60$

I lived in Korea for the longest time. ~$35 for 100mbps parallel connection please?

Haha, returning back to reality, the price really depends on speed, but if there were two packages offering capped and uncapped... it would still depend on how capped the capped package is.

For example, I wouldn't pay much more for 250gb vs uncapped, whereas 20gb vs uncapped would pull about another thirty $$$ a month from my wallet.

30$ with speeds nearing 3 mbps which is what I currently have and as a gamer is more than enough.

That aside I don't mind paying around 50$ for higher speeds ( 20 mbps perhaps ? ) if I ever find myself with a need for it.

I see no reason why I should have to pay any extra than the $50 a month I already pay, frankly. As soon as FIOS comes to my area, I'm upgrading...

No more than I pay now!

I'd rather have them slow down the speed rather than restrict the bandwidth cap. We have Comcast in Florida and we have 10 Mbs download. I would go back to 3-6 Mbs and not worry about how much I download.

But again, we are paying $60/mo and that's not enough??

I have uncapped net at 20 Mbit download / 4 Mbit upload for 14 Euro per month (that is 20 bucks for americans ) ... The best part is that I could get it cheaper (around 12 Euro), but I like my ISP because they provide near the limit speeds and no connection drops in games.

Why should I be punished if I subscribe to both cable T.V. and cable internet? I could see putting a cap on subscribers that don't have T.V.

60bucks is correct

$50/month

$61

I'd pay for uncapped internet if they for go the charge of having the service.

Dumb question, it depends on the speed as well. A uncapped dial up connection should be free. I think current market values are pretty fair, before the Caps set into place. "Atleast in America"

Technology is to strong and grows to fast, these caps wont be able to exist. Hollywood needs to get used to the idea that all movies will be digital streams soon, and it dont matter what kind of deals they cut with ISP's.

I download, but not enough to go over my 60 GB. I wouldn't pay anymore for unlimited. I think they should make it cheaper for people with caps though, not more expensive. I also think they should get up with the rest of the world and offer us decent speeds. They are hindering innovation and development of services that could use faster internet connections.

I pay for what I download.
I don't feel like I need every movie or song in existence stored on my computer.
I don't use my computer as a server.

So I'm not sure I'd ever hit the limits. That they are imposing now. I don't mind companies managing bandwidth, as long as the benefits are passed along to the people who use the I-net normally, and as long as the limits don't start interfering with streaming content like Netflix.

I already pay too much for internet ($60/month)

I will avoid any company that "caps" my bandwidth. I'm not a bandwidth hog by any stretch, but it's the principle of the issue.

Speed, however, will peak my spending interest. However, I already feel that most providers are overcharging for what piddly bandwidth they currently offer. I think I'm $60/month for 6Mbs? When that number is closer to 20+Mbs, I'll be a little more satisfied with the service at the price.

14.95 cheapest plan they got!!!!

I shouldnt have to pay for uncapped...there is NO REASON why I should have to pay...I'm already paying like 89.99 a month for 16mb/1mb so if they arent losing money on me then why should I have to fork over more money when myself using tons of bandwidth r still a profit to them...its like I gave them a cookie...now they want all my cookies just bc they know I dont have a choice but to give it to them...and even if I am cutting their profit margin by being a user who uses tons of bandwidth...they are making it all back bc of the people who pay them 50 bucks a month and check email with it who r the majority of their users

This is bull$h1t PERIOD!!!

I had uncapped internet and paid $43/mo ($53/mo for customers without cable TV).

For a 12Mbps line, which is reasonably fast, this isn't outrageous. $40/mo is fair.

I still fail to see how the amount of data used costs the Cable ISP any money. I'm assuming that what they do is merely divide up a direct connection to a backbone of some kind. Why on Earth they would have a metered line themselves is beyond me. And if it is unmetered, as it ought to be, then they don't particularly care how much data one customer transfers.

If they need to implement a system so that one person doesn't spoil the local node for everyone else, then do so my slowing down that one user (just their speed, thats it). Don't do it by capping everyone.

itunes, netflix, thepiratebay and mininova should band together and offer internet with no BS attached. That would help their business and all of us.

This is a tough question to answer in some ways because, as consumers, we always want more for less. When there is competition we get it and the network operators build better networks and provide better services. Problem is, there isn't enough competition to drive things that direction. I would happily pay $75 per month for a 10 to 15 Mbps connection if I knew that my ISP was putting some of those dollars into building up and out it's networks and for important things like customer care. But since I don't think we are getting any of those things, the value now is closer to $35 to me. Add onto this all the filtering and port blocking that goes on and they should pay us to use their network.

I would exhaust alot of time to try and get an internet service provider that didnt have a cap before resorting to one that did. If that option wasnt available then probably around $60 for the total plan.

No more then 50 although i pay 25 for 6mbp/s uncaped already

us should offer competitive rates and pricing to the rest of the world.

$50 for max bandwidth and work down from there.

I would really like to see a plan for $10 a month with 10 gb cap (people who wouldnt use it very much at all)
A $20 a month with 30 gp cap
And a 40-50 a month for uncapped.

depends how fast... for 1Mbps, no more than 20 usd, for 100Mbps, i'd go about 100 usd, but only because that's all i can afford. i'd actually pay more if i could for a Gbps at home. =/

used to pay about 70$ canadian for uncapped with Bell DSL here in Canada
5mbit down, 800kbit up

these ISP caps are complete BS, just a way to get more money out of consumers, i think every time warner customer should disconnect all of their services all on the same day and you will see how fast twc f*cktards get rid of the caps

I shouldn't have to pay for a capped service. Caps should really only be put into place if a user is suspected of illegal activities. Granted, charter changed their policy for my internet service to have a 100 gig cap - and that's only if they decide that you're a problem should they enforce it.

This happened to be lowest-tier speed I have, in 2x of 56K speed it is fine for streaming TV-quality and drivers occationally, I never hit any limit, if there is one, paid C $25/mo; only thing it is not satisfactory was getting down W7 Public Beta when it was public.

So this is the pricing I would accept unless dramatically increased speed to warrant pricier fee of less than $50 anyway. The numbers of TWC is wholly unacceptable. Or even a pay as you go plan starting $10 or $20 is reasonable.

Not a penny more then what I am paying now. Seriously everyone in these test markets should go on a 30 day ban. You can get high speed reliable Internet services at many places. Goto your local library. Find a hot spot. Switch to satellite or G3 cellphone. Go back to DSL. Do anything you can until TWC backs off from being an aggressive bully.

$20. It amazes me how people have been beaten by these communication companies into paying high prices for services that lag behind other countries. Japan and most countries in Europe have internet and cell phone services that put American services to shame for the price they charge. I for one will jump ship on any carrier that tries to impose any caps.