 | | Remember the 90s Your internet access was billed by the hour.
When broadband came about, it was "unlimited" by default.
I do believe that they either didn't think people would use "all you can eat" bandwidth or they just couldn't meter cost effectively.
Well, now both of those things have come to pass so now they have every reason to cap and charge overages. | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Remember the 90s said by fifty nine:... Well, now both of those things have come to pass so now they have every reason to cap and charge overages. actually, the only reason they have to cap and charge overages is to suck more money out of their captive customers and not have to adequately upgrade their infrastructure
they WANT to do this and don't need a reason. | |
|
| |  Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA | Re: Remember the 90s Yeah, that's why the power company does it....wait...
--
Come let us reason together. | |
|
| | | | You are correct, they should have saved enough on the most recent layoffs, between wages, benefits, retirement, not to have to do this. They just couldn't figure it out on the front side and got caught with their pants down on the infrastructure that was necessary to play in todays world. The customers do have a choice, disconnect and go to DSL,it works just as fast if not better, I have never had any problems. Never lived in the Service to get the free employee Service. Direct TV is great, had it for 16 years and never a service call. People do have a choice for less money and better service. Don't buckle up to TWC's exploding proices and ideas. | |
|
|  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry.
If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first.
| |
|
| | Host:
Time Warner Intern..
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Remember the 90s If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first. That remains the problem for marketers of this idea. Like the "three strikes" idea, unless you get every carrier to engage in this en masse, then you're simply offering other carriers a way to differentiate themselves competitively.
Were Time Warner Cable a little smarter, they'd just impose high caps like Comcast, Charter, and Cox plan to do, then slowly ease them downward and impose overages in a few years very quietly while American consumers are busy guzzling corn syrup and watching Dancing With The Stars.
That's my suggestion, for what it's worth. | |
|
| | | |
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Karl Bode:That remains the problem for marketers of this idea. Like the "three strikes" idea, unless you get every carrier to engage in this en masse, then you're simply offering other carriers a way to differentiate themselves competitively. Except the marketers have the advantage of "marketing" with monopolistic powers.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
| | | | | Sounds like TK hacked Karl's account. | |
|
| | | | said by jmn1207:If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first. There is the issue. While those few living in large cities where there is a bit more local competition won't be much affected by it cause at least one (if not more) smaller providers will offer unlimited as usual and customers will reap the benefits. For those of use in suburban or rural areas (a majority of the US) where there is only one or two providers... well, we will not have any choice. For many it's either capped provider A or dial-up provider B. For a few more it will be capped provider A, capped provider B, or dial-up C.
Consumers will definitely suffer if the major providers decide to go with this.
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
|
| | | | | Re: Remember the 90s For me it's either:
30M/2M and 100GB cap each way. Service Electric/PTD cable.
or
5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.
or
3.5M/1M and unknown caps, varying with weather. This is Near You Networks WISP.
I want the speed so I guess I have to swallow the caps for now. | |
|
| | | |  davoice
join:2000-08-12
Saxapahaw, NC | Re: Remember the 90s FYI... Embarq offers standalone DSL service. I have it at my other house. No phone line required. You just have to call and ask for it. (And find someone who understands what you're asking for.)
}Davoice | |
|
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Remember the 90s Yeah but the main problem for me is the speed.
5m down just won't do for reliable netflix streaming. | |
|
| | | | | | | I think Covad does the same....it's a bit pricey being only Business class service ($70 for 1.5Mbps down) but I'll take slow and steady over fast(er) and capped any time. | |
|
| | | |  sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| quote:
5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.
Pathetic is relative. I'd gladly take 5M/896k over the 7M/~400k I get from TWC right now. Yeah, I'd trade 2 megabits down for ~500k up. In a heartbeat. 
I'm in an AT&T area myself, but Verizon and FIOS aren't that far away, and even my crappy neighborhood has U-Verse. I kinda doubt I'll see metered billing here, but if I do, and especially with the low caps TWC has, I'll be boarding a shuttle for the Death Star for sure.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause... | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Remember the 90s said by sivran: quote:
5M/896k and no caps, plus having to subscribe to landline phone service (which I currently don't do). This is Embarq DSL. I'm too far from the CO to get 10M service, plus that 896k upload is just pathetic.
Pathetic is relative. I'd gladly take 5M/896k over the 7M/~400k I get from TWC right now. Yeah, I'd trade 2 megabits down for ~500k up. In a heartbeat. I'm in an AT&T area myself, but Verizon and FIOS aren't that far away, and even my crappy neighborhood has U-Verse. I kinda doubt I'll see metered billing here, but if I do, and especially with the low caps TWC has, I'll be boarding a shuttle for the Death Star for sure. You are aware that AT&T is also experimenting with some similarly low caps (40GB) in TWO markets right now, yes? | |
|
| |  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | said by jmn1207:said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry. If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first. That'd be nice but unfortunately we usually don't have a choice because the entire US Big Cable Business solely exist due to MONOPOLIES - which, as always, we deny...
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
|
| | | | | Re: Remember the 90s said by kamm: That'd be nice but unfortunately we usually don't have a choice because the entire US Big Cable Business solely exist due to MONOPOLIES - which, as always, we deny... Unfortunately true. 
It's not like the dialup days of the 90s where there were dozens of providers to choose from. After a couple of months of running up bills of $100 or more, I found a flat-rate provider, which wasn't very common at the time. But it caught on, and eventually all of them went-flat rate.
If there were only one or two providers to choose from back then, I doubt it would have ever gone flat-rate. And now it looks like we're taking a huge step backwards. | |
|
| |  Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:22 | Heh, I remembered that. Some nights back when I used to use AOL I could never get a connection for hours on any of my numbers, they'd all come up busy. That was until High Speed Internet became cheaper and AOL bought more numbers. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·MSN
1 edit | said by jmn1207:said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. And then AOL offered unlimited service at a standard rate of $19.99. And despite a long and frustrating period for many customers fighting to get through on one of AOL's phone numbers, their user base grew astronomically. They soon dominated the industry. If every ISP decides to go with metered billing, the one business that can offer "unlimited" service will most likely reap the benefits, even if their current infrastructure cannot keep up with the demand at first. The flaw with your arguement is that back them, EVERYONE was on equal footing. Every dial up ISP had equal access to the POTS network. Today, only the chosen few have access to the BROADBAND networks.
All it takes is for Time Warner to do this in LA, and AT&T to follow, and I will have no choice whatsoever for unlimited broadband. See the FCC considered TWO to be competition, so that's what we have. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Remember the 90s Did you miss Earthlink on TWC and DSLExtreme on AT&T? I'm pretty sure both are available to you as well, as those were mandated by the FCC. That would make at least 4.
Just like AOL didn't own the POTS network, those Earthlink and DSLExtreme don't own the networks they run on either...
Also last I checked it was economics not the FCC that was preventing others from running new broadband infrastructure in your neighborhoods. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·MSN
4 edits | Re: Remember the 90s But in both cases, the incumbent sets the policies of the others. In the case of Earthlink, Time Warner has limited the upload Earthlink can offer its customers to 384 kbps. This is done so TW can offer better uploads to customers (512 and 1000 kbps).
In the case of DSL Extreme, AT&T does not allow them access to dry line DSL-DSLX can only offer lineshare.
If the FCC had truly allowed competition, then these two independents would be free to set their own customer policies, but instead the incumbents' attitude is: "it's my ball, so we'll play by my rules"
Also, practically speaking, the copper phone network was built back in the '40s and '50s and also with govt. incentives. The cable companies built their plants back in the '70s, when it was MUCH cheaper to do so (and municipal rules and policies were much less restrictive).
Not to mention that in many places, the capacity of the utility poles is maxed out, so new lines can't be attached to them. In most places, Verizon is having to replace copper cables with ones using thinner copper wires to get the weight capacity to add fiber to the poles.
Also, let's not forget that requiring the phone companies to lease their lines wholesale to competitors wasn't a 'gift'; instead it was part of an AGREEMENT they (the telcos) made (written into the Communications Act of 1996) that allowed them to enter the long distance business. Without that agreement, Southwestern Bell would NOT have been able to buy AT&T and Verizon would NOT have been able to buy MCI. The telcos got what THEY wanted, but when the quid pro quo was supposed to be given, instead they lobbied (read: BRIBED) the Republican (Powell) FCC majority then in place to not require them to uphold their part of the agreement.
In simpler terms, the telcos got their cake and gave nothing back in return.
I find it interesting that there are 5 FCC Commissioners and that EVERY anti-consumer FCC policy deuring the Bush years was approved by a vote of 3-2 (3 Republican FCC Commissioners vs 2 Democrat ones). In every case it was the 3 republican Commissioners voting to make the fat cats fatter while screwing the consumer!
Of course in the battle of the telcos vs the mom and pops, we KNEW who would win, didn't we? | |
|
| | | | It won't wrong until there is a true free market exist in broadband. Currently, you need to get license from the government to provide services in an area. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Remember the 90s How many networks have you seen have their licenses turned down?
Then count how many had them approved but then couldn't afford to build or finish their network.
The infrastructure is VERY expensive to build and it's not like phone, electric, or water where you're almost guaranteed 100% homes passes subscription rate. Even the big 3 cable companies are lucky to get 50-60% subscription of their most BASIC services, HSI is maybe 30-40% of those basic subs, so maybe 25% of all the customers they can service.
Now you want to toss in another competitor into the mix... most have found it doesn't work as the money isn't there to pay off the original investment let alone upgrade it within a reasonable time frame...
The government can't fix what economics won't pay for. | |
|
| | | said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. No, I don't remember that. I remember paying $20 for unlimited dialup access within months of the time dialup ISPs started operations in town. I've never paid by the hour or by amount transferred. | |
|
| | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Remember the 90s said by dentman42:said by fifty nine:Your internet access was billed by the hour. No, I don't remember that. I remember paying $20 for unlimited dialup access within months of the time dialup ISPs started operations in town. I've never paid by the hour or by amount transferred. Thank you for making that correction.
Netcom did go "all-you-can-eat" eventually. Internet access went from metered to unmetered.
Going from unmetered to metered is simply backwards.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... | |
|
|
|  pizzFiber pleasePremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | Re: Boy Oh Boy... FIOS looks better and better with each passing day. | |
|
| | | | Re: Boy Oh Boy... I could never understand people who could get FiOS and wouldn't.
I simply don't. Seems like a no brainer to me. | |
|
| | |  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Boy Oh Boy... I had FiOS and had to cancel over their horrid billing. All is not roses in FiOS-land. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Boy Oh Boy... Yeah their billing is terrible but often times if you are polite you can use it to your advantage and get free trials movie packages, etc. But definitely, the billing does bring Fios down a notch. Personally, I'll take billing issues over caps any day, as billing issues can *usually* be fixed/credited... | |
|
| | | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Boy Oh Boy... I tried for about 6 months to get the billing fixed. They are so compartmentalized they couldn't get it fixed. I even went as far as canceling ALL VZ services and having them reinstalled only to have the same billing error reappear. Service itself was excellent so I still would HIGHLY recommend it on the condition that the person do everything "by the book" and be patient with canceling previous services and the like. | |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I wonder if they'll try it in the Los Angeles market Most parts of Los Angeles are AT&T.
If they attempted it in Los Angeles - people would flock to AT&T ... who would probably start implementing similar billing (wasn't it Reno, NV that AT&T was testing this with as well)
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
 Boomer86never say roadkillPremium
join:2002-10-18
Walden, NY | we're getting painted into a corner Frontier DSL already caps us; now this.
--
Don't pay ME back, pay it forward. | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
| Options At least for now I have an option. City started a cable company that was then sold off to Cincinnati Bell. If they start it here I can switch. That is until Cinci Bell starts capping.
--
Any unauthorized use of your own judgment is strictly prohibited. | |
|
shoan
join:2006-02-27
Benton, AR | if they are afraid of loss of revenue If they are afraid of loss of video revenue to online video delivery why not strike a middle ground and say hey if you sign up for cable with us you can have un-metered internet with us. If you sign up for internet only then you have caps. As it stands right now video on my PC is cool and all and streaming videos from nexflix to my x-box is cool. But guess what I still want to watch discovery HD and food network and sci-fi and the locals and so on and so on. So I will always subscribe to either cable, Sat, or U-verse (in my area) to watch TV. It is just plain easier to have regular old TV for the bulk of my TV. | |
|
| | | Re: if they are afraid of loss of revenue Yeah..... I already pay extra because I only subscribe to internet. | |
|
| andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA | said by shoan:If they are afraid of loss of video revenue to online video delivery why not strike a middle ground and say hey if you sign up for cable with us you can have un-metered internet with us. If you sign up for internet only then you have caps. That would be an implicit admission that that's their real reason for wanting caps (not the stated reason that bandwidth hogs are ruining it for everyone else), and so far they've never been willing to admit that. | |
|
| | Muni fiber Not to beat the muni fiber drum too loudly, but...oh well, yeah, I will.
This is what you get with no real local competition. Once people start getting squeezed by these caps, maybe more places will do what they should be doing now and building out muni fiber.
And for folks who would bemoan the poor cable companies and telcos, it isn't like they've been losing money all these years. They just want to suck more out of their customers and kill off potential competition from alternative video services. They scream about unfair competition when someone comes along to offer something better, yet they engage in these tactics to make their own overpriced services viable. Disgusting. | |
|
| | Re: Boy oh Boy I have not taken advantage of the availability of FIOS, although it has been in my neighborhood for years. I have Cox HSI and I have never had any problem with them. My speed test results are typically 4 Mbps - 6 Mbps downloads and 1.5Mbps - 5 Mbps upload (which I don't actually need). I got Verizon out of my life when Cox offered HSI and I subscribed to Vonage. I have not had any real problems with either for over 8 years. I do not want to deal with the Verizon billing fiasco again.
The extra speed is attractive, but I don't really need it. | |
|
| | note to self glad i dropped tw. I miss the speed but the caps like that is laughable. | |
|
| | This is the company that needs the lawsuit. How can you lock your customers into a contract and then cap their services and then charge the damn ETF if they break it.
TWC will be next in court which they need to be for this shit.
Ohio will probably be next. The're basically the only provider in Ohio as far as expanded services. DSL spotty in cities or not offered. TWC bought almost every cable company here except for the smaller regional and Cox in Cleveland. | |
|
| | | Re: This is the company that needs the lawsuit. said by hottboiinnc:Ohio will probably be next. The're basically the only provider in Ohio as far as expanded services. DSL spotty in cities or not offered. TWC bought almost every cable company here except for the smaller regional and Cox in Cleveland. i live n ohio, and the idea of TWC capping services here is disturbing. in the area i live(southwest ohio), AT&T DSL is available (which we currently have). if AT&T does it too, we're screwed... | |
|
| | | | Re: This is the company that needs the lawsuit. ATT's cap is higher. I'm glad that i moved from TWC land a year ago. I have a local provider who doesn't care what we use our Internet for and will keep it uncapped especially with ATT here. | |
|
| | Let go back to Dial up and teach greddy company a lesson the best solution we can go back to dial up.
Let support all smaller isp. Teach big companies we hate caps.
Smaller isp will make it come back.
Let go back to Dial up. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Not an issue As the purpose of the caps is to thwart Netflix and other online video offerings, TWC et al will find themselves in the crosshairs of the "Justice" department and sued by states attorneys general for violations of anti-trust regulations. The FCC will weigh in and spank them as well.
The negative publicity will benefit whichever ISP decides "Unlimited means Unlimited" and campaigns as such. Users will flock. TWC et al will the loser. | |
|
| | | Re: Not an issue I would rather get slower uncapped internet, then have a higher speed, and be overcharged for usage. This is another example of Time Warner trying to drain as much cash from its customers. | |
|
| | | | Re: Not an issue Both Time Warner and AT&T can gladly go f*ck themselves. | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |  fireflierCoffee. . .Need CoffeePremium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo | Re: Business model in trouble DTV VOD HD for one hour can be 4+ GB. | |
|
2 edits | They're going to kill the golden goose. Time Warner is hemorrhaging money from it's entertainment unit (especially Warner Bros.) and AOL (the decision to buy AOL was one of the worst ones they've ever made). They made profits with their cable operations, which will be spun off from the parent company this year, and their publishing unit.
However, those cable profits can easily vanish in a heartbeat if they get too greedy, and this metered billing plan is extremely greedy. They already haven't met growth expectations and this year will see their cable subscription numbers drop significantly as a huge chunk of the Adelphia markets they inherited in the bankruptcy purchase with Comcast get transitioned to the newly-created Windjammer Cable. I expect to see their subscription numbers in the markets they retained shrink with this kind of metered billing shenanigans. It will serve them right. (They're cutting almost 1300 employees in the cable company over the next few weeks, too. Expect to see service decline.)
These "data/entertainmet/service" behemoths do not care about keeping a robust lead in Internet technology, which is technology created by the US government (DARPA). Since the Internet was developed by taxpayer dollars, it's time the taxpayers get their money back. My new mantra--"Let's nationalize the Internet pipes and build a national interstate information highway." It took time, but the country built an interstate highway system, and it was the government (state and federal together) not private investors that accomplished that mission. Heck if Ike had relied on private investors to build out the interstate highway system, it still wouldn't exist. This century needs to see the nation build out an interstate information highway, without private investors. | |
|
| | | Re: They're going to kill the golden goose. With all these companies coming up with caps of some sort. I see in the future investigations or whatever. This isn't right of the providers out there. Theres no reason they need to limit the flow of information. Internet is Internet, you pay for it and that should be it.
If network isn't big enough you make your network bigger, you don't limit access thats going backwards and 0 development.
Look at internet overseas, they are in the lead in terms of development like this. No CAPS over there for the most part.
I just hope verizon holds strong with fiber and saying we don't plan to have caps anytime in the near future. | |
|
|  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by voipdabbler:However, those cable profits can easily vanish in a heartbeat if they get too greedy, and this metered billing plan is extremely greedy. That's the plan to INCREASE profits. It will work too, because all the big boys are rolling this out everywhere, so basically the consumer has nowhere to go--- they just get to pick the corporate logo that's on the shaft that's rammed up their asses.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: They're going to kill the golden goose. said by KrK:said by voipdabbler:However, those cable profits can easily vanish in a heartbeat if they get too greedy, and this metered billing plan is extremely greedy. That's the plan to INCREASE profits. It will work too, because all the big boys are rolling this out everywhere, so basically the consumer has nowhere to go--- they just get to pick the corporate logo that's on the shaft that's rammed up their asses. I don't think it will be as easy for the "big boys" to roll out these type of metered plans with the FCC under a new chairman. The acting chair as well as the nominee for chairman both are firm believers in net neutrality. The big boys aren't dumb pipe owners, they sell content and services. (Granted, if the IRS and FCC act before 31 March to approve the spinoff of Time Warner Cable, TWC will be a separate entity from Time Warner. However, TWC's close relationshp with TW will still possibly be suspect, depending on how they may treat any of TW's content or services.) The big boys tend to be so greedy that they try to position their content and services in such a way as to have "caps" not apply. This won't fly under the FCC now that Martin and some of the other members are out. Watch Comcast's VOIP issues--it will be very telling. I expect they'll go to court on the issue, but I think Comcast's in for an uphill fight. DoJ is going to be aggressive under the new administration, too.
Some of the more aggressive states' attorneys general, like Cuomo in NY, may get into the middle of the frey, too. There are potentially more state statutes that, depending on whether the big boys are marching in lockstep, may come into play and warrant state action. | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: They're going to kill the golden goose. I think by the time the FCC has it's stuff together these caps will already be in effect nationwide. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: They're going to kill the golden goose. Well, even if they put caps in place, it won't stop possible regulatory and/or legal action at the state or federal level, especially if the actions by the major players appear to be concerted efforts to monopolize content/services to the disadvantage of their competitors by manipulating the TOS for their pipes. There are other numerous state statutes that may come into play as well.
Those companies that set particularly low caps, like TWC and Frontier, may find themselves under fire first by state's attorneys general. I predict their legal departments may find themselves fully-employed in defending their policies through numerous state court systems, not just at the federal regulatory level. If this eats into their profits, well, I don't think anyone will be shedding any tears for them.
In the long run, maybe consumer ire, if we complain formally to our elected officials not just on forums like this, will force Washington to address net neutrality. | |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | I will drop my entire sub (TV & cable) completely... ...the very day when it will reach me.
FUCK YOU, you greedy fuckin' corrupt piece of shit monopoly called Time Warner. | |
|
|
1 edit | Re: I will drop my entire sub (TV & cable) completely... Amen...it's OTA and a WISP (or standalone DSL if I can find it) the very mother effing day this arrives in Dallas. No point in even entertaining AT&T because they'll be standing right beyond these greedy corporate fucks to implement the same BS. | |
|
| | | | Re: I will drop my entire sub (TV & cable) completely... kamm and vinnie97:
Why not go ahead and tell them this right now? Send their execs a polite but firm e-mail informing them that you are aware of their plans, but if they implement them in your area, you will drop all your TW services.
Remember, their reason for these trials is to see if anyone will get too upset at these caps, causing TW to lose subs. So let them know you are upset, and you will leave if this plan goes forward. | |
|
| | | | | Re: I will drop my entire sub (TV & cable) completely... I think I need a corporate # to make more of an impact. I don't know if the lower rungs of customer service would give a damn or even understand what I'm complaining about.  | |
|
| | | | | | Re: I will drop my entire sub (TV & cable) completely... I'm kinda slammed at work right now (and yet I can still surf DSLR  ), so I can't research a number just now, but the Time Warner corporate site will likely have them. Forget about the usual 800 number and look for the number to corporate headquarters. This info is usually in an "About Us" section. You'll also possibly find it under Investor Relations or the corporate news areas. If you still can't find it, post a reply, and I'll see if I have time to look this evening when I get home. | |
|
 antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4 | Unlimited options? Will there be an unlimited package? | |
|
approval from:
antdude 
| Bye TWC Well TWC Billing in San Antonio is terrible, Customer service is worse so add on caps as low as they already have and i for one will be saying "HELLO GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS"
Would prefer Fios but anyone will do but TWC. Just lucky to live in a part of the city that has at least some other options. I feel for all the people they will nikel and dime in areas where there are no other High Speed options. | |
|
| | THATS IT Im looking to start a class action lawsuit!! Sorry for the long post. this is my generic post that I want to send to people that DO NOT KNOW about caps. Seeing we all know about broadband and these awful caps (we are here on BBR) you probably know how to install and track usage. but what about Grandmothers that are getting on the net for the 1st time or beginners (they may not go over....but thay may unknowingly go over what about windows updates, viruses, antivirus updates etc. etc. etc.)
To all who are not aware ISP providers like Comcast, AT&T, Charter Communications and others are implementing Broadband Caps for usage.
AT&T is already in the process to roll out a nationwide program to cap your usage.
Reno NV is one of the trial markets that this is happening to. For instance if you have the basic 768k DSL package and go over 20 Gigabytes a month you will be charged $1.00 per GB for overage.
Now you may say, "Oh well don't go over that amount" or "Install a usage program" That is MY POINT for starting this Lawsuit. Many novice users will download a program and install it on one computer but many households have more than one computer or have Set Top Boxes that download from the internet i.e XBOX 360, Playstation 3, Tivo, DirecTV boxes etc. etc.
Also there are many websites that load video and music content that YOU do not want to watch. Why should I be charged to view (or not view in my case) this content.
If these caps are going to be implemented there needs to be one central point of entry device that could keep record of usage, for example the cable or DSL modem should have a usage calculator built in.
Would you accept a charge from your Gas, Electric, Water company for metered service without having a meter on your premises? I THINK NOT!
Also with cap's being implemented WE ARE NOT going to see a growth in our infrastructure, what will happen is people are going to say "Well we do not need to upgrade to a higher speed because we will reach our cap faster" which means no upgrades for better websites or technology that would use bandwidth properly.
We are going BACKWARDS in time. Remember when dial-up used to be metered?? at least you had a way to track to see when you called in to the access number and how long you have been on.
well enough for my rant. wish me luck and if you would like to join in let me know. | |
|
| | Infrastructure improvements Karl,
You've written exhaustively about the need to invest in broadband infrastructure. Here are a few examples:
Broadband Infrastructure Investment Would Have Ten Fold Payoff
»tinyurl.com/broadband-investment-payoff
Hey NY Times: Broadband Coverage Gaps Are Not 'Hooey'
»tinyurl.com/broadband-coverage-gaps
We think that charging for usage is an equitable way to generate the necessary revenue.
The biggest complaints we heard from the Beaumont trial were that the tiers were too small. We listened to those complaints and will adjust accordingly, adding larger tiers for larger users and smaller tiers for households that use less. You would have known that, had you bothered to call or e-mail before writing this post.
If you have any legitimate suggestions for a different way to generate the billions of dollars necessary to rebuild our infrastructure, we're happy to hear you out.
Jeff Simmermon
director, digital communications
Time Warner Cable | |
|
|
See 13 replies to this post |
|
| | If it comes to LA, I'm canceling!!! Well, I will surely cancel my Turbo package if I can't use what I'm paying for. I dont mind going back to DSL as long as I can use the service I am PAYING for as much as I need. This news destroyed my day. | |
|
| | | Re: If it comes to LA, I'm canceling!!! Ditto.. I'll cancel my Time Warner Account if they do this. | |
|
 basshiveTrue-Playaz
join:2001-02-26
Waterford, WI | wtf? there are so many things wrong with this... So what happens when some small family with a pc or two in the house gets owned/infected which is quite common and they are serving up content for a month or so. They are going to get a bill for massive overages which they likely cannot afford and be hosed? This is not like someone getting a large cell phone bill for roaming overseas, cap overages could happen for MANY reasons. This is insanity!
Add to it the fact that this is clearly to soak in more money while stiffling usage of legit services like NetFlix, etc.
Caps are insane and the ones TWC seems to be proposing are ridonkulous.
As one user pointed out, a 90 min hd vid/movie/show can hit 14gb.... Even if it only hit 5, 10, 12gb, you can see, that you would be crippled if you used alternatives means of entertainment... | |
|
| JonRup
join:2008-07-20
Hilliard, OH Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: wtf? there are so many things wrong with this... Damn it....Time Warner kept quiet for so long, it was making me happy. I bet this will hit the Ohio area as we already are gimped with 768k upload on a TURBO connection!
Hopefully they'll revise the caps and do it like Comcast. 250 gigs is perfectly acceptable. And don't fucking launch this without a tool to track usage. | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: wtf? there are so many things wrong with this... I do not think they plan on having any type of 'real' tracking tool for bandwidth usage -- and this whole plan IMO is designed to thwart the pirates, lessen the burden on the pipes, and also make legit good customers pay a moderately higher (or much higher) bills with the metered billing and overage charges with will inevitably come with the lack of a proper tool and a silly a55ed 5-10GB cap. By the time someone with a large STEAM game library DL's all the games on a new OS format and you do a bit of online TV watching your bandwidth will be used up.
I think what the industry will see is a HUGE shift back to telco but lower spec DSL will become like the old dial up and everyone will be using it and getting off of cable HSI. Of course after some time the DSL telcos will institute the same caps, but they won't attempt to do that until they nab a good share of the cable HSI customers. | |
|
|
|
·
·
Boy Oh Boy...
