var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Yankees368
April 9, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Rochester is really getting screwed over. Verizon has no presence in that city, so Fios is not an option. The only other choice is Frontier for VERY low end DSL, I believe. Really no other choice there.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
ShadowFalls
April 9, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368:

Why do you think they are using these areas as \"test\" markets? Since there is no little or no competition, they can roll it out, give people little recourse, and call it a \"success\".

I applaud this guy and hope others join him to take care of this. These cable companies have been raking in the cash for years. But, when it comes to upgrading their networks to better support more users, it has been a less than stagnant pace.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
April 9, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368: Frontier was reportedly considering extremely low bandwidth caps as well [stopthecap.com] and [www.dslreports.com] .


Hey, Rochester is knows as the Imaging capital, and the flower city. Now they can be known as the Bandwidth capital of the world!


Dang, it took me 10 years to convince my parents in Rochester to get off of dial up, and then then the ISPs pull this garbage.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Todd Fernandez
April 9, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha:

Frontier is now claiming they are dropping bandwidth caps...most likely to scrounge customers off this.

@gqcarrick: damn skippy! RIT student here. It comes down to the fact (IMHO) that so many high tech students in the area are moving to things like Hulu and Netflix and effectively abandoning the real TWC cash cow that is cable television. If you note, they have exempted their own video service from the caps.

There is another option though. Look at clearwire! Totally wireless and I have heard some good things.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
alstein
April 9, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Todd Fernandez: I use clearwire at work. It's good if you aren't a heavy internet user, but bad if you are. Also gameplaying is near impossible on Clearwire due to lag.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kgazette
April 9, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Todd Fernandez: Oh, where did you see that they're excluding their own video service from the cap? That sounds like a great way for TWC to get themselves sued...

(Oh hey, I go to RIT too! Or I did. Just finished up at the end of winter quarter.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368: Yea they aren't pulling this crap in Buffalo because they know they would get run out of town by FIOS. I know my parents have Road Runner and it comes from Rochester so I am wondeirng if they will be affected by this retarded policy. With all the schools in Rochester is really going to screw with college kids that live off campus too, Rochester Institute of Technology, Univ of Rochester, St. John Fisher, Nazareth, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
freelunch
April 9, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368: the same is true for most of the markets where TW is trialling this new approach...


Likely a good decision on their part, because all their customers would bail if they had another choice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese
April 9, 2009 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368: Greensboro, NC is mad over the changed to metering, so they're finally going to allow other vendors in to offer users a choice.

I believe the official comment from TW in response to Greensboro's opening of the market: \"We're taking this very seriously.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
alstein
April 9, 2009 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LadySiren: Where did you hear that? Got a source for that?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese
April 9, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@arstal: WFMY reported it last night on the 11:00 news (the story is online at [www.digtriad.com]).

I'm one county over and live out in BFE, so no cable out here means I'm on DSL. It works fairly well most of the time. A few other times, meh, not so much.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 9, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368:

I live in Rochester. Frontier has several options for DSL speed. I've tested my DSL speed against a friend who lives a few blocks away on Road Runner, and their about the same.

I suspect Frontier is going to see a big boom in business over this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nataku8_e30
April 9, 2009 3:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368: My Dad switched from TWC to Frontier for internet years ago. I don't know if TWC has improved their network since then, but it actually improved his internet speed since the Time Warner network was seriously overloaded. He had actually beta-tested RoadRunner starting in '98, but it just went downhill from there.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Fatty Shcock
April 9, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sounds great for me since I don't want it to spread over to where I live, but could they prevent TW from capping bandwidth?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
nucwin83
April 9, 2009 7:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HarcourtArmstrong: When you sell your packages at 5Mbps, 10Mbps, 15Mbps etc, then say \"oh, but don't go over 50GB/month\", all you're doing is giving the consumer plenty of rope with which to hang themselves.

There is really no point in this type of setup except to generate overage charges. A cap does not alleviate bandwidth issues.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
April 9, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xAnarChisTx: My local ISP has been providing metered Internet for some time. Personally, I love it. Why? I get cable internet for $15.00/month. 1 GB cap (lowest tier). It saves me money (I only rarely go over, and when I do, it's never by much), and I couldn't afford Internet otherwise.


That being said, I seriously doubt TW is dropping its rates to compensate for this, and that makes it stink. The concept is fine-their execution is what's screwing people over.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 6:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: I have unlimited DSL for $14/mo, so you're being ripped.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GrandizerGo
April 9, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: At what speed????
I just upgraded my 3MBs DSL to 7 MBs and pay a dollar less now with the bundling...
32.95 down to 31.95...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GrandizerGo: It's crap (711/122Kb u/d, real), but it gets the job done. I torrent a lot of Brit TV, docus, etc, plus streaming podcasts and The Daily Show, etc.
I'm OK with slower for less money, that's fair. But caps for imaginary reasons? Hell the hell no.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
smileboot
April 9, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: Yes but they should have the original setup and an additional Email/news/website bit capped version for people who do not use the Internet like 90% of the rest of us.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HarcourtArmstrong
April 9, 2009 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xAnarChisTx: I hate how everyone calls this a \"bandwidth cap.\" It's a bit of a misnomer. It's more like a bit cap.

Speed limits on highways are a good comparison. Speed limits exist on all highways in the US (now including Montana). Bandwidth is the speed at which you can download. Time Warner is capping total data per month. This analogous to telling a drivers they can't drive more than 1,000 miles in any given month.

Although it's still a quantity in a given amount of time, it's measured with a calendar instead of a stopwatch.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 9, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Excellent! Let's hope representatives in other affected areas will do the same!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
techstar25
April 9, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"driving our economic recovery\"
\"rebuild America\"
\"job killing\"
Spoken like a true politician. Don't get me wrong, though, I like it. Lots of folks probably don't know or care what \"metered broadband\" is, so he's putting it into language that people can understand, and therefore get behind.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
crunchberries
April 9, 2009 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@techstar25: Yup, that's Eric Massa for you. Even his election campaigns sound like that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
superberg
April 9, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@techstar25:

But he's not wrong. This move, with incredibly low caps, will decimate any sort of video-on-demand service. Netflix, Amazon, etc.

You think jobs wouldn't be lost over that?

Of course, Time Warner wants to put their competition out of business. That's where this move comes from. The actual cost of moving bits is not great on a per-user level, and Time Warner could just as easily mirror v-o-d servers to reduce traffic from other networks.

You'll care about metered broadband when your cable bill triples, believe me. $1 per gigabyte can end up being a lot of money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pb5000
April 9, 2009 3:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@techstar25: I thought the same thing when I read it. He had a nice use of political key words.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
UrIt
April 9, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

OMG i love this guy!!!! that's what we need! i was thinking of using Netflix as a way to give pressure to TWC, since i use a lot of instant play movies which would no doubt kill my bank account if TWC went through with this.
Thank you Eric Massa!!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Inglix_the_Mad
April 9, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@UrIt: I wouldn't count on it amounting to much, legally, however. They're not resetting torrent connections or anything. This is entirely bit agnostic.

They really want to fight against this (legally) then allow other providers into the area. There's nothing illegal about caps, I'm sorry to say. The only proof against it is cancellations as people switch to a new service.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
cabjf
April 9, 2009 5:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Inglix_the_Mad: There may not be anything illegal about caps, but many cities give cable providers monopolies by preventing competition from moving in. In that case, the local government can certainly threaten to bring in competitors who either do not have caps or have much more reasonable caps. At that point they would lose not only internet subscribers, but cable subscribers as well.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Inglix_the_Mad
April 9, 2009 8:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cabjf: Which is what I said. Thanks for affirming my statement.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 9, 2009 3:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I fail to see how capped internet service is \"job killing\". I don't understand why people feel that they have a right to unlimited data usage on their internet service. I think it's completely fair to charge for what you use, as long as the terms are clearly stated. Further, why is this guy only going after metered internet? Cellular phone service is metered, why not go after that? Insist that all the cell providers only offer unlimited service.

Reply
28 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 10, 2009 12:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: It is job killing when you are a computer programmer that works from home. Constantly resubmitting source code all day every day does eat up at your bandwtith. Also if screws over the students who can ssh into linux machines to school to be able to do finish their school work. Or download all of their notes and homework assignments. Actually, most stuff is required to submit online now.On a related note: I've had to deal with bandwith caps at UT. But then again we didn't pay $60 for 40 gigs a month. We got 60 gigs a month for $20. And at a higher transmit rate that was also way more consistant. I've gotten files to download at a constant 8-9 Mbs for over a long stretch of time. If I have to pay $60 a month, I'd better get that 15 Mbs download rate, all the time, every time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
April 10, 2009 4:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LilybellLurco: (because 1 GB doesn't cost them near what they charge). That's how business works. You find a product or service, then sell it at a profit. Of course I'm going to charge you more than what its costing me to provide you the service.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FrugalFreak
April 9, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:

It's because we all know this is being done out of spite for online video surge. this is nothing more than to restrict options for video to cable Company only. They are too greedy to offer more/and at a better price so they have taken the bully route.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LiquidGravity
April 9, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Here is my problem with metered bandwidth. I'll use 5mb/s download in the example here as that is what I subscribe to through Charter. If you subscribe to internet service for 5mb/s you should be able to get that constant rate all month for that one price. If they are not able to provide a constant rate of 5mb/s they should not be offering it. If they are losing money at 5mb/s then they should increase the price of it. There is no reason they need to do metered bandwidth other than if they are trying to kill their online competition.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LiquidGravity:


No network, ever, anywhere, has been built to allow every single customer to use the full rated bandwidth. If one in five Americans picked up their home phone right now, the system would be overloaded.


Saying \"they should have to build their networks so that everyone can simultaneously get 5Mbps 24/7\" is like saying \"if there are 1 million people in this city, then the Interstate leading into and out of it should be 1 million lanes wide.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LiquidGravity
April 9, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: I'm saying if they can't accommodate those rates they shouldn't advertise them and sell them at those rates.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cassius98
April 9, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: The point you sir are missing is our (USA) monopoly laws may not cover this type of thing specifically, the spirit of the law more than covers it. Chasing competition out and then moving to a \"new business model\" is in violation of, at the very least, the spirit of the law.

The rest have explained the \"loss of jobs\" problem. New and existing business that depend on their customers having high bandwidth connections will not survive the bandwidth capping. TW knows this and is trying to take advantage of customers who have become if not dependent at least comfortable with these services. Working from home will no longer be an option for many people as well as compensation for the work at home folks would have to go up to offset the cost thus causing more companies not to offer the work from home as an option.

In a not so direct way this would also be worse for the environment for the above listed scenario, more people driving cars to work instead of commuting virtually.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SGAC
April 9, 2009 4:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: It's job killing because by placing caps on the broadband, it's letting the existing infrastructure for the internet service remain with it's current wiring when you could improve the existing service for current customers and still keep the unlimited broadband by hiring more contract workers to replace the coaxial just copper wiring and instead install copper/fiber optic blend instead, as well as the provided maintenance.

It's also \"job search killing\" for the unemployed. Most corporate companies don't even allow you to mail in a resume anymore - you have to utilize the form on the website. Could you imagine having to limit your job search and application process by internet gigs consumed? It's unfair to subject someone to that when they pay for their own internet service.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 9, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:
I agree that the cell phone analogy is a little off, but no one has explained why they feel they have a \"right\" to unlimited internet service. Business models change, and if TWC doesn't feel that truly unlimited internet is viable anymore, they should be free to change that. If people don't like it, they'll get their internet somewhere else. What I'm reading here is noting but complaints that people don't like the other place they can get their internet (too slow, etc.), so they want the government to tell TWC that they have to provide them with unlimited service so they don't have to switch. The argument that people are simply used to unlimited bandwidth is total BS. Times change, services change, prices change. Arguing that \"this is how it's always been\" is not terribly persuasive.

I'm well aware of how bandwidth caps will affect peoples usage. I probably use a lot of data on a monthly basis, way more than average. But I don't feel that I have a right to use that much data. As my current plan is, I have truly unlimited, but my provider may decide to change that. Should they do so, I'll either investigate other alternatives or I'll adjust my usage or plan accordingly. What I won't do is expect the government to step in and protect me. Internet service is not a right. It's not a true necessity (there are still books and other ways to get information). If you don't like the terms upon which the service is offered, find another provider. Don't like the TWC is the monopoly in your area? Lobby your local representatives to encourage competition by easing their franchise restrictions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
April 10, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:

No one really has the \"right\" to any service that they don't produce themselves in some way. You don't have the \"right\" to buy food from the supermarket, it's just standard that they'll allow you to shop there. Theoretically, you could be forced to live off of only what you grow or produce. It wouldn't make that business practice any less fucked up would it

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Because the telecos entered these protected markets with their eyes wide open. They can't turn around, midstream, after being allowed to be monopolies, then unilaterally change the rules to benefit themselves.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jc364
April 9, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Do we have a \"right\" to unlimited internet service? No. However, here are the arguments against metered bandwidth:

1. It hurts the economy. E-commerce sites will suffer when people become reluctant to \"browse\". Sites like YouTube, Hulu, and other high bandwidth sites will take an even heavier toll. In a time when we are trying to boost the economy, metered bandwidth moves us in the opposite direction.

2. TWC purposefully chose areas where little competition exists between ISPs. If metered bandwidth was supposed to be helpful to consumers, then they would have chosen areas where people had some choice. Instead, they are using their monopolistic position to extort money from people that have little choice in the matter.

3. Data usage should be getting cheaper, not more expensive. As the price of technology decreases, so should the price of the service. With that in mind, it is hard to justify imposing new restrictions designed to charge more money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hooray4Zoidberg
April 9, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jc364: \"Do we have a \"right\" to unlimited internet service?\"

I don't know if constitutionally we have the right to unlimited internet, but seeing as has most of these data plans are advertised all over the television and billboards as \"Unlimited Broadband\" but have soft caps built in, I think we have the right to complain.

Not sure how TWC advertises their braodband in their market, but know Comcast loves to tote their \"Unlimited\" Service in my area, yet if you go over 200GB frequently you'll start getting cut off. ATT's \"Unlimited\" iPhone data plan has a 5GB cap. I'd call that limited which means they shouldn't be able to advertise as anything other than that. That's my problem with all of this.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
aguacarbonica
April 9, 2009 6:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hooray4Zoidberg:

Digital inequality is already a huge problem here. If companies are allowed to institute metered Internet using monopolies, the gap between people in different social categories is going to grow even larger.

Middle class people take it for granted that doing things like watching YouTube and Hulu are luxuries or recreation, but when you CAN'T participate in Web 2.0 while other people can, you are basically being desocialized out of the digital age.

This is what I see as the problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
April 9, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I'm well aware of how bandwidth caps will affect peoples usage....But I don't feel that I have a right to use that much data.

The problem is - as a nation we want people to feel free to use data.

The internet is what is going to drive commerce forward, and is essential to us maintaining our dominance leading internet companies and ideas.

Punishing people from exploring new sites, and using services like hulu, youtube, netflix, etc. Will hurt the nations economy.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tmoney02
April 9, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:
If people don't like it, they'll get their internet somewhere else.
so they want the government to tell TWC that they have to provide them with unlimited service so they don't have to switch. and the other multiples simplistic calls of \"just switch\".

uhh...most people can't switch. In fact I think everyplace Metered internet is being tested has been an area under monopoly control. If TWC and others are truly offering something of value they would try it out in one of the few areas with multiple competitors.

Lobby your local representatives to encourage competition by easing their franchise restrictions.

And to this I say 99% of the time it isn't the local franchise restrictions holding back companies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jakuub
April 9, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: \"Don't like the TWC is the monopoly in your area?\" - except there are no such restrictions in my area. We COULD lobby to have them offer incentives to bring competitors into the area, but even were that successful, they wouldn't be able to lay lines, etc, in time to be a competitor by the time TWC rolls out their caps. The fact that they're only doing this in markets with no substantial competition is part of the issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
April 9, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

With 3 folks living in my house, between Hulu, Netflix, Xbox Live, and general surfing, my router shows us not coming close to 40GB/month in traffic. I doubt such a limit would affect the majority of people.

Arguing \"that's how it's always been\" is not a good reason against caps.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pjorg
April 9, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Yes, in your single home, at this point in time, you don't come close to 40 GB/month.

What about people who like to buy HD movies from iTunes or Amazon and download them? What about people that like to use video conferencing in lieu of paying the phone company (or Time Warner!) for telephone service?

What about the people that are considering doing so in the future?

The problem isn't that they're making a business decision to start metering. The problem is that they are doing it in a way that forces consumers with no other real alternative to make the decision between paying substantially more to use bandwidth on third-party services, or paying for Time Warner's own services (which includes unlimited bandwidth).

If they wanted to charge a reasonable per-GB fee every month, just like the power company, that's fine. But to tell people that they can only use up to X GB, and then they're going to start paying the \"penalty rate,\" is absurdly anticompetitive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeremy82465
April 9, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:


Sorry Esquire, I didnt see anyone establish it as a right except you, so unless you are prepaired to answer your own question you should stop bringing it up. Also, they did bring up quite a rebuttle to your \"I fail to see how capped internet service is \"job killing\".\" yet you were happy to just glance over all of those.


Your response sir?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:


I agree that it's not great, and I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, but I don't see why there's any legal grounds for mandating all-you-can-eat internet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
April 9, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: It's job killing because capping internet usage doesn't create jobs but it creates unnecessary overhead in a monopolized market.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blinky987
April 9, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: All these people are pretty much wrong.

The problem with metered internet is two-fold:

A) It's not a problem in communities with competition.
B) It's a problem because Time Warner is cutting off the competition and forcing you to use their service. You can't watch Hulu, but you can use their on-demand viewing service.

To be honest, I think TW can do whatever they want as long as these municipalities allow competition to come in.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GrandizerGo
April 9, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blinky987: It should be banned UNTIL those other competitors are in there, I know most places won't run the infrastructure until they can, so it would take a lot of months for the infrastructure to be laid down to support the competition.
Better yet, they can force TWC to allow the competitors to use their cable runs until their own is in place... at unlimited usage!
Grab them by the testicles and squeeze them for all they are worth.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MustyBuckets
April 9, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I'm in Rochester, and I'm okay with metered internet. But lets be fair. I pay around the price of their new 100 gb plan for my phone, internet, and television with sports channels. To make me pay that, plus phone and TV, plus overage (A streamed movie is around 7-9Gbs, it won't take me any time to hit the cap) is crazy. Reasonable tiers with reasonable prices.

If you watch You-Tube movies, or torrent some files (legit or not), or listen to internet radio, you are bound to go over too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BacteriaEP
April 9, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:

It's \"job killing\" in that:

1. Any new internet venture that has a really good idea may find it hard to garner funding because internet bandwidth restrictions, thus stopping the creation of new businesses.

2. Old businesses like Hulu.com, and downlaoding services like Steam, Direct2Drive, FileFront, etc. may have to lay off employees because their services are particularly high bandwidth services.

3. Mainstay internet businesses would suffer from a decrease in traffic as now that internet usage is limited people will not be venturing to too many websites outside their \"musts\".

Metered service is VERY bad news for America. Maybe not for other countries, but as we have been born and bred with unlimited data, taking that away could send a shock through the entire system that not only stifles new ventures and ideas but also new jobs.

I'm glad somebody in Congress has a backbone enough to stand up to big ISPs and their virtual monopolies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TouchMyMonkey
April 9, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Do you download software? Play video games? Use iTunes? Watch YouTube/Hulu? Metered broadband makes all these activities more expensive. You'll stop doing them, and the people providing these services will be out of work. You're fine with that?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ryohazuki222
April 9, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Cellular phones can be used anywhere. Landlines (local), cable, satellite... all these are unlimited services. Cable internet is based from the home and falls in with these guys. If you open the door to metered bandwidth..........

Let me put it this way -- would you be happy if TW told you suddenly, you can only watch XX amount of TV a week and will charge you for overuse?

The other difference is MANY people can forgoe tv. But internet has become more necessity than luxury with time.

I'm avidly against metered internet; however, the REAL issue is the EXTREMELY low caps and the fact that it will only help TW.

The customer-base that isn't using much GB of data is just surfing the web. When just doing some internet surfing, the difference between 2mbps and 7mbps is not really noticible. So NO ONE wins except TW.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AdvocatesDevil
April 9, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ryohazuki222: \"Let me put it this way -- would you be happy if TW told you suddenly, you can only watch XX amount of TV a week and will charge you for overuse?\" BINGO! We have a winner! Only the corporate shills on this site won't get what you're saying here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
April 9, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AdvocatesDevil: Watching 1 hour of TV versus 24 hours of TV does not change the amount of bandwidth your house consumes. Internet traffic is a completely different story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
edison234
April 9, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Time Warner sells me digital cable television. So the shows I watch come to the cable box in 1's and 0's. How is this not the same?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
April 9, 2009 10:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@edison234: I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but television has a constant bandwidth. \"Television data traffic\" doesn't stop when you turn your TV off. Watch 0 hours of TV or a million hours of TV and the data transmission is the same. The amount of data transferred by an internet device varies widely based on what the user is doing, whether the device is on/off, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 9, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: The difference is that with Cell providers you have competition. I too, am not opposed to paying for what you use, but when TWC controls the market, there is no option to look for an alternate.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
tedyc03
April 9, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: While I agree that metered cell phone use is a crock, the point here is that metered usage of cell phones has always been the norm. All-you-can-eat broadband has also always been the norm. The companies are now trying to limit what was previously free, and raising prices, which is exactly what a monopoly does, and they're getting called out for it.

Paying for what you use *is* reasonable. What's not reasonable is that these companies are trying to both protect a failing business model and increase their profits (because 1 GB doesn't cost them near what they charge) without increasing the value of the service they offer. And that's just wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zonk7ate9
April 9, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Yes, but cellphones plans were never all unlimited. Broadband has always been unlimited data usage since its conception. It costs a lot more money to transmit data wirelessly than it does through wires in the ground.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nrich239
April 9, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Because TW is changing from it's current unmetered setup to a metered setup and only in select cities.

This would be the same as your cell provider \"testing\" a new service where your unlimited texting package is now limited to 1500 a month and pay per text in excess

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
winshape
April 9, 2009 3:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It is interesting that they are following the opposite model of cellphones.

Though with cellphones, there are a number of companies to choose from. With broadband, most areas have to choose between the monopolistic cable company or the monopolistic phone company (in my case, Comcast or AT&T respectively).

I probably fall in the higher bandwidth range since I have pandora playing constantly, exclusively watch tv via HULU or Netflix, and do a lot of online gaming. It would really suck to have been saving money on cable only to end up spending the difference for my broadband bill.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 9, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So what you are telling me is that rather than subscribe to cable you are using your internet for everything? In this case shouldn't you be paying more for the internet since you are essentially getting two services from one bill?

If you are also paying for cable TV then disregard this please.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
LJKelley
April 9, 2009 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm glad our representative is doing something about this. I know I have voiced my displeasure. 40GB is a laugh. Using Netflix, Xbox Live i easily touch 50 to 60GB a month.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LJKelley: Same here. Between 2 computers we use well over 50gb a month between surfing, my work (computer guy by trade), my gf telecommuting, using our Wii, and watching tv shows online.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kogenta
April 9, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LJKelley: I wish my representatives would do something like this.
Up here in Canada, ISPs have had tiered service levels forever. My local ISP charges $40 for 60GB/month @5MBps, 100GB/M for $50 @15MBps, $100 for 150GB/M @25MBps.
And I'm sure they're getting around actually having to provide \"unlimited\" bandwith because they're selling \"Unlimited Access\"


So while I can definatly feel for people being hit by TWC's plans, I can't feel very sorry for people who moan about Comcast's 250GB/month cap that I read about sometimes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kogenta: Perhaps you need to band together and vote your representative out of office, someone has to listen if no one ever gets a second term.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jeremy82465
April 9, 2009 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I enjoy his passion to help these people out. I too think that 40 gigs is almost unusable for most tech savy people these days, though I dont know if he should be putting all ISPs in the same basket. I am on comcast and I think that 250 gigs is whole reasonable for a high usage household much less the average one. Either way, I support him sticking it to TWC, go get em!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jeremy82465: 250 is more reasonable, but I don't even think I want to stop there. Leave it uncapped or they had better prepare for a mass migration of users away from ALL cable services (Phone, Internet, cable tv).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LetMeSayThisAboutThat...
April 10, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: \"Leave it uncapped or they had better prepare for a mass migration of users away from ALL cable services (Phone, Internet, cable tv).\"


That assumes there is a better deal available, which in many markets there is not.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Matt Sherlock
April 9, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He complains about the \"virtual monopoly\", but has he made any effort before this to bring a viable competetor into the area? Wouldn't that also bring jobs? Seems like he's unfairly demonizing TimeWarner (in this case) for a business environment that's not their fault.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Matt Sherlock: Probably because if he had, Monopolist apologists or shills such as yourself would have complained, whined and launched multi-million dollar campaigns to throw him out of office?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kasira
April 9, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Matt Sherlock: The problem with areas like Rochester, is that there's really only enough room for one company to turn a profit. My mother lives south of Rochester in an even smaller town, and it's the same there as well. I suspect most of the country outside of large cities is in the same boat.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Matt Sherlock: Unfortunately Rochester has Frontier Telephone, so they can't get FIOS like the rest of NY State can. Frontier has a plan to cap service however since there is a huge backlash against TW they have now said they will not cap so they should expect a huge influx of users.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
juri squared
April 9, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Matt Sherlock: I agree he should do something to bring competition, but that doesn't mean TW isn't screwing their customers just because they can.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Nathan Yost
April 9, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The reason that its job killing is because of the low low caps they want to institute. Basic tier is 6 GB. If I sit down and stream one Netflix movie on my Tivo I've shot my usage. A couple of movies and check my email and I'm up to \"serious broadband Hog\" in their eyes.

You think that's not going to hurt Hulu, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft etc? It's a power grab and greed at its finest. It'll strangle online content delivery.

And it'll be coming to your house soon.

And regarding your Cell phone analogy-what if you made one phone call and you shot through your plan's minutes and then were charged for overage...

www.stopthecap.com

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nathan Yost:


\"And regarding your Cell phone analogy-what if you made one phone call and you shot through your plan's minutes and then were charged for overage...\"


My first cellphone plan: 20 minutes/month. So I'm very familiar with that concept.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dwhuntley
April 9, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There is one simple fact. No matter how much I don't like the idea of paying more for broadband access, ISP's can not provide unlimited bandwidth for the ever increasing number of subscribers.

Before it was easy to provide an more bandwidth with fewer subscribers. Now subscribership is increasing and with the demand for online video going up, this is going to add more pressure to the net. Without charging those customers who are using more bandwidth, the quality of everyone's access will suffer. I think the legislation is a bad idea.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwhuntley: Maybe Cable should take the 90% profit margin they see on high speed internet and invest in their infrastructure then if they can't afford it like you said they couldn't. I know they make that much, I worked for cable. They are doing these caps for 2 reasons. Its a money grab, they know people will go over their caps with Hulu and other services. They are afraid of losing people paying for cable tv to online video services like hulu. They know its coming, they are trying to stifle that option right now with caps.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
April 9, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: should have read your post first. But that's spot on.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 6:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick:


That 90% margin doesn't include customer service, support, nor the cost of the equipment and infrastructure.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cassius98
April 9, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: I agree!!
This is where our laws need to catch up to our technology. I am not sure the only provider for internet is also the only provider for cable television is a model conducive to a fair market. Remember the ultimate reason for monopoly laws was for the CONSUMERS welfare, secondary reasons were for an even playing ground for businesses.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tiber
April 9, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwhuntley: Here's the thing though: they can upgrade their network to increase their bandwidth. Yes, this costs money, but guess what they get when people subscribe!

Their main argument is that they want to stop people who use Bittorrent and transfer hundrends of gigs 24/7. I can understand that, and I have no problem with Comcast's 250 gig cap. But TWC's caps are close to what the average user uses, and there is no reason for such low caps.

Major providers are increasingly using this shared line excuse to put the impetus on the user to cover the failings of their oversold network. Never mind the fact that they're the ones taking on the new subscribers, promising faster speeds than they can deliver, and are magically able to make the internet go faster when I pay for higher tiers.

This is a cash grab, pure and simple.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MustyBuckets
April 9, 2009 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dwhuntley: Japan has very high speed cable internet (at least 4x ours), for what comes to about 30 dollars a month. They aren't metered, and you can't say they would use much less than people in the US.
You need to figure that they take our money, some of it should go to getting us bandwidth, and some should go to improving the technology. More subscribers calling for more bandwidth is offset by the payments made by the new subscribers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wgrune
April 9, 2009 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MustyBuckets:


Japan is also the fraction the size of this country meaning it is much cheaper for them to install and maintain their communications systems.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MustyBuckets
April 9, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: Yes, I agree, but for the cost and speed now, it shouldn't be a problem to keep it like it is, instead of raising the cost around 5x for someone like myself.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wgrune: Thats fine, but why can't we get those speeds on the east coast where everything is so bunched together? Boston, NY, Washington aren't that far apart, why don't they have those kind of speeds? Because Cable doesn't want it to happen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
April 9, 2009 6:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@gqcarrick: Yup. Also because the cable companies (and cell phone carriers, but that's another rant) are greedy. Plain and simple. Instead of planning for their future and building upon their current infrastructure they are trying to do the least amount of work while trying to make the most amount of money from their customers. So far it has been working but it's impossible to make a long-term sustainable company from that method of thinking. If not now, then sometime in the near future it will be the reason for their downfall.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
April 9, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow nice. I've never seen a government representative that actually seems to understand the issues at hand. This isn't just about a company making a few bucks...this is a company that can literally cripple our economy as more and more businesses move to the internet. It's like if you had a 1 way street, and these ISP's were setting up toll booths at the start of the street, and throughout the street, you had Netflix, Itunes, Amazon, etc. People would like to shop, watch movies, listen to music, but ISP's control how much they can download, and what prices to pay, and a majority of markets are monopolies, meaning they can charge $50 a month for 2mbs with a 5 gig cap if they want (which is pathetic).

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 9, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This practice has been in effect in Canada for years; now you finally know how we feel. There is an incredible monopoly on service up here.

If you want cable internet service, you get Rogers - and if you want ADSL / fibre service, you go with Bell (or a Bell wholesaler, because they own all of the lines).

Even with our DSL service going through a Bell wholesaler, while our ISP doesn't throttle us during peak times or impose a bandwidth cap, Bell could modify that at any moment.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jakuub
April 9, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm going to a townhall meeting he's holding tomorrow in the area, to support his stance.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
starzshine
April 9, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think he's right on the money. If you have tried to apply for a retail job or any position through a chain you would know you get directed to their online application site. The internet really does fuel our world. I have heard on this site horror stories about people getting charged outragious amounts of money for data usage and we wouldn't want fear of this happening to cause folks to not do something that they needed to do. I know you can go to the library and use their computers, but there are lines, and if there are new charges implemented who knows if librarys will be able to continue providing a free service like this.


Please don't let this come to my community

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HRHKingFridayXX
April 9, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Really, the bill should say that the only way metering would be allowed is if there were a certain number of competitors on equal footing. And even then, there should be some limits on the details of metering such as showing the profit-per-gig as it relates to the expenses of expanding to a certain area.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
razremytuxbuddy
April 9, 2009 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I like the fact that he's focusing on the monopoly aspect. Time Warner Cable and many cable companies elsewhere, are monopolies, and unfairly exploit that privilege.

True utility companies are granted monopoly status, and in return must get regulatory approval to change their terms of service. Cable companies typically secure defacto monopolies through exclusive franchise agreements granted by local authorities who should be securing better terms for their constituents rather than giving away the farm.

In my opinion, no cable company should be given an exclusive service area, ever. The problem with cable companies and their monopolistic service has persisted for decades now.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@razremytuxbuddy:


One other note - the municipal gov'ts that sign the franchise agreements are often acting in _their_ interests, not their constituents. They often focus on stuff most people don't care about (but they really do), like public access channels. The vast majority of consumers never watch it, but the city council likes being on TV.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@razremytuxbuddy:


Very very very few contracts are exclusive. Generally only for company-owned developments. What keeps competitors from building is the fact that the economics of being a cable overbuilder are terrible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
April 9, 2009 9:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: I could be wrong but my understanding is that cable companies actually have contracts with some cities and towns to be the sole provider of that service in that area.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
winshape
April 9, 2009 3:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@razremytuxbuddy: I'm ok with them having an exclusive contract since they are shouldering the cost of installing the lines. However, these contracts are too long to start out with, and keep getting extended.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
razremytuxbuddy
April 9, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@winshape: @NeverLetMeDown: I agree you both pinned down a couple of my generalizations there.

Unfortunately, the end result is still that the cable companies are monopolies without restrictions on their terms of service. Internet service is replacing telephones and the USPS as an essential service. If internet access is going to be controlled and supplied by monopolies, the terms of service should be regulated.

On a side note, wireless internet access is expanding rapidly, and I'm curious as to how that is going to play into the monopoly picture.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tc4b
April 9, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not totally opposed to caps, but these are unreasonable, just a blatant money grab. I wonder if TW came in with these lowball numbers anticipating blowback, planning all along to move to 100g or something, but looking like they conceded because of how they played it. I have basic tier, and 100g sounds fair to me for $22/month.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 4:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tc4b: It is very much a money grab. I worked for cable, and they are scared of losing their cable tv customers to Hulu and other websites. They make 90% profit on high speed internet, they only make 10% profit on Cable tv.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
DeloresPompeii
April 9, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I strongly encourage people to write Congressman Massa to voice your support for his efforts. Also write your local representatives telling them to support Congressman Massa in his efforts. It's the best way to make sure TW gets a strong and clear message they can't ignore!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
alstein
April 9, 2009 4:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DeloresPompeii: Be sure to hit up Howard Cable as well- he's the representative for the Greensboro area.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
alstein
April 9, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LadySiren: Yeah , slip of the tongue, though I wouldn't be too shocked to see campaign contribs from TWC to Coble- he tends to be behind the times on these sorts of issues, though good on other things.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Zyzzyva100
April 9, 2009 3:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

People who are saying that metering is reasonable (and paying for bandwidth is fine), but TWC pays their upstream provider ~6 cents per gigabyte (possibly less). With the packages they want to charge anywhere from $6/gig to about $1.35/gig, with any overage billed at $1/gig. I know cell phone companies screw you too, but not like this. I mean this is orders of magnitude type price gouging, and the fact that TWC is only doing it in cities without competition (Buffalo and parts of Syracuse both have FIOS) really makes it clear that they are trying to screw over people who have no other choice.

Check out this ars technica article from today with a breakdown of the price gouging.
[arstechnica.com]

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zyzzyva100: I loved the swoontastic quote - from a friendly source, no less - closing the above article*:

As Dave Burstein, editor of trade publication DSL Prime, put it recently, \"No one is going to stop Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T from practices that are truly necessary to efficiently run a network. The issue is blocking competitive video and charging 1,000 percent and higher markups on bandwidth that are unacceptable.\"

* Thanks! Awesome find!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 5:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Zyzzyva100:


I agree on the \"doing this where there isn't effective competition\" point, but that Ars Technica article is kind of silly - it's like arguing that Delta is ripping you off when the fuel to transport you to LA is only $40, but the ticket costs $400 - somebody's got to pay for those planes, after all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 6:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: If there were 30 other direct competitors to TWC in that market, I'd agree. Delta is constrained by market forces to not charge too much. Not so much with TWC, which is, after all, the point.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
exploded
April 9, 2009 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Let's just hope that the companies that want unlimited broadband (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have more pull than the cable companies. Individually they don't but collectively they probably do.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
bonzombiekitty
April 9, 2009 3:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't mind the general concept of metered internet usage. People who only use a tiny bit of bandwidth can, theoretically, pay a tiny subscription fee (say, $10/month) while the more heavy duty users pay more. This could lead easier network management as users manage their own usage and naturally cut back on unnecessary traffic.

However, the cost structure has to be reasonable (maybe 3 residential tiers, exceed the usage on one tier and you're bumped up to the next tier, pro-rated, for the rest of the month), based on what the average user would use if the usage was not metered, and would need good monitoring capabilities.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 5:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bonzombiekitty: Well, that's the core of the problem, isn't it? If telecom providers were concerned about imbalances you describe, they'd cut the rates for those that use below average and increase it for those that use above. It'd be revenue-neutral. But when this alternative is suggested, they stare as though you just suggested you film their children performing carnal acts using live trout. Then change the subject, ignoring the fact that, without public give-aways, they wouldn't even exist.
Of course it's a dodge, a sham. How could you think it was anything else?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep:


Which public giveaways does the cable industry get? They pay about 5% of their revenue (usually) for access to the rights of way, and they also pay whoever owns the poles they attach the cable to a leasing fee.


The telcos got large effective subsidies, but the cable guys built the network on their own dime. Doesn't mean they don't need reining in, but there is a difference.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: Billions in subsidies, write-offs and free use of gov't funded basic research.
Protected, legal quasi-monopolies.
Right-of-ways.

...I could go on.

They're not like content providers, or any other free market business out there. They want it both ways. It's not right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 6:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep:


Which subsidies?


Which write-offs?


Which protected monopolies?


It's a serious question.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
April 9, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bonzombiekitty: Nice thoughts, but it will never happen that way.


I agree it would be quite reasonable if, for example, you're in Tier 1…you go over your limit…so they charge you Tier 2 rates for that month. But, they will never do that. If you're in Tier 1 and go over your limit they won't charge you the nominal difference between 1 and 2. They will charge you an overage fee so you end up paying the equivalent of Tier 117.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AdvocatesDevil
April 9, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bonzombiekitty: I like what you're thinking, but have you ever observed corporate America before? :) There will be no \"$10 plan\". The prices will START with what we're paying now and go up from there. And I suspect a lot of people will be surprised by that first $500 bill.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
April 9, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bonzombiekitty: I have yet to see discounts on airfare for -not- checking in baggage, so I wouldn't hold my breath on TW making the barebones service cheaper. They'll only scale up.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Nathan Yost
April 9, 2009 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Last night at an Austin Townhall meeting, one speaker had done some pretty indepth research and was posing the idea that once TWC does this they're going to then go to Google, Youtube, Hulu etc and demand huge fees to allow their \"customers\" to be able to use their sites without being charged. Sounds plausable to me...

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Tiber
April 9, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nathan Yost: I would laugh my ass of they tried it. Hulu is a joint venture by NBC and Fox, and Google is, well, Google. Remember that scene in the Dark Knight where Fox says, \"Let me get this straight. You believe your employer is secretly a vigilante who takes down criminals by night, and your intention is to bribe him?\" Fox and NBC could pull their channels off TWC, and Google could block TWC subscribers. Hell, any one of them could branch into the lucrative world of broadband in TWC's territory just to spite them.

I'm not saying they wouldn't try it, but I am saying that there could nasty repercussions if they didn't roll over. TW is not a small company by any means, but they should let sleeping dragons lie.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tiber: Cough. Wince. Regretful shake of head.

Lucius Fox: Let me get this straight: You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands. And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tiber
April 9, 2009 7:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Okay, so I mixed up bribe and blackmail. You got the point though. I try to make as few mistakes as possible, but I'm only human.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 8:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tiber: Just teasing, bro. It's such a great quote, I hated to see it mangled. :D

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ksmithinny
April 9, 2009 4:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Nathan Yost: Apparently he didn't do enough research. TWC wouldn't be able to legally do that because of Net Neutrality.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Well they could, but would face the FCC :0)

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Maous
April 9, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This would make life hell for MMO(Rpg) addicts such as myself. I average downloads of 10g+ a week trying out new games, patching said games, checking out trailers, plus the passive bandwith use of Ventrilo (a must-have) and the packets send and received just during gameplay.
If I had a limited useage plan, I'd be screwed.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Maous
April 9, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

*Sent, I mean.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
ViperBorg
April 9, 2009 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

ABOUT FUCKING TIME

That is all.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
iancoleTX
April 9, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, a politician fighting AGAINST big business and FOR the interest of his consituency?


Attaboy!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@iancoleTX: Well, to be fair, TWC and AT&T are the constituencies of Republican pols, so at least there's consistency there.
Of course, if you're NOT TWC, it makes little sense to vote GOP...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ct_price
April 9, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I wonder how much of this has to do with consumers moving more of their entertainment consumption online compared to traditional television. More Internet, less TV seems to be the way it goes these days. Perhaps TWC is seeing the future moving to online consumption of information being the norm and trying to be ahead of the curve on implementing a method to squeeze more revenue from this model. They are simply amassing money to help them build that path.


Sort of like how projectors are way more advanced than plasma/LCD TVs but you don't find many of them for sale at Best Buy compared to TVs. They want you to move to plasma/LCD first and then move to projector. They lose money if you are ahead of the curve and leapfrog technology.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
captadam
April 9, 2009 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

These companies are utilities--really no different from the phone company in the mid-20th century, the gas company, the water company, and the electric company. Our regulatory structure just needs to catch up to that reality.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@captadam: Or, adopting the Conservative model, water, gas and power could be sold on a demand-only basis. I'll bet if water was shut off for a couple weeks, people would be willing to pay a good deal more than what they were paying previously...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
captadam
April 9, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Are the expenses in providing water being covered through the rates people are paying? If so, then withholding water to extract more money from the people who need it is rather disgusting.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@captadam: Same principle for cable companies: they entered a protected market willingly, knowing there would be limits on their revenue based on this. They can't ethically turn around now and want to change the rules of the game, simply because Wall Street demands they suck ever-more increasing amounts of blood from their customers.
Of course, if they were in a competitive market: hey - Capitalism. But they're not.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 10:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep:


I don't follow - what \"rules of the game\" are they changing? Is there some FCC reg from the mid-90s that said \"if you choose to offer broadband service over your cable lines, you cannot implement usage caps\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 10, 2009 12:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: There's an assumption that if you're one of a few companies allowed a monopoly, you won't upend the business model to maximize profit as though your business was operating in a competitive environment.
Silly, I know, to assume a company wouldn't try something so absurd, but there goes TWC to make fools of us all...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 13, 2009 12:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep:


Again, what monopoly are they being \"allowed?\" If you want to start offering broadband to upstate New York, nobody's stopping you. Clearly, they are operating in a competitive environment, given that Frontier has already said that they're eliminating bandwidth caps in those areas, so consumers have a clear choice.


Saying that Time Warner Cable has a monopoly in those areas is like saying that Bugatti has a monopoly in cars because nobody else makes a car that can go 220mph.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Louie Colon
April 9, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, I remember seeing some places that TWC or Comcast would start caps at something reasonable like 250 GB... I just read TWC in Rochester wants to start at something like 20GB for 49.99... That's just wrong... I think the monopolies these cable companies have is ridiculous... I don't see how these ISP's aren't swimming in money. They've basically been charging 49.99 for the last 12 years, you'd think they'd have put some of the profits from that towards development of their networks, rather that start complaining about usage... It's like they concentrated so much on marginally increasing speeds by offering boosts for extra $$, and didn't think... hey, computers and internet are playing a heavy part in watching tv and the likes, we better improve that aspect of our network to handle it... Shameful moneygrabbing by these damn cable companies... I have Optimum Online and they better not think of this.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Outrun1986
April 9, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Louie Colon: You would have to do an insane amount of downloading to hit the 250GB cap. I am an extremely heavy internet user, and my bandwidth meter is indicating to me that I only pull 1GB a day. Now I am not an online gamer however, so someone who is would have different usage. I do watch a lot of youtube videos, and I stream internet radio for at least 12 hours a day. When the computer is off I stream internet radio through my Sony PSP. I also have a Nintendo Wii that is always connected to the internet and I also use the Nintendo DS's online service.

What about online games and downloads, the gaming industry is surely going to go digital only very soon, but if the ISP's put limits on bandwidth the game industry would probably want to have a huge say in it, since it would definitely affect their industry. Some handheld systems out now are practically digital-only already. Game downloads would take up a lot of bandwidth and if the ISP wasn't willing to provide the necessary bandwidth then there wouldn't be very many sales for digital download games.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 9, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Outrun1986: Hardly \"insane\" and you are not an \"extremely heavy\" internet user. Video is where bandwidth usage adds up (3-10gb/hour). Youtube is barely visible, so it's more like radio.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
April 9, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Louie Colon: Totally agree. 250gb/month is reasonable. I think you can be a pretty heavy internet user and that cap won't cramp your style too much, if at all. The key is giving customers an easy way to meter and monitor their usage so they can keep track of it and not get a surprise on their cable bill.


20gb/month is ridiculous. The only thing that would make it not ridiculous is if it came with a price tag of maybe $10/month. The low cap means it's not about managing the network, it's about extracting revenue from other parts of the market: shaking down content providers to exempt their traffic from the cap, or steering customers to proprietary Time Warner on-demand or pay-per-view media.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Spectre1125
April 9, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@iancoleTX: Yeah, what a populist move that virtually any politician could have done. I'm sure his championing this cause has nothing to do with the fact that his seat in the house is very, very contested by his Republican counterpart.


Which representatives are clamouring for TW to come meter their district?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 9, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Spectre1125: Could have done, but didn't. Most tellingly, his Republican challenger(s) didn't. Tells you a great deal, no?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Hotscot
April 9, 2009 4:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Are there any stats on the cost of downloading data compared to NOT downloading data if your internet connection is on all the time anyway?

It seems to me that they're trying to treat data like water, gas, oil etc..like a utility product. As though the data itself has a variable value.
However shouldn't the cost of moving data decrease over time with investment in improved infrastructure?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
PcTekkie
April 9, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Try $59.99 a month for wireless Broadband capped at 5gb and paying $.05 per MB beyond that! My Feb. Internet bill was $234.xx and this months bill will be even higher! I am so tired of being taken advantage of by big monopolies like Sprint (my provider). Is there anyone out there that actually can help me get my money back, and/or force Sprint into raising/removing the cap? I talked to a Sprint Rep this morning that told me the cap was put in place by FCC?! Is this the truth?

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
endless
April 9, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

look at how much texts cost.

it will only be worse with broadband as all of the providers have a vested interest to kill certain high use applications...*cough* video streaming *cough*

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
April 9, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, seems like there are a lot of corporate shills in here for TW.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Alessar
April 9, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The JOB angle. Well played!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Haggie1
April 9, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Competition is the cap killer, not legislation.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
PcTekkie
April 9, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Try paying $59.99 plus $.05 per MB over the cap of 5GB that I am being forced to pay to Sprint! My Feb. bill was $234.00 for Internet access because I used just over 8GB! This month will be higher!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Matt DeGoey
April 9, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't wait until I start seeing discs from ISPs showing up in my mailbox or in the checkout lanes at grocery stores saying, \"Install now and get up to 40GB FREE!\"

But seriously, it's like they're taking things back to the old AOL days in the 90's where you paid for the Internet by the hour. That was dumb then, and this is dumb now.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Sean Maher
April 9, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Many cable and phone companies are granted a monopoly by the local govt (they don't let just anyone dig up the street and use utility poles.) They monopoly usually come with restrictions, like the requirement to charge a fair price.

It also sounds like they're using their internet monopoly power to lock out competitors with some of their services, like Hulu for TV and Skype for phone service.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Psychicsword
April 9, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Yankees368: I am a RIT student in Rochester and right now I am really happy I am living on campus with the dedicated 100Mb/s line(local) and 400kB/s upload(interment) and 100Mb/s download from the Internet. I would have gone insane if I had a network cap

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
April 9, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The question that I have is whether the TWC cap/meter runs for TWC VOIP calls, or whether TWC voip data would not count against the cap, but another VOIP provider (Vonage)data would count against the cap. That seems anti-competative.


Similar situation for TWC video on demand when compared with NetFlix downlad service, which I suspect is what this proposed cap is reall aimed at stopping.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mamacat49
April 9, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I, too, am wondering how smart this is. I have a\"locked in\" rate with TWC for another 18 months. I emailed them and was told that the metering won't affect me, until it's time to renew. At which time, I'll find a new way to continue life as I know and like it. Of course, I don't really trust them to not over charge me if they can get away with it.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Cassius98
April 9, 2009 6:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I guess this will also nix VOIP. Guess I will need a landline... Wonder if TWC will be offering an option for that as well. TWC ondemand TV, TWC VOIP, TWC internet... didn't BELL have a problem with this type of stunt 40 years ago?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
April 9, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cassius98:


VoIP really won't be a problem - even if you talked 24/7 for the entire month you'd use maybe 6-7GB.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Spectre1125
April 9, 2009 6:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Man, this metering crap hasn't been slaughtered yet? It's a stupid idea that has been kicked around since the beginning of time with no more pros than the stupid (but functioning) idea we have now.


Whether we cap speeds, or data, or both, or neither, there's always a bad side. The important part is to recognize when you're on the bad side and when the company is.


The better deal for everybody that is not an ISP is free data, capped speeds. It's the best of all worlds while still allowing the ISP to feel like it's screwing everyone and providing a viable model for maintaining a certain quality of service.


IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO NOT GIVE THIS COLLECTIVE MOUSE ITS COOKIE! If you don't realize how things like this work, they are going to push that \"reasonable\" 250GB (or whatever number is needs to be) hard, hard, hard until they manage to sell it or get smacked. But it is the existence of ANY data cap that loses the game for us. Just as objects in motion tend to stay in motion, once you put weight behind an idea it is hard to keep it in check. That 250GB will get hit with the grocery shrink way one way or another. Whether they decide to charge more or give you less, you won't have any more choice in the matter than you do now with your cable.


The worst part is they don't even have to do anything. Technological advances alone will inherently devalue the byte. Anybody remember having a computer with two megabytes of RAM? That was less than two decades ago. They will take advantage of their massive amounts of cash, of their position as a seller, and as a necessity of modern society in order to increase their profits. It is what they are trying to do RIGHT NOW.


Tell them they can't screw us anymore than they already do. Tell them off for what they are trying to do now, and then take that \"REFORM\" tattooed fist and knock them down.


Or at least, for the love of God, don't make me bail them out one day.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
synergy
April 9, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Go dude go! San Antonio will thank you.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
April 9, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He's right that it CAN help drive the economy. I have Comcast and the 250 gig limit and I do sometimes come close. 50 gigs wouldnt be enough because I consume alot of HD content online

Whether its movie and tv shows purchased via XBL or HD videos from video gaming sites that I subscribe to along with ad supported (legal) tv show websites and or online only shows and movies. I also buy alot of games online and they are downloads whether it be via Steam for PC, Xbox Live, PSN, or the Wii Shop.

If I had been capped I wouldnt be getting this content which means people wouldnt be getting my money.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
April 9, 2009 6:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: Oh I also forgot now that Netflix has instant view my Girlfriend and I watch alot of movies and TV shows streamed via that. In fact we only continue our PAID subscription to Netflix is because of its xbox live integration and again, if I was capped Netflix wouldnt get my money.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Megan Squier
April 9, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

AT&T better not pull that crap in the Huntsville, AL metro area or they are going to break the last nerve of one very disgruntled customer, namely me!

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Thunderdome
April 9, 2009 8:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The sad part is that if TWC ends up dropping the bandwidth caps, they'll probably just raise their rates to compensate. It's a lose/lose for customers. The only fair option is more competition.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 9, 2009 9:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Thunderdome: They won't drop the caps. 50% of users just browse and check their email, and are happy being ripped off. Raise rates and these cash cows will wake up (briefly) and switch to DSL. They will be only mildly surprised that the cartoon bird tricked them into paying more in the first place.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Boberto
April 10, 2009 12:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is so much more about TW competing with itself. Verizon does the same thing with Fios. Both sell internet AND pay TV services.
The disturbing trend for these companies, is that people are beginning to realize that all you need is one big fat dumb pipe and voila! You've negated the need for pay TV services. Why pay $100/monthly for tiered programming, of which you might watch three shows?
You can now go to the Network website/Hulu/Netflix/iTunes and download exactly what you want. Often times for free.
TW is saying, go ahead and use our big fat dumb pipe, but we're not going to let it go cheap. Especially when you consider that internet traffic grows exponentially, year over year.
What seemed like a reasonable cap in 2005 is miserly in 2009. And so it will be perceived as well, the limits imposed in 2009.
What we really need to do, as a Nation is reexamine where we're at with deregulation of the Telecom industry.
Right now, my TW connection serves as my phone, TV, email. It's really a lifeline. It costs about $50/month but I save a ton in long distance, local calls, Pay TV etc.
I think TW realizes this and is moving to keep bandwidth from developing into a commodity, like any other product or service.
I think what we really need is a government funded and provided internet service. And don;t give me arguments about private sector competition, because there is none.

This is too vital of a service left alone to the likes of comcast and TW.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
EdaDiores
April 10, 2009 4:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

WAN Bandwidth - WeeklyDate Download Upload Total2009-04-10 (Fri)2009-04-05 (Sun) 15.24 GB 5.53 GB 20.77 GB2009-04-04 (Sat)2009-03-29 (Sun) 34.98 GB 10.59 GB 45.57 GB2009-03-28 (Sat)2009-03-22 (Sun) 7.81 GB 2.41 GB 10.23 GB

Thank you tomato but i'd be screwwwweeeddddd if TWC *local monopoly* put a cap on.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
kaceetheconsumer
April 10, 2009 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's a growing movement against it here in Austin too, including a local politician holding meetings at City Hall plus some of the mayoral candidates are on about it:

[gigaom.com]

When I posted about it on a parenting group, there was an overwhelming response of \"well, we'll leave if they do!\" and not one person saying they'd stick with it. Like us, many of those parents aren't the mega-users being hit, but they don't want to have to worry that if their kid is playing educational games online or if they catch up on a missed TV show that all of a sudden it'll start costing a fortune. None of us have the time or patience to byte-count.

And it's the principle of the thing. Austin is a pretty proactive place and we get that if we don't stand up and scream NO to this, it's going to go national.

You can tell there's been an effect, because as of Wednesday night, TWC was running new Austin-specific ads about how great they are, how much they love their customers, how bad AT&T U-verse is, etc. I even got a robo call from TWC to let me know they'd be in the area fixing things and would I like to press 1 to speak to a representative just in case I had any technical problem at all because oh golly gee they'd love to pop by and help me out...

They're feeling our anger. We just need to maintain it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
globalman
April 10, 2009 3:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's a media-based company with competitors taking away their market share and delivering media through other channels (verizon and u-verse). Plus, there's no competition in those markets for higher-bandwidth (ex: FIOS) connections to the house. Sucks to be in those areas! A new broadband service-level standard needs to be defined so that \"broadband\" now describes FIOS speeds and not DSL speeds. Then, we can compare apples to apples and not get caught up in these data caps.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
grapedog
April 10, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I see this more as TWC trying to kill off unlimited bandwidth before people realize what they are losing.


By killing unlimited bandwidth, they keep a stranglehold on their TV division. All those services delivering TV and movies to your home over unlimted broadband is cutting TWC out of the loop on a lot of profits.


Just imagine when IPTV becomes an actual reality...TWC will start really hurting.


This is a pre-emptive strike to kill alternatives to TWC's TV service.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Michael Hyland
April 10, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As New Yorker who was happy with Time Warner Cable for the past 5 years - this Rochester test is disheartening. Thank you Massa for championing the feelings of many: no metered broadband!

Even if you ignore the inundating marketing blanket of phone calls, mailings and television ads, Verizon's crippled DSL packages and mundane programming competition offers me little alternative. Here's to hoping the 'test' is blocked.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
stands2reason
April 26, 2009 1:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes! Yes!

Reply
");