, AT&T DSL, or Hughsnet Satellite), one of which would require one of my neighbors cutting down one of his trees (because it blocks the line of site to the satellite). Fortunately, I still technically have Earthlink cable service through Comcast(because I got it years before Comcast took over here), so when Comcast implements stupid bandwidth caps, etc., they don't apply to me.

Maybe because the technology is still in its infancy and simply isn't mature enough to be used yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerline_net...r_powerlines.29