news-record.com

BUSINESS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Net users vent frustration at Time Warner

Sunday, April 5, 2009
(Updated 8:15 am)

GREENSBORO — Sue Polinsky had the first cable modem in Greensboro.

Back in the late 1990s, when the Web designer found she needed more Internet speed than a telephone or DSL line could provide, she was happy to pay a premium. She’s been a Time Warner Cable customer ever since — even upgrading to the business-class service to run her company, Tech Triad, from home.

But when she got wind of Time Warner’s plan to begin monitoring and capping how much data its Greensboro customers use, she said it could be summed up in one word.

“Greed,” Polinsky said. “That’s all it is.”

Time Warner has chosen the Triad area as one of four test markets for its new tiered pricing system. In the fall, new customers and those at the end of their contracts will get new plans that treat their Internet use much like cell-phone use. The company will begin charging users for all the data transmitted over their cable lines — everything from Web pages to photos, songs and videos.

The plans range from $29.95 to $54.90 a month and will limit usage to five, 10, 20 or 40 gigabytes of data per month. Going over those caps will cost $1 for each gigabyte.

“Even the highest cap of 40 gigs is just ridiculous,” Polinsky said. “They’re designed so that customers will go over.”

To prove her point, Polinsky downloaded a free program called Freemeter on Thursday night. The program allowed her to monitor her data usage on what she thought of as a light night — watching some “ER” online, a few YouTube clips, sending a couple of e-mails before bed. That activity took about 45 minutes, she said. It cost her almost a gig in data usage.

“I’m one person who just did those simple things,” Polinsky said. “Can you imagine how many gigs a family of people who all get on the Net are going to use in a month? Can you imagine what it’s going to cost them?”

Disgruntled reaction

Polinsky is hardly alone. When Time Warner announced the plan this week, customers blogged, called and visited the local office to complain.

Many customers said they would defect to slower, phone-line based Internet service. Some even complained to city government.

“I’ve gotten a lot of calls about it,” said John Gribble, franchise administrator for the city of Greensboro.

Customers were so angry they asked Gribble if the city could pull Time Warner’s cable franchise agreement for radically changing pricing.

“There really isn’t anything we can do,” Gribble said. “The FCC has made a rule that broadband is not a cable service, and so not regulated in the same way. So through our franchise agreement, the city really has no regulatory authority here.”

Gribble said the city works closely with Time Warner and will let the company know that unhappy customers have complained. That’s all the city is empowered to do.

But, Gribble said, Time Warner could soon see some serious competition. AT&T has been in talks to launch its high speed TV, DVR and Internet services — called AT&T U-verse — in N.C. cities, including Greensboro.

“I hope that a lot of competition comes in for them,” said Charles Petty, a Greensboro customer with Time Warner. “If they go through with charging me this way, I’m going to go somewhere else. A lot of people will.”

With her business-class plan, Polinsky already pays more than residential customers and the usage caps won’t affect her. But as something of an Internet evangelical who pushed to make Wi-Fi available in downtown Greensboro and helped organize the city’s ConvergeSouth tech conferences, she thinks low-price quality Internet access is good for everyone. It helps business, promotes education and creativity and builds community, she said.

“The cheaper we make good Internet access, the fewer poor people have to go without it, the more grandmas and grandpas are going to get online,” Polinsky said. “And Time Warner’s saying that by offering lower-cost plans with very low data caps, they’re allowing more people to get Internet. That’s just not true.”

As Polinsky and other angry customers have pointed out, Time Warner already offers Road Runner Lite for about the same price as its new five-gigabyte plan. The new plan would offer no economic incentive to people hesitant about paying for cable Internet. The only thing new is the data cap.

“That’s not a move to enfranchise people, to bring them into getting quality Internet service,” Polinsky said. “That’s setting deliberately low caps that will end up costing almost everyone more money in extra charges.”

Why the change?

“The data caps are a matter of necessity,” said Melissa Buscher, Time Warner Cable’s spokesperson for the Carolinas. The company’s cable infrastructure simply wasn’t built for the high-quality video and audio now available all over the Internet. Heavy users are causing slower speeds for everyone by taking up much of the bandwidth over which information can travel, Buscher said.

Many customers said they don’t believe that explanation.

“I can watch all the high definition television I want through the same cable service, order on-demand movies and watch all day, and they have no problem with that,” said Jennifer Sanders-Melvin, a Time Warner customer who said she’s looking for other options. “But if I want to do the same thing on the Internet, through the same cable, they have to limit what I can use?”

Sanders-Melvin said the company’s real motivation is curbing Internet television viewing — now free on many network Web sites and video sites like Hulu and Netflix — to preserve Time Warner’s cable television business.

Blogger and News & Record columnist Ed Cone said the problem is more complicated. As a writer and editor for Ziff Davis Enterprise, he’s covered the question of an Internet choked on modern video.

“The core of the Internet is robust and can handle this stuff,” Cone said. “It’s that last mile to your house, in this case the cable lines, where there is a legit problem.”

While the core of the U.S. Internet — government and private cables and servers — is continuously updated, the infrastructure nearest the consumer is maintained largely by cable and telephone companies. Buscher said cable companies did not foresee an explosion in online video and audio and did not invest in the infrastructure improvements need to handle modern demands.

“All cable companies are seeing a 50 percent increase in the amount of data we’re handling every year,” Buscher said. “That’s making it harder for us to continue to offer the same speeds, the same Internet experience that people have become used to.”

Last summer, Cone interviewed Vint Cerf, an executive at Google who was one of the original designers of what we now know as the Internet.

“In the United States, the idea that the Internet might be choking at the edge of the net might have some validity,” Cerf said in an interview published online. “Our delivery capacities are far less than what other countries and other Internet providers have been able to achieve.”

The question is how companies like Time Warner choose to pass on the cost of fixing the problem to their customers. Metered usage and tiered pricing might be necessary, Cone said, but the caps proposed by Time Warner are much smaller than their competitors. Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company and Time Warner’s fiercest competition, caps use at 250 gigabytes per month.

“They may have to look at what kind of caps make sense,” Cone said. “But some of it, I’m sure, is just that people don’t like change. I’m sure that the first people to buy early cars were angry when they introduced speed limits, too.”

Contact Joe Killian at 373-7023 or joe.killian@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

File photo (News & Record)

Photo Caption: The state sales tax would be applied to more items including software downloaded over the Internet.

1 GB equals

70,000 e-mails

1,344 hours of Web surfing

569 photos

277 music files

7 hours of low-resolution video (average YouTube resolution)

3 hours of standard definition streaming video

45 minutes of high-definition streaming video

Source: Time Warner Cable

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

holland4

April 5, 2009 - 6:55 am EDT

Ed, don't condescend us by saying that it's just an allergy to change. As you said, it's more complicated than that. Folks have tangible, real concerns about how this -- dare I say it -- change will affect their monthly bills and online habits. This article hinted at the real reason that needs to be explored in subsequent coverage: TWC doesn't welcome the competition from Hulu, iTunes, Apple TV, Netflix, etc. They own the broadband faucet and they're now wanting to close the valve because it's hurting their other business.

I can live with a usage cap, but 40 GBs per month? They can't be serious.

holland4

April 5, 2009 - 7:00 am EDT

By the way, the speed limit analogy isn't directly applicable. TWC's usage cap has less to do with speed and more to do with mileage. Imagine being told that you can drive no more than forty miles per month. Good luck on that road trip to grandma's house.

The FNP

April 5, 2009 - 2:42 pm EDT

If you do the math, the lower caps are less data per month than a 56kbps MODEM! If I left a modem continuously connected for 30 days, I would get 17 GB of data. I stopped using a modem ten years ago. Why are we being limited to such small numbers when people can get more data on their Cell Phone?

Illiterati

April 5, 2009 - 5:03 pm EDT

I downloaded SurplusMeter today to check my usage. After a couple hours of general surfing and running PitCommand during the race, my laptop alone has sucked up 4gb. This is a 3-computer household, and I work online for a living. (Which is the saving grace that has kept me employed while over 15% of this county is unemployed.) Can't wait to see how much we use tomorrow when I'm working.

My ability to charge clients less than my competitors who live in pricier cities will go out the window unless I find an affordable broadband option before this pricing kicks in. TW is making a rough market even rougher for those of us who rely on our affordable broadband connection to earn a living. In a time of record unemployment, the sting is a little more painful.

kibitzer

April 5, 2009 - 8:30 am EDT

Does anyone know if my Digital Voice from Time Warner will be counted in the cap? I have two lines that are connected to my cable modem.
Thanks.

Illiterati

April 5, 2009 - 9:11 am EDT

Yes, your digital TW phone service will be counted in the cap, which makes their aggressive push for customers to sign up for it all the more offensive. Not to mention that Vonage is still much cheaper and doesn't increase in cost after 12 months.

The FNP

April 5, 2009 - 2:34 pm EDT

Which makes their "Unlimited Digital Phone" ads misleading. So, the BBB and the FTC need to weigh in on this.

retiredguy

April 5, 2009 - 9:13 am EDT

Time Warner has been monitoring "download" quantity for at least 5 years now. This is nothing new, just wanting to charge/collect more for it. They tried to make me upgrade to business class, but I successfully avoided that.
Their monopoly in this county/city is not doing consumers any favor. I pay less than $20 in Myrtle Beach for the same service which would cost $75 or more here. That's because they have 7 - 8 cable companies competing.

The download fees will not only affect items listed in the article. My DVR's download their programming list from the net. Directv's On-Demand hits the bandwidth hard. I'm not sure, but I guess TW's On Demand hits hard if used.

God forbid if you keep your antivirus software up to date, or your operating system, or your other software packages, or if you eFile your taxes, or you receive or send email attachments, whatever they might be.

I'm sure even the most optimistic planner did not forsee the large increase in net traffic we have today or tomorrow. However, the millions and billions of dollars that these past cable owners and shareholders have rightfully collected from profits should have in part been reinvested to solve this current impeding problem. You can only use an infrastructure so long before it is necessary to upgrade it.

If the telephone non-monopolies are getting ready to deliver some of the same broadband services to compete with cable, they they must have been upgrading their delivery systems in the last several years to accomplish same.

As pointed out in the article, competing cable providers in other areas allow 5 - 10 times the monthly bandwidth that TWC is going to allow. Competition anyone, or is the city/county governments too addicted to their franchise fees they collect for the monopoly.

The FNP

April 5, 2009 - 2:50 pm EDT

The FCC is the entity with control over this. They need to hear our voices loud and clear. http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

Panacea

April 5, 2009 - 11:05 am EDT

TWC's lack of planning to improve infrastructure does not constitute a problem on my part. They have been pushing all kinds of bundles over their cable systems for years. If they failed to see how the increased use of a successful advertising campaign would affect their infrastructure, then they are at fault, not the customer. TWC is responsible for such a problem, if it really exists, and therefore it's on them to fix it. Without passing costs onto the customers.

What I see is a company that wants me to pay more for service that isn't all that great to start with, wants me to pay for more services to get a temporary lower price, and then who complains when their system can't handle the load. That's my problem why?

Don't buy it. Wasn't born yesterday.

humboldt

April 5, 2009 - 11:07 am EDT

U-verse appears to be available for ordering as of today at the website.

bbsmith2

April 5, 2009 - 6:46 pm EDT

Where?

I tried their website and for our home, my mom's home and work addresses it wasn't available. Can you post a link or confirm it for us?

Aliceport36

April 5, 2009 - 11:49 am EDT

TW may be the fastest in town, but they aren't the only providers. We are caught in a tight squeeze between the Post Office raising rates and now TW pulling a fast one on us. What about us students who go to school on line? Is that going to cost us more too? What about those who conduct their business online? I'd be willing to sacrifice a little speed to change providers! TW should think twice before doing this.

Farmers daughter

April 5, 2009 - 12:42 pm EDT

I agree with the above poster. In this economy, I would think that everyone would try to work together
to make things better for the consumers, rather than make them worse. I am getting ready to start
online college classes. Its so very hard to try to pay for a college education and now w/TW raising
prices makes it virtually impossible for me to be able to attend online classes, I cannot afford
both of these bills. Its apparant TW does not care about their customers and when everyone
begans to take their business elsewhere then what is TW going to do???????????

Panacea

April 5, 2009 - 4:50 pm EDT

I'm actually worried about students who have classes online. My nursing students do a great deal online, in fact 2 of their 10 credit hours for my course is online. They get notices from me, assignments, study materials, podcasts, submit assignments, and even take their exams all online. Not including all the reading and research they have to do online, because that's the only way they can get peer reviewed materials, and part of their text book is online.

This new data cap could increase students expenses for school.

I've got 3 neices and a nephew who all do their homework in primary school online. They wouldn't know how not to use the Internet. This is a real blow to people in a bad economy when everyone is trying to pinch pennies. TWC has the sensitivity of a rock.

Panacea

April 5, 2009 - 4:53 pm EDT

Agreed. Even when I had TWC, I wouldn't use Road Runner. I heard too many complaints about the system to want to spend money on it, when I was already frustrated with their cable service. I used Bellsouth's DSL service and was happy with it.

When I moved out of an apartment, I was finally able to get satellite. Far superior to any cable provider I've ever had, and I've had all the big names at one point or another. I use Northstate's DSL service, and again am very happy with it. Not as fast as a cable modem for downloading, but better pipelines for uploading, which I do as much if not more.

mwooldri

April 6, 2009 - 5:30 am EDT

Mellisa Buscher's statement is patently false, because the capacity is already there.

Most of the capacity is right now used by good old fashioned ANALOG Cable TV. It uses an awful lot of space. Right now there's 74 channels of analog cable on the Greensboro system. Each channel can transmit 38Mbit/sec worth of data. That's enough for 222+ HD digital TV channels, 770+ standard TV channels, or 2.5GBit/sec Internet service.

Therefore TWC need to do what is happening with analog broadcast TV: turn analog cable off. Use the recouped space to offer more HD (but charge for it... Free HD is a bigger bandwidth zapper than Internet) and improve Internet speeds and increase the capacity that way. New DOCSIS 3.0 modems are about $100 apiece, so charge rental for new modems along with reasonable rates for very fast speeds. Control "bandwidth hogs" with hourly peak-time bandwidth throttling (if you download more than 3GB between 4pm and 10pm your speed goes from 20MBits/sec to 5 MBits/sec until midnight).

The downside to turning off analog cable is that there's this much bigger customer base out there who will now need either new TVs (most new TVs have digital tuners that can get the cable signals) or set top boxes. Rental can be charged for these, or sold at a reasonable markup. Pay Per View can then be offered on more TVs - potentially more revenue for TWC. Also since TWC really want to get into the phone business, they could use a very neat selling point: Get local phone service for $20/month and get a free basic cable TV service. Sure, you have to pay $5/month to rent the box but... free TV? People like free.

TheCasualReader

April 6, 2009 - 8:33 am EDT

Last I heard, analog TV will disappear in June 2009. I also note that I am paying a few extra bucks each month for what TWC calls FREE DIGITAL TV over the TWC cable.

It seems as if TWC does not look out for their customers very well, but tries to sqeeze them dry for a very ordinary cable service. Although some people will complain about anything, most people will pay a fair price for a good product, if they think it is a good product.

As others have said above, the bandwidth has to be there already, or else they would not be offering all the On Demand Services which they already provide for extra charges on the TV side. The key is that people are beginning to use the flat rate Internet Service to watch programs that are individually priced EXTRAon the TV Access side. So, TWC figures they are losing that money, and they apparently are finding a way to squeeze it out.

The question is more about how the Interenet Access Service is priced. This service has previously been priced on a flat rate and the price depended upon the connection speed, not the quantity of data downloaded. Yes, TWC may have to add equipment to handle all the increasing data demands for Internet Services and to get the lines out to wherever. But that has been the same problem since cable services started, and it will continue.

Does their new Internet Usage Plan have cheaper rates for people who download very little? For example, do those who just do E-Mail and don't use it for watching entertainment pay less? I don't think so ....

What might help is some competition among cable service providers.

gwthornt

April 6, 2009 - 10:18 am EDT

Time Warner may think that they have us locked into their internet service because of the lack of competition in this area but they do not have us locked into their cable TV service. There are very good alternatives such as DirectTV and DishNetwork. I urge all of you that are upset over this internet pricing change to show Time Warner we mean business. Switch to one of the alternative TV services and be sure to tell Time Warner when you cancel that you are cancelling your cable TV service because of their internet pricing change. When you are going up against a gaint you have to hurt them anyway you can.

Get Real

April 6, 2009 - 12:52 pm EDT

I like your style. I'm so sick of Time Warner pushing me around!

rooster8786

April 6, 2009 - 12:57 pm EDT

I can sum up TWC in just a few words: Blood sucking monopoly, that pays lip service to the customer! With all the new ways to get TV and Internet, it shouldn't take long for them to realize the error of their ways.

MeredithD1

April 6, 2009 - 1:12 pm EDT

If Time Warner starts this and earns money from it, you must know, from past experience, that other companies across the nation will get on the bandwagon! It starts in the Carolinas and heads west, north and south from there. The Internet needs to remain a servant to the people, not a luxury that continually more and more will be unable to afford. Stop Time Warner in its tracks!

camelcityman27105

April 6, 2009 - 8:39 pm EDT

I do agree that the Greensboro region - including High Point and Winston-Salem - definitely should encourage and entice more competition for Time Warner! That would help lower prices and motivate what's now the only cable act in town to expand its services and quality as well. I believe the reason why cable and broadband regulation has shifted from local governments to Uncle Sam and the states is simply that our elected officials have jumped in bed with the lobbyists who are being sent by the corporations. Until voters stop electing officials who accept gifts and other perks from such powerful outlets (Time Warner is one of them), consumers will continue to receive less than what they paid for!

camelcityman27105

April 6, 2009 - 9:04 pm EDT

Mwooldri wrote: "Control "bandwidth hogs" with hourly peak-time bandwidth throttling (if you download more than 3GB between 4pm and 10pm your speed goes from 20MBits/sec to 5 MBits/sec until midnight)." Why should they control and throttle at all? If TW provides everyone with adequate bandwidth and more-than-adequate space for future expansion, then throttling would be highly unnecessary. The customer *should receive exactly* what *that customer paid for,* not one gig less! Sounds like bad business to me!

weatherwithyou33

April 7, 2009 - 9:13 am EDT

humboldt mentioned AT&T's U-verse and while I don't think it is here yet, it is supposed to be on its way. Everyone should go to the U-verse website and fill out the request to be notified when U-verse is available. The stronger the interest the quicker we'll get some competition for TWC.

gman19

April 8, 2009 - 6:49 am EDT

Does anyone know if the proposed tiers based on usage will have the same connection speed? Currently, RR Lite, regular RR service and one other above that (can't remember what it's called, but it offers up to 8Mb connection speed) are what price is based on. In other words, will all usage tiers get an 8Mb connection speed?? Just curious since I have not seen this addressed anywhere...

marowland13

April 8, 2009 - 3:14 pm EDT

If our usage exceeds the cost of what we are currently paying, I will remove every piece of TWC equipment and change providers for our home phone, cable and internet. We have 3 computers, one used by a teenager, and I can't imagine what our usage is. The digital "house" phone is used only when the telemarketers call. All 3 family members have cell phones and that's how people reach us 99.9% of the time. It will be interesting to see what happens with all this.

marowland13

April 8, 2009 - 3:15 pm EDT

Verizon has a bundle that's less expensive as an alternative.

TomGlass

April 8, 2009 - 4:08 pm EDT

Jennifer Melvin is correct! TWC has not added premiums for anyone ordering too many pay per view movies or sporting events. On the 5 meg plan one touchy feely email passed on by your best friend with a heart warming powerpoint promising a life void of love if you don't forward could send you into the bonus zone! And just think of those 12 friends you had (before you emailed it to them) who will then go into pay to play territory! Users will be blocking emails addresses of those friends whos personal work spam habits anoy them the most. It will only be a matter of time before we get this "content charge" in Forsyth County, so letter writting time is at hand. I would urge everyone to do the same. The days of $100 plus cable bills have long since been here, I'll surely be looking for alternatives before the $200 mark hits! I guess a-la-carte pricing for TV cable is surely a pipe dream now!

roverfixer

April 12, 2009 - 8:20 pm EDT

Check this out: http://www.usiwireless.com/service/minneapolis/overview.htm
To sum it up, Minneapolis built a city-wide Wi-Fi.
It covers 59 sq miles.
Prices start at $17.95/mo. http://www.usiwireless.com/service/pricing.htm
Even the most expensive plan is cheaper than cable. If one had a wi-fi capable phone, cell minutes wouldn't be needed.
Is Cable's a dying entity anyway?

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: FAIR
  • Current Temperature: 44°
  • UV Idx: 0
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 0° L: 37°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search