Politicians Not Swayed By Time Warner Concessions

That's on Uverse... not ADSL. Also, if I'm not mistaken, where AT&T has ADSL, you can also get indie DSL such as DSL-Extreme.

And Beaumont, TX.

And I've heard that the cap is system-wide, over both Uverse and DSL connections.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ding ding ding! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

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.

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.

Pay per view or free video competitors will simply not be able to deliver their services at a reasonable cost.

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.

We're not going to have NEW providers in these areas. The barrier to entry is now too high. The gov't has given monopolies to these companies so that they can be where they are now at the top. A small company doesn't have a chance. I don't know the solution to the problem we are facing currently, but I do know that free market theory will no longer work to tip the balance to anything other than what the big companies currently want.

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...

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...

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.

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?

Want a shred of proof? Take a look at their bottom line! Are they taking massive losses? NO! They are posting record profits!

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!

According to whom? The 'barrier to entry' is lower than its ever been, especially with the economy in a slump as assets can be had for pennies on the dollar. Not only that, but we now have multiple different mature technologies to deliver broadband.That is also incorrect. Many states are now issuing statewide franchise agreements for certain video services.

When is the last time we've seen a new carrier in this market or even the cable television market? So let me see, You're implying that the "barriers to entry" are now so low that TWC must go to this new stupid model of billing by the byte, eh? Wow, that makes a whole lot of sense. There are several Barriers to entry; infrastructure coverage of an area to serve being one of them.

As far as the second comment, you are wrong. Companies have been given monopolies for DECADES... This has given them the time to become so large that no one else can compete. Now that there are some statewide franchise agreements "for certain video services" around you think all is well and good? So the other monopoly in the area can now compete because their technologies have somewhat converged... That's NOT a monopoly, it's a duopoly. Maybe even an oligopoly. Besides, I was talking about data and caps here. Video services isn't really the topic. See, that's the problem. Video, telecom, and data technology is/has converged to the point that they're the same, but our regulations haven't adapted.

MetroPCS and Clear are both relatively new providers. Cox is also about to launch a wireless network.I never once said that, you just made it up. I simply said barriers to entry are lower then they have ever been. This means there is nothing stopping a new carrier coming in to fill any voids they see in the market.

MetroPCS is new? It started in 2002. Clear is a new company, but it was formed by other mega companies that have been around for a long while... I'm talking about small land ISPs that can actually compete with TWC, etc...

I'm just using your logic. Obviously your comments are meant to spin this discussion into a more favorable light for TWCs, etc... Of course any type of carrier can join the party if they have enough money. Who is going to do that other than people who already have the money? Gone are the days when a small shop can startup and compete with the likes of TWC. And it's because they have a long, long head start. There simply isn't choice in most of the markets we are talking about. There needs to be regulation in place to make it more of a level playing field. This gives the smaller companies a chance and also the customer some choice. It doesn't, however, help the incumbent monopolies.
If gov't is going to take it upon itself to regulate a market through USF or franchises, then the companies reaping those benefits have to be bound to doing things a certain way. It's kind of like giving billions to banks and wanting to know how they spend the money.

( BTW, you have some wonderful pictures on your profile. Very cool.)

Your argument doesnt make sense. A small ISP will never compete nationally with the likes of TWC, if so they wouldnt be small anymore now would they! On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing stopping a small ISP from competing locally with TWC or any other provider.Of course money will be required to start up a new ISP, why wouldnt it?? You need money to start any other kind of business, are you suggesting that you should not need capital to start an ISP?

Small ISPs grow and can turn into larger one's. That's not going to happen with the way things are right now. The whole point of bringing up small ISPS was to try and find a competitor for these big companies. This way consumer can have choice and the monopoly can be broken.

Yes, money is good. Lots and lots of money is even better when starting a new business. There's having enough startup capital and then there's the capital a company needs to "navigate the regulations" and lobby for rules that favor them...

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.

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.

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.