  BitPremium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Abuse of market position There is no justification for this type of metered billing. The proof is that those that TWC hacks claim are "abused" by hogs and only check email would still get bent over for the full $45 price. The prices only go in the "up" direction.
This is just TWC gouging customers because they have the market position to get away with it. | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Abuse of market position it may seem like abuse, but it's the logical end result of "letting the free market work" with little or no regulation.
with the financial industry, it got us Great Depression II; with the broadband industry we get monopoly/duopoly conditions where companies maximize profits to the detriment of customers and the nation.
When you have a system by the corporation, of the corporation and for the corporation, consumers behinds will frequently be sore. | |
|
| |  DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| Re: Abuse of market position said by nasadude:with the financial industry, it got us Great Depression II; with the broadband industry we get monopoly/duopoly conditions where companies maximize profits to the detriment of customers and the nation. No forcing banks to give out loans, to people would not pay caused it. Then printing money like its going out style, and spending the most in history. The financial industry is only partly to blame.
Who granted them that monopoly ?
--
They Live... We Sleep...
| |
|
| | | | | Re: Abuse of market position Oh no Dave...
You are about to be targeted as a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy" | |
|
| | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | The government creates only about 5% of the money in our system. The rest is created by the banks - out of thin air, with very little regulation (based on the importance of our money system). Then, the banks loan money to the government which it pays back with interest. I'd be much happier with a gov't bank that loans with interest, earns enough income off interest to stop taxing the people. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Abuse of market position Your about to get your wish. Since banks were forced to take the TARP money, and aren't allowed to pay it back. Obama has a firm control over them.
Course they could always chose to get audited till bankrupt, so you can't say they weren't given a choice.
Proud member of the "vast right wing conspiracy"
On the topic of this article though, I am glad to see at least some democrats have it right. (at least on this topic). | |
|
| | | | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Abuse of market position said by Wally0101 :
.... and aren't allowed to pay it back...
Proud member of the "vast right wing conspiracy"
....
yes, a member of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and just as uninformed.
Banks are allowed to give the money back and some have already done so. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Abuse of market position Specifically...which banks have given the money back?
And shouldn't that answer be apart of the new transparency we were promised? | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| Re: Abuse of market position You are both right, sorta. SOME banks can repay, some can't. The fact that some banks were forced to accept money even if they didn't need it, and can/have/will repay the funds still I think was a problem. My father in law is the CFO at a decent sized bank on the east coast that did not need a dime of the money, but was forced into accepting it. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | who forced what banks to give out loans? (hint: the answer is not Fannie and Freddie and Barney Frank) | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·Great Works Inte..
| Yes, banks were forced to give loans without income verification. Then they were forced to bundle them up into mortgage backed securities. Then AIG was forced to write policies on mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps, so they'd end up paying no matter how the mortgages performed.  | |
|
| | BitPremium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | There no "free market" forces in a monopoly or oligopoly and these incumbent telecom (telcos and cable) work hard bribing politicians to keep the free market from working. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Abuse of market position the free market itself is a myth; the "free market" often gives you chaos. There is always some amount of regulation, if for no other reason than to make things run smoothly.
also, when you hear someone like ATT or Comcast talk about the free market, it means "regulations that benefit me or disadvantage a competitor". Aren't laws keeping cities and municipalities from building out their own broadband infrastructure regulations? The ILECs actively champion and lobby for these regulations, rather than demonize them. | |
|
1 edit | FACT about metered use YA know a good point was re raised in the teksavvy forum regarding metered uses.
They don't help networks like they are telling you!!!
Lets say we all had 60GB cap and some tv ep or movie comes out
While at times the network will be very quiet, the above suddenly springs EVERYONE to action.
If as i have pointed out(another also brought it up recently) in the bell Canada throttling issue that on Saturday and Sunday when everyone wakes up and downloads ( and wow no slowed speeds ) what would happen then as these ISPS think oook we had unlimited on 5 megabit now we have 60GB cap ( 1600GB vs 60) YOU know they will oversell it madly.
THEN when all these uses save time and go for it at once. THIS will actually CAUSE MORE problems then you think, instead of varied times for everyone we get EVERYONE AT SAME TIME ALL THE TIME.
POOF out go the lights.
Forget that all this is is AIG STYLE GREED.
they don't care.
YOU wont turn off so....
-----
I wont post that hes also right about job killing.
If that conservative in that wheel chair in Canada would like to say the same thing for and on behalf a the disabled of Canada please do otherwise why is he at parliament as well. Stand up and be men and women instead a bribed out AIG men. | |
|
| | | Re: FACT about metered use ?? | |
|
|  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Beyond the issue of overselling existing capacity (and making a large profit on those that use more than the cap), expect increases on the cost of the basic service regardless. | |
|
|
DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| No thanks Eric This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. If people dont want metered broadband choose dsl, or something else.
I guess were a populist society, where whatever popular thought is addresses in a thug like manner. | |
|
|  rudnickePremium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL
kudos:1 | Re: No thanks Eric THe problem with that is many people don't have another choice. | |
|
| |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
·Cybersurf Intern..
| Re: No thanks Eric That's exactly it, there are no other choices.
Cable or DSL, what if both providers decide to go the same route?
Then what choice do I have?
--
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses. | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: No thanks Eric Start your own phone/cable company hahahhahaa | |
|
| | |
| | | DSL is also capped or in the process of being capped...when you have 2 such monopolizing entities in control of a region, where does one go for "choice?" | |
|
| | | This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. If people dont want metered broadband choose dsl, or something else.
Ok, at my house I choose... Well I choose...
Without getting into it: The cable companies have a monopoly in many municipalities. That comes with advantages and disadvatages. The advantage is that you don't have competition (which makes your choose statement something impossible) The disadvantage is that you placed your company in a position where politicians can tell you what to do.
Don't like it? Give up the monopoly. | |
|
| | | | Re: No thanks Eric if you don't like the provider, build your own. That's what people should be doing. Build out an entire network, give people 10/10 for $24per month all uncapped unthrottled and then see how far that gets. Those people would be doing the same. | |
|
| | | | | Re: No thanks Eric Have you not noticed incumbent ISP's long track record of fighting tooth and nail to stop this very thing from happening? Do a quick search for "muni fiber". They fear true competition and will use any and every means at their disposal to kill it before it ever gets off the ground.
Nice idea, and one that many have had before, but it's next to impossible in this current environment. There would have to be major changes before this could happen. | |
|
| | | said by DaveDude:This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. If people dont want metered broadband choose dsl, or something else. I guess were a populist society, where whatever popular thought is addresses in a thug like manner. I agree, but this is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, just like network neutrality. On principle I'm opposed to the government stepping in and forcing neutrality or banning caps...that said, because the telcos and cablecos have a monopoly in a region, they're going to be able to work a detriment to consumers.
This isn't a failure of market so much as it is a failure of government; because municipalities typically grant a single cable and a single cable company a monopoly in an area it prevents competition from cropping up....FCC restrictions and other barriers to entry make it difficult/impossible to compete as well.
This is nothing new...and it essentially started in the late 1800's/early 1900's when AT&T lobbied the government to grant them exclusive telephone rights (AT&T's argument was that telephone service was a "natural monopoly" type service)....the government stupidly fell for it and thus began the problem we're still dealing with today.
It's really...really screwed up, thanks to the government.  | |
|
| | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| Re: No thanks Eric said by Fox McCloud:said by DaveDude:This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. If people dont want metered broadband choose dsl, or something else. I guess were a populist society, where whatever popular thought is addresses in a thug like manner. . This isn't a failure of market so much as it is a failure of government; because municipalities typically grant a single cable and a single cable company a monopoly in an area it prevents competition from cropping up....FCC restrictions and other barriers to entry make it difficult/impossible to compete as well. It's really...really screwed up, thanks to the government. Thats the point, why not grant statewide contracts to all cableco, telcos etc, and give them incentives to compete.
--
They Live... We Sleep...
| |
|
| | | |
| | | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| Re: No thanks Eric said by fatness:said by DaveDude:This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. Monopolies interfere with commerce. said by DaveDude:Thats the point, why not grant statewide contracts to all cableco, telcos etc, and give them incentives to compete. More corporate handouts to allow monopolies to stifle competition? And who granted them monopoly status, certainly not TW or any other company ? Distraction du jour.
--
They Live... We Sleep...
| |
|
| | | | | djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | Re: No thanks Eric Uh, there are cities with multiple cable and telco providers. I've had choices of Comcast, RCN, and DSL in both Chicago and San Francisco. Yes, 2 cable providers on 2 networks in 2 separate cities.
I think in most instances, it's more of the build out cost than the local government. I doubt too many of the local governments that built muni networks would have said no to any company that wanted to build a shiny new fiber network in their town. The main reason these muni projects were built was because of the poor service and under served areas the incumbents provided. | |
|
| | | | | said by DaveDude:said by Fox McCloud:said by DaveDude:This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. If people dont want metered broadband choose dsl, or something else. I guess were a populist society, where whatever popular thought is addresses in a thug like manner. . This isn't a failure of market so much as it is a failure of government; because municipalities typically grant a single cable and a single cable company a monopoly in an area it prevents competition from cropping up....FCC restrictions and other barriers to entry make it difficult/impossible to compete as well. It's really...really screwed up, thanks to the government. Thats the point, why not grant statewide contracts to all cableco, telcos etc, and give them incentives to compete. That cannot possibly be your point. Because that is a pipe dream wish, not a point. You are arguing the system should be different, while everyone else is arguing how things need to work in the current system. Plus companies are not sharing their lines. It's hard for anyone to compete if they have to install lines into existing subdivisions when the original company got to install lines before the houses were built.
Even Verizon has it easier upgrading to fiber to the home as they already have access rights to their existing phone lines and equipment and can just use the existing space to add fiber. Plus they also have the added bonus that upgrading to fiber allows them to kick off any competition that was sharing their copper lines. Upgrading yourself to a monopoly can offset costs of replacing your network. Competitors don't get that investment advantage. | |
|
| | | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | Re: No thanks Eric Have you heard of wireless ? wimax, LTE, or wifi ? | |
|
| | | | |  roc5955Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | Re: No thanks Eric said by DaveDude:Have you heard of wireless ? wimax, LTE, or wifi ? In some places cable is the ONLY choice. I am in a valley, about 100 miles north of NYC. In my home, there is no cell service, no satellite service, and very poor FM reception. Wireless simply will not cut it. Nope, Verizon hasn't come to my road with DSL or FIOS, so cable is the only answer.
I now find myself listening to the radio over the 'net, because the reception is better than even my roof antenna can provide. The cable only carries a few stations, so once I found that I can listen on the 'net, I started.
Now you want me to pay extra, because of where I live.
Thanks.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by DaveDude:Have you heard of wireless ? wimax, LTE, or wifi ? How many of them don't have 5GB caps, or actually exist in other than "test" markets and the middle of nowhere where even Frontier and Centurytel won't touch? | |
|
| | | | | | DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| Re: No thanks Eric said by patcat88:said by DaveDude:Have you heard of wireless ? wimax, LTE, or wifi ? How many of them don't have 5GB caps, or actually exist in other than "test" markets and the middle of nowhere where even Frontier and Centurytel won't touch? On the website ,Stop the cap, he mentions wireless as an alternative.
»stopthecap.com/alternatives/
--
They Live... We Sleep...
| |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by DaveDude:Thats the point, why not grant statewide contracts to all cableco, telcos etc, and give them incentives to compete. They will only compete in areas with 6 figure household incomes. | |
|
|  cchhat01Dr. Zoidberg
join:2001-05-01
Elmhurst, NY | Wow! what a bunch of bull.
If a company like Cablevision can survive the heat of competition with FiOS and still manage to run its network with minimal lag/latencies, so can TW.
Look at it this way. Because TW has a bigger consumer base, they are not as worried, and instead of fixing their $hitty network which is unbearable when everyone gets home and starts downloading (between 7PM and midnight), they decided to shove it back on to the consumer.
Their saying, "we're not going to solve your latency problems, instead we will charge you more incase you download more than x GB."
Face it, their NY infrastructure is congested upto their a$$es, they don't want to engineer (read as "create more jobs to make their network better") efficient ways to keep their network running in green (sorry im influenced by google traffic ).
--
Chirag's Website | |
|
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by DaveDude:This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. If people dont want metered broadband choose dsl, or something else. I guess were a populist society, where whatever popular thought is addresses in a thug like manner. Dave, I am with you, but the reality is that the market isn't competitive enough for that position.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
|
| |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by DaveDude:This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. If people dont want metered broadband choose dsl, or something else. I guess were a populist society, where whatever popular thought is addresses in a thug like manner. Most people don't have another choice Einstien. Enough with the "free market" crap bcause if one is that stupid think when it coem to ISPs there is actually a free market then one needs to kill themselves. ISPs can play by "free market" rules once they allow "free markets" to actually exist. | |
|
| | | Massa is drafting a bill that would prohibit this kind of metered billing, and issued a statement via his website condemning Time Warner Cable's decision: quote:
"Internet access is as essential to our economy as water is to our survival.
I pay a flat rate just to have water delivered, then pay so much money for every 1000 gals over the minimum 1000 gals included in the base rate.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| |
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
1 edit | "I guess were a populist society, where whatever popular thought is addresses in a thug like manner. "
Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but I haven't seen any "thug-like manner". I've seen folks with strong opinions on how an important asset in their lives is being threatened and manipulated by an unrealistic and outright fraudulent manner for no other reason than rampant greed. I've seen the first responses by two politicians who appear to be taking these concerns to heart and are acting on those concerns.
Isn't this how that whole " government of the people, by the people" is supposed to work? | |
|
| Reviews:
·Great Works Inte..
| It's time to split up the cable companies. Have one company that maintains the physical plant and then split the spectrum on the cable up into separate video and data/voice entities. Bring in two more companies for operating the video or data networks. It's obvious that TW is concerned about internet video killing their own expensive video on demand products. TW is forcing the market toward their VOD product through their convenient monopolies and these insanely low data usage caps. This isn't good for anybody but TW. | |
|
| | | | Re: No thanks Eric said by ElJay:It's time to split up the cable companies. Have one company that maintains the physical plant and then split the spectrum on the cable up into separate video and data/voice entities. That concept worked real well when they split up old AT&T, didn't it?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: No thanks Eric said by fAcEtIOUs:said by ElJay:It's time to split up the cable companies. Have one company that maintains the physical plant and then split the spectrum on the cable up into separate video and data/voice entities. That concept worked real well when they split up old AT&T, didn't it? It did for POTS until FCC and Supreme Court kill all of the rules in the name of "deregulation". | |
|
| | | said by DaveDude:This is one the reasons, why i don't want government interfering with commerce. If people dont want metered broadband choose dsl, or something else. I guess were a populist society, where whatever popular thought is addresses in a thug like manner. That's assuming they have a choice. For most of us there is either one or the other (if you're lucky).
You can say you don't want government getting involved in commerce, but what about commerce getting involved in government? Do you know how many billions of dollars are spent by corporations lobbying our legislative bodies (federal, state or otherwise)? Do you know how much money these corporations funnel into election campaigns across the US (sometimes in their own name, sometimes not so transparently)? There was even a story that came out a while back where a law proposed by some elected official turned out to be the exact same thing that was being pushed by a lobbyist for some corporation. He didn't even bother to rewrite his bill to give the appearance of independent thought.
To make it fair for everyone there will always have to be some degree of government involvement in business. History has shown time and time again that if you don't have any rules or oversight in place someone will do something greedy, unethical or just plain stupid. And when that happens, to whom do they look to clean up the mess? Sure as hell ain't some corporation. | |
|
| | TW talks of fairness but has no a-la-carte cable Other thing that seems completely off is that despite a sudden outbreak of "fairness" at Time Warner they don't offer a-la-carte cable pricing (5-10 channels for $5). Because, you know, they claim subsidizing of "bandwidth hogs" by low usage users is not fair. Then certainly me subsidizing all those Disney channels I never watch (but get as a part of $40 a month digital cable) is certainly not fair either.
So... who'll try to push it down their throat via franchising agreements? 
--
Странные новости почти каждый день | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
| | problem is dave did you read problem is dave did you read the article he confirms that people wont have a choice if they get wacked into these SCAMS.
The fact is Dave , just a minute, jut a minute....there's a fault in the D.S.L. pricing module. Just a minute , just a minute...... | |
|
approval from:
highacidity 
| Please Help! To all those who say just cancel or switch, have you looked at the options in Rochester? There is Frontier, at 3mbps, compared to the 10mbps with TWC. Not only that, they have a 5GB data cap. There are no other options.
This is all just a ploy to try and slow down the inevitable change to TV over the internet. They want to kill Hulu, iTunes and the major network sites so that they have no competition in these areas. I bet its the same in the other cities that have been named as well. | |
|
| | | Re: Please Help! Rochester appears to be the worst off but the others aren't far behind where AT&T can implement a similar cap at any moment. | |
|
| | | I believe I read here on BBR that Frontier was has had a change of hart and will not be doing caps after all.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. | |
|
 rit56
join:2000-12-01
New York, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | Good Job I live downstate in NYC and I just called his office in Washington to express my gratitude for his statement and to let him know how angry people in the city are about this and that we support what he is doing. It's not just internet technophobes. Everyone I know is very unhappy about metered billing as well as the rate increase we all received. Once again our rates were raised in NY for no reason other than to gouge us. The areas competition exists with FIOS is minimal in NYC and TWC knows it and is taking full advantage. This has to stop. | |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 | Irony Internet access is as essential to our economy as water is to our survival. Then why isn't water sold as a flat-rate "use all you want" commodity everywhere? | |
|
|
See 20 replies to this post |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Sorry, he is a politician. Can't believe a word he says.
Future campaign contribution check from TW pretty much a lock now though.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
|
| DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 | Re: Sorry, he is a politician. He will probably have unlimited access for life. | |
|
glinc
join:2009-04-07
New York, NY | ha! Take that TWC!! and shove it up to you know where. If this goes through we will not have any type of metered plans from any ISP. | |
|
 banditws6Shrinking Time and DistancePremium
join:2001-08-18
Frisco, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Unrealistic and unreasonable quote:
"If Time Warner believes that is has no choice but to introduce usage caps, I would call on them to propose caps that are realistic and reasonable. The usage caps proposed in their new plan are neither realistic nor reasonable."
Lee Leffingwell hit the nail on the head with that remark.
I'm capped at 250GB under Comcast, but I consider that a reasonable limitation for today's use. In the future, as high-bandwidth uses for the Internet continue to evolve, I could see a need to raise, not lower, that cap.
TWC's 40GB top level cap is so insultingly out of touch with reality that it becomes immediately clear that, for them, capping is nothing but a punitive measure designed to squelch competing video services.
Even TWC's proposed 100GB top level cap isn't going far enough, IMO.
--
"I'll follow the law until it's just stupid." -Ted Nugent | |
|
|  maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| Re: Unrealistic and unreasonable I totally agree with this. 250 Gb is reasonable, and I can certainly live with this, and so can most families.
40 Gb is absolutely rediculous, and the person who thought that up, probably also thought of the "that is 5 million emails! or 500.000 websites!" marketing that they were no doubt planning on using.
100 Gb is better..... but really, anything less then 100 Gb to START OFF WITH is an insult to the 21st century.
If capping really has to be done, like this politician said.... let it be realistic.
Lite: 100 Gb.
Standard: 200 Gb.
Turbo: 300 Gb.
In this day and age that should be the minimum. | |
|
| | | | Re: Unrealistic and unreasonable said by maartena:I totally agree with this. 250 Gb is reasonable, and I can certainly live with this, and so can most families. 40 Gb is absolutely rediculous, and the person who thought that up, probably also thought of the "that is 5 million emails! or 500.000 websites!" marketing that they were no doubt planning on using. 100 Gb is better..... but really, anything less then 100 Gb to START OFF WITH is an insult to the 21st century. If capping really has to be done, like this politician said.... let it be realistic. Lite: 100 Gb. Standard: 200 Gb. Turbo: 300 Gb. In this day and age that should be the minimum. Nice N Round is right!!!! These should be the minimum's. | |
|
|
 MaggsPremium
join:2002-11-29
Woodside, NY | Caps If they cap me at 250GB, do I get a discount if I use less. Nope. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
 RR ConductorHappy 40th AmtrakPremium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
kudos:1 | Are they daft? 5 GB cap, what have they been smoking? | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
 Vamp9190Premium
join:2002-02-11
Chantilly, VA
kudos:1 | What if... I think the whole country should just pull a mutiny and return to the olden days. We will be living in log cabins and 'driving' covered wagons. The internet will become a distant memory. | |
|
|  Frankis chillingPremium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere | Re: What if... said by Vamp9190:I think the whole country should just pull a mutiny and return to the olden days. We will be living in log cabins and 'driving' covered wagons. The internet will become a distant memory. you need to move in with the amish.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida  | |
|
 bkymoof moofPremium
join:2002-07-05
Austin, TX | TWC Austin rep speaking on this live From 12-1pm CST there's a rep currently speaking to a community radio station (KOOP) here in Austin about this:
»koop.org/?page=streaming | |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| OMG Politicians who listen to consumers?!? Wow...
... on a side note however--- I've found that despite well meaning regulation, if a company is in a position to abuse it's position and they get blocked by regulation/law, they simply find ANOTHER way to hit you somewhere else.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| wasn't on the radar back when.. When regulatory reform allowed Cable to be a phone provider and Telcos to be a cable provider.. broadband metering wasn't anywhere on the radar screen. Since regulations of all kinds have withered on the vine over the past decade.. companies in monopolies and duopolies think that they can gouge the consumer the way international energy markets gouge the consumer.. well.. let's just say that won't be allowed to expand into an industry free for all [big ISP corporations] at the expense of the consumer.
There are many remedies that can be forced upon the cable industry and telcos alike if they choose not to be fair to the consumer. The companies' overall costs compared with the price billed should not be allowed to go so far into favor of the corporation that consumers have NO other option than to pay a pricy metered billing scheme. Any market in which both a telco & cableco can change their terms of service to include data limit caps should be raked over the coals for price collussion by state & federal regulators!
While I'm on the subject of things that tend to make consumers angry.. aren't gas prices doing their $$$ $ummer Creep higher^^^^?? Even though demand is slowing, they can justify keep raising the price? | |
|
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Gov't needs to get their nose out of it The gov't has no right to but into the private businesses. If they want to regulate anything let them start and build their own ISP and networks.
And anyone else that wants to sit and complain about their ISPs and how they should be run and what they should give the customers.
If anyone thinks they can do a better job at it . they need to start their own ISP and start competing and then we'll see how far they get it.
TWC will sue NY for this. | |
|
|
See 7 replies to this post |
|
|
·
·
To Think..