Toby983
join:2004-10-01
1 edit | reply to Mele20
Re: RR: When an Upgrade is a Downgrade: Pushing Caps & ETF Fees
said by Mele20  :I wouldn't be too sure of that. If they do it quietly, that means it will be "announced" only in the TOS. How often do read the TOS? If a new TOS/Privacy Policy/etc goes up and you use the internet on Road Runner after it is posted, you have accepted the new terms whether or not you have read them. I read all that stuff on a regular basis now. Yes like any company they can do that, but, the difference is that under your current month to month contract they can only enforce the caps not the forced contract as it pertains to locking you into a year-two years etc...
For instance my Verizon cell phone contract has been up for two years and I have been paying the same rate for two years -- every time I call CS they are aghast at my low rate and that I'm not locked in and they can't force me into another contract unless I accept one, or set a new rate, or get new phones, or add a new feature that would secretly trip me into a new contract. As long as you don't touch your Time Warner bill in any way through CS, and as long as you get you automated billing back to regular billing through the mail you'll be ok. You might end up getting a forced new TOS with caps but they still can't auto-renew you. |
|
Toby983
join:2004-10-01
| I must admit though - it does look like cable companies are looking @ the cell phone model as a pricing structure except even more rigid. EG like a cell phone plan where you get a rate and you're locked into a years worth of service and if you cancel there's a big cancellation fee. That fee is there as a sort of 'economic hitman' type of fee because they know that overage fees (much like cell phones) will cause customers to want to switch companies at-will all the time. To avoid the typical customer switcharoo merri-go-round they'll lock em in if they can. The smart ones won't even sign up for new contracts or agree to any new pricing models without calling CS and asking if indeed there's a cancellation fee, or if the agreed price hinges on a contract of any length.
Sadly, the days of the no contract cable HSI are limited IMO. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to MacLeech
Yeah, but it is mostly in Texas where the trial is. Of course, in NYC it won't involve caps but elsewhere probably. What TW doesn't get is that some of us don't have TVs. I could care less how many HDTV channels Oceanic offers and if I was in NY and TW said they were going to have 100 channels in HDTV, I'd say "so"? What speed do I get for RR?
I want the 100mbps/100mbps speed that Oceanic is giving Hualalai Resorts in Kona (except I'm sure I can't afford it). Packages are irrelevant to me unless there is ever one that includes cellphone. I'd rather have DSL because I have no plans to get rid of my landline and I would get a great package with DSL that has nothing to do with TV but would give me cellphone, landline and DSL. (But only if I could get really good speeds on it like my friend Konaguy ). Plus, I am on bulk rate for cable TV (even though I don't have a TV I pay for it) because that is how most condos/apt buildings in Hawaii get TW Cable TV. Road Runner is bulk if a certain number in the building subscribe.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Dampier
Phillip M Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
| I am still surprised by the very logic of TW assuming a trial in a small city in southeast Texas, HARDLY a high tech mecca, is going to be indicative of consumer response to a cap in all but their smallest divisions in the flyover states. I have nothing against Beaumont, but let's get real here. The entire metro area has less than 120,000 people living there and the per capita income is less than $20,000 a year. There is no correlation between the acceptance of high technology products and services between Beaumost and most major metropolitan cities, particularly in California, New York, and the eastern/mid-Atlantic seaboard.
If TW presumes that what works in Beaumont (and I think a strong case can be made the good people of Beaumont aren't going to be lining up in droves for broadband from the bird if the local media exposes what the real world impact of their rationing of bandwidth will do to the average family) is going to work in their New York divisions, or in California, they are going to be in for a rude awakening mighty fast.
The answer continues to be having Beaumont citizens make a loud and public protest and decision to choose ANY broadband carrier over Road Runner, and place blame squarely on their draconian caps. Educate your friends, make sure they specifically explain to TW why they will never consider Road Runner as long as they are money-grabbing like this, and take your business somewhere else.
In most cases, when companies are too greedy, not every competitor will go along because they can reap the rewards of customers fleeing for the alternatives. So just because TW foolishly jettisons their own customer base doesn't mean that every DSL and wireless competitor will follow like a lemming off the cliff into the water below.
And again, do NOT play into the hands of a fictional, manufactured bandwidth "crisis." Don't engage in an argument about what a "reasonable cap" might be on a technology where costs are falling, not increasing, and there has frankly been zero independent verification to prove any of the claims made by the cable industry, their equipment manufacturing lackeys, and the PR firms they hired in Washington to gin up this propaganda in the first place.
If you are in favor of a formal cap at this time during an active campaign by the cable industry to improve profits at your expense, you are allowing yourself to work against your own best interests. Any acceptance or negotiation over arguments invented by high priced lobbyists is a concession by you, and guarantees you'll be paying more for less soon enough.
Don't fall for it. I've seen too many lobbyists trick consumers into acting like sheep herded into us vs. them camps. But when you take their side, you act against yourself every time and you'll pay for it later. I guarantee it. |
|
aldamon
join:2002-04-29
Durham, NC
| So I logged on to RR chat and asked how much bandwidth I've used over the last six months. He couldn't answer the question because he didn't have access to that information. Instead, he gave me a number to call and a ticket number. I called the number and it didn't ring. It just disconnected immediately. Lovely. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI | Why not use NetMeter? It is free.
»www.metal-machine.de/readerror/ |
|
aldamon
join:2002-04-29
Durham, NC
2 edits | I want my past information so I have a decent sample size for an average, not what I'm going to do in the near future.
Also, I just looked at the program and it looks nice for one computer, but we have three computers and a PS3 on our router. I guess I need to look into a router with bandwidth logging. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| I read that the HOME PAGE had been hacked. So what? That doesn't have anything to do with NetMeter itself. I've been using NetMeter since last October when all this talk about caps got really revved up. So, I have almost ten months of data. I can see how much bandwidth I used each week going back to October 1, daily usage, monthly, etc. It is a great little program.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to Mele20
Netmeter only works if you have 1 computer connected to the internet, as it counts all data incoming and outgoing, which includes data copies to other computers on your local LAN, as Netmeter simply measures ALL traffic coming in and out of your NIC port.
For instance, I backup my digital photo collection of about 30, growing towards 35 Gb to another computer on a bi-weekly basis over my LAN, and netmeter would count that as "uploaded data".
If you copy stuff from one computer to another, netmeter is completely useless.
Furthermore, if a provider is going to set a cap or download limit, it is up to them to provide the metering tools. You are not expected to have a stopwatch handy when you use your cell-phone minutes either. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| I have two physical computers and about 5 virtual ones. I don't consider it at all unuseful. I copy things from one computer to another frequently but I don't do large backups from one to another as you mentioned. I have an external hard drive and another internal drive for backups. I would don't keep a large bunch of digital photos on a computer. I put them on a CD and just have a few on the computer at a given time. But I see your point that for you NetMeter is not useful. However, I disagree that it is not useful for EVERYONE who has more than one computer. 
I generally am between 10-20GB a month so if the cap is 20GB (I thought it was 5GB in the Texas trial) then I don't have too much to worry about although I think standard RR should have at least a 40GB cap.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
oldbuzzard
join:2001-12-06
Hudson, OH
| reply to MacLeech
said by MacLeech :said by Baseline :The reason they're rolling out these caps is about money. Do you really think some guys in suits taking home big paychecks are going to say "aww, they really seem upset, lets not cap them"? Yes, it's about money, among other things. Trial projects at big companies are all balancing acts. Cost vs. value. In this case is the value of saving some bandwidth worth the cost of losing some subscribers? Without subscribers, the bandwidth saved is worthless. So how many customers, did TWC in Beaumont calculate, are worth losing compared to the projected bandwidth costs they projected to save? If Beaumont had Fios would you see caps? Probably not... but TWC would cut or lower costs somewhere else to make up the difference. The suits or "bean counters" are playing with numbers to make the money fit their budget. This trial is one particular way to massage the numbers in a particular direction (i.e. make higher than average users worth the cost). Does subscriber opinion matter to TWC? Yes, especially in large enough numbers. If it were just about money, TWC would raise rates. It would get them more money with less headaches. If they thought they could get away with it, they would do just that.
It is just about money, which isn't bad. What's bad is when companies are allowed to push the envelope with little or no competition. Your comment says it all - they wouldn't do it in FIOS market. Fewer than X number of competitors should trigger regulation (not just in broadband, but all industries) IMO. |
|
oldbuzzard
join:2001-12-06
Hudson, OH
| reply to Xizer
said by Xizer :I would just like to point out that MacLeech works for Time Warner Cable, so just ignore him. MacLeech, along with fellow forums poster hobgoblin (surprised he hasn't popped in here yet) are assigned to patrol websites looking for criticism of Time Warner and damage control it. Ignore them. I agree with you about Hob, but not MacLeach. His posts generally reflect knowledge and balance and I have personally seen him post things that reflect badly on his employer.
Hob, on the other hand, seems to be nothing more than a TW beat cop - the type who would give a ticket to his mother. |
|
Baseline
join:2001-02-26
Buffalo, NY
| reply to oldbuzzard
said by oldbuzzard :said by MacLeech :said by Baseline :The reason they're rolling out these caps is about money. Do you really think some guys in suits taking home big paychecks are going to say "aww, they really seem upset, lets not cap them"? Yes, it's about money, among other things. Trial projects at big companies are all balancing acts. Cost vs. value. In this case is the value of saving some bandwidth worth the cost of losing some subscribers? Without subscribers, the bandwidth saved is worthless. So how many customers, did TWC in Beaumont calculate, are worth losing compared to the projected bandwidth costs they projected to save? If Beaumont had Fios would you see caps? Probably not... but TWC would cut or lower costs somewhere else to make up the difference. The suits or "bean counters" are playing with numbers to make the money fit their budget. This trial is one particular way to massage the numbers in a particular direction (i.e. make higher than average users worth the cost). Does subscriber opinion matter to TWC? Yes, especially in large enough numbers. If it were just about money, TWC would raise rates. It would get them more money with less headaches. If they thought they could get away with it, they would do just that. It is just about money, which isn't bad. What's bad is when companies are allowed to push the envelope with little or no competition. Your comment says it all - they wouldn't do it in FIOS market. Fewer than X number of competitors should trigger regulation (not just in broadband, but all industries) IMO. Absolutely. That is the core of the problem here. They're just about to abuse their position here. Instead of upgrading their network / market in all areas, they'll just do it in FIOS areas and all the rest? Hello caps, overage charges. CHA CHING!
Lame - as - F***. |
|
LightYerTorches
@rr.com | reply to aelfwyne
Looks like Hobgoblin got run out on a RAIL! |
|
Toby983
join:2004-10-01
| reply to aelfwyne
Yes I must say McLeech seems ok - pretty fair given the comments (even by me). However, TW really needs to up the proposed caps a bit. Actually substantially so, or they will lose too many customers for comfort. They may turn into AOL act #2. I have a feeling that the net itself may become a non necessity for many after the caps are implemented by the cable companies - EG many people will simply unplug, especially if the DSL companies raise rates (or worse also implement caps) in the face of all of that and there's no viable option. It's not like you have to bank online, or post in forums, game online, or use email. I can pull out my yellow pad and envelopes, mail bills manually,and still survive. Maybe we'll see the return of the free dial up's (yay 56k!) -- multitudes of them, until the major ISP's see fit to not take advantage of the consumer in this fashion. |
|
