dslreports logo
 story category
Bogus Consumer Group To 'Educate' You On Metered Billing
The quest to 'correct' your flawed perception begins...

Last week, Time Warner Cable shelved the expansion of their metered billing plan in reaction to unprecedented consumer backlash. However, the tone of their announcement made it very clear they'd be returning to the plan after they "educated" all of their "confused" customers.

That education process began over the weekend, when a group called the American Consumer Institute penned a missive declaring that metered billing is a great idea for consumers, while unabashedly throwing their support behind Time Warner Cable.

Except the American Consumer Institute isn't actually a consumer group. It's an amalgamation of think tank reps pushing for corporate deregulation under the guise of consumer advocacy. A quick WhoIS notes that the ACI website is registered to Stephen Pociask, a telecom consultant and former chief economist for Bell Atlantic, who via groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, works as a public relations apparatus for paying corporate clients.

In reality, you'd be hard pressed to find a genuine consumer advocacy group that thinks Time Warner Cable's combination of low caps and high overages is a good idea. As such, groups like ACI are used by carriers to fabricate the appearance of a broad level of public support for positions that are usually not in the consumer's best interest. In recent years, ACI has been used to fight against the idea of net neutrality "on behalf of consumers."

With a number of deep-pocketed carriers (most notably Time Warner Cable and AT&T) eager to implement metered billing, the use of such "astroturf" operations isn't particularly surprising. In fact, we predicted it last week.

Of course if the arguments being made by astroturf organizations actually had broad consumer appeal, the findings therein wouldn't have to be obfuscated under the guise of consumer advocacy. Given that billions in potential new revenue is at stake, expect a significant number of these campaigns to surface throughout the year.
view:
topics flat nest 

Airwolf7
Premium Member
join:2004-12-12
Franklin, KY

Airwolf7

Premium Member

Who gives a F**k!

They are going to do whatever they want to do and we are going to bend over and take it in the a** like we always do.

If they want metered billing then that is what we are going to get.

dr3yec
join:2002-12-19
00000

1 edit

dr3yec

Member

Re: Who gives a F**k!

Well I will let them know by my wallet. Any company that does meter billing. Will never see my green. Thank god I dont live in a time warner area. But I do live in a AT&T area. Since AT&T is talking meter billing. I lost interest in there service. Even with uverse coming to town. I will not pay for caps!
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

k1ll3rdr4g0n

Member

Re: Who gives a F**k!

said by dr3yec:

Well I will let them know by my wallet. Any company that does meter billing. Will never see my green. Thank god I dont live in a time warner area. But I do live in a AT&T area. Since AT&T is talking meter billing. I lost interest in there service. Even with uverse coming to town. I will not pay for caps!
Then what are you gonna use? Dial-up? Sneakernet Carrier pidgin? Smoke signals?....

If you don't take a stand now, and get your neighborhood together and threaten to cut their service if they don't get rid of the caps, we may as well just make HSI a luxury for rich people. Saying you will go with another provider doesn't make sense when there isn't another choice.

Aozora
join:2008-11-28

Aozora to dr3yec

Member

to dr3yec
said by dr3yec:

Well I will let them know by my wallet. Any company that does meter billing. Will never see my green. Thank god I dont live in a time warner area. But I do live in a AT&T area. Since AT&T is talking meter billing. I lost interest in there service. Even with uverse coming to town. I will not pay for caps!
Quit being delusional. Vote with your wallet? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You cannot do that.

Example of me in a MAJOR big city:

Stay with Comcast: 250GB
ATT: 80GB for the DSL(only thing available in Chicago, sad, isn't it?). ATT still has no fiber in a major ass city. Obviously having a massive density is not a concern for laying fiber. All of you living in the rural areas are being lied to. ATT does not even give a crap if your city is full of people.
Satellite: Damn my online gaming is going to suck hard on this!
Dial up: Super sexy blazing speeds of 56K. What a great competitor with no caps. Let me jump on it.

I guess I can vote with my wallet... NOT!

How can you vote with your wallet? By going to dial up? I guess that is an option if you want to wait years for downloads and do not want to play a single online game or anything. If I cannot vote in a city I am wondering how those in a rural area can.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

1 edit

SLD

Premium Member

Re: Who gives a F**k!

Uh, if you *and* everyone else would give up online gaming for a month and switch providers, I'm sure you'd be welcomed back with the service *you* want. But since you're unwilling to give up even the slightest creature comforts to fight for what you want - you're getting what *they* want.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to Aozora

Member

to Aozora
So what's the Major city? i have a very hard time believing that you only have only 4 choices.

sml11
@69.15.74.x

sml11

Anon

Re: Who gives a F**k!

First - read the post, CHICAGO!

Second - I live in a suburb of Atlanta and my choices are Comcast, AT&T DSL, Satellite and a wide variety of Dial-ups; PERIOD!
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

jimbo21503 to dr3yec

Member

to dr3yec
said by dr3yec:

Well I will let them know by my wallet. Any company that does meter billing. Will never see my green. Thank god I dont live in a time warner area. But I do live in a AT&T area. Since AT&T is talking meter billing. I lost interest in there service. Even with uverse coming to town. I will not pay for caps!
I agree with the others on this matter, you have no voice. It isn't any different than government. Only difference is people seem to think that businesses can handle you business better. When monopolies are involved: what a joke.

What if all your options are metered? Are you just ganna not have internet? I doubt one loss will do anything. For most, internet is becoming a necessity. I think this whole thing will certainly push the whole 'internet as utility' idea up.

anon148123123
@206.218.218.x

1 recommendation

anon148123123 to Airwolf7

Anon

to Airwolf7
If we are going to have metered billing, then do it the right way. Pay for what you use!

If you don't use the connection, you pay $0 for the service, like electric & gas.

They need to remove the $50.00 / month for 10Down/2up & go with $5.00/month for the model/router rental & then charge for the mega, giga bytes when your start streaming data to & fro! Simple & fair.
jimbo21503
join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH

jimbo21503

Member

Re: Who gives a F**k!

said by anon148123123 :

If we are going to have metered billing, then do it the right way. Pay for what you use!

If you don't use the connection, you pay $0 for the service, like electric & gas.

They need to remove the $50.00 / month for 10Down/2up & go with $5.00/month for the model/router rental & then charge for the mega, giga bytes when your start streaming data to & fro! Simple & fair.
Finally! Someone who gets it! You should put your resume in for CEO of these companies. However, you did forget one thing: the price.

? for meg/gig transfer. It should be a fair price not the $1 or 2 per gig or meg that some companies are suggesting.

Kilroy
MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

Kilroy to anon148123123

MVM

to anon148123123
said by anon148123123 :

If you don't use the connection, you pay $0 for the service, like electric & gas.
I don't know where you live, but on my gas bill I have a customer charge of about $10. Yes, that's right, I have to pay to be their customer. So, it doesn't matter how much I use I have to pay this charge every month, as a minimum.

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium Member
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

fireflier

Premium Member

Re: Who gives a F**k!

Those charges go to the continued maintenance of infrastructure to supply you with gas. They have to test and refurb meters periodically and maintain the main lines that supply the houses. That's what the $10 goes toward.

Unlike gas companies though, ISPs aren't lowering their starting cost to something that's a base/maintenance cost just to provide you with access to the infrastructure. They're starting where they were for infrastructure and data costs and going from there.

battleop
join:2005-09-28
00000

battleop to anon148123123

Member

to anon148123123
There is no such thing as a $0 Power or Gas bill. Even they have a minimum amount, it's not much but it's still not $0 even if you do not use any gas or power.

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL to anon148123123

Member

to anon148123123
said by anon148123123 :

If we are going to have metered billing, then do it the right way. Pay for what you use!

If you don't use the connection, you pay $0 for the service, like electric & gas.

Metered Billing does not necessarily require a $0 no usage bill. Gas/Electricity has a fixed delivery capability (ie: Infrastructure) cost as well as the variable delivery cost. Thus there should be a fixed fee to support their ABILITY to deliver that you pay independent of how much usage you use. Then you pay for your actual usage. This is the same with internet metering. You should, as you stated, pay some fixed fee for your connection and then be billed for your usage.

thedragonmas
Premium Member
join:2007-12-28
Albany, GA
Netgear R6300 v2
ARRIS SB6180

thedragonmas to anon148123123

Premium Member

to anon148123123
said by anon148123123 :

If we are going to have metered billing, then do it the right way. Pay for what you use!

If you don't use the connection, you pay $0 for the service, like electric & gas.

They need to remove the $50.00 / month for 10Down/2up & go with $5.00/month for the model/router rental & then charge for the mega, giga bytes when your start streaming data to & fro! Simple & fair.
sure, one small problem, we pay a minimum for our meters weather or not we use the service, and no it does NOT go towards maintnance, i have never once seen them test a meter just to test it. heck we still have analog meters even tho the rest of the city has digital meters. not that im complaining, means if i keep my faucet on realllly slow i can use all the water i want and they wont notice a drop

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru to Airwolf7

MVM

to Airwolf7
said by Airwolf7:

If they want metered billing then that is what we are going to get.
Ultimately they can/will do whatever they want. But obviously the public raising a stink about it made them take notice. Otherwise they wouldn't have stopped (or at least postponed) the trials.

The message is at least getting to them...whether they understand the message in the long-term is yet to be seen.

oh_no_Mr_Bill
@verizon.net

oh_no_Mr_Bill to Airwolf7

Anon

to Airwolf7
said by Airwolf7:

They are going to do whatever they want to do and we are going to bend over and take it in the a** like we always do.

If they want metered billing then that is what we are going to get.
Gezzzz,

Perhaps you can tell us what you really think!

hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium Member
join:2005-06-29
Florence, SC

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

in the back ground

paid for by att and tw.

Shamayim
Premium Member
join:2002-09-23

2 edits

Shamayim

Premium Member

And you will like it

"Time Warner Cable . . . made it very clear they'd be returning to the plan after they 'educated' all of their 'confused' consumers."

Smells more like re-educated their confused customers...

"Repeat after us:

Unmetered is BAD. Metered is GOOD!
Unmetered is BAD. Metered is GOOD!
Unmetered is BAD. Metered is GOOD!
Unmetered is BAD. Metered is GOOD!
Unmetered is BAD. Metered is GOOD!
Unmetered is BAD. Metered is GOOD!
"

DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium Member
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX

1 edit

DarkLogix

Premium Member

Re: And you will like it

Repeat after me

The Leader is good
the leader is great
I surrender my fate as of this date
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO
·Google Fiber

me1212

Member

Oh WTF!?!??!

Ya know maybe if they did NOT treat us like dumb @$$3$ this would be easier for them.

I would be ok with metered billing IF they did it right. No cap just a PAYG plan $10 for 5m and 2x what a GB cost them, so if a GB cost them $0.10(I do not know what 1GB cost them) we would pay $0.20 per GB.

I wish they would ether do it or not, y can they not just make up their mind already and get it over with!?!?

TechPolicyGuy

Anon

Re: Oh WTF!?!??!

said by me1212:

I would be ok with metered billing IF they did it right. No cap just a PAYG plan $10 for 5m and 2x what a GB cost them, so if a GB cost them $0.10(I do not know what 1GB cost them) we would pay $0.20 per GB.
TWC's total delivery cost per gig is roughly $.29. There is a lower cost for just transferring a gig of data, but you have to factor in the billions they are spending on upkeep and improving infrastructure, bringing out new technologies like DOCSIS 3.0, and paying employees.

I think the backlash is mainly from individuals not liking the pricing of their tiers of service. Metered broadband is not a bad thing. It can be used in a bad way. But it can also be used positively.

A one stop shopping blanket price point is not always good for consumers. It may not seem like much to many of the posters here, but difference between a boiler plate $60 no cap rate and a $24.99 5-gig cap rate is a huge deal to many people out there.

There are a great number of people that don't have Internet access because of the expense that a lower rate would have opened up to them. Additionally, there are light users. TWC found that their average user was going through 4-6 gig a month. That means roughly half of their users don't use more than 5 gigs of data transfer a month. Many of those people would probably be very happy to pay $24.99 a month instead of $60 a month.

This is no different than cell phones. If an individual knows he won't use more than 500 minutes a month, there is no reason for them to pay for unlimited minutes. The money is wasted.

Where TWC failed was that the upper level tiers became severely pricey and the cap did not lift high enough. $150/month for uncapped service is outrageous when someone like Comcast offers a 250 gig cap at $50-60/month.

But the market also failed. The last two weeks has been a riot of fear and loathing. The Free Press group asking Congress to act, Net Neutrality pundits calling for the end of the Internet, and bloggers, even here, stirring up a hornets nest and perpetuating misinformation. This prevented testing a model that could have proved affordable for many users; while users that transfer larger quantities of data would have payed similar prices, though realistically probably higher.

TWC's model was not perfect, but I think to believe they are a group of devious creatures that have zero concern for their customers is ludicrous. The fact that they backed down under pressure instead of just moving forward anyway is evidence of that. And we are talking about backing off a test. It's sorta like Allen Iverson and "practice".

Hopefully the free market will correct these mistakes, and prices will adjust lower and caps will increase. Metered broadband could be very favorable to the consumer if they get it right.

S_engineer
Premium Member
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL

S_engineer

Premium Member

Re: Oh WTF!?!??!

The TWC model is a precedent of things to come. The whole premise to the necessity of this "test" is also flawed. With more online video content being offered, this "test" is just a analysis of money to be made.

Kind of funny how BBR has been infiltrated by pro-metered billing advocates 1 week after the sh*tstorm that TW created. If it walks like a duck.....

cpsycho
join:2008-06-03
Treadeu Land

cpsycho to TechPolicyGuy

Member

to TechPolicyGuy
.....pft...... HAHAHAHAHA.

More corporate kool-aid anyone?

Man they are trying to re-educate here too? Wrong place to do it. $0.29 per gig? Give us all a break. Companies get charge by the 95th percentile which drops the bass transfer out side the network down do roughly 2-8 cents per gig. Lets not forget about peering partners. With the peering partners you can drop the price to $0.00

Lets be nice, lets tack on a $0.001 for internal transfer.

Lets say a user on TW's network uses 60 gigs. Thats a total cost to them of $4.80. That's with no peering partners.

They are on a $60 plan. Lets say cost maintaining the connection(infrastructure) at $10-$15.

Hmmm. Pure profit of $40 dollars.

No don't be greedy take $20 and use it to reinvest in your company and take the other $20 for profit for your share holders.

This is why all of us are calling BS on you telcos and cablecos. The figures speak for them self's. All you come up with for your argument is...........

Wait you guys come up with nothing, no numbers no nothing. Other then, its good for the customer.

People are not dumb, only the people trying to think that people don't get it are dumb.

Kilroy
MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

Kilroy to TechPolicyGuy

MVM

to TechPolicyGuy
said by TechPolicyGuy :

TWC found that their average user was going through 4-6 gig a month. That means roughly half of their users don't use more than 5 gigs of data transfer a month. Many of those people would probably be very happy to pay $24.99 a month instead of $60 a month.
That sounds wonderful, now welcome to the real world. TWC won't lower the payments of those who use less than 5GB per month. What they will do is collect additional funds from the other half, if not more. As how to lie with statistics 101 will tell you that by making the band 4-6 you don't have to say how many people are over 5GB. So, what happens if the average user is 5.01GB? TWC now gains an extra $1 per month, minimum from most of their client base simply by failing to tell you that almost everyone uses over 5GB a month.

Ytsejamer1
join:2008-01-18
Somersworth, NH

Ytsejamer1 to TechPolicyGuy

Member

to TechPolicyGuy
The problem is that there will be no $24.99 metered plans...the cost will still be around $50-$60. We'll pay the same if not more, for less!

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

sad

Does anyone else see how unethical it is for corporations to make fake advocacy groups?

Kind reminds you of all the telco/cable shills we have on this site.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Consumer group definitions BBR style

Good consumer group - one that is socialist in outlook and in favor of the government running things and in favor of massive regulation.

Bogus consumer group - any group that believes in free enterprise and the capitalist system.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6

Member

Re: Consumer group definitions BBR style

Consumer Group (normal) = group consisting of consumers watching out for consumer interests

Consumer Group (Republican style) = bogus group made up by corporate shills dedicated to pushing corp. interests funded (if possible) by taxpayer money while continually being focused on less service, higher prices and monopoly politics while focusing also on "shareholder value" *

* = highest compensation for execs while running the company into the ground

Shamayim
Premium Member
join:2002-09-23

Shamayim to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Bogus consumer group - any group that believes in free enterprise and the capitalist system.
And less competition, and rolling the mark customer, and fooling the mark customer and pretending to be comprised of customers, and in the best interest of the customer, and . . .

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Good consumer group - one that is socialist in outlook and in favor of the government running things and in favor of massive regulation.

Bogus consumer group - any group that believes in free enterprise and the capitalist system.
I know you were posting out of frustration because consumers are starting to wake up and the corporate feeding trough full of "profits above all, consumers be damned" is running dry.

But you know as well as I do that in this case, Karl is right. When the gentleman running the "advocacy" group worked for several of the worst offenders for years and conveniently shares the same opinion as said former bosses ... well, that gentleman has no credibility. We call that "transparentis motivi" - or we would if that was even close to the actual Latin for "transparent motive."

roymustang
Premium Member
join:2002-01-12
Cincinnati, OH

roymustang to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
If it is funded by a company, it isn't a consumer group. Good or bad is irrelevant.

•••••••
bakorican
join:2004-02-28
germany

bakorican to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Good consumer group - one that is socialist in outlook and in favor of the government running things and in favor of massive regulation.

Bogus consumer group - any group that believes in free enterprise and the capitalist system.
Am I sick and tired of you Americans misuse the word socialist and make it sound like it is something to be preferred to capitalism. Just look what your wonderful uncontrolled capitalism got you into??!! 90% of your banks capitalized themselves into semi-oblivion with capitalism. Unless your stinking f"§$"ing rich do you really have something to gain through capitalism.
I live in a country most Americans would call socialist, I make good money, have great health-care, have a choice of 10+ broadband providers without caps and throttles, in fact i have 50mb downstream and 10mb upstream. I lived in the USA for 26 years, and after 8 years of Bush had enough of greedy spoiled megalomaniacs wanting to take from the notsowealthy and give to the über rich. Those same extremely rich people then turn around and complain that they have to pay 36% taxes on the millions they essentially stole in the name of capitalism. what exactly did they do to deserve those millions/billions? Lets see, if I buy every grocery store in the USA, and every wholesaler, and all the trucking lines and then make sure a law gets created that outlaws growing your own fruits and vegetables, and then turn around and start charging you 100s of dollars for a pound of fruits and vegetables, would you call that capitalism too, or what would you call it then??

I really wonder what it will take for the US to wake up and stand up for their rights and stop letting rich corporations and corrupt government trample all over them?

•••••

Ignite
Premium Member
join:2004-03-18
UK

1 recommendation

Ignite to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Good consumer group - one that is socialist in outlook and in favor of the government running things and in favor of massive regulation.

Bogus consumer group - any group that believes in free enterprise and the capitalist system.
Oddly enough genuine consumer groups rarely care about the capitalist system, they care about getting the best value for their money, though of course you know this, even if it may harm your portfolio

If you find BBR distasteful please do feel free to cease using the site if it's all opposing viewpoints are all too much for you.

Terrific attempt at turning this into a socialist / capitalist discussion though, however you in common with a large proportion of the USA wouldn't know socialism if it jumped down your throat screaming that it was socialism, you're just upset that the capitalist experiment has gone the way of the socialist one and failed and the balance has had to go somewhat left for the capitalist failures to be bailed out.

People like you never cease to amuse me with your total lack of grasp of both the real world and humanity though, so thank you, and please do pop out of the idealogical bubble you live in and come see those of us who do live in the real world again soon.

And watch that elephant, having it doing that to you is just bad for the prostate...
The Antihero
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA

1 recommendation

The Antihero to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

socialist
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

If the caps are too low for the 21st century....

I'll simply vote with my wallet. In the Southern California area there are alternatives from DSLExtreme and SonicDSL.... although not as speedy (6/768), I will be quite happy with that speed if there is NO CAP attached.

Those in Verizon country, half of the socal area, can move to FIOS. And AT&T really doesn't want to impose a cap before TWC does, so they probably won't in this area either.

In any case, if they must impose a cap, anything less then the 250 Gb that Comcast has imposed is an insult to the 21st century.

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

SimbaSeven

Member

Re: If the caps are too low for the 21st century....

I agree. 250GB should be the lowest cap.. Period.

Especially if next-gen services are available. Anything less is purposely holding us back.

I still enjoy my cap-less internet.

sturmvogel6
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX

sturmvogel6

Member

What we should do

Is to create a Cable Operators Advocacy group, imply that it is comprised of cable/ISP individuals and start showing how bad their policies are.

If it is OK for cable operators to pose as "consumers" and push their agenda, it should be also fine for customers to do the opposite.
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

axiomatic

Member

Ummmmm

Hey Time Warner,

Some of us are network engineers... and we don't work for you. There is no amount of schadenfreude you can apply to this situation to pull the wool over our collective eyes.

Thanks for playing....

The People
@sbcglobal.net

The People

Anon

Un Metered

Too bad we can't build out an internet for the people/ wireless /fiber/ and do it the right way with no caps. A second generation Internet.
HiDesert
join:2008-08-17

HiDesert

Member

Warner the content provider first

Metering is nothing less then pushing out Warner's own content first. If you want it anywhere else then they want to enforce a meter tax on it. They intentionally made the caps incredible low so this tax would kick in relatively quickly for those that want to adapt to services like Netflix, Apple TV etc.. What they are doing is stifling competition and trying to force their subs to hit the PPV button instead. Since these caps were so low and were to be implemented overnight it would have created a political firestorm and possible new legislation. I was kind of hoping for this and was disappointed when Warner backed off. But they did since they knew that battle was corporate suicide. the war is not over and I still believe there is room for regulations on ISP's that are heavily vested in content.. Net neutrality will eventually get worked out in courts/legislation. I for one was hoping this would have pushed the issue. But the corporate weasels don't like to be in the spotlight. They will try another backdoor and funnel some lobby money in certain key areas and hit us again later. I don't think adding more competition is the answer either since at some point there will be a major collusion of interests to fix prices and caps etc... that's what they will do. Just look at wireless phone services. There is a ton of competition but for some reason they all get together to fix prices on features and services.. Just look at text messaging. Text, a service that costs basically nothing to provide was something the carriers decided to put a tax on.. definitely a corporate collusion here. Without this being tested in courts or with new regulations we will all face intense ISP metering regardless of how much competition.

I also thing that these companies should not be allowed to keep raising speeds and to market that as a major advantage when they may not in fact be able to sustain those levels of performance. Their is too much at stake here for the corporations to decide how the future of the internet will evolve to. They need to evolve and upgrade or face loosing their monopoly control.
jkeelsnc
join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC

jkeelsnc

Member

Metered billing and caps

As I have said in these forums many times it is a bunch of crap. LOL I think that the Poor Wittle Breaking our Baxes companies with swords in our hearts mentalities are going to find that they lose customers and some revenue as a result. I think that they will also find themselves challenged in court and no one is going to save their precious little tender sweethearts from losing customers as a result.

I am really tired of the "we are bleeding here" mentality of corporations. Go to &*&%!
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

Now boys n girls TELL THEM YOU WILL LEAVE THE NET

Now boys n girls TELL THEM YOU WILL LEAVE THE NET.
Take a summer off and let them go broke, after all they can NOW enjoy from Canada at least a lower interest rate to borrow cash and keep borrowing until they go broke and someone with a brain steps in and gives the customers what they want. REMEBER TO THEM MONEY IS ALL THEY CARE ABOUT
PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD.

THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
Expand your moderator at work

Hpower
join:2000-06-08
Canyon Country, CA

3 edits

Hpower

Member

gah

Sad part is that there is nothing we can do about this and just will have to take it in the a-ss....especially if you have no other option for broadband.

lol @ 56k. ROFL @ satellite giving 50000 latency gg gaming onlinenot. Time warner sucks. Soon these ISP's are going to see their flaw when we get tired of all these damn increased rates, expesnes and all this other shiet from this lame ass ecoomic recession and stop using the damn internet all together and/or leech of others. We're all doomed.

Elehrer
@verizon.net

Elehrer

Anon

Steve Pociask/ACI

This is Eli Lehrer and I'm a senior fellow at CEI. I know and have sometimes worked with Steve. Steve, however, doesn't work for CEI and has often disagreed with us on a variety of issues. ACI is what it says it is: an independent consumer group. The premise of the post, quite simply, is wrong.

dunworkin
Premium Member
join:2006-12-18
Bellflower, CA

dunworkin

Premium Member

Re: Steve Pociask/ACI

Wouldn't it make sense for the ISPs to feed out the desktop usage monitors they will be using so everyone could understand their present usage habits? That would allow everyone to better understand how the future plans would effect them. A little education up front could go a long way down the road.

Michael C
@natinst.com

Michael C

Anon

I tried to post this to ACI's website....

....I wonder why the moderator didn't allow it:

I think the previous posts do a fantastic job of pointing out the technical inadequacies of this expert opinion. What I want to point out is the source of the intent behind this opinion.

ACI is merely a PR front for the major Telcos and Cable Companies owned by Stephen B. Pociask, a former Chief Economist for Bell Atlantic. This company does NOT speak on behalf of the consumer and is NOT a consumer advocacy group.

According to an author note in an article he wrote for America’s Network in 1998, he was the former Chief Economist for Bell Atlantic. (“Two Degrees of Structural Separation” Stephen B. Pociask; America’s Network, Duluth; Dec 15, 1998; Vol. 102, Iss. 24; pg. 38, 4 pgs.)”

Perform a quick Whois and you’ll find:

Domain ID:D106645718-LROR
Domain Name:THEAMERICANCONSUMER.ORG
Created On:16-Jun-2005 22:26:15 UTC
Last Updated On:20-Aug-2008 20:10:41 UTC
Expiration Date:16-Jun-2016 22:26:15 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:tuICKLUi0fVRpW3y
Registrant Name:Stephen Pociask
Registrant Organization:The American Consumer Institute

rubberpants
@omniture.com

rubberpants

Anon

Re: I tried to post this to ACI's website....

Expect that WHOIS info to be anonomized very soon.

M McKenna
@eastlink.ca

M McKenna

Anon

Xpost from what I posted against the article

Some good points. I would not be surprised if a form of tiered service would actually stimulate widespread availability of low-level internet service provision. Though Brian Swanson makes a good point with the capacity vs. data consumption argument, it remains that, provided bandwidth windows are staggered appropriately, the tiered pricing schedule will have the desired effect of bringing bandwidth consumption more in line with fees accrued.

However, it is undeniable that the bandwidth caps are absurd in scale. Even moderate bandwidth users like myself would exceed the 'power user' rating in the first week of service. The measurement of overall consumption in megabits is very misleading. 100 gigabits of transferred information over the network is roughly equivalent to 10 gigabytes of actual content, possibly substantially lower depending on how packet overhead is accounted for. Internet radio at a decent quality will generally stream at a content rate of about 100 kilobits/s (roughly 10 kilobytes/s); at this rate listening for 8 hours a day (a not-unreasonable expectation for the near future of internet usage, considering that many work all day with the radio on) would consume the entire allocation. Streaming video bandwidth consumption would begin at around 5x this number, and this does not account for any additional usage (such as email, web browsing, and miscellaneous file transfers). Additionally, peer-to-peer technologies (such as Skype, Grooveshark, BitTorrent, and several online television streaming sources), in which an end user's computer may be fetching, processing and uploading information which is not directly related to that user's personal use, could increase the amount of bandwidth consumed by a typical user hugely, likely without their knowledge.

In fact, the knowledge problem is even more serious than that; any user in the 1 gigabit tier could, at any time, through the discovery of any single online service, easily exceed their limit within a single day. As the internet is growing in breadth and technology constantly, anyone could catapult from a low-usage pattern to a high-usage pattern at any time. In this way the internet differs radically from other potentially consumption-based services such as telephone or cable television.

A parallel situation might be if a cable carrier were to mix high-definition and low-definition content into their cable service, and charge users by their bandwidth consumption. This could result in an unsavvy consumer purchasing a low-tier service level receiving a bandwidth limit warning on May 3rd because they started watching a new nightly television show--and in order to keep their bandwidth usage within their limit they would need to forego watching television for the rest of the month (perhaps not a bad idea from time to time, but problematic nevertheless)?

A much more reasonable tiered pricing model would scale the data allocation exponentially while still increasing cost linearly, and where the customer is simply charged for the next tier if they exceed their data allocation:

allocation price
1 gigabit (Gb) $15
10 Gb $25
100 Gb $35
1 terabit (Tb) $45
10 Tb $55

...and so forth. This is more reasonable in the context of the technology in question, because having links in the first place costs significantly, but having larger links (larger fiber bundles, or multiple bundles following the same path) is only slightly more expensive. It is also more reasonable in the context of information technology changes, which cause the average user's bandwidth consumption to rise exponentially (through moving from text to images, images to audio, audio to video) more often than it rises linearly (through the actual amount of time spent in front of the computer).