dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

Infrastructure improvements


You've written exhaustively about the need to invest in broadband infrastructure. Here are a few examples:

Broadband Infrastructure Investment Would Have Ten Fold Payoff

Hey NY Times: Broadband Coverage Gaps Are Not 'Hooey'

We think that charging for usage is an equitable way to generate the necessary revenue.

The biggest complaints we heard from the Beaumont trial were that the tiers were too small. We listened to those complaints and will adjust accordingly, adding larger tiers for larger users and smaller tiers for households that use less. You would have known that, had you bothered to call or e-mail before writing this post.

If you have any legitimate suggestions for a different way to generate the billions of dollars necessary to rebuild our infrastructure, we're happy to hear you out.

Jeff Simmermon
director, digital communications
Time Warner Cable


1 edit

Fascinating...so you mean to suggest you'll be scrapping that ridiculous 5GB tier? I guess that's progress...

EDIT: Re-reading your post, I see you mentioned adding smaller tiers...wow, I guess we should expect 1GB tiers for those families who go online once a week?

Karl Bode
News Guy

4 edits
reply to JeffSimmermonTWC

If you have any legitimate suggestions for a different way to generate the billions of dollars necessary to rebuild our infrastructure, we're happy to hear you out.
That question suggests Time Warner Cable, a very healthy and profitable company, is not already making enough revenue to perform very organic and necessary upgrades in order to remain competitive. That's not the case, Jeff. Time Warner Cable is very profitable, and DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades are relatively inexpensive. Particularly if upgrade locations are going to be selective.

Your own COO this morning on the conference call called DOCSIS 3.0 "a marketing ploy at this point," saying upgrades are "more about marketing noise than about reality," adding that TWC "will play the game where we need to." That lax attitude is because in many of your territories, there isn't much competition so upgrades aren't necessary -- not because the funds aren't there.
We think that charging for usage is an equitable way to generate the necessary revenue.
Again, this suggests you don't already make a very healthy profit via monthly service charges, VoIP, TV revenue, and other less public money makers like DNS Redirection advertising or the sale of clickstream data (assuming you sell the latter). I'd love to see actual numbers that suggest there's so little revenue, an entirely new billing paradigm for bandwidth is in order. I ask this of every carrier who suggests metered billing is necessary -- and interestingly -- they can never provide it.

I think you'll simply wind up driving customers to competitors in a misguided attempt to please investors and crush alternative TV video delivery.

Mary Esther, FL

Karl, don't believe him, for all we know, he could be one pissed off customer.

i hate annon posters who claim to be someone big.

this is about one thing.. CONTROL. and a step twords interent 2. i will state that anyone on TWC interent, who has a choice to switch to DSL to do so. or go to dial up in protest.

un fortunately, there's too many amerikan idol sheep who don't care about the truth.

what were going to see is cable (and DSL) going to this metered bullshit, once cox does this, i'm dropping them faster then you can say god damn muther fucker.


Our 96K BroadBandStream
Our Dial Up Stream
Chat with us (IRC)
follow me on Twitter


Baton Rouge, LA

I refuse to pay for ANY ISP that imposes any type of caps!!!!!
Cox better get it straight!


Reno, NV
reply to JeffSimmermonTWC

funny seeing IM NOT KARL!!!

well maybe instead of lavish lifestyles and mega corporate bonuses or having meeting on a yatch in the bahamas pass some of THAT into infrastructure ??

your telling me a CEO could not live off of half a mil instead of a million bucks?? heck I could live off of 100,000 comfortably and still do a job like theirs

Kinda like Wells Fargo getting a bailout and buying WACHOVIA!?!?!?! WTF is that about. That money was supposed to be used to LOAN OUT TO CONSUMERS not buy up banks.


reply to JeffSimmermonTWC

Well I don't like to argue so i'll make it simple. If you add caps the amount of people who will leave for dslextreme which has no caps will be big. For one you'll lose me and my 2 connections including a business connection .

Good Day

Sortof Agoblin
Orchard Park, NY
reply to Rob_

"Karl, don't believe him, for all we know, he could be one pissed off customer.

i hate annon posters who claim to be someone big."

Karl knows exactly who he is!

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson


reply to vinnie97

The original AP article on this story mentioned LARGER tiers and CHEAPER tiers, not smaller tiers.

Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley said his company's trial, in Beaumont, Texas, had shown that the system is capable of metering and billing accurately. It will soon be expanded to four more markets, for now undisclosed, to give the company a better understanding of how the system works.

The intent behind charging by the gigabyte is to have subscribers who use the Internet more pay for the upgrades necessary for the company to keep up with increasing traffic, Dudley said.

"It's clear to us that customers want online video, which requires substantial investment in the network," Dudley said. "We're willing to make that, and we're trying to find an equitable way to distribute the cost of that investment."

Dudley said a "small but vocal percentage" of users in Beaumont were unhappy with the amount of data they could use (the top tier is 40 gigabytes per month). The company plans to address that by introducing plans with larger monthly "buckets" of data, as well as cheaper ones for casual users.
TWC also took a 7.3 BILLION dollar loss this year:
In 2008, Time Warner Cable reported record cash flow, and the company increased its revenue in every service category, though growth rates decelerated as the year progressed, the recession worsened and competition ramped up. The company ended up experiencing operational losses in Q4 that wiped out financial gains from earlier in the year, leading to a fiscal-year loss of $7.3 billion.

During the frank and free-ranging Time Warner Cable Q4/FY 2008 conference call, TWC executives announced that they will be reducing headcount by 1,250 employees. CFO Rob Marcus said the company will be taking charges of $50 million to $100 million in 2009 associated with the separations.
So I'm not sure where people are seeing SMALLER tiers or lots of PROFITS at TWC...


La Canada Flintridge, CA
reply to JeffSimmermonTWC

Just to let you know Jeff, I'll drop your services the second caps hit my area. Just thought you guys should know that. Your internet service is failing for many reasons. Just today I had to return two modems that were defective and my guess is that they'll be packaged up and given to the next consumer. Good luck making those billions in infrastructure upgrades by alienating your customers, we will leave in large numbers. Unfortunately unlike many other brands I do not feel any sort of connection to who provides my internet. As long as its fast, unmetered and working I don't care who it comes from.

Insane Cajun
Arlington, TX
reply to JeffSimmermonTWC

I have this suggestion.. Do this and lose many customers.. Now if your caps were like Comcast's then I don't have a problem, but if they are like the caps placed in Beaumont.. Then I'll find another carrier. Many others will too.
da Cajun Darn I hate Malware


reply to JeffSimmermonTWC

Goodbye to RoadRunner if any caps happen in Austin. Higher transmission speeds are pointless with caps on bandwidth. I welcome Grande, FIOS, or god forbid AT&T if this happens.

Karl Bode
News Guy
reply to TWCloss

A big chunk of that was due to their half a billion investment into Clearwire.

You're actually trying to tell me Time Warner Cable lacks the current funds to invest in relatively inexpensive next generation upgrades without completely revamping the way broadband is billed? It's just not true.



So a big chunk of 7.3 BILLION is 0.5 BILLION?

What's the other 6.8 BILLION of loss from, since it's not Clearwire?