Politicians Not Swayed By Time Warner Concessions Still pushing new law that would target metered billing.... Time Warner Cable's concessions last week to their metered billing trial haven't appeased politicians looking to put an end to the company's plan. eWeek explores how US Representative Eric Massa of New York is continuing his plan to push a new bill that would prevent this kind of metered pricing -- particularly in monopoly markets where consumers couldn't vote with their wallet. "I am taking a leadership position on this issue because of all the phone calls, e-mails and faxes I've received from my district and all over the country. Time Warner has announced an ill-conceived plan to charge residential and business broadband fees based on the amount of data they download. They have yet to explain how increased Internet usage increases their costs." Meanwhile, MultiChannel News floats a theory from an anonymous cable employee who tries to suggest Massa's move is motivated by his loyalty to his hometown constituent Corning, who provides fiber to Verizon. More likely Massa -- and several other politicians -- are riding the populism wave for political brownie points -- though that doesn't make consumer complaints less valid.
|
2 edits | Stupid Time Warner Contrary to stupid people, bits are not in short supply. | |
|  | | | Re: Stupid Time Warner 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 | |
| | | | | 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. | |
| | | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
 ·T-Mobile US
| Re: Stupid Time Warner 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 | |
| | | |  Phreaky
join:2002-03-02
Round Rock, TX | Really... | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by jimbo2150: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. Great! You just killed all internet access in the United States. Any more great ideas? Emotions won't get you anywhere. The last time anyone checked, the only two providers with an infrustructure to provide internet are the video and voice services. Further, your take on control is, yet again, more government control.
This is a typical example of who NOT to handle something. An emotional response only leads to even more crap down the road. This is not as big of a problem as people are making it out to be. SIMPLE, and I do mean simple, regulation of the industry is all that is needed. It worked well for the phone systems for a century. However, the more politicians try to get involved into the mix, things only get worse, never better.
One thing many people believe is that government can single handedly come in and make rules that have to be followed, with out consequences. If they try to 'control', not regulate, the hands of these providers, they will only take it out in another area.
Further, you try to cut out revenue of the internet from their bottom line, what happens to TV? and Voice? It goes away as they will likely raise the price to survive and they can't compete.
It's posts and views like this that I just don't get. In the name of "better prices", which we all want of course, people say stupid things. Sure, "let the video and phone providers go out of business if they can't compete" right? Just how much do you think that internet service will cost then? The total cost to run a plant to carry internet doesn't get cheaper as time goes on. Wages go up, costs go up, fuel goes up, etc. So how exactly do you suppose that internet services are going to make it to your house? I mean, that's all we'd need in this world is an internet connection becuase everything else will come through that one pipe, right? Wrong.
There IS a fire brewing here with the inet providers, that's for sure. And yes, they are "capitalizing" on a moment that's for damn sure. However, just as competition brings prices down, demand and value can drive them up too! .. you can't have it one sided as that's just not logical and it makes anyone with that type of argument look like they are entitled and there is no way around that. Right now, people are crying out loud how important their internet is to them. In a supply/demand system, prices SHOULD go up.. but how much? Even at $40.00 a month, average for internet, it's still a good deal and still, in my opinion, too low for the overwhelming average user.
I don't agree with control of the internet. I don't agree with caps. I don't agree that they should meter the billing, not the in the case of the internet. I DO believe they should price if fairly and I think they should be honest where they are coming from to their customers. I also believe that if the internet is going to replace phone and video service that prices should rise to MATCH that mode.
I do NOT believe that internet should be the cheapest thing on the plant. I don't believe that the internet should be for shoving every single bit of data down it, speaking mostly regarding illegal matters and believe that those who do SHOULD be pulled off the internet. And I do NOT believe that the government should be making any more damn laws unless it's absolutely necessary! There is a fire brewing here, but all law makers will do is pour gas on it to try to put it out.
Finally, you say that it's a conflict of interest. I STRONGLY disagree with you. These providers were voice/video providers prior to bringing the internet to the home. Somehow you think they should be precluded from carrying competing services?? .. with who? Vonage comes alone and wants to offer a phone service that uses another provider's network? and now that very network is the one that has a conflict? The very content providers for video that SELL their service to a provider now wants to use that providers network and push out free services (hulu) to degrade their other relations and the provider is the one with the conflict?
Please.. enjoy another glass of Kool-aid. By all means, continue on the same slippery slope in destroying something that works in the name of greed and cheaper prices.. just be prepared to pay more for it down the road.
But, for the short minded, let me close and remind that what TWC is doing right now is egregious and WAY over the top for the amount of metering they want to put on customers. There should never be caps and limits.. they should sell the appropriate speed and price it accordingly. (The comcast 50/5 service is priced a bit too high and FiOS comparable service is too low for what it is. IF anyone thinks that Verizon will stay where they are at on those speeds and prices, give them time.. when they gain market share, they, too, will start uttering the same gripes as the rest of them. Remember this day, becuase it WILL happen) | |
| | | |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: Stupid Time Warner uh, you had me until this line.
said by fiberguy:SIMPLE, and I do mean simple, regulation of the industry is all that is needed. It worked well for the phone systems for a century. i'm not sure that the monstrosity known as AT&T monopoly was such a good thing for consumers. | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Stupid Time Warner said by morbo:uh, you had me until this line. said by fiberguy:SIMPLE, and I do mean simple, regulation of the industry is all that is needed. It worked well for the phone systems for a century. i'm not sure that the monstrosity known as AT&T monopoly was such a good thing for consumers. Voluntary rural wiring (self socialism), leased equipment (guaranteed to work), very short repair turnaround time, skilled workers, no call centers, decent technology upgrades (self-dialing, touch tones, speaker phone, dial your own long distance), and high but very slowly increasing prices caused by rate of return regulation which prevented stockholder and executive management windfalls. | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by morbo:uh, you had me until this line. said by fiberguy:SIMPLE, and I do mean simple, regulation of the industry is all that is needed. It worked well for the phone systems for a century. i'm not sure that the monstrosity known as AT&T monopoly was such a good thing for consumers. I did?? I'll mark this day down .. sweet! lol
No, when I mean "simple regulation" I'm talking about setting basic operating rules, and rates (tariffs) and POST the break up of the bells. Trust me, too, I've been beat up enough by the phone companies in the 90's.. I'm not a huge fan of theirs, but under the days they were regulated, there was one thing that was great about them.. that was that when you called them up, you could talk to 20 representatives and you were dang near certain to get the same answer from each one. I'll give them credit for that. | |
| | | | | | | said by morbo:i'm not sure that the monstrosity known as AT&T monopoly was such a good thing for consumers. I agree with morbo  , but I also don't think that some regulation is going to eqate to the death of the Internet. I think you have to agree that there is some level of conflict with companies that are offering video as well wanting to prevent video sent over the internet. I support the whole idea and believe that if the companies want to keep their customers they need to keep up with the time, not stifle innovation by trying to prevent users from getting their episodes of LOST over the internet whenever they want instead of being forced to tune in at the time it is on or set to record.
Also, there are plenty of small companies that do not offer video who would be more than willing to step into areas that were once dominated by one or a two large providers. So the death of the internet? no.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | | said by fiberguy:Finally, you say that it's a conflict of interest. I STRONGLY disagree with you. These providers were voice/video providers prior to bringing the internet to the home. Somehow you think they should be precluded from carrying competing services?? .. with who? Vonage comes alone and wants to offer a phone service that uses another provider's network? and now that very network is the one that has a conflict? The very content providers for video that SELL their service to a provider now wants to use that providers network and push out free services (hulu) to degrade their other relations and the provider is the one with the conflict? Way too long buddy. But this is the dumbest paragraph ever. You are literally claiming that because the cable company is providing the internet they get full control of what goes over the connection and should be allowed to stifle competing services. An action they only want to take because of the conflict of interest when you have the cable company also be the ISP.
Eventually video services will probably have to be separated from ISPs. Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. If cable companies never tried to leverage their ISP side to protect their cable side, there would be no talk of splitting these companies up. They had a chance to be fair and clearly they demonstrated they cannot. The guise of profits they don't deserve are too great for them to resist.
And to claim data hurts a network more because it's video instead of webpage traffic or program downloads is a joke. Data is data. From an ISP standpoint data needs to be treated as one thing and not classified into separate types of data. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Stupid Time Warner said by insomniac84:[Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. People quote this as truth when I've not seen a shred of evidence that this is the case. Did Comcast started doing this years ago for the eventual arrival of then non-existent Hulu? There is no tobacco memo from TWC et. al. saying they are doing this because of video stuff. It's hearsay and conjecture.
Video is just the latest thing to latch on to as a talking point. Everyone is ignoring the vastly larger and much more bandwidth intensive app, piracy. For every one person on Hulu watching Family Guy, there are three or five more downloading the same video via BitTorrent. And the BitTorrent people don't stop there, they then seed it sucking down more bandwidth.
Yeah, TWC could upgrade, but why should they? Is anyone out there really going to stand up for the pirate who downloads crap 24x7? Don't act like it's big bad TWC trying to stifle competition in the online video arena. Piracy and stupidity with bandwidth brought this upon ourselves. | |
| | | | | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Stupid Time Warner said by psx_defector:said by insomniac84:[Metered billing is not about data costs. It's all about stifling competition. People quote this as truth when I've not seen a shred of evidence that this is the case. Did Comcast started doing this years ago for the eventual arrival of then non-existent Hulu? No, but Comcast's actual cap (as it were) is well above 250 GB, too (the actual cap is being one of the top 1,000 users systemwide twice in six months).
Clearly Comcast's cap is not about stifling anything except for the heaviest users. You can watch TV all day on Comcast HSI and not hit the real cap.
Can't say that about these sub 100GB caps.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- World Traveller -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Stupid Time Warner said by funchords:No, but Comcast's actual cap (as it were) is well above 250 GB, too (the actual cap is being one of the top 1,000 users systemwide twice in six months). Clearly Comcast's cap is not about stifling anything except for the heaviest users. You can watch TV all day on Comcast HSI and not hit the real cap. Can't say that about these sub 100GB caps. When I was with August Associates, a local ISP here in Dallas, we had metered billing. I had an 80GB cap that I never hit, even with a lot of piracy being done. Only time I ever went over is when my roommate decided that the internet was for pr0n, and downloaded 100GB in a matter of days.
I paid a lot more for the privilege of metered billing. Probably because of the fact that the backbone to the internet was through Internap, the lowest latency/high class backbone. Almost no one got anything less than 30ms across the network.
Are the caps reasonable? I don't know, at first blush I would say no. I would prefer a higher cap like Comcast. But if Time Warner parlays that with a high class backbone, it might be worth it. As it stands, that is not the case. | |
|
| | | | |  goldy
join:2000-11-14
Augusta, GA | I am amazed that Microsoft hasn't said anything. After all
a 1 gig cap could mean an end to their updates. Imagine trying to reistall xp or vista with a 1 gig cap. Are you going to spend the $75 bucks to upgrade on top of what you already paid?
--
Never chase a dragon with a butterfly net. It annoys the dragon and will probably get you burnt! | |
| | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Stupid Time Warner Get your updates on CD like in the old days. | |
|
| | | | | | | Want a shred of proof? Take a look at their bottom line! Are they taking massive losses? NO! They are posting record profits! | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Stupid Time Warner said by ComWhat :
Want a shred of proof? Take a look at their bottom line! Are they taking massive losses? NO! They are posting record profits!
"Record profits"... are adjusted for the current time? Competition also costs money. It takes money to compete and it also takes money to reinvest into the network. Right now, there is a massive rebuild going on to deliver DOCSIS 3.0 speeds to people that want and demand it. It's not cheap.
Besides, it's still not a crime to post profits in this country. Posting profits are a good thing.. when there is no profit, they're either losing money or posting no growth which isn't good for the economy.
So what would you rather have? | |
|
| | | Eek2121Lovin Verizon FIOS
join:2002-10-12
Newton, NJ Reviews:
 ·Service Electric..
| I'm sorry, but your lengthy post shows that you clearly do not know what you are talking about. If we were talking about a bunch of ISPs that were losing money hand over fist that'd be one thing, but almost ALL of these companies are posting record profits.
The thing that's scaring the cable companies is the threat of netflix, hulu, etc. The fact that their video revenue may one day go away scares the shit out of them. Rather than trying to compete they choose to hit below the belt. If they had competition that would be fine, people could vote with their wallet. The trouble is, most people DON'T have competition.
You don't have to take my word for it, LOOK IT UP! | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Stupid Time Warner said by Eek2121:I'm sorry, but your lengthy post shows that you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Wow.. you came to that conclusion based on the length of my post? Simply.. wow.
If we were talking about a bunch of ISPs that were losing money hand over fist that'd be one thing, but almost ALL of these companies are posting record profits. Again, record profits is a bad thing? What IS a record profit? Let me clear this up for you. If they posted a profit of just $10 this quarter and next quarter they posted a profit of $11, and the next quarter it's $12.. got news for you, that's record profits. Simplicity doesn't work in a conversation of this nature.
The thing that's scaring the cable companies is the threat of netflix, hulu, etc. The fact that their video revenue may one day go away scares the shit out of them. Rather than trying to compete they choose to hit below the belt. I think I covered that..
If they had competition that would be fine, people could vote with their wallet. The trouble is, most people DON'T have competition. And who's fault is that? The provider that came in and built? The phone company that won't extend their plant in fear of losing money? The politicians that allowed a monopoly to begin with? or the consumer that often makes competition not worth it to others to even TRY to come in to a market place? You have to remember, if another provider is going to serve a market, one of the places they look to for statistics is the books of the current provider if they are public.
Government getting involved is not always a good thing. In fact, they OFTEN screw things up when they meddle. Government isn't supposed to control businesses, like Obama seems to think.. rather, they SHOULD spend more time doing the job they are SUPPOSED to be doing which is fostering an environment FOR competition. IN fact, when they try doing that, they often fail. They USUALLY hold the current provider down and hostage while they give the next guy all the breaks. I think you're anger is misplaced.
You don't have to take my word for it, LOOK IT UP!
Trust me.. I won't.  So far, to be honest, nothing you said made much sense to begin with. It was mostly emotional and not very much fact based or even well explained. In short, I read this as "You're wrong, there's no competition, that's the problem, look it up".. | |
|
|  baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
| 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. | |
| | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | 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 | Re: They have a right Nice intelligent, well thought out response. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
3 edits | Re: They have a right 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." | |
| | | | | | | | Re: They have a right 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. | |
| | | | | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Then sponsor/author a bill that will bring competition to the market place.. and stop standing there, government, lashing out at the very monopoly you created..
.. is that better?
New "laws" to "control" only drive market places down, take control out of the hands of the private sector and put it into AIG buying, bureaucrat heavy, personal re-election agenda seeking politicians who care about themselves and forget that they represent the people that put them there in the first place. | |
|
| | | | 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. | |
| | | | baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Re: They have a right 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. | |
| | | | | | | Re: They have a right said by baineschile: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. No it is not. Speeds are not comparable and DSL is way too dependant on distance from the CO and line quality. If you are close to the CO you will probably be fine, but most people are not close to the CO.
I had dsl via at&t and the max I could sync at was 1.8mbit/512kbps. It was supposed to be 3mbit but I was too far. But it did work great for 5 years. Than all of a sudden it started connecting the download speed at like 300kbps and constantly dropped the connection. Somewhere on their network the line quality dropped and ruined my connection. When you call them they say you still have the minimum speed so they don't want to help. When you press the issue they tell you they can send a tech out to look, but you MUST be home for them to do so. I guess they never heard of jobs. And if the problem is intermittent and can't always be seen, the tech might not see a problem when there and syncing at the minimum speed does not count as a problem. If that happens they charge you like 200 bucks for the tech visit.
I promptly canceled and got comcast. Of course if metered billing comes out I would try dsl again to see if things are fixed, but if not I could never go back. Even if you have competition, you might not actually have competition. | |
| | | | | |
See 6 replies to this post |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by KodiacZiller: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. WHY should they have that RIGHT? IF there is a competitor offering no caps, etc, guess what? You already HAVE that "right".. what you are saying is that you have some sort of a "fundamental" right to have no caps - which you don't. Can you point out in the constitution where you have such rights?
Simply having a "want" does not mean you have the right to it. So, I disagree strongly with your view. There are MANY reasons there are places with no competition. The landscape, the lack of a consumer base, OVERLY oppressive government controls on the market, the consumer themselves, and the costs to operate vs the return they can get and lets not for get the very government that has fostered and created many of these exclusive agreements which killed of that "right" you are asking for to be able to switch to a competitor... of any kind.
But, in short.. you already have that right to switch, if one is available. And, you have the right to pick your area to live where you have the access to services of all kinds (utilities, government, parks, transportation, etc) that fit your needs. | |
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: They have a right said by fiberguy WHY should they have that RIGHT? IF there is a competitor offering no caps, etc, guess what?
You already HAVE that "right".. what you are saying is that you have some sort of a "fundamental" right to have no caps - which you don't. Can you point out in the constitution where you have such rights? Please. I, nor anyone else here, have made the argument that we have some constitutional right to bandwidth. What we *should* have is real competition with none of these silly zoning agreements that are only in place for the MSO's to maintain monopolies.
What is the government getting out of enforcing these agreements? The agreements certainly are not in place to help the constituents. Therefore, one must conclude that the lobbyists have deep pockets and the politicians like money (big surprise).
Simply having a "want" does not mean you have the right to it. So, I disagree strongly with your view. There are MANY reasons there are places with no competition. The landscape, the lack of a consumer base, OVERLY oppressive government controls on the market, the consumer themselves, and the costs to operate vs the return they can get and lets not for get the very government that has fostered and created many of these exclusive agreements which killed of that "right" you are asking for to be able to switch to a competitor... of any kind. I am in complete agreement. There should be no zoning agreements that give one carrier a monopoly in a given area.
But, in short.. you already have that right to switch, if one is available.
Yep, *if* is the key word here. | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: They have a right said by KodiacZiller:Please. I, nor anyone else here, have made the argument that we have some constitutional right to bandwidth. What we *should* have is real competition with none of these silly zoning agreements that are only in place for the MSO's to maintain monopolies. What is the government getting out of enforcing these agreements? The agreements certainly are not in place to help the constituents. Therefore, one must conclude that the lobbyists have deep pockets and the politicians like money (big surprise). A billion dollars of liability insurance and $20 a pole per year and a permit from the state or municipality (which has its own redtape and own insurance, etc) and you can hang your own wire on the pole. I've considered it doing it. | |
|
| | | | | How many consumers jumped from indie ISPs over a few bucks? Now competition is gone in some markets because of consumer greed and now they are whining they don' have a choice. | |
| | | | | | | Re: They have a right Consumer greed will never equal corporate greed. The problem with the indie ISP is that they were riding on the networks of their local monopoly and they couldn't compete on price. When you have a franchise or a gov't sanctioned monopoly, it's hard to get into the playing field... The seeds of today were sown a long time ago... | |
|
| | | | 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. | |
| | | | | 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. | |
| | | | | 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. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: They have a right You somehow think that the internet is an unlimited resource and actually do not have a cost associated in transporting the actual data, do you?
Costs DO come down as time goes on.. however, there's that other pesky bug of a fact.. people want more, bigger, faster.. and demand for the future does go up. Its that cost to upgrade, constantly, with the NEWEST technology that places your cost to transport on the data.. and lets not forget payroll too.
Someone, here, about a year ago, wrote it very nicely on WHY there is actually a cost to transport, and it doesn't always go down. It's not always about capacity.. it's a very complex set of numbers that are crunched to come up with the price to operate a network and how to price it to keep it viable as an operation. | |
| | | | | | | Re: They have a right Exactly. 90%+ of the cost is a fixed cost. That is why fixed pricing makes sense. The only reason ISPs are now claiming fixed pricing does not work is because they have seen the insane free profits generated from charging for completely free text messages and they want to discourage competition in video services. | |
| | | | | |
1 edit | Re: They have a right said by insomniac84:Exactly. 90%+ of the cost is a fixed cost. That is why fixed pricing makes sense. The only reason ISPs are now claiming fixed pricing does not work is because they have seen the insane free profits generated from charging for completely free text messages and they want to discourage competition in video services. Exactly. Once people figured out they could save money buy dropping their minutes plan buy texting they turned around and started charging for text which esentially puts almost no strain on their networks. Charging for text is indeed pure profits in regard to infrastructure requirements.
But putting a metered system on the ISP level really changes everything on how people can use the net and will determine how it will grow or not. In this case, this puts a damper on new technologies and puts the brakes on even thinking of DL HD content. Bring it on Warner, your going to see a fight and since you made the plan so ridiculous you will probably lose the battle. CC after being in a PR nightmare for years with the sandvine fiasco etc.. knew better and put in a more reasonable cap. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: They have a right Perfect expression of many of my thoughts about why metered billing should not happen. We're on the cusp of good change and innovation. Metered billing will stifle that. More of the same from the old guard... | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | You are correct. What congress SHOULD be doing, then, is coming up with incentives that bring NEW players to the market place and use competition to drive the costs down.. not try to control them and not try to set policy that is bound to fail. Should companies charge a reasonable rate for their service? SURE! Absolutely.. and price gouging is never right. But, a PROPERLY RAN market place will always prevail over government control. | |
| | | |
See 12 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | 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. Because this is a downgrade. The comparison does not hold as you put it because it is not as if telephone was flat rate and all of a sudden turned into metered, but the other way around.
The same garbage WAS weakly tried by some phone companies when users were connected 24/7 to the Internet in the early 90's, but fortunately it did not fly. I wonder how much less the Internet would have evolved if such policies that you seem to support would have taken hold.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
|
|  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | Re: Stupid Time Warner 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-
| |
| | |
See 6 replies to this post |
| | The whole Corning bit is stupid.. In fact, in my opinion, its in Corning/Verizons (assuming that is the link the original story is getting at) best interest for Time Warner to go the way they are, it would cause users to flood to alternate services which I am sure Verizon would be happy to provide (assuming not rural areas since Verizon seems to be allergic to them...) | |
| |
See 15 replies to this post | |
| | They have no right Time Warner has no right, to put caps on a service, especially if they are the only provider in the market. In the city some buildings will get screwed, the caps are not to limit over usage on there network, they are a new way to make more money. If you cap your subscribers and then overcharge them on overage, then your limiting the internet. The caps will apply to all products, but there own. Comcast did it right with a cap high enough it only limited people who are torrent seeders. If they want they can make tiers of speed, and just sell them without caps, but with caps an xbox will take your whole quota in a week or so. | |
| |  PhilRojo SolPremium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA
kudos:2 | Re: They have no right They are a private company. They have every right. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: They have no right said by Phil:They are a private company. They have every right. Not if their intention is to gouge consumers and inhibit competition. | |
| | | |  jsz0Premium
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT | Re: They have no right said by Sammer:said by Phil:They are a private company. They have every right. Not if their intention is to gouge consumers and inhibit competition. Wouldn't it actually spur competition if a company who did not impose caps decided to come into the area and build a cap free service? | |
|
| | | | said by Phil:They are a private company. They have every right. They are a public utility who builds infrastructure on public land or private land forcibly seized via utility easements. | |
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by Phil:They are a private company. They have every right. Not necessarily. There are anti-trust and consumer protection regulations in SOME areas... and also anti-racketeering laws as well.
However TW should be more concerned about their long term profits--- this type of move may make a lot of money quickly, but will surely cost them in the long run when the cities etc start knocking down their franchise contracts and deploying muni-fiber to combat TW's crappy pricing.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| | Differing opinions •Metered billing is bad because I can't use all the Internet I want
•Metered billing is good because it doesn't impact 95% of people like me and my neighbors kid won't use all the Internet he wants to forcing me share the costs in the current system
•Caps are bad because they stifles innovation
•Caps have really always been there (just not published) and innovation appears to be happening anyway
•"They have yet to explain how increased Internet usage increases their costs."
•General rule of thumb is that any increase usage always has increase costs. Thus far those increase costs have been absorbed with lower capital costs. However the discrepancy between the terabit user and the average user has grown and the average user funds the terabit user.
•Government regulation is needed to force companies to provide all-you-can-eat Internet
•The US government has far more important things to deal with then giving terabit users (who probably cost more than they pay) unlimited capacity
•The US is a 3rd world broadband
•In the grand scheme of things, is this really that important? Can we fix other things in the US first? | |
| | | | Re: Differing opinions One-sided presentation of the opinions. TWC's caps are by and large much more restrictive than their colleagues. A soft 250GB versus a hard, overage-ridden 40GB. | |
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Differing opinions said by vinnie97:One-sided presentation of the opinions. TWC's caps are by and large much more restrictive than their colleagues. A soft 250GB versus a hard, overage-ridden 40GB. Good point, the main reason most people don't like Comcast's cap is the "slippery slope" argument. TWC's caps are heading full speed downhill. | |
|
gerrytwo
join:2006-07-07
Richmond Hill, NY | Time Warner Cable's Real Reason For Metered Billing Time Warner's cable franchises are all up for sale. Metered billing will increase subscriber income and possibly increase the sale price of individual cable franchises. More likely is that corporate insiders will buy out individual franchises, especially those that have a weakening stranglehold on NYC and LA. To get credit to make the buyout, the insiders came up with this idea of metered billing, to spike income before FiOS wipes out TW's cable customer base. TWC had a good run, over 20 years of paying off politicians to enable it to jam consumers with high cable rates for inferior cable transmission quality. That run is about over, and TWC's true colors are coming out with this ripoff pricing deal. Notice how most local politicians are silent about this price increase during a recession, these politicians are loyal to TWC and paid off to the bitter end. | |
| |  huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Time Warner Cable's Real Reason For Metered Billing Ding ding ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Broadband hignest profit margin of any products cable offer Cable companies are eager to get people onto their broadband.... notice that TWC is only making these moves in markets where they have limited competition and consumers can't just vote with their wallets.
The marginal cost to provide high-speed bandwidth is low and decreasing. TWC would have you believe the opposite.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | Re: Broadband hignest profit margin of any products cable offer said by KrK:notice that TWC is only making these moves in markets where they have limited competition and consumers can't just vote with their wallets. This is simply not correct. For example, Time-Warner is introducing caps in Austin, where it competes directly with AT&T U-Verse. | |
| | | robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Broadband hignest profit margin of any products cable offer A large part of Austin also has a second cable provider -- Grande. I should add that Grande has new fiber and also provides Internet service. | |
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Yeah, since AT&T is preparing caps of their own, that's safe. | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·DIRECTV
| Here's a HINT to Time Warner NO Politicians stood up to protest when Comcast introduced their 250 Gb cap.
The idea of caps is not necesarily a BAD one, it's just that 40 Gb is WAY too low, and even 100 Gb for which you would have to pay a lot extra is simply unacceptable in this day in age.
If you had implemented a 250 Gb cap just like Comcast, you wouldn't have had a lot of complaints. You would always have some, but not to this massive of a scale in the media.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| |  pspcrazyAnime Freak
join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA | Re: Here's a HINT to Time Warner No it's just that, a bad idea. Even if it's a viable model, it's definately not something you as a consumer should be defending. They made 4 BILLION dollars last year, and only spent 146 million of it on the network, bandwith, and all expenses. They don't need metered billing. Japan doesn't need it, korea doesn't need it, romania doesn't need it, so why do they need it? Obviously for greed. | |
| | amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Thank you. It's the pricing that isn't right. Cox also has a relatively low cap, but they aren't jerks about it as far as I know - it's also a "soft" cap in that sense, and there is no overage charge.
People would probably rather have a solid 3Mbps service than a 9+Mbps service that can only be used for ~20 minutes a day at full blast. Not much point in having that, now is there?
To those "Defending" these jerks, their caps, your portfolio, whatever imaginary reason, please, think about one thing for a minute. Realize that T-1 service is cheaper than what they'd charge you for overages in a month, and there is no limit.
For what, around $250-300/month, you get 1.5Mbps, available for use 24x7, at full speed. That's better than paying half the price, getting less than half the volume of data, and better than being cut off after the limits have been reached. Someone else can do the math here, but I'd bet it turns out to be pretty absurd to look at when you stop to think that TW (and others) try to sell this as a "good idea."
How can they justify charging so much more than even a full T-1 service for theirs, capping the usage of said service so as to be almost useless, and expect people to blindly agree?
This is truly a bad idea. Legislation that forces this to become illegal is probably less of a bad idea than just letting these companies do it.
Since they apparently don't care to listen to their customers, perhaps the last resort here would be to make it law. | |
| | | robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Here's a HINT to Time Warner said by amungus:To those "Defending" these jerks, their caps, your portfolio, whatever imaginary reason, please, think about one thing for a minute. Realize that T-1 service is cheaper than what they'd charge you for overages in a month, and there is no limit. My T1 service is over $400 per month. It is not metered, it is always on. So whether I use all of it or only 1 gig, I pay $400. I know many of my peers pay much more for their T1's than I do and some pay a little less. It probably averages in the $400 to $500 area. If my T1 is fully saturated 24 hours per day all month long it can transfer a little less than 500 gigabytes. It is probably much more realistic for the actual usage to be between 100 and 250. If it is saturated above that point it is time to increase my bandwidth as people don't normally use the internet evenly 24 hours per day and even with very good bandwidth management, a fully saturated line is not something that anyone would want to use to connect to the Internet.
I fully understand that TWC pays much less per byte, just like I would if I could afford a larger pipe. My point here is very simple, don't think a T1 would be cheaper. It will be double, triple, or much more and also much slower!  | |
|
| | This was destined to become politcal Warner being a big content company has a great amount of motivation to keep people off of Netflix, apple TV, iTunes etc.. Warner does not want to give a 250 gig cap like CC since they know that is still enough for people to go elsewhere for their content. The metered system says you buy content from us or pay us for using another service. I hope Warner does this since their plan is so extreme it will definitely create anti monopoly suits from companies like netflix and test net neutrality once and for all. Warner does this they will regret no doubt since they will be bombarded from so many groups and individuals and will definitely bleed in their market share. But since it really is such a bold and extreme plan it will indeed put this whole issue on the fast track. They may be disappointed how it turns out. | |
| | huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: This was destined to become politcal They've had things pretty much all their way for decades now with their fully bought-and-paid for politicians at the local and national levels.
I hope you are right and this causes such a political backlash that the politicians see that it's time to jump off the gravy train. The one thing about politicians is that they are so dishonest that they may have been bought off, but they won't *stay* bought off if it looks like it's going to cost them their positions.
But money talks; I remain skeptical. | |
| | | | How can they actually say that a cable company would not have high speed internet competition? Somebody had the gall to say that AT&T just wasn't as fast. Well that's still a competitor. People are choosing TW because they are faster - but it comes with a caveat. Choose your provider. If TW wants to impose caps or overage fees, then so be it, it is their network after all. If their customers stay aboard, that's their choice. If they want to go elsewhere - that's also their choice. Metered billing is great - it would finally make those that use inordinate amounts of data, pay their fair share. | |
| | | | said by HiDesert:Warner being a big content company has a great amount of motivation to keep people off of Netflix, apple TV, iTunes etc.. Warner does not want to give a 250 gig cap like CC since they know that is still enough for people to go elsewhere for their content. The metered system says you buy content from us or pay us for using another service. I hope Warner does this since their plan is so extreme it will definitely create anti monopoly suits from companies like netflix and test net neutrality once and for all.
Ahh, You are the first person in this tread who has hit the nail on its head. Time Warner is trying to protect their pay TV model while at the same time hike prices by keeping prices steady but cutting services. The 5 GB or the 40 GB cap is to prevent their customers from getting content from anyone but Time Warner. | |
|
 PhonePowerPremium
join:2007-07-20
Winnetka, CA
kudos:1 | This is a thinly veiled disguise to limit video competition Pay per view or free video competitors will simply not be able to deliver their services at a reasonable cost. | |
| Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| some sheep have woken up! Good! Now make sure you keep the drum beat alive into the November, 2009 elections and beyond. The cable industry shouldn't be getting a free pass when it comes to competition-- Telcos are investing billions to upgrade copper. Fair is fair-- they must invest billions to get coax up to docsis 3 in a reasonable amount of time without gouging the consumer in the process. | |
| | | Absurd Why shouldn't a broadband provider be able to meter? Would you likewise insist that the power company could not meter electricity? Or the gas company natural gas?
Hint: Bandwidth costs money. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
 trparkyApple... YUMPremium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1 | Email your Congressmen and women now! Tell them that this is, for the lack of a better word... bullshit. Tell them that this has to stop, it is against the very idea of Network Neutrality!
--
Tom | |
| | | | Re: Email your Congressmen and women now! Against "Network Neutrality?" Hmmm. In that case, I'd like to declare a new principle: "Gasoline Neutrality." No filling station has the right to tell me that I can't have as much gasoline as I please. Pay more for more gas? That's un-American. We must outlaw it. | |
| | robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | said by trparky: it is against the very idea of Network Neutrality! I totally disagree. Network Neutrality is about not prioritizing one product, program, company, etc over another. It is about treating all network traffic equally. It is about treating all classes of traffic equally. It is not about one user using hundreds of GB per month when another only uses 1/2 of a GB and making them both pay the same. Whether or not the TWC pricing structure is sound, it is not fair for grandma (who only checks email) to pay the same as the power user who downloads 24/7 "just because they can". | |
| | |
1 edit | Re: Email your Congressmen and women now! Grandma pays for a specific speed. Grandson pays for another specific speed. Their prices are different because Grandson can download more than Grandma. The connection is supposed to always be on and at the speed that was paid for. The amount of the bandwidth used is irrelevant to either party. They want to be able to use the internet how THEY want to use the internet. Without restrictions and penalties. When you change the way that the internet is setup to work by going to metered billing you are violating network neutrality by discouraging one type of product ( video) over another ( text ). In reality, it's all just DATA in varying amounts... | |
| | | | robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | Re: Email your Congressmen and women now! Well if all you want is to get a guaranteed speed, just get an ISDN line. You can download over 40 gig per month and a dedicated speed of 128 kbps! Perhaps you are right though, instead of setting caps, TWC should lower the speeds to realistic speeds they can guarantee. You would like this option even less than what they are now proposing.
In response to your statement that this discourages video over text -- it just depends on the amount of text the user moves. But it really sounds like you are saying that one person who watches you tube occasionally should pay the same as one who has disconnected cable and downloads high definition movies 24/7. That is the problem.
In the end it comes down to more accurately charging those who use more. I think a cap makes more sense than slower speed. The reason is most people use the Internet sporadically and slower speeds would penalize all just because a few (like yourself who didn't read your terms of service) believe that the speed you have is a guaranteed speed 24/7. It is not. Both my T1 and my ISDN line on the other hand are -- but they are not nearly as fast as cable Internet (and much more expensive). | |
|
| | Comes down to Profit via scarcity. Unnecessary limits. There is a fundamental truth about profit. The less there is the more you can charge. Create a scarcity in supply to pump up demand. Especially with the power of a monopoly behind you. This is all TWC is doing and to condone their behavior makes you just as bad as they or just plain ignorant as a consumer. Capitalism works only if the greedy are not in charge.
There is no reason for limiting the flow of data that I can find. Data is not water, oil, or some consumable good that will run out. Pay a provider of the service from their network equipment to your premises' network equipment..period. To pay for anything else is just Greed...especially if you have no other alternative of service. | |
| | | | Re: Comes down to Profit via scarcity. Unnecessary limits. If something is not scarce, no one will pay much, if anything, for it. Producing things that are scarce isn't easy to do (or those things wouldn't be scarce). It's a valuable service and deserves fair compensation. | |
|
| | only ONE problem here It's not about voice vs data vs tv, it's not directly even about caps or bandwidth limits. The ONLY source of problem here is that this is an artificially constrained market: a monopoly in some places, duopoly in others.
Wired internet[1] doesn't have enough competition. Therefore we have degenerates like Time Warner coming up with these schemes.
In an open market, you wouldn't see anybody talking about 5GB caps. (Where I live in Tokyo, there are sometimes caps of 30GB/day, on our $45/mo 100Mbps fiber. So I won't say their would be no caps in an open market, but there would be no idiotic caps, because that would put a company out of business.)
In a non-open artificial market like this, normal competition dynamics cannot happen. Therefore we NEED government regulation.
Unfortunately, it is degenerates like our average elected officials, or the lobbyists who own shares in them, who write that regulation legistlation.
In other words, it is a pretty fucked up situation.
M
[1]: Wireless either, really, but that is different and problematic enough to be considered separately. | |
| | | worked for years with out caps they just want more and less for us | |
| boombie
join:2000-12-01
Milwaukee, WI | Caps Here's the reason for TW's caps, from their 10-K report,
"Technological advancements, such as video on demand, new video formats and Internet streaming and downloading, have increased the number of media and entertainment choices available to consumers and intensified the challenges posed by audience fragmentation. The increasing number of choices available to audiences could negatively impact not only consumer demand for the Company’s products and services, but also advertisers’ willingness to purchase advertising from the Company’s businesses. If the Company does not respond appropriately to further increases in the leisure and entertainment choices available to consumers, the Company’s competitive position could deteriorate, and its financial results could suffer."
»ir.timewarner.com/secfiling.c...···-09-1481 | |
|
| |
|
|
