What is Digg?295 Comments
- dsanime, on 06/02/2008, -2/+79It will fail just like it failed for Comcast.
- wonderchemist, on 06/03/2008, -0/+54I wonder if TW even knows what they will define as success here?
This could easily backfire and alienate a large number of the 'lower than average bandwidth consumers' TW would most likely to keep, by forcing them to check their bandwidth usage.
Whether or not TW likes it 'always on' home internet is viewed as an 'all you can eat' service. With any 'all you can eat' system, there will always be people who eat more and people who eat less. From a profit stand point your goal is to attract as many lite eaters as possible, without giving them a reason to leave. Can you imagine if a salad bar (traditionally all you can eat) decided to start charging an extra fee for everything past the 8th oz of salad? You lose a large number of lite eaters because they don't want to go through the hoop of measuring how much they eat. - wrenchone, on 06/03/2008, -1/+40It's late 90s dial-up all over again.
- VegasKill, on 06/03/2008, -0/+33***** THAT *****.
- ovitwo, on 06/03/2008, -3/+32BOYCOTT !!!
- sweetweb, on 06/02/2008, -1/+23Time Warner is especially horrible in LA.
- diggymow, on 06/03/2008, -1/+22This is how it is in Australia right now!!! Always has been. Save us.
- jmeller, on 06/03/2008, -0/+19I worked at an IT helpdesk at a University that caps bandwidth to 7GB a week, let me tell you it is not pretty. Besides the people who legitimately go over their limit with actual downloads... you have the poor trained, unsuspecting users who go over because they are infected with some god awful botnet. I had two users who went over their bandwidth limits because Symantec was downloading the same 15.MB patch every 5 minutes silently in the background. Once you throw money into this equation for overages you may find that the people that just use the internet for basic browsing are afflicted with outrageous bills.
- FatBurger, on 06/03/2008, -0/+19I wonder if this will lead to more people leeching internet from their unsecured wireless neighbors.
Possible future consequence - more prosecution and legislation for wireless internet theft. - meruru, on 06/03/2008, -2/+20Metered service sucks and I hope it fails in this trial, but how does this have anything to do with free speech?
- melonhedd, on 06/03/2008, -0/+13This has nothing to do with net neutrality.
- edrift101, on 06/03/2008, -0/+13If Comcast tries this - I'll be moving to DSL.
- PrestonM, on 06/03/2008, -2/+15Continuing with the cell phone analogy, will weekends and evenings be free?
- FirstDigg, on 06/03/2008, -6/+19It looks like this is one of Net Neutrality's first tests. I think in response to this EVERYONE from Beaumont, Texas should cancel their service in protest and switch to any other isp. Sure if *every* isp does this in the future it won't work, but why show complacency on this early test. That's just my thoughts.
- MrMax99, on 06/03/2008, -3/+15WHEN WILL THEY REALIZE THEY ONLY OWN THE WIRES! NOT THE INTERNET!!! OMG I will not use Time Warner anymore if they do this! If they all start doing it I'll even start my own damn internet providing company!
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+12I would suggest EVERY TW customer contact them to let them know there are other ISPs out there and we will make use of them if this gets carried through across the board. I'll drop them tomorrow and go to one of the other evil providers if I have to. One of the advantages of cable...no contracts, no commitments. Call and cancel. ASAP if they try to pull this ***** on you.
- SoundJudgment, on 06/03/2008, -0/+11It is quite evident that the Internet is fast becoming the way that Broadband Media is delivered to homes and businesses. This scares the bejebus out of cable which has traditionally gone the 'Pay per view' and Pay-channel route in generating much of its additional revenues.
No doubt this is just another excuse to curb Internet traffic and make it near-impossible for everyone to enjoy media-rich content (such as full episodes of Prime Time television shows at www.abc.com ) as well as put a leash on everyones' current and future ability to get their entertainment experience down the connected-routes they deem fit to use.
SHAME on the once-promising Cable industry, and all its related price-gouging partnerships. - Lumbeekid06, on 06/03/2008, -2/+13this was on the front page not even 5 hours ago
http://digg.com/tech_news/Time_Warner_Cable_tries_ ... - skidooer, on 06/03/2008, -0/+11"If everyone had to pay for what the use"
You do. Every single connection to the internet has a limit on how much data can be transfered in a given timeframe. The fee to service that connection is how much you have paid to for that amount of transfer. - knil, on 06/03/2008, -0/+11Great now i'm gonna have to find a way to steal the internet. I download at least 500 GB's a month
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+9Show me that there is a huge cost difference between the two.
The physical cable and maintaining it is the biggest cost to comcast, not bandwidth.
Do you really think your mom is going to end up paying less because of this? - S4MF1SHER, on 06/03/2008, -0/+9As an avid gamer on XBL, I have to say.
WHAT THE *****!!
One thing that has annoyed me is that Time Warner pretty much has a hold on providing internet service in Southeastern WI and they know it. So they can be dicks if they want to, because there aren't many alternatives here.
Looks like I'll be switching to AT&T U Verse in the near future..
Contact the pricks here:
Time Warner Inc.
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY10019-8016
212.484.8000 - azpat, on 06/03/2008, -0/+9Great idea:
1. Charge per-byte.
2. Create a bunch of bandwidth wasting widgets and what not, like pretty clocks that just happen to download gigs and gigs of data for the hell of it.
3. Profit!
I'm not saying that they do step 2, but I would if I were an evil corporation. - inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+8Free speech?
Get real - inactive, on 06/03/2008, -1/+9Imagine the reduction in bandwidth if we weeded out duplicate posts
- veriix, on 06/03/2008, -0/+8No, boycotts are only EASY when you have alternatives
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -1/+9500 GB a month and 90% porn i guess.
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+8Vote with your dollars. If a company even hints that they'd switch to metered internet, tell them you'll cancel all your services. I just did that with Time Warner. I also made sure to let them know that that 5% that uses the most bandwidth are the power users who OTHER people turn to for technical advice, and we'd be sure to tell everyone not to use Time Warner. And in 2-3 years when EVERYONE is using as much bandwidth as that 5%, what are they going to do? Just boot people off their network? That's not a solution. The only solution is to provide what you advertise. Period.
- mockupscaledown, on 06/03/2008, -0/+8...says the guy on the internet.
- DigitalMann, on 06/03/2008, -2/+10This will be the beginning of a disaster for internet users everywhere. How do we stop it??!
- SquigglyP, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7Once again you see a cable company which doesn't see the potential of the internet, and the future of things. Even Microsoft claims that the internet is the future for home entertainment, digital product distribution and spreading information and marketing, but the cable companies can only think about their immediate bottom line and their only solution is to charge people more money for less service.
Yet how is anyone supposed to adopt any of these new services popping up if they are limited to 5 or 10 gigs a month? I don't think many streaming HD movies will be downloaded if people can only worry about their download cap. This is a completely backwards sort of policy. Companies haven't charged for the per-hour or per-bandwidth usage in at least a decade, and the huge adoption rate for the internet ever since they stopped charging that way is proof that it will only hinder the growth of the net if companies go back to this format of charging people.
While I can understand capping speeds to prevent congestion, I fail to see how allowing people to buy a 15 megabit line and then expecting them not to use it that often (40 gig limit on a 15 megabit line? That's a couple of days of heavy use...) is any kind of plan at all. Why not a plan that rewards people for NOT going over a certain amount of bandwidth by giving them a rebate or credit on their bill? Why not just a lump charge instead of this $1 per gig charge? Why not a higher cap that no one will be in danger of breaking aside from those 5% of people? If those 5% of people are the problem, then reign them in. Don't try to nickle and dime your entire customer base by punishing everyone for the actions of a few people. - sbolanos, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7Nothin' new, you just have to look outside the US. Our 'main' (*cough* monopoly) ISP, BigPond, has pathetic 25GB download limits and AU$150/GB charges.
Thank god there's other ISP's who will shape (limit your connection to either 64 or 128k) after you've reached your download limit. - SquigglyP, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7You stop it by switching to a different service and telling them why. Don't wait until they implement this charge on you, personally. Make the switch and tell them exactly why you're switching to a different company. Enough people do that and they'll probably call off the plans.
Unless, of course, you're one of those people who downloads 200 gigs a month :P - inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7s0nic, did you read the post you replied to? I said:
"I also made sure to let them know that that 5% that uses the most bandwidth are the power users who OTHER people turn to for technical advice, and we'd be sure to tell everyone not to use Time Warner. And in 2-3 years when EVERYONE is using as much bandwidth as that 5%, what are they going to do?"
The and it's not 1 heavy user for 500 non heavies, it's 5 heavy users for 95 non heavies. And the 5 heavy users are the people who help guide other people with technical decisions. Those 5 people aren't just 5 people. They're closer to 50-100 people. They're the people who influence technology decisions for their extended family and friends. - s4g4n, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7Its simple, when time warner does this to us we will disconnect from their service and move to a non-cap ISP, they'll lose a lot of their customers and do worse than with the noncap and they´ll have to reverse back. Hopefully fios will be around in time.
- stankyfish, on 06/03/2008, -1/+8Bandwidth is not free, but it fairly fixed cost. This is an excuse for monopolies like the cable company to squeeze more money out of their existing infrastructure without having to improve or update it.
If the exorbitant existing fees aren't enough to cover their operating expenses, then they're doing something wrong. - mrgreen4242, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7That's an interesting point. I wonder if there could be class action suit against, say, MS for an "automatically downloaded" service packs that pushes users over their limits. You didn't ASK for the update, Windows just assumed you wanted it (the default for XPSP2 and Vista is to have automatic updates on right?)
- AndrewDB, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7It's STILL on the front page.
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+7lol. That'll last about a week till they lose about 90% of their customers.
- stankyfish, on 06/03/2008, -1/+8You're confusing free speech with free beer. This has nothing to do with free speech.
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -4/+10Boycotts only work when you have alternatives
- ImagineNation, on 06/03/2008, -0/+6I agree..TW in LA is horrible....In Demand NEVER works- interuptions with digital signal all the time, and horrible customer service! Great way to keep the remaining customers they still have-piss them off even more TW...wake up and smell the coffee!
- edrift101, on 06/03/2008, -0/+6If this becomes the norm... say goodbye to online gaming.
- inactive, on 06/03/2008, -0/+6This is the beginning of the end of the net neutrality.
- OswaldKenobi, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5Comcast has nevered metered out bandwidth.
- reverland, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5Aren't things supposed to get cheaper as time goes on? I think the real problem here is when we were all on dial up that had unlimited internet they had to compete with a lot of other companies and it was in their best interest not to nickel and dime us. With high speed you really don't have very many options, so if you don't want to be capped and pay extra what option do you have? Not everyone can get DSL. Just another example of a monopoly at work.
- ssj2119, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5wtf seriously - the same topic, same title already in most popular
- Nackaroo, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5I know its absolute *****, I pay £10 a month for unlimited downloads and uploads in London at the moment but will have to pay over $60 and closer to $100 for the same when I go home next year! Whats going on!
- NICU, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5This will suck if your neighbor hacks your WiFi connection.
If Time Warner rolls this out in my area I'm switching to FIOS. - Navicerts, on 06/03/2008, -0/+5i think he is talking about the stigma of a "take all you want" service when compared to a "take all you want but your going to get a surprise bill if you go over our alloted amount" service. Who would you sign up for?
you know they will end up implementing it horribly wrong too, i can foresee all the problems they will have with.....
peoples unsecured wireless
multiple people using one connection
librarys and schools
gamers
people who don't understand the limit and go way over without knowing
third party software that is supposed to track usage but craps up your system and slows your connection.
granted, i have no idea how they are implementing it but i feel comfortable in predicting these problems. -
Show 51 - 100 of 295 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is