pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to baineschile
Re: Metered billing
said by baineschile  :Also, a 40gb cap that TW was imposing was really low, Comcasts was much more reasonable at 250gb. I find myself seeing that Comcast's approach, with a relatively high limit and throttling of people who go over to be more reasonable and fair than any system that charges overages and has a low cap. At least Comcast can legitimately argue that "it is all about punishing the hogs."
Such an approach also leaves Comcast an incentive to continue network upgrades. TW's approach on the other hand discourages improvements because there is now an incentive to collect more in overages instead of spend money on improvements.
If FIOS goes to caps, and I think they will because Verizon isn't browbeating the cable companies over the caps issue, then this will be a lost cause.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I agree. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to pnh102
I still don't buy the need. Ther more they talk about it the more they get the foot in the door. Per byte billing does nothing for congestion, it only gives them additional revenues from which the carriers MIGHT take a portion of and upgrade.
There has been no data supplied by any carrier that coild buttress their argument. Furthermore, TW preeeded this mess by stating they might only surgically upgrade in select markets.
Its time this discussion turned to regulating broadband as a utility. This way the cablecos would have to have to prove their claims before some sort of Public Utilities commission for increases would be approved. I'm just tossing out ideas...if you've got one better I'm all ears.. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| I too think there is some regulation needed. If they want to meter bill you so they can make more money they can with no reason they do own their internet. but when they lie that is different they are doing it for the same reason whether they lie or not, so why not not lie? |
|
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17
| reply to S_engineer
said by S_engineer :This way the cablecos would have to have to prove their claims before some sort of Public Utilities commission for increases would be approved. I'm just tossing out ideas...if you've got one better I'm all ears.. I agree since at this time its all based that their claims are true but there is no real numbers to back it up. Obviously, companies like Warner have huge motivations to lie and fudge the truth about congestion, upgrades etc.. If what they say is true then they should have no issues for an independent team to study their network issues... but watch how they would fight any action like that.. they would spend millions to keep their networks a secret.
I wish Warner's plan had gone through since it was indeed nuts. It would have started a firestorm of class action lawsuits from large companies like netflix for net neutrality violations. Warner knew this and pulled back.. but they are looking for a different angle. If companies take the comcast approach they will keep the regulators off their backs. If they take a crazy approach then the regulators will step in and it will be their own faults at that point. |
|
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
 ·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
|  reply to me1212
said by me1212 :I too think there is some regulation needed. If they want to meter bill you so they can make more money they can with no reason they do own their internet. but when they lie that is different they are doing it for the same reason whether they lie or not, so why not not lie? I think it would be better for road runner cable to stop offering internet
Who needs metering crap?
Only a desperate person would want metering because their isn't an unlimited alternative
To those who have service cancel completely, all service with road runner just let them go out of business like the loser they really are. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is "why do they have to lie?". |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs:
·Charter Pipeline
·AT&T Southwest
| said by me1212 :I get what you are saying, but what I am saying is "why do they have to lie?". simple: put the blame on someone else. "[cable companies] have no choice! the user hogs are eating up all the bandwidth. it's for the good of all. etc. "
compare that to: "We want more of your money." |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to HiDesert
First off, sorry for all of the grammatical errors in my post, I'm glad you actually got the point.
I'm glad that TW balked at this trial because litigation would have taken years. In that time other carriers may have implemented the same insulting caps w/overage charges.
If that had happened, then unwinding this mess would have been a much bigger challenge.
This is a golden opportunity for a politician to make a name for him/herself by taking this issue and running with it. The establishment of a regulatory oversight body to approve the pricing based on the verification of the carriers claims would greatly help the consumer. A cap could then be defined as part of the price to be approved or denied. This is currently being done with electric and natural gas. The first step would be to define broadband as a utility! |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | reply to morbo
I know it does not sound good(neither do as one is a lie and the other is just rude) but at least have the balls to tell people you want to skrew them over in stead of lie to them saying it is good for them. |
|
