dslreports logo
 story category
There's No Data To Prove Metered Billing Is Necessary
Journalists start crunching numbers, call Time Warner plan 'obscene'

This week has seen Time Warner Cable CEO Landel Hobbs do a rather poor job as the company's primary spokesman on the issue of metered billing, after the company announced last week they'd be expanding metered trials into four new cities later this year. Time Warner Cable's PR people probably wish this story would just die, but it would appear the public, politicians and the media are only just getting warmed up.

Journalists are only just starting to crunch the numbers and seriously ask why an already very profitable company (see their 2008 10-K) needs to start charging consumers $1 per gigabyte. Especially when hardware and bandwidth costs are dropping, many costs are fixed, revenues from VoIP/TV/Ads/broadband are growing, and the cost of upgrading to DOCSIS 3.0 technology is relatively (particularly when compared to FTTH upgrades) inexpensive. Saul Hansell of the NY Times tries to pick Mr. Hobbs' brain on the matter, and doesn't have much luck:

quote:
I tried to explore the marginal costs with Mr. Hobbs. When someone decides to spend a day doing nothing but downloading every Jerry Lewis movie from BitTorrent, Time Warner doesn't have to write a bigger check to anyone. Rather, as best as I can figure it, the costs are all about building the network equipment and buying long-haul bandwidth for peak capacity...Mr. Hobbs declined to react to my hypothesis about how costs are almost all fixed costs.
Time Warner Cable is repeatedly incapable and unwilling to offer up hard data that supports their claim that flat-rate billing is not "viable." The company last week told us they will not release hard numbers, only their analysis of internal numbers. Except Hobbes' analysis this week has been inconsistent and at times incoherent.

Earlier this week he insisted consumers wanted metered billing, despite obvious indicators to the contrary. In the Times he's lost in sort of a public relations purgatory, trying to soothe investor worries by saying finances are fine, yet at the same time trying to tell consumers that they have to pay by the byte because the entire billing model the company's currently built on is utterly unsound. At no time is supporting data (network or fiscal) introduced.

Meanwhile, Ars Technica crunches the numbers as well and finds Time Warner Cable's new plan borders on "obscene." Nate Anderson of Ars chimes in:
quote:
As TWC expands its test markets for the data caps, it offers plans with 5GB of monthly data transfer for $30. Plans with 40GB of data go for $55. The thinking here is that most customers currently use only 4GB per month or so, and offering those customers a cheaper rate is actually doing them a favor. . .But the only favors being done here are to TWC's bottom line. That base rate works out to a truly jaw-dropping $6 per GB per month, and it's so far out of line with competitors' plans as to shock even the most cynical heart.
Granted these trials aren't just about testing the back-end systems that make metered billing possible, they're about perfecting the marketing message and collecting data that supports it. Rest assured that when Time Warner Cable actually gets around to releasing hard data of any kind it will be of the 21st century think tank variety, scrubbed and polished to only support the position that metered billing is an essential (d)evolution.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

rudnicke
Premium Member
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL

1 edit

rudnicke

Premium Member

Gonna loose customers?

Think they will lose a lot of customers over this?

EDIT: Spelling correction.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

2 recommendations

fifty nine

Member

Re: Gonna loose customers?

said by rudnicke:

Think they will loose a lot of customers over this?
Got any loose customers? I need some for the vending machine.

har de har har har

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

DarkLogix to rudnicke

Premium Member

to rudnicke
They'll go bankrupt then maybe a better cable ISP will buy them
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Austin, TX

iansltx

Member

Re: Gonna loose customers?

Comcast? Oh wait, they're bumping up against the 33% rule or whatever.

Not really sure who *could* buy them...everyone else is rather regional. Maybe Cox, but I wouldn't think so...

RR User
@rr.com

1 recommendation

RR User

Anon

Re: Gonna loose customers?

TW may not be able to offer any hard numbers but I'll show them some hard numbers when I call up to cancel all my services with them if they bring this to my area.

I'll also do my very best to convince everyone I know to follow me and do the same. Since I already have an established relationship (I'm an on-site local PC tech that fixes computers) with a lot of people in my local area, I can tell them why they need to switch. Over the years I have referred everyone I know on DSL or other services to switch to TW. My success rate is literally 100%. Once someone's local trusted PC tech starts harping over how much better U-verse is they will switch, because they follow my advice. I bet TW would love to have that kind of influence over people.

I only do this though because deep inside I want the best for myself, and those that I help. TW's metered usage plan just makes my job that much easier to recommend a competing providers service.

I can definitely give TW some hard numbers starting with plenty of customer defections once this comes to my area.
Core0000
Premium Member
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY

Core0000

Premium Member

Re: Gonna loose customers?

Good idea!
bootspur
join:2009-04-11

bootspur to RR User

Member

to RR User
Thank you, precisely my sentiments you have saved my fingers a number of key strokes, I will add, this will go over like the 2006 effort by politicians to provide amnesty to 50 million Mexicans, (who REALLY knows the math?) There was a tremendous backlash against that IDEA...

Just wait, there will be an uprising against this stupidity, Corporations ARE NOT going to steal the internet from us, place a TOLL BOOTH on it, or any other scheme to SCREW OUT of out money OR access to this! (internet)

Corporation's will have completely MISJUDGED the mood of the American people over this issue should they attempt ANOTHER RUN at corporatization of the INTERNET! Not a chance!!
Beylan
join:2001-09-15
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

Beylan to DarkLogix

Member

to DarkLogix
Big companies don't go bankrupt anymore, they get bailouts.

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

hayabusa3303

Premium Member

Re: Gonna loose customers?

said by Beylan:

Big companies don't go bankrupt anymore, they get bailouts.
Then the government takes control of the wheel, and hell it might go more in the ground before its over.

baineschile
2600 ways to live
Premium Member
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI

1 edit

baineschile to rudnicke

Premium Member

to rudnicke
When did metering become about being necessary, as opposed to an exuse to get rid of the high-use people they dont want?

AtlGuy
join:2000-10-17
Marietta, GA

AtlGuy

Member

Re: Gonna loose customers?

When caps of 5GB to 40GB were instituted in test markets, with a $1 per GB overage. You're telling me a family of 5 who has multiple computers who uses 50GB on average a month are high use?

If they want to terminate high use accounts, then do it. I'm sure there has to be something in their TOS to allow such a thing without instituting a ridiculously low cap on everyone.

RR User
@rr.com

2 recommendations

RR User

Anon

Re: Gonna loose customers?

Actually, what TW doesn't want you to know is that even a heavy user that consumes 50-100GB a month is highly profitable. Even a 500GB+ a month user is profitable. The real problem is that the last mile doesn't support very heavy users well. 40Mbps of shared bandwidth between 100-200 people doesn't cut it very well anymore in the age of HD video and 10+ megapixel images. TW is just too cheap to upgrade to DOCSIS 3 right away, and therefore came up with this genius plan to hold them over a while longer, all the while collecting a huge profit in the process.

It costs TW (and most other broadband ISPs) roughly $5-$8 a month to physically provide you with broadband service. That's the cost per user which goes back into the system to pay the tech support, tech visits and network maintenance and keeping the physical plant running. The rest of the $40-50 you pay is nearly pure profit. And for those who ask... I got this data from a technical write up on broadband service published a good few years back. If I still had the URL I'd surely post it here.

If "little ol me" can buy bandwidth in 1TB chunks at a rate of 2-3 cents per gigabyte from the host who manages my servers, what kind of rates do you think TW gets? I keep running the numbers though my head only to come up with the fact that bandwidth is most likely a reasonably fixed cost for TW, which basically brings the problem down to the shared 40Mbps last mile.

All I can say is "Spend the $20-50 per customer and upgrade to DOCSIS 3 already, TW" because this is ridiculous. Comcast is doing it, Cox is doing it, hell even bankrupt Charter is doing it! There is no reason TW can't be upgrading as well... They are raking in more profits than most cable companies.

There is no reason to meter residential bandwidth use. Digital phone isn't metered, nor is how many hours of TV you watch. TW makes the claim that it's unfair for those who use less... Well what about the people who spend an hour a week watching tv, or using the phone, while the guy next door watches TV 12 hours a day and is on the phone 24/7, yet pays the same rate as you. It doesn't float. You sell a service at a price people are willing to pay and let them use it how they want and feel is worth while... Or we could go back to the days of metering phone usage, and why not start charging $1 an hour to watch TV as well.

Stop crying poverty TW, don't you realize how much money you're already milking out of us? A lot of us really don't have anymore to give! If I could pay my bill with my own blood, I'd be dead.

KodiacZiller
Premium Member
join:2008-09-04
73368

KodiacZiller

Premium Member

Re: Gonna loose customers?

RR User, you are on a roll, bro. Keep it coming!

StevenB
Premium Member
join:2000-10-27
New York, NY
·Charter

1 recommendation

StevenB to baineschile

Premium Member

to baineschile
said by baineschile:

When did metering become about being necessary, as opposed to an exuse to get rid of the high-use people they dont want?
Because every single MSO doesn't want to boot off the suppose 5% of heavy users, why? Because they can use them to new pricing models. MSO's do not want to blame their lack of upgrades/infrastructre on their inept policies, but to blame the bandwidth piggys.

Cablevision is the only MSO that literally does massive improvements to their network, and stays on the cutting edge. So bandwidth on the end-user and last mile, isn't much of a problem, so in the future costs won't cut into profits.
bootspur
join:2009-04-11

bootspur

Member

Re: Gonna loose customers?

Yeah, you know I have noticed this as well. . .
TheGhost
Premium Member
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL

TheGhost to baineschile

Premium Member

to baineschile
This is also a preemptive strike against internet video competitors. How likely are you to sign up for Netflix knowing it will drive up your cable bill - just order the PPV from TWC (or insert your CableCo here). It is not just video, ANY of the providers services will probably be exempt, and since they control the pipe, they can do what they want.

I bet TWC would also cry bloody murder if Rochester tried to start their own muni-fiber project or something like that.

JSY
Premium Member
join:2000-04-05
Elmhurst, NY

JSY to rudnicke

Premium Member

to rudnicke
said by rudnicke:

Think they will lose a lot of customers over this?
Well for areas that don't have a better alternative, I don't see how they would lose a lot of customers. Contrary to popular belief, FiOS is not available everywhere as an alternative despite Verizon giving the impression that they are. (And from what I've been hearing, it sounds like they would be just the lesser of two evils).

anon234
@rr.com

anon234 to rudnicke

Anon

to rudnicke
yeah i'd cancel pretty quickly

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

It will move forward

No matter what the outrage, this will go ahead, who is going to stop them?

Consumers have very little choice when it comes to Internet providers.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

zod5000

Member

Re: It will move forward

said by elwoodblues:

No matter what the outrage, this will go ahead, who is going to stop them?

Consumers have very little choice when it comes to Internet providers.
Well typically in most cities, theres a cable internet provider and dsl internet provider. Hopefully whoever the DSL provider is in the areas takes advantage of this and exploit the hell out of it.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
Possibly, but look at what happened in Lafayette. Cox and BellSouth were providing awful service, so the city built its own network. Granted, not every city will do this, but the threat will be there, and we have yet to see what the new administration might do in terms of broadband policy. And let's not forget the possibility of using white space for data, as well as WiMax.

If I were planning this strategy for TW, I'd be careful. Their position may be secure now, but things can change pretty quickly.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues

Premium Member

Re: It will move forward

said by ISurfTooMuch:

Possibly, but look at what happened in Lafayette. Cox and BellSouth were providing awful service, so the city built its own network. Granted, not every city will do this, but the threat will be there, and we have yet to see what the new administration might do in terms of broadband policy. And let's not forget the possibility of using white space for data, as well as WiMax.

If I were planning this strategy for TW, I'd be careful. Their position may be secure now, but things can change pretty quickly.
I thought constitutionally, the "Government" was not allowed to compete against private enterprise?

Ryokucha
join:2000-10-20
Ormond Beach, FL

Ryokucha

Member

Re: It will move forward

If enough people get together in a city there is no reason they can not start up a co-op. Or if a provider feels the area is not worth the investment I see no reason that a city can't build their own network.

Or in the case of the Wilson's community network in North Carolina (www.greenlightnc.com)which the City of Wilson owns and operates the system, for the community. 20 Mbps symmetrical Internet service is $59.95 per month. While their 100 Mbps for $299.95 and talk nothing about caps anywhere.

I am sure that kills any competition in Wilson, but to be honest it just shows how much private enterprise is already making on their service, and then to cap it to make more profit.

I am all for free enterprise but if you can't even beat the government's, as we all know, over inflated prices, then maybe you don't belong in the market.

I would love to see more Cities like Wilson, but that is just me I guess.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch to elwoodblues

Member

to elwoodblues
Nope, nothing prevents that. Governments compete with private businesses all the time, from city water vs. bottled water to public transit vs. taxis to public schools vs. private schools, to name just a few.
rcabor4
join:2007-04-17
Grand Prairie, TX

rcabor4

Member

Funny

Its funny how they want to charge more so they can upgrade to Docsis 3.0, but why if the caps are so low would "customers want" that? And with the argument that using more than 50 gigs per month degrades other users performance, why are they willing to let bandwith hogs continue to do as long as TW rapes them at $1 per gig?

Just sickens me everytime I think of the greed they package as shit, but try to sell as roses.

Mang
@yahoo.com

Mang

Anon

How does this logic work...

So if everyone is catching on to this BS that TWC is giving... how long till they go after the mobile phone companies for charging SMS fee's (double dipping for both sending and receiving) @ 0.20 cents each message?

$1 per GB or $0.40 per SMS (about 160 characters)

Which is a bigger rip off?
rcabor4
join:2007-04-17
Grand Prairie, TX

rcabor4

Member

Re: How does this logic work...

said by Mang :

So if everyone is catching on to this BS that TWC is giving... how long till they go after the mobile phone companies for charging SMS fee's (double dipping for both sending and receiving) @ 0.20 cents each message?

$1 per GB or $0.40 per SMS (about 160 characters)

Which is a bigger rip off?
While I agree that SMS is a ripoff, most all of the USA has many wireless carriers to choose from, but not all have more than 1 ISP to choose from.

djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV

1 edit

djrobx to Mang

Premium Member

to Mang
said by Mang :

So if everyone is catching on to this BS that TWC is giving... how long till they go after the mobile phone companies for charging SMS fee's (double dipping for both sending and receiving) @ 0.20 cents each message?

$1 per GB or $0.40 per SMS (about 160 characters)

Which is a bigger rip off?
Yep. SMS ripoffs and metering ripoffs are very much the same thing. The only difference is that the majority of the public doesn't understand just what a ripoff SMS really is. During a 10 minute voice conversation, a cellular provider transmits the equivalent of 3,750 full-length SMS messages (assuming a low bitrate 8kbps codec).

It's a very good analogy too. The cellular providers get away with it because all the major ones rip off customers in a similar manner. That's what would have to happen for this to work in the case of metering too. Note how AT&T decided to conduct its metering trials in Beaumont where their competition is doing the same. We better hope Verizon doesn't cave to the pressure.

jonnyz
Premium Member
join:2003-03-20
Canfield, OH

jonnyz to Mang

Premium Member

to Mang
Actually, if we run with this analogy:

$0.25 / text message if you don't have a text package with ATT, long known for their high prices.
$15.00 / month for unlimited SMS is available, even on my ATT Pay-As-You plan, so if you only SMS, that's all you spend a month.

TW is charging $1.00 / GB as an overage fee on their tiers.
Even at ATT's exorbitant texting rates, $60.00 / month should be able to buy you 100% unlimited internet access, with a higher speed tier being a few dollars more!
DGLewis
join:2006-03-10
Freehold, NJ

1 recommendation

DGLewis

Member

Doing the Math

According to TWCs 10-K, their high-speed data revenues in 2008 were $4,159M. Their Cost of Revenues for high-speed data, defined as "the direct costs associated with the delivery of high-speed data services, including network connectivity costs," was $146M. On the capital side, the company spent $604M on "scalable infrastructure," which includes the majority of data networking equipment (except for the cable modems themselves), as well as video and voice equipment that grows with the number of subscribers.

The extent to which it can be demonstrated that marginal costs for high-speed data require TWC to implement metered billing is left as an exercise to the reader.

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

SLD

Premium Member

Re: Doing the Math

Go exercise yourself!

zpm
join:2009-03-23
Columbus, GA

zpm

Member

Re: Doing the Math

It's called corporation greed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

moonpuppy (banned)

Member

Hmmmmm

Earlier this week he insisted consumers wanted metered billing, despite obvious indicators to the contrary.
Really? People want metered billing? My guess is that do want metered billing. BUT, they want a lower initial monthly cost to coincide with the metered billing. They DO NOT want caps on an already high monthly bill and then tack on more cost for bandwidth. Pay $20/month and then charge for extra, MAYBE. Otherwise, OH HELL NO!

Time Warner is smoking some good stuff to spout off the crap they are spreading.

••••••••••••••
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

distorting the ISP last mile market?

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· eDdVzy9s


Metered billing? Unlimited to Limited?
Wholesale price per gb falls over 1000% from 1997-2007.
gopnick
join:2005-01-07
Benton, AR

gopnick

Member

i wonder...

How much longer till We The Sheeple are bailing them out?
majortom1029
join:2006-10-19
Medford, NY

majortom1029

Member

hmm

I think its funny that even other cable companies like cablevision are saying that metered billing is not the way to go. I dont understand how cablevision can be so much better then the other cable companies(notice i said cable companies not including verizon).

Anon51
@rr.com

Anon51

Anon

Typical

They will try anything until someone tells them to quit. If they can get away with it, they will.
Problem is, most folks don't respond until it happens to and affects them.
The unregulated monopoly continues. We need cable regulation to control this.
DoubleK
Doublek
join:2003-03-04
Beloit, WI

1 edit

DoubleK

Member

EGAD !!

If they pass it grab your pitchforks and go!

If anyone needs metered billing it is my isp Charter. They are Bankrupt and then some. If they passed metered billing in my area I would get involved in local politics real quick.
Expand your moderator at work

Orwell2
@comcast.net

Orwell2

Anon

Newspeak...

As a "dinosaur," from the days past of plodding through the *rip-offs* of a tropical jungle of tar pits, quick sand and peat bogs of *long distance* charges, I see a "clear and present danger" of a *Jurassic Park like* resurrection of the falsities of "long distance charges" morphing into the "Corp-speak" of "metered billing."
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Bismarck, ND
Asus RT-AC68
Ubiquiti NSM5

2 edits

travelguy

Member

Let's be clear about this...

Metered billing has zero to do with costs and everything to do with trying to change a business model to one that maximizes revenue.

It's a basic tenet of the MBA crowd that you are leaving money on the table if you don't charge what the customer is willing to pay, and different customers are willing to pay different amounts for the same thing. That's why you don't see airliners selling every seat on a flight for the same price.

By switching to metered billing, by assuming that high use users are more willing to pay, they get a crude way to charge those users more.
Rob_
Premium Member
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL

Rob_

Premium Member

Re: Let's be clear about this...

Ok then.. when your bill jumps from $60 to $600 don't come bitching at us.. this is about control pure, plain and simple. what you do on a daily basis will soon become a thing of the past.

Wake up will you.. it's not about a "business model" at all. If it was, this would have happened a long time ago if it didn't work.

This has been successful for over 5 years.

Say no to metered billing say yes to an open interent.

-Rob
travelguy
join:1999-09-03
Bismarck, ND
Asus RT-AC68
Ubiquiti NSM5

travelguy

Member

Re: Let's be clear about this...

Dude, you are missing the point. I'm not supporting what TW is doing, and I'm not dissing them. I'm explaining how they think and trying to show that people who fall for the metered billing is a cost argument are seriously misinformed.

TW is looking for a way to maximize revenue. That's what companies do. It doesn't matter if flat rate billing has been working for 5 years or 25 years. The fact is that if TW customers buy into metered billing because they think it's somehow fairer than uncapped, flat rate billing, and that model makes TW more revenue, then they are obligated to do that.

True flat rate uncapped billing will never be sustainable because someone will always figure out a way to use that capacity to the detriment of others. The old tragedy of the commons problem. Phone companies didn't let you keep a dial up line engaged 24/7, dial up ISPs didn't let you do that, and cell companies charge outrageous fees for every minute over your bucket.

What makes you think broadband connections are any different? And before you answer that, consider that the only real answer is for you to create your own broadband service and make a go with your unlimited billing plans...

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

wifi4milez

Member

What a dumb statement....

quote:
There's No Data To Prove Metered Billing Is Necessary
Thats statement is so dumb I laughed out loud. Regardless of how you feel about metered billing, TWC (nor any other company) needs to "prove" anything with regards to their pricing. Its their network, and if they feel like charging $x.xx then thats their prerogative. While all the reasons mentioned above might be valid, at the end of the day its meaningless.

•••••••

Chiyo
Save Me Konata-Chan
Premium Member
join:2003-02-20
Salisbury, NC

Chiyo

Premium Member

what about Comcast and the rest?

So if everyone is jumping this hard on TWC then why in the hell isn't Comcast and the rest hearing this garbage too.

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

DarkLogix

Premium Member

Re: what about Comcast and the rest?

easy
comcast is slightly reasonable 250GB soft-cap much better than a 5GB hard cap

you go over 250GB its likely nothing will happen (unless you go way over)

but TWC you go over 5GB you pay out the arse

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

1 edit

ctceo

Premium Member

All of a sudden

Why is everyone so ambitious to speak up now? It's been in the making for like years now, and many, including me, have pointed it out several times. I've even tried to get a petition started which hasn't yet taken off. I'm up to 50 petitons as of this posting.

If the industry experts don't see that enough people will terminate their accounts via an organized petition or some other such movement, they are simply not going to listen.

Yes you may vote with you pocket books. But what do you value more, your current internet connection or the future status of it?

Also, I'm still looking for some suggestions to add to the petitions body. Statistics, links, sponsors, etc. etc. It is the first of it's kind that I'm aware of.
radougherty
join:1999-07-23
Austin, TX

radougherty

Member

Test markets, download everything you can!

TWC says that they're gathering data now to determine how to set the tiers. OK, everyone in the test markets should download and/or stream everything thing they can now to drive their numbers way up on what current usage is. They'd either have to make the tiers much higher then they've announced so far or the numbers would show that many people would be paying more, not just the few extream users.

sholling
Premium Member
join:2002-02-13
Hemet, CA

sholling

Premium Member

Don't You Just Love Monopolies?

It's called having a monopoly. When you have a monopoly you can charge as much as you want and your customers have only 2 choices... Bend over, or do without Internet access.
33358088 (banned)
join:2008-09-23

33358088 (banned)

Member

FACT is it hurts poorer people best

high use users as i have seen do what they do in tech savvy forum get mlppp expensive modem ( meaning they got cash)
then they get double or triple the accounts and carry on

POOR people suffer and those at lower ends say , sorry to expensive im gone and that's what is and shall happen TO ANYTHING YOU RAISE PRICING and lower WHAT ONE GETS OR THE AMOUNTS.

lot people say the bell Canada 60 GB cap oh well i just get 4 accounts via mlppp
ONLY RICH PEOPLE CAN AFFORD 4 - 55 $ accounts or those really up to no good.

ctceo
Premium Member
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN

ctceo

Premium Member

Re: FACT is it hurts poorer people best

Where do the sentences end?
Expand your moderator at work

Xenon
@qualcomm.com

Xenon

Anon

Something's fishy!

Anyone else find it odd that TWC wants to charge $1/GB, HD movies are about 5GB in length, and TWC's charge for an On-Demand movie is $5? Hmmmm...
page: 1 · 2 · next