2 edits | Stupid Time Warner Contrary to stupid people, bits are not in short supply. |
|
| No, but the "series of tubes" are. Unfortunately, instead of upgrading the infrastructure some companies choose to try to control it's customer's usage. Of course there is also a conflict of interest with companies that also offer video as new video services are cropping up on the internet.
I say the new bill should either kill caps or have a strict stipulation that companies that offer video and/or voice not be allowed in the internet market. Either or, they should choose.
--
- "Techie" Jim |
|
 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to DataRiker
They have a right Agree with or not, Time Warner should have the right to impose a cap on their service if they see fit. The only reason there is such a hoopla about it now is because for so long, broadband internet has been "all you can eat".
Why didnt politicians get involved when landline or cell phone companies charged by the minute? Or when AOL had monthly minutes? Because, for years and years, that is how its always been, so no one thought differently.
Just as Time Warner should have the right to impose a cap, any ISP, including TW, should have the right to offer uncapped service. If the caps get unreasonable, or people decide they dont want to go with that company, they face the greatest attribute capitalism offers; competition. |
|
| reply to jimbo2150
Re: Stupid Time Warner Actually upgrading infrastructure has nothing to do with this.
TW has artificially "downgraded" its existing infrastructure, if they used it to capacity we wouldn't have this problem. |
|
|
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | reply to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:Contrary to stupid people, bits are not in short supply. The argument here isnt that the bits themselves are in short supply, rather the infrastructure from the headend (or POP) to the end user doesnt have the capacity to support continued growth.
--
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
-Ronald Reagan-
|
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | said by wifi4milez:said by DataRiker:Contrary to stupid people, bits are not in short supply. The argument here isnt that the bits themselves are in short supply, rather the infrastructure from the headend (or POP) to the end user doesnt have the capacity to support continued growth. That would be correct if there was even a shred of evidence that their existing network was inadequate. I suspect that this is not the case.
If other cable companies can do it, why can't Time Warner? What a joke. |
|
 tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to DataRiker
precisely. TimeWarner Kansas City was advertising how much "dark fiber" they had a couple years ago, saying that all of that dark fiber simply could be lit up when they needed it, and that TWC (unlike local DSL) had a massive supply of bandwidth at the ready.
Funny how stories change...
--
"What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."
-United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | reply to baineschile
Re: They have a right said by baineschile: If the caps get unreasonable, or people decide they dont want to go with that company, they face the greatest attribute capitalism offers; competition. FAIL (for totally missing the main point of the topic) |
|
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Nice intelligent, well thought out response. |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | said by baineschile:Nice intelligent, well thought out response. If you had actually read before you posted you would have seen this article targets exactly those who have no competition:
"a new bill that would prevent this kind of metered pricing -- particularly in monopoly markets where consumers couldn't vote with their wallet." |
|
| said by DataRiker:said by baineschile:Nice intelligent, well thought out response. If you had actually read before you posted you would have seen this article targets exactly those who have no competition: "a new bill that would prevent this kind of metered pricing -- particularly in monopoly markets where consumers couldn't vote with their wallet." I side with DataRiker, how can you turn down a provider when they are the only one serving the area? Actual complaints that goto the company are unheard, and this kind of greed will only get worse before it gets better if left unchallenged. I bet if you were in the TW service area, baineschile, you would be singing a different tune. We are past the 56k/dial-up age, we are now in the broadband era where everything exists in the cloud. |
|
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Agree with or not, Time Warner should have the right to impose a cap on their service if they see fit. And consumers should have the right to switch to an alternative ISP that does not impose such caps. The problem is there is no competition, which is the problem that all broadband enthusiasts have been lamenting for years. |
|
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Why didnt politicians get involved when landline or cell phone companies charged by the minute? Or when AOL had monthly minutes? Because, for years and years, that is how its always been, so no one thought differently. They did when they MANDATED that there be 2 systems in each area when cellular service started out. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to DataRiker
Re: Stupid Time Warner Its not that they "can't" do it.
Its more like they prefer not to do it without having a better revenue generating business model.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 RallyBah HumbugPremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by en102:Its not that they "can't" do it. Its more like they prefer not to do it without having a better revenue generating business model. They have a fine generating model in place, the problem is. Time Warner Cable's board of directors, do not want to take a hit on 1 quarter, with a influx of capital to expand capacity and do needed upgrades.
This is all about appeasing shareholders - and making sheets look nice. |
|
wentlancYou Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | ding ding ding!!! |
|
| reply to DataRiker
Re: They have a right How about legislation that promotes competition? They are trying to fix the monster they created with their exclusive franchises that didn't seem like such a bad idea in the past. |
|
baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to KodiacZiller
ATT offers DSL in 60% of TWs foorprint, VZ and RCN another 30%. Thats competition; not necessarliy other cable co's or fiber, but competition nonetheless. |
|
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:Agree with or not, Time Warner should have the right to impose a cap on their service if they see fit. The only reason there is such a hoopla about it now is because for so long, broadband internet has been "all you can eat". Why didnt politicians get involved when landline or cell phone companies charged by the minute? Or when AOL had monthly minutes? Because, for years and years, that is how its always been, so no one thought differently. Just as Time Warner should have the right to impose a cap, any ISP, including TW, should have the right to offer uncapped service. If the caps get unreasonable, or people decide they dont want to go with that company, they face the greatest attribute capitalism offers; competition. Lawl.. someone forgot to read the article. Nice try though, but this is for peope WITHOUT competition, if you had taken the time to ACTUALLY read the article, you may have noticed this.
BTW, terrible argument. |
|
| reply to baineschile
There was a reason to charge by the minute. In the early days the ratio of users to modems was quite high. It meant that you had to discourage always on customers otherwise 10 people could block 100 people from using the internet. Once services were upgraded to have user to modem ratio closer to 1, unlimited services came out. At no point was bandwidth a reason for billing because bandwidth was and always has been the cheapest component of a connection.
Also there is no such thing as competition for most people when it comes to internet services. The fact that you think there is, debases you on the subject. |
|
