[quote=AN]TW is not subsidizing apple HD, Youtube, etc. We pay TW for the service to access interest at a certain speed. What we do with it shouldn’t be of their concern and it wasn’t until now. They’re only able to do this because of the duopoly that the government let them operate in. This is pure ridiculousness and customers do not have a say in this. What good is a fast internet if you’ll be maxing out your usage all the time and end up paying up the a$$ for extra bandwidth.

BTW, videos are not the only thing you can download/upload on the internet. There are such things as OS, updates for software, backing up your data to the cloud, etc.[/quote]
The cable monopoly is the problem. Add in the terrible decision (for users) by ATT in San Diego to put in Uverse instead of true fiber to the home like Verizon in Riverside. Wherever TW competes with FIOS, speed has gone up and price as stayed the same.

However, if data usage keeps growing there could be bottlenecks without upgrades. Should every user pay for that? Should the person reading email using 1Gb/month subsidize some people I know who are downloading 150Gb/month?

The big problem I see is the low limits proposed by TW compared to Cox.

[quote=AN]TW is not subsidizing apple HD, Youtube, etc. We pay TW for the service to access interest at a certain speed. What we do with it shouldn’t be of their concern and it wasn’t until now. They’re only able to do this because of the duopoly that the government let them operate in. This is pure ridiculousness and customers do not have a say in this. What good is a fast internet if you’ll be maxing out your usage all the time and end up paying up the a$$ for extra bandwidth.

BTW, videos are not the only thing you can download/upload on the internet. There are such things as OS, updates for software, backing up your data to the cloud, etc.[/quote]
The cable monopoly is the problem. Add in the terrible decision (for users) by ATT in San Diego to put in Uverse instead of true fiber to the home like Verizon in Riverside. Wherever TW competes with FIOS, speed has gone up and price as stayed the same.

However, if data usage keeps growing there could be bottlenecks without upgrades. Should every user pay for that? Should the person reading email using 1Gb/month subsidize some people I know who are downloading 150Gb/month?

The big problem I see is the low limits proposed by TW compared to Cox.

[quote=AN]TW is not subsidizing apple HD, Youtube, etc. We pay TW for the service to access interest at a certain speed. What we do with it shouldn’t be of their concern and it wasn’t until now. They’re only able to do this because of the duopoly that the government let them operate in. This is pure ridiculousness and customers do not have a say in this. What good is a fast internet if you’ll be maxing out your usage all the time and end up paying up the a$$ for extra bandwidth.

BTW, videos are not the only thing you can download/upload on the internet. There are such things as OS, updates for software, backing up your data to the cloud, etc.[/quote]
The cable monopoly is the problem. Add in the terrible decision (for users) by ATT in San Diego to put in Uverse instead of true fiber to the home like Verizon in Riverside. Wherever TW competes with FIOS, speed has gone up and price as stayed the same.

However, if data usage keeps growing there could be bottlenecks without upgrades. Should every user pay for that? Should the person reading email using 1Gb/month subsidize some people I know who are downloading 150Gb/month?

The big problem I see is the low limits proposed by TW compared to Cox.