Time Warner Boosts My Speed, Cuts My Bill(consumerist.com)
consumerist.com
Time Warner Boosts My Speed, Cuts My Bill
http://consumerist.com/2013/01/30/time-warner-boosts-my-speed-cuts-my-bill-i-just-happen-to-live-near-google-fiber/
66 comments
I have a 50mbps Time Warner connection and all I got was a letter telling me that I would have to pay $8 a month to rent a $10 modem.
One thing I've noticed since moving to New York City from Chicago is that nobody has to even try in New York because the captive audience is so large that even the worst-run business will make tons of money. ("We don't take credit cards." "A $5 fee will be added for paying your bill online." "No laptops allowed at this coffee shop.") I'm surprised JFK isn't a Ryanair hub yet. </rant>
One thing I've noticed since moving to New York City from Chicago is that nobody has to even try in New York because the captive audience is so large that even the worst-run business will make tons of money. ("We don't take credit cards." "A $5 fee will be added for paying your bill online." "No laptops allowed at this coffee shop.") I'm surprised JFK isn't a Ryanair hub yet. </rant>
The changes only apply to the two lowest tiers. Standard changed from 10 down/1 up to 15 down/1up. Turbo changed from 15 down/2 up to 20 down/2 up.
You can't buy one? (They're not $10 anywhere I've seen, btw. Break even is around a year.)
Not taking credit cards and "no laptops allowed" are hallmarks of indie coffee shops though. No other sane business in New York would even dare to pull that off—they have the only audience who would put up with such limitations.
My apartment complex has a $15 convenience fee for paying online. It's 2013.
Just give it time. All of the poorly run NYC businesses I enjoyed in the late 90s are long gone.
Buy this from your favorite online site:
http://www.motorola.com/Video-Solutions/US-EN/Products-and-S...
Call the service # and tell them you have a new MAC address to give them for your subscription and the fee gets removed. All-in-all it took 5 minutes.
http://www.motorola.com/Video-Solutions/US-EN/Products-and-S...
Call the service # and tell them you have a new MAC address to give them for your subscription and the fee gets removed. All-in-all it took 5 minutes.
I'm glad TWC allows this. My parents (who are on Comcast) began getting a $5/mo fee added because they did not rent Comcast's cable modem. (which also costs $5/mo)
I'm on Comcast and have my own modem (the one linked above, it's great) and have no such fee.
> This article is factually inaccurate
No, it is not. The guy states what he /thinks/ might be reasons for this change, not that they /are/ the reasons.
No, it is not. The guy states what he /thinks/ might be reasons for this change, not that they /are/ the reasons.
Come on. The tone of the article is clearly "TWC is a bunch of evil bastards and they're only doing this because of new competition and they're assholes and this is something they could have done years ago and they just didn't because they're greedy!!1"
Which is not really the case.
Which is not really the case.
> Which is not really the case.
Is it not, really? :)
Is it not, really? :)
Yeah, Comcast is doing the same thing in my hodunk little town on the East Coast— sans the price decrease.
[deleted]
Let's see what TWC's response is to http://wunc.org/post/universities-work-together-bring-ultraf...
They already got the NC legislature in their pocket http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/22/nc-governor-will-let-cabl...
They already got the NC legislature in their pocket http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/22/nc-governor-will-let-cabl...
When there's a chance of serious competition they will act.
Years ago in our spot in rural California Sierra Nevada foothills we were patiently waiting for DSL... Every time we called AT&T they said DSL was a year or two away. According to rumor it took a fire for it to finally happen.
Around 2001 we had a major wildland fire that burned off a lot of trees and such which cleared off line of sight for satellite reception for TV and internet to a lot of folks. According to some, that possibility prompted Comcast to stretch out their cable access to beat the satellite service to the punch, and at the same time they started working on digital cable service here-which meant high speed internet, and lo and behold DSL was available in mere months!
Not to say it was a total roll out - there are still some areas beyond the 5000 meters from the CO and too far from the cable routes that have to suffer with satellite - and its really lousy, just above dial up - unless cable or DSL moves in I'm sure Hughes/WildBlue wont bother on improving that.
Years ago in our spot in rural California Sierra Nevada foothills we were patiently waiting for DSL... Every time we called AT&T they said DSL was a year or two away. According to rumor it took a fire for it to finally happen.
Around 2001 we had a major wildland fire that burned off a lot of trees and such which cleared off line of sight for satellite reception for TV and internet to a lot of folks. According to some, that possibility prompted Comcast to stretch out their cable access to beat the satellite service to the punch, and at the same time they started working on digital cable service here-which meant high speed internet, and lo and behold DSL was available in mere months!
Not to say it was a total roll out - there are still some areas beyond the 5000 meters from the CO and too far from the cable routes that have to suffer with satellite - and its really lousy, just above dial up - unless cable or DSL moves in I'm sure Hughes/WildBlue wont bother on improving that.
I'm in a major metropolitan area, and AT&T's DSL (also under its previous name, SBC) was for shit. (Not a few would argue that it still is, actually.)
It wasn't until Comcast started rolling in wholesale and eating their lunch (also "stealing" voice service with their multiple and combined offerings), that AT&T deigned to make any significant improvements. This is despite having a very significant tax break from the state in return for a commitment to roll out "universal access".
All these companies that do better -- when there is finally a threat; incentives don't work. A pox on them. I hope the publicity of their responses just aids in shining a light on their longstanding corruption and shit service.
It wasn't until Comcast started rolling in wholesale and eating their lunch (also "stealing" voice service with their multiple and combined offerings), that AT&T deigned to make any significant improvements. This is despite having a very significant tax break from the state in return for a commitment to roll out "universal access".
All these companies that do better -- when there is finally a threat; incentives don't work. A pox on them. I hope the publicity of their responses just aids in shining a light on their longstanding corruption and shit service.
For those beyond 5K meters, they should try Exede. The latency is still high but speeds average around 10 mbps.
FWIW, Exede comes from ViaSat, which owns WildBlue. I've heard from folks inside that the reason for the name change is due to the less-than-stellar, to put it nicely, reputation of the WildBlue brand.
I'm glad the service is working out for you, but a quick search of dslreports.com shows that not everyone is as happy with Exede as you are.
I'm glad the service is working out for you, but a quick search of dslreports.com shows that not everyone is as happy with Exede as you are.
For $29,90 USD you should get at least 100Mbps. 10 to 15Mbps upgrade made me laugh. Here in Helsinki, Finland 100Mbit/s unlimited connection without caps costs 19,90€/mo, including 24% tax.
Gigabit connection got premium price of 99€/mo (including taxes).
There are no additional fees, like device rents, connection fees or what ever.
Gigabit connection got premium price of 99€/mo (including taxes).
There are no additional fees, like device rents, connection fees or what ever.
May I add that, ISP dug the fiber, connected it and gave all equipment for free. As well as they replanted plants and replaced tarmac and everything else that was damaged in the process outdoors.
That should tell us, that they're still making hefty profits from the connection.
That should tell us, that they're still making hefty profits from the connection.
I'm in Rochester, NY and I pay almost $80/mo for 30mbps/5mbps.
Time Warner has a monopoly in the area, and Verizon / Google have no interest in competing (for whatever reason).
It sucks.
Time Warner has a monopoly in the area, and Verizon / Google have no interest in competing (for whatever reason).
It sucks.
I realize that the cable monopoly is underinvesting in infrastructure and overcharging for service, but it's still unfair to compare the service of a country as small as Finland to a country as large and sprawling as the US. There's simply that much more ground to cover, and coverage is definitely a higher priority than speed or cost.
Err, Finland is not that densely populated country at all.
In Finland there are 17,6 people/km^2 and in US there are 33.7 people/km^2. Densely populated small?
Netherlands (491p/km^2) or Belgium (353p/km^2) would be very different story.
50Mbit/s 4G connection seems to cost 19,96€/mo (including 24% tax, without data caps or prioritization limits) 100Mbit/s 4G connection seems to cost 40,13€/mo (inc tax). But with those connections you won't get full speed all the time, as you do get with fiber.
Naturally our rural areas got whole different pricing policy and fiber connections aren't often available. In worst case you could get 1 Mbps ADSL or similar 3G connection.
In Finland there are 17,6 people/km^2 and in US there are 33.7 people/km^2. Densely populated small?
Netherlands (491p/km^2) or Belgium (353p/km^2) would be very different story.
50Mbit/s 4G connection seems to cost 19,96€/mo (including 24% tax, without data caps or prioritization limits) 100Mbit/s 4G connection seems to cost 40,13€/mo (inc tax). But with those connections you won't get full speed all the time, as you do get with fiber.
Naturally our rural areas got whole different pricing policy and fiber connections aren't often available. In worst case you could get 1 Mbps ADSL or similar 3G connection.
US "rich people who can afford high speed Internet" tend to live in suburbs, which are low density. In places like SF where there is higher density of rich people, there are services like webpass who do 100M/$40/mo.
In Europe, they tend to live in either cities or high-density towns (small population but very small area). The UK is an exception, but also has relatively crappy Internet, too.
In Europe, they tend to live in either cities or high-density towns (small population but very small area). The UK is an exception, but also has relatively crappy Internet, too.
"But the bill says $29.99, so that’s what I’m putting on the check."
I really hope he is not serious - is this true? I've not seen a checkbook in years and years.
I really hope he is not serious - is this true? I've not seen a checkbook in years and years.
You must not live in the US.
Apparently we're not just behind in internet speed, but payment methods as well.
Compared to Germany, US banking consumer services are in the stone age. Investor level services on the the other hand... We lead the world in inventing ever new investment types.
It's quite true.
I do pay most of my bills online. (Including my TWC Internet bill, actually.)
However there are some bills that _require_ me to use a checkbook, primarily my rent and housing related expenses [water, sewage, garbage, maintenance].
I could pay in cash, but a check provides additional security and convenience anyways. -- They won't accept debit or credit cards though.
I do pay most of my bills online. (Including my TWC Internet bill, actually.)
However there are some bills that _require_ me to use a checkbook, primarily my rent and housing related expenses [water, sewage, garbage, maintenance].
I could pay in cash, but a check provides additional security and convenience anyways. -- They won't accept debit or credit cards though.
Meanwhile in Canada, internet prices trend upwards, and google fibre-esque offerings are nowhere to be seen.
I don't know where you are, but believe it or not the competition between Eastlink and Bell Aliant FibreOp are making the market pretty good here in the Maritimes. I think, anyway.
I pay $99/month for 50M/50M internet, phone and TV (with the movie network, a couple of extra 'networks' and the full home DVR). Admittedly, that's for 12 months, but I can renew at that price for another 24 months after that.
If worse comes to worst I'll switch back to Eastlink. For now, though, it was worth switching just for getting Bell to run network cables throughout the house for me for nothing :)
I pay $99/month for 50M/50M internet, phone and TV (with the movie network, a couple of extra 'networks' and the full home DVR). Admittedly, that's for 12 months, but I can renew at that price for another 24 months after that.
If worse comes to worst I'll switch back to Eastlink. For now, though, it was worth switching just for getting Bell to run network cables throughout the house for me for nothing :)
Sounds a lot better than Vancouver. I'm paying $45/mo for 15 down 1 up, with a bandwidth usage cap. You literally can't get home internet for less than $40/mo, and the speed you get when you pay that is a joke.
Here in Belize I pay $200/mo for 4Mbit cable that is usually closer to 1Mbit.
Gah, how dare you put things in perspective! I'm entitled to my feelings of outrage, dammit!
I live in the states, though admittedly not in a major city. (Tucson, AZ) It's $56/month + taxes for comparable and $42+taxes minimum, both with softcaps. I imagine that for many parts of the country outside of top 50 cities, the price of internet is the same.
100$ a month for 50M/50M still seems pretty damn steep of a price to me; even with phone and tv. Especially compared to Google Fiber at 1G.
Bell introduced a $10/month unlimited bandwidth add-on to their Fibe packages a few days ago. That's effectively a discount for anyone who was already a mid/heavy bandwidth user:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Bell-Canada-Offers-Unlimi...
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Bell-Canada-Offers-Unlimi...
Startup opportunity?
Part of the problem with Canada is that it's less dense than many other countries. Unless you already have serious financing, it's going to be very difficult to be able to pay for your own fiber lines. I imagine the regulation makes it tough to start your own Telco as well.
If I'm not mistaken, I think, at least in Ontario, there is a massive amount of dark fiber just laying around not being used.
Dark fiber tends not to be running to homes. The costly part is connecting a cable to each building. Equipment isn't cheap either, but that will probably change over time (and/or same cost expensive equipment will become more capable).
[deleted]
Not sure how Canada's laws are, but in the US it is heavily regulated. You can't just become an ISP, even if you could get the city to let you trench fiber. FCC licenses are heavily policed.
We don't have duopolies in internet throughout most of the country by accident or because no one has noticed. It's because it's illegal to operate otherwise.
We don't have duopolies in internet throughout most of the country by accident or because no one has noticed. It's because it's illegal to operate otherwise.
Becoming an ISP is pretty trivial, even in a regulatory nightmare place like NY. What is impossible is stringing your fiber on the utility rights of way.
In most places in the US the telephone poles and utility conduits are generally owned by the telephone or electric company. You need to lease pole space from them, and those leases aren't cheap. There have been several municipal WiFi initiatives that got alot of press, but later died because they couldn't afford to rent the pole access.
In higher-density areas, there are alternatives. For example, in Albany, NY a small telco provider worked with the city to provide municipal wifi and public safety networking using traffic lights, city buildings, and streetlights (which are owned by the city). The problem with that model is that you get good coverage in central business districts and avenues, but nothing on residential blocks.
You have duopolies because the Bell System was the one and only phone company, and the Feds have basically allowed SBC/AT&T and Verizon to bring that back. Phone companies didn't "get" IP networks in the 90's and early 2000's, and decided to just milk the aging out POTS network as long as possible and ask for government handouts later. Cable companies evolved differently from community co-ops (Ars Technica has a few good stories about this) and tend to operate in a model where they get a franchise agreement that gives them a monopoly in a city or town. So now you have highly regulated, dumb telcos and lesser regulated cable companies who negotiate sweetheart deals with dumb municipal governments.
In most places in the US the telephone poles and utility conduits are generally owned by the telephone or electric company. You need to lease pole space from them, and those leases aren't cheap. There have been several municipal WiFi initiatives that got alot of press, but later died because they couldn't afford to rent the pole access.
In higher-density areas, there are alternatives. For example, in Albany, NY a small telco provider worked with the city to provide municipal wifi and public safety networking using traffic lights, city buildings, and streetlights (which are owned by the city). The problem with that model is that you get good coverage in central business districts and avenues, but nothing on residential blocks.
You have duopolies because the Bell System was the one and only phone company, and the Feds have basically allowed SBC/AT&T and Verizon to bring that back. Phone companies didn't "get" IP networks in the 90's and early 2000's, and decided to just milk the aging out POTS network as long as possible and ask for government handouts later. Cable companies evolved differently from community co-ops (Ars Technica has a few good stories about this) and tend to operate in a model where they get a franchise agreement that gives them a monopoly in a city or town. So now you have highly regulated, dumb telcos and lesser regulated cable companies who negotiate sweetheart deals with dumb municipal governments.
Huh? You only need an FCC license for radio and other over-the-air, not for running fiber.
I know people who have started local ISP's in the US (10+ years ago, not recently, because it's hard to get into the market now for business reasons) -- they needed no FCC license. Although, yes, by renting fiber from the teleco's not by running their own. But that's a capital issue, and a right-to-run-fiber-through-the-public-way issue (permission from muncipality, as you note), not an FCC issue.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I know people who have started local ISP's in the US (10+ years ago, not recently, because it's hard to get into the market now for business reasons) -- they needed no FCC license. Although, yes, by renting fiber from the teleco's not by running their own. But that's a capital issue, and a right-to-run-fiber-through-the-public-way issue (permission from muncipality, as you note), not an FCC issue.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
A lot more than statutory law is at play here in the US: Court cases, regulations and states' implementations of the law matter greatly.
Basically, there's often a tacit (or even explicit) understanding that the winner of a bid to supply cable or Internet services to a municipal area will have the exclusive right to do so (mainly, the service providers argue, to make the capital investment involved in supply said services worth it).
There has been a long-running debate over whether or not last-mile networks and local cable are natural monopolies - i.e., whether or not it is most efficient for the industry to have a monopoly. If such services are public utilities with high capital costs, service providers might argue, they should have the exclusive rights to sales in an area.
In fact, it got so bad that the Supreme Court said that municipalities could be guilty of antitrust violations if they explicitly gave monopoly power to such providers (see Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder).
So municipalities and service providers moved to implicit guarantees of monopoly - RFP processes that are hard for less-well-resourced companies to win, for example. [1] What I'd like to know is whether or not these implicit guarantees are still a problem.
Some states (like North Carolina) set up a 'franchising' process for service providers to get the right to serve an area. So it's not always just about permission from the municipality. It might be about whether or not your state's equivalent of a franchising process is exclusive on the local level. For cable, North Carolina's is supposedly non-exclusive, though I wonder how many times Time Warner runs into trouble getting approve to serve an area, and whether they end up developing small natural monopolies in some locations. But regardless of whether or not those monopolies develop, you have to think about who gets to run lines on whose land.
The fact is that the big companies have an easier time running lines for any data/media service (cable, Internet, etc) through easements and public areas. (This is the part some people refuse to believe. 'Oh, but anybody can purchase land!' Sure, but do you have the capital to do that, or does Time Warner?)
A truly competitive market would involve setting up the infrastructure and having the public own that, instead of owning or operating actual ISPs, which, to any rational observer, constitutes unfair competition, even in light of the desperate need for competition in some markets.
States and municipalities would hand out licenses to the infrastructure, not to the land. That'd be really cool, and possibly really efficient.
[1] - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html (Good summary of the debate; pretty fair)
Basically, there's often a tacit (or even explicit) understanding that the winner of a bid to supply cable or Internet services to a municipal area will have the exclusive right to do so (mainly, the service providers argue, to make the capital investment involved in supply said services worth it).
There has been a long-running debate over whether or not last-mile networks and local cable are natural monopolies - i.e., whether or not it is most efficient for the industry to have a monopoly. If such services are public utilities with high capital costs, service providers might argue, they should have the exclusive rights to sales in an area.
In fact, it got so bad that the Supreme Court said that municipalities could be guilty of antitrust violations if they explicitly gave monopoly power to such providers (see Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder).
So municipalities and service providers moved to implicit guarantees of monopoly - RFP processes that are hard for less-well-resourced companies to win, for example. [1] What I'd like to know is whether or not these implicit guarantees are still a problem.
Some states (like North Carolina) set up a 'franchising' process for service providers to get the right to serve an area. So it's not always just about permission from the municipality. It might be about whether or not your state's equivalent of a franchising process is exclusive on the local level. For cable, North Carolina's is supposedly non-exclusive, though I wonder how many times Time Warner runs into trouble getting approve to serve an area, and whether they end up developing small natural monopolies in some locations. But regardless of whether or not those monopolies develop, you have to think about who gets to run lines on whose land.
The fact is that the big companies have an easier time running lines for any data/media service (cable, Internet, etc) through easements and public areas. (This is the part some people refuse to believe. 'Oh, but anybody can purchase land!' Sure, but do you have the capital to do that, or does Time Warner?)
A truly competitive market would involve setting up the infrastructure and having the public own that, instead of owning or operating actual ISPs, which, to any rational observer, constitutes unfair competition, even in light of the desperate need for competition in some markets.
States and municipalities would hand out licenses to the infrastructure, not to the land. That'd be really cool, and possibly really efficient.
[1] - http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa034.html (Good summary of the debate; pretty fair)
Absolutely, it would be really difficult for a small company to somehow become an actual fiber-owning ISP (as opposed to renting fiber from a giant company).
But it's got nothing to do with any "FCC licenses", as the post I was replying to said, there aren't any involved.
(Slightly more feasible practically, although still capital-intensive, would be starting your own over-the-air ISP with blanket wifi or point-to-point microwaves or whatever, I don't know the tech details, but THEN you've possibly got FCC licenses involved!)
But it's got nothing to do with any "FCC licenses", as the post I was replying to said, there aren't any involved.
(Slightly more feasible practically, although still capital-intensive, would be starting your own over-the-air ISP with blanket wifi or point-to-point microwaves or whatever, I don't know the tech details, but THEN you've possibly got FCC licenses involved!)
I still remember the incumbents trying to impose the same low bandwidth caps to the independent ISPs that leased their lines via the CRTC. At the time the CRTC was pretty much corrupted by the incumbents, so it took the Cabinet overruling the CRTC for them to stop. The director ended up leaving, and it is much less corrupt now.
Wired telecoms is not exactly the first industry that would come to mind if someone were to mention startups. Maybe if you found a wireless way to do it? But even then, government regulation's a bitch.
pretty much exactly.
I think TWC needs to double down on providing good, affordable service in areas where they still have a monopoly instead of doing these panic offers every time a new player moves into town. When they do that, it's much more obvious to the customer they've been being way over charged for years. FiOS is sparsely available in my area and I move around this area a lot, sometimes FiOS is available, some times not. If you're lucky enough to have the competition in your area, TWC will give you massive discounts if you tell a rep you're switching. I never take the offer, I'd rather take my business elsewhere just to loosen the stranglehold they have on the area.
Every six months I call my cable company and get my bill cut by nearly half the regular price.
I don't think people know that most service providers have retention departments designed specifically to give you far better rates to keep you around.
Sure it's annoying and the price still goes up every year but there are also people who refuse to use coupons so thank you for funding my discounts.
Admittedly if you live in a monopoly or duopoly isp area it's significantly harder to get good performance for a low rate.
Now we need to figure out why server rental rates are so much higher in the USA vs elsewhere.
I don't think people know that most service providers have retention departments designed specifically to give you far better rates to keep you around.
Sure it's annoying and the price still goes up every year but there are also people who refuse to use coupons so thank you for funding my discounts.
Admittedly if you live in a monopoly or duopoly isp area it's significantly harder to get good performance for a low rate.
Now we need to figure out why server rental rates are so much higher in the USA vs elsewhere.
Way to go Google! Chase 'em with a hot stick! I'm so sick of charges that don't make sense. We bought Roku and a cool HD antenna, we are now Cable Free!!! TV not Internet.
My mom got cheaper price on the phone bills after she complained the price was too high. Maybe everyone should start complaining.
funny how that happens...
/me tips his hat to capitalism
/me tips his hat to capitalism
Why give the credit to capitalism? Suppose the government were to provide quality broadband service -- would that not also force the ISPs to act (e.g. how UPS competes with USPS)?
This is a win for competition, not capitalism. Not all competition is capitalism, and capitalism does not always imply meaningful competition (it does, however, generally fail to serve people best in the absence of competition).
This is a win for competition, not capitalism. Not all competition is capitalism, and capitalism does not always imply meaningful competition (it does, however, generally fail to serve people best in the absence of competition).
be cafeful yourself not to conflate capitilism with corporatism.
Capitalism my ass, this is another flavor of fine-tuned government and industry collusion.
No government on earth would tolerate any kind of capitalism other than the competitive bidding for multi-year exclusivity agreements (ie: guaranteed ways of sticking it to consumers).
No government on earth would tolerate any kind of capitalism other than the competitive bidding for multi-year exclusivity agreements (ie: guaranteed ways of sticking it to consumers).
That is so cute, getting excited about 5mbps extra.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2475450363.png
Now, could someone explain to me why this is on hacker news, and so high in the list? It only remotely references something new that Google is doing, is that the requirement these days?
http://www.speedtest.net/result/2475450363.png
Now, could someone explain to me why this is on hacker news, and so high in the list? It only remotely references something new that Google is doing, is that the requirement these days?
I disagree, actually -- according to speedtest.net we are both in the 1%. A 5Mbits upgrade to a 20Mbits connection is significant.
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/11/speedtestga.jpg (edit: does anyone here have a faster connection to the place where he lives?)
(Typically its much slower (esp wrt latency, but throughput too, around 25ms/90Mbit/s down) though because for normal surfing I usually just use WLAN.)
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/11/speedtestga.jpg (edit: does anyone here have a faster connection to the place where he lives?)
(Typically its much slower (esp wrt latency, but throughput too, around 25ms/90Mbit/s down) though because for normal surfing I usually just use WLAN.)
If the original post were about the difference between our connections I would have found it somewhat shocking, but honestly, a top rated hacker news post about a 5mb/s increase in speed from 10mb/s to 15... who cares?
Link title should be changed. The Google Fiber relation is pure speculation and NOT FACT. Title as is, is link bait.
It's the freaking title of the article!
It's the consumerist...
Here's the announcement from December: http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2012/12/we-are-boosting-down...
Frankly, Time Warner needs to increase their internet speeds to keep up with LTE. I have one of the higher speed options and my LTE speeds are about twice what I experience on my Time Warner connection.