<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;caps&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 03:09:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Time Warner Cable Is Ready For A 'Conversation' About Rising Costs, But Not The One You Want To Have</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that lots of internet users <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110126/03531712831/metered-bandwidth-isnt-about-stopping-bandwidth-hogs-its-about-preserving-old-media-business-models.shtml">hate</a> the idea of metered broadband.  It adds serious mental transaction costs in using the internet ("will watching this movie actually cost me lots of money in overage fees?") and generally limits innovation by limiting what you can do online.  On top of that, there's little evidence that such metered bandwidth is necessary (contrary to the claims of marketing people, when you talk to the tech people, they <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110314/08473413487/as-att-introduces-caps-bt-removes-them-says-investing-network-is-smarter.shtml">don't see</a> any real congestion problems).  However, the broadband providers absolutely love the caps because they basically allow them to make more money without having to actually invest in expanding their infrastructure.
<br /><br />
So it's interesting to see that Time Warner Cable has set up a site, called <a href="http://twcconversations.com/" target="_blank">Time Warner Cable Conversations</a>, which they claim is a conversation with consumers about how to "fight rising costs."  Except... they really only want the conversation to be about rising costs caused by what the TV networks charge to carry the channels.  If you want to talk about fighting rising costs by arguing against broadband metering, well, too bad.  The whole site is <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cables-OneSided-Conversation-on-Usage-Billing-120516" target="_blank">moderated and limited</a> and it appears that only conversations about TV networks and such are allowed.  That's not much of a "conversation" now, is it?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120726/12063919844/time-warner-cable-is-ready-conversation-about-rising-costs-not-one-you-want-to-have.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>choose-your-friends</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120726/12063919844</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:05:02 PDT</pubDate>
<title>AT&#038;T Threatens To Cut Off Phone Service For Guy Who Beat Them In Small Claims Court Over Throttling</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As you may have heard over the last couple months, AT&#038;T has gone to war with customers who bought its "unlimited" data plans.  While the company no longer offers such plans, existing users were grandfathered in.  And they like those plans.  AT&#038;T, however, would prefer to move them over to tiered plans under which they'll pay more.  So it began <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/118235" target="_blank">throttling</a> their connections.  If they were using a fair amount of data (really not that much), it slowed their connection down to the point of being basically useless.  This is a pure bait-and-switch tactic, where the company sold customers something that it then failed to deliver.
<br /><br />
A guy named Matt Spaccarelli felt that this was a clear breach of contract and sued in small claims court... <a href="http://business.time.com/2012/02/27/can-every-iphone-user-sue-att-for-850/" target="_blank">and won $850</a> ($85 is his monthly fee, and the judge felt that there were 10 months left on the contract that was violated... so, $850).   Spaccarelli then also <a href="http://taporc.com/" target="_blank">set up a website</a> with all the details, so that others could file their own lawsuits.  Apparently, AT&#038;T is none too pleased about this and is <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6NTGmVWWu09o9CowPfi36ILosNQ" target="_blank">playing hardball with the guy</a>, threatening to cut off his phone service after determining that he used the phone to tether.
<br /><br />
How nice, right?  Beat AT&#038;T in small claims court, and they'll potentially cut off your phone service.
<br /><br />
Separately, they're trying to "settle" with him, but are pissed off that he's been public about the settlement attempts so far, as the key thing in the mind of AT&#038;T lawyers and execs is getting a gag order in place to stop others from going down the same path.  Of course, there's no requirement that Spaccarelli settle or agree to any gag order, and it sounds like he's not planning to:
<blockquote><i>
Spaccarelli has posted online the documents he used to argue his case and encourages other AT&#038;T customers copy his suit. Legal settlements usually include non-disclosure agreements that would force Spaccarelli to take down the documents.
<br /><br />
In its letter, AT&#038;T asked Spaccarelli to be quiet about the settlement talks, including the fact that it offered to start them, another common stipulation. Spaccarelli said he was not interested in settling, and forwarded the letter to The Associated Press.
</i></blockquote>
Good for him.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120314/04211918101/att-threatens-to-cut-off-phone-service-guy-who-beat-them-small-claims-court-over-throttling.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>playing-dirty</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120314/04211918101</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:55:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Study Confirms What You Already Knew: Mobile Data Throttling About The Money, Not Stopping Data Hogs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Of the four national mobile operators, only Sprint still offers an "unlimited" data plan -- and most industry watchers expect that to go away soon.  When the operators talk about this stuff, they complain about how unlimited plans are abused and the amount of data being used by so-called "data hogs" is crippling network bandwidth.  Of course, the alternative story is that they just want to charge people higher rates, and putting a toll booth on data usage makes that possible.  A new study by Validas confirms that the latter theory seems to match with reality.  The company looked at 11,000 mobile phone bills of users on both throttled (tiered) plans and unlimited data plans and found... <a href="http://blog.validas.com/blog/2012/02/17/why_throttle/" target="_blank">data usage was effectively the same</a>.  In other words, for all the talk about how tiers and throttles are needed to stop bandwidth hogging... reality shows that these plans have little impact on actual data usage.  Or, to put it really simply: these plans are all about the mobile operators making more money and have nothing to do with network capacity.
<br /><br />
Of course, as I've argued in the past, this is a pretty short-sighted strategy by the mobile operators.  While they have every right to set up whatever business models they want in order to maximize profit, this might come back to haunt them.  The problem with a tiered or throttled data plan is that it actually <i>makes the mobile data service <b>less valuable</b></i>.  Not only does it cost more for the same usage, it adds <i>mental transaction costs</i> as users have to keep track of their usage.  That's only going to make people value <i>alternatives</i> much more.  The carriers can get away with that if there are no alternatives (as is the case some of the time), but as more alternatives hit the market, expect people to shift their usage to networks they can actually use without fear.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20120224/10500217867/study-confirms-what-you-already-knew-mobile-data-throttling-about-money-not-stopping-data-hogs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-all-about-the-$$$</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120224/10500217867</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 01:11:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>T-Mobile UK Decides Mobile Broadband Shouldn't Actually Be Used For Mobile Broadband</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110110/14253812597/t-mobile-uk-decides-mobile-broadband-shouldnt-actually-be-used-mobile-broadband.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110110/14253812597/t-mobile-uk-decides-mobile-broadband-shouldnt-actually-be-used-mobile-broadband.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you have T-Mobile in the UK you may be disappointed to know that the company has suddenly decided that you should be perfectly happy to <a href="http://moconews.net/article/419-leave-video-at-home-t-mobile-uk-slashes-data-cap-for-fair-usage-to-500m/" target="_blank">use little more than just 500 MB per month</a> -- a paltry amount.  It's not quite a cap at 500 MB -- you'll still be able to do some basic surfing, but apparently, once you've used up your 500 MB, you'll no longer be able to do anything beyond browsing static websites or checking email.  No streaming, downloading, gaming, etc. Many users previously had caps that were around 3GB, so this is a pretty big drop.  Apparently, T-Mobile has decided it gets to tell you what you can and cannot use the account for:
<blockquote><i>
"Browsing means looking at websites and checking email, but not watching videos, downloading files or playing games. We've got a fair use policy but ours means that you'll always be able to browse the internet, it's only when you go over the fair use amount that you won't be able to download, stream and watch video clips." 
</i></blockquote>
Basically, this is T-Mobile UK announcing to the world that it doesn't have the bandwidth to actually give people what they want, and it hasn't invested in the necessary upgrades to offer a reasonable service.  Or, a simpler way of explaining it, is that this is T-Mobile UK telling users in the UK who actually want to use mobile broadband to find another provider.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110110/14253812597/t-mobile-uk-decides-mobile-broadband-shouldnt-actually-be-used-mobile-broadband.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110110/14253812597/t-mobile-uk-decides-mobile-broadband-shouldnt-actually-be-used-mobile-broadband.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110110/14253812597/t-mobile-uk-decides-mobile-broadband-shouldnt-actually-be-used-mobile-broadband.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>save-that-for-home</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110110/14253812597</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:28:40 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Surveillance Nation: Austin Library Won't Let You Wear Baseball Caps Because Cameras Can't ID You</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22193311175/surveillance-nation-austin-library-won-t-let-you-wear-baseball-caps-because-cameras-can-t-id-you.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22193311175/surveillance-nation-austin-library-won-t-let-you-wear-baseball-caps-because-cameras-can-t-id-you.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ JJ sends over the latest news of our surveillance society gone nutty.  It seems that the Austin Public Library in Texas has officially <a href="http://m.statesman.com/statesman/pm_21986/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=1A3A6D86C2CB3DB3CEFD559C1D2FB0FA?contentguid=kz3zUfOG" target="_blank">decided to ban baseball caps, sunglasses and hoodies</a>.  What does that have to do with surveillance?  The Austin American-Statesman has the word:
<blockquote><i>
The library came up with the rule so that customers can't hide their faces, said Toni Grasso, the libraries' administrative manager in the office of programs and partnerships.
<br /><br />
"We have security cameras in place, so like banks and courthouses, we're asking people to remove sunglasses and anything that hides the face, for the security of staff and customers," Grasso said.
</i></blockquote>
As someone who (really, not kidding) frequently goes to my local library wearing all three of these "banned" items, I'm hoping this sort of thing doesn't become a trend.
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/floorsixtyfour/5028954542/" title="austinlibrary by floorsixtyfour, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4128/5028954542_13063ef294.jpg" width="309" height="138" alt="austinlibrary" /></a>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22193311175/surveillance-nation-austin-library-won-t-let-you-wear-baseball-caps-because-cameras-can-t-id-you.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22193311175/surveillance-nation-austin-library-won-t-let-you-wear-baseball-caps-because-cameras-can-t-id-you.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100926/22193311175/surveillance-nation-austin-library-won-t-let-you-wear-baseball-caps-because-cameras-can-t-id-you.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>freedom-to-wear-caps</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100926/22193311175</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:40:46 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Time Warner: No Metered Broadband... But We'll Kick You Offline If We Think You Used Too Much</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/1433524643.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/1433524643.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So Time Warner Cable has supposedly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090416/1608064529.shtml">backed off</a> its metered broadband until it can figure out how to do a better job presenting it (though, it's also threatening to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/1027344610.shtml">delay upgrades</a> if people don't accept caps or meters).  Yet, as reader Matthew Henry alerts us, it appears that Time Warner Cable has instead just started <a href="http://stopthecap.com/2009/04/23/hissyfitwatch-cutting-off-customers-who-use-too-much-in-austin/" target="_new">kicking "unlimited" users offline without much warning</a>.  Apparently, when the user called to ask what was up, he was told he shouldn't have used so much of his <i>unlimited</i> broadband account.  This is the sort of stuff Comcast used to do <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030815/1041201_F.shtml">years ago</a> and which helped contribute to its awful reputation.  Nice of Time Warner Cable to try to fix its own reputation by going down the same bad path.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/1433524643.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/1433524643.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090424/1433524643.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that'll-be-good-for-PR</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090424/1433524643</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is Time Warner Telling Customers No Caps, No Broadband Upgrades?</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/1027344610.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/1027344610.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Time Warner Cable last week <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090416/1608064529.shtml">backed off</a> its plans to implement metered broadband plans in several cities, at least until it could figure out how to pitch the plans without attracting so much bad press. But now an interesting post over at GigaOM says that Time Warner is now also <a href="http://gigaom.com/2009/04/21/twc-to-customers-you-dont-want-tiers-you-dont-get-super-fast-broadband/">rethinking rolling out network upgrades</a> in the cities where it wanted to install the broadband caps. The implication seems to be that the company is saying it's fine if consumers in those places want to complain about the caps, but then they shouldn't expect TWC to upgrade their broadband networks and offer higher speeds. Time Warner and other ISPs like to trot out the line that the cost of providing broadband is surging alongside traffic growth, but it seems that just the <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090421/1248354597.shtml">opposite</a> is actually happening. So here's some horse-trading for Time Warner: if you don't want to upgrade your networks, or if you want to implement caps, that's fine. But don't expect your customers to hang around.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/1027344610.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/1027344610.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090422/1027344610.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>there's-usually-a-word-for-this-sort-of-thing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090422/1027344610</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:24:39 PDT</pubDate>
<title>No Evidence To Support The Need For Broadband Tiers Or Caps</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090421/1248354597.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090421/1248354597.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Just as the various broadband providers are ramping up their <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Bogus-Consumer-Group-To-Educate-You-On-Metered-Billing-102023" target="_new">bogus astroturf attempts</a> to convince the world that broadband caps are necessary and good for customers, Saul Hansell has been digging deep into the numbers and <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/the-cost-of-downloading-all-those-videos/"target="_new">can't find any justification at all for the caps</a>.  All those stories about overwhelmed networks and exponential traffic growth?  Not happening.  If anything, the evidence is that the opposite is happening: advances in technology means that it's become <i>cheaper</i> for broadband providers to meet the needs of their customers.  And those needs are growing, but that growth rate has been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/0035521904.shtml">slowing</a>, and is quite manageable.  So, basically, the broadband companies are hyping up a problem that just isn't there.  There is no crunch.  There aren't bandwidth shortages that require cutting off heavy users.  The only reason to set up such tiers is to squeeze more money out of customers without providing any improvements in service (actually, while providing less service).  And it's all possible thanks to the lack of competition in the marketplace.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090421/1248354597.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090421/1248354597.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090421/1248354597.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oops</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090421/1248354597</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:49:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Time Warner Expands Capped Broadband Plans</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/1352344361.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/1352344361.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Time Warner has been testing broadband plans with <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech">traffic caps</a> for several months, and apparently it likes what it's seen, as it plans to soon expand the caps <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2009/tc20090331_726397.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech">into four more markets</a>. The company alleges it has to switch to capped plans in order to "support the infrastructure of the broadband business," even though the supposed bandwidth crunch ISPs cite when talking about these plans is little more than <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20071227/124634.shtml">a myth</a>. As the company's CEO notes, getting the cat back in the bag by getting consumers to switch from unlimited to capped plans is going to be very difficult. Previous studies have found that even light internet users would look to take their business <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080930/0235462411.shtml">elsewhere</a> if their ISP introduced caps, mainly because they have absolutely no idea how much bandwidth they're consuming. That's a good thing, because the absence of mental transaction costs helped wired broadband take off, and laid the groundwork for all sorts of innovative internet services -- not to mention lots of revenues for ISPs. Compare this to the mobile world, where per-KB or per-MB pricing helped <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20080220/011924301.shtml">stymie</a> the growth of data services.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/1352344361.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/1352344361.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090402/1352344361.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-luck-with-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090402/1352344361</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 7 May 2008 05:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Comcast Thinking About Overage Fees And Tiered Usage</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080506/1750001049.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080506/1750001049.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following Time Warner's recent plans to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080116/132201.shtml">test</a> broadband caps and overage fees, Broadband Reports has the scoop that <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/94185?r=171" target="_new">Comcast is very strongly considering the same thing</a>.  Unlike Time Warner Cable's plans to test <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/170255.shtml">super low</a> caps, Comcast is looking at 250GB/month -- which it claims will only impact 0.1% of users.  Overage fees will be pretty high, however: $15 charge for each 10 GB over the cap.  Comcast will also give users one free "slip up" month per year, for those who go over just for that one month.
<br /><br />
There are some good and bad things to this news.  On the good side, it would represent a big step up for Comcast in terms of actually being transparent.  The company has always had caps, but they've been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030815/1041201_F.shtml">totally secret "fuzzy caps."</a>  Users would have no idea if they had gone over until Comcast sent them a nasty letter telling them to cut down on usage -- or they would lose their account.  That said, the problem with tiered broadband is that it can serve to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/194749.shtml">hold back</a> innovation.  It puts a limit on what people can do online, just as ISPs should be encouraging more innovative uses.  As higher bandwidth applications are coming, limiting the value of an internet connection doesn't seem particularly wise.  Providers who embrace innovation and supply the bandwidth to support it will be rewarded with happy customers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080506/1750001049.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080506/1750001049.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080506/1750001049.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>please-don't-use-our-broadband</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080506/1750001049</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:32:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Time Warner's Overage Caps May Be Set Very Low</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/170255.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/170255.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week Broadband Reports broke the story of Time Warner's decision to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080116/132201.shtml">test overage charges</a> for their biggest users.  I don't think it really makes sense for ISPs to charge in a way that makes their own services less valuable, but that's a different story.  As long as the caps are clearly stated, it's worth seeing what happens.  However, most of the talk about the caps seemed to suggest they would focus only on the off-the-charts extreme users of bandwidth in the "top 5%."  However, Broadband Reports has another report now, suggesting that Time Warner will be testing a few different cap levels, <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Trial-Caps-To-Be-As-Low-As-5GB-Month-91091">including as low as 5GBs/month</a>, which seems excessively low.  If you're doing perfectly normal things, such as watching (authorized!) online videos or doing remote backups, 5GB can disappear mighty quickly.  That doesn't seem like a way to stop "excessive" use.  It seems like a way to squeeze more money out of a large percentage of users.  On top of that, this gives less and less incentive for Time Warner to improve their network.  The more they can claim the need for these congestion charges, the more money they can make.  That seems backwards.  Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if there were serious broadband competition, but that's still a long way away apparently.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/170255.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/170255.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/170255.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-overage----that's-normal-usage</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080118/170255</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:05:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Time Warner Cable Experimenting With Overage Charges For Top Users</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080116/132201.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080116/132201.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Broadband Reports notes that internal memos from Time Warner Cable suggest the company is <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Time-Warner-Cable-Eyeing-Overage-Charges-91047">experimenting with overage fees for their highest bandwidth users</a> in Beaumont, Texas.  If those overage charges work, the idea, of course, would be to then roll them out nationwide.  On the whole, overage charges are a lot more palatable than unpublished <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071023/130226.shtml">traffic shaping rules</a> or <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030922/1036240_F.shtml">"fuzzy caps"</a> where the top users are cut off without any explanation of what line they crossed.  The key, of course, is that with both of those latter "solutions," the subscriber is told they're getting unlimited service, but the reality is different.  Assuming that the overage charges and the rules surrounding them are clearly communicated, such charges are more reasonable.  However, there are still questions about how consumers will react to such a change, especially after being sold on an "unlimited" service.  The bigger issue is that capping bandwidth usage is a way to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/194749.shtml">slow down internet-based innovation</a>.  If there had been overage charges a few years back, services like YouTube might never have caught on, as people would be too worried about how much bandwidth it would suck up.  If the cable companies can't provide enough bandwidth, that's clearly an issue -- but most reports suggest that claims of a bandwidth crunch are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071227/124634.shtml">overblown</a>. <b>Update</b>: Just saw Adam Thierer's <a href="http://www.techliberation.com/archives/043236.php">amusing pre-emptive reply</a> to me on the topic.  I'm not as against the idea as he suggests, though I do think, in the long run, it's not a very good solution.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080116/132201.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080116/132201.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080116/132201.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bait-and-switch</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080116/132201</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>