![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-57429-100x100.png\")
So if the people who complain are the \"vocal minority\" what are we, chopped liver?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@Thassodar: We are consumers, and we are powerful in numbers. We pay their bills and they pissed us of, ergo, they faced not having their bills payed as easily, and they shat bricks. It warms the cockles of my heart to see this happen like it did.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307579-100x100.png\")
Mean while up here in Canada I still have a cap, a mere hundred gigs a month, has really affected how much a torrent.
@Warll:
While I'm no supporter of bandwidth caps, I am not crying myself to sleep that some people won't be able to steal (as many) movies.
Not being able to watch as much Hulu or other legit content, now that's a problem.
TWC should rot in h-e-double-hockey-sticks.
@Warll:
yea shaw in canada which is pretty much the ONLY cable provider as far as I know, caps at various numbers, I think the lowest is 50 and it goes up another 50 with each increase in price...I think Im at a 100, I upload about 50 gb a month through torrents though I usually only dl about 20-30
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-369596-100x100.png\")
@Warll: 100 gigs is a decent amount. A movie of minimally watchable quality will usually be about a gig. Even at DVD quality, they're only about 2-4 gigs. Even with a 100% seed ratio and accounting for other web broswing, you'd easily be able to torrent about 25 movies.
Looking at it the other way, the time warner cap is 20,000,000 bytes (about 20 gigs). A mediocre quality streaming radio station will be pumping at 128 kilobits/second. That's about 1 megabyte per minute and 1000 minutes to reach the cap. 1000/60 = 16 hours and 40 minutes. That's a little more than 30 minutes of streaming audio per day. That's where they want to set the Time Warner cap.
@dangermike: so to correct myself, it would be about a megabyte per minute, which would translate to 20,000 minutes/month, which is actually closer to 11 hours a day at a what I consider a minimally listenable sound quality, and that would translate to about 1-2 hours of streaming video of a similar quality per day.
@dangermike: Since when is 128kbps minimally listenable? It's not great, but Sirius XM shoots sound via Satellite at a mere 32kbps..
i'm not against metered bandwidth, but the rates/caps TWC was setting were obnoxiously high.
@Con Seannery '09: Illegal in 1 Giz:
I think the price they charge people now should be the price for unlimited usage.
That way, the people that don't use that much have an option to downgrade.
But NO ONE should be forced to upgrade, and that's what this vocal minority is saying.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-910740-100x100.png\")
@kvanh: Agreed. There was also no guarantee that, once on a tier, service would improve and speeds would actually be faster than the crap they are today.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-789978-100x100.png\")
@kvanh: While I agree to a certain point, I think charging for speed of connection makes more sense in the long run and is what most other providers already do (including TWC) This really feels like TWC is trying to make people pay a premium for users who want to get their TV online rather than through them (even with their 75 dollar cap sitting right around the same price as having digital cable at home)
If I can get unlimited bandwidth on my cellular telephone through Verizon for 25 dollars a month, why the hell should I pay 75 dollars a month for it through my wired connection?
@SanDiegoDude: I agree that speed tiers are a much more sensible option if they feel they must have different rates.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
@kvanh: Agreed. I have metered broadband and love it ($15/mo cable internet!), but TWC's rates were a bit much.
What do you do if the \"vocal minority\" are the ones that are already educated?
Something tells me that this is the case.
@dohtem: If this load of CorporateSpeak didn't win over the mindless majority, nothing would. Victory, my friends. Also, anyone in the Greensboro area, there's a protest outside their building on Spring Garden St. Saturday from 11-5.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-413611-100x100.png\")
@TheFuzz53: Not quite fully though. I think caps are okay, but not the ridiculously low ones proposed.
As someone that worked back end, if you are 100% opposed to caps and torrent more than 40gb / month, your personal bill should be 10 times higher than it is now. Yes, that means anywhere from 200-500 dollars per month.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-41398-100x100.png\")
@Inglix_the_Mad: I've easily exceed 40gb's a month without torrenting a thing - TF2, Hulu, legit game/demo downloads, software updates, and the like.
@Inglix_the_Mad: Why do you believe that I should have to pay more than anyone else for using it more? I don't get a discount for watching less tv or for making less phone calls, and I don't pay more taxes for using public roads more
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-139070-100x100.png\")
Unless your car is 100% electric, you do pay more to use public roads than someone who drives less than you do, since taxes comprise around 15% of the cost of a gallon of fuel, and since some of that tax money goes to fund road maintenance and construction.
Holy crap..the little people won
I think what TWC meant was, \"We still believe that Road Runner customers who use less should pay slightly more (but no less then what they pay now), and that those who use more should pay out the wazoo.\"
They really ought to have someone proof their press releases.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-532444-100x100.png\")
It's amazing that these companies want to charge us an ever increasing amount for sevices they are slowly trying to decrease. This holds similar to the net neutrality situation, where big corporations were going to try and limit the websites someone could visit based on funds recieved from certain websites. If they want to offer the service for free then who are we to determine how, when, and how much? Since I am paying for this service, I don't want to be told no.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-522770-100x100.png\")
And this is the result of allowing gigantic Telcos and Telco monopolies in the US.
Decisions like this from your provider should allow a customer to cancel their switch and switch to an alternative preventing monopolistic pricing structures like this.
Free market good. Competition good. Monopolies bad.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-306389-100x100.png\")
@Avrus: And this is the result of allowing gigantic Telcos and Telco monopolies in the US.
True; but (and notice that's a big ol' but) I wonder if the alternative (tons o' unregulated competition) would really be any better.
Consider what Dilbert's Scott Adams called the long-distance telecommunications market: a confusopoly. This comes about because there's really no difference between service from, say, ATT and Verizon and MCI and Sprint... the main point of differentiation became how much they charged. So, to maximize profits (two words that should send chills down the spine of any consumer), they all came up with confusing billing plans. Thus, everybody stays in business, and consumers don't realize the full amount of their potential savings.
Let's face it, if there is any industry with confusopolistic potential, it's the cable/satellite industry. Quick: which saves you more: your local CATV provider, DirecTV or Dish Network?
/prosecution rests
@Avrus: There are nearly comparable alternatives in all markets. Nearly. People would take a slight hit in speed to get all-you-can-eat internet, and the other companies would be happy to oblige an exodus from Time Warner. TWC got scared and backed down.
@Avrus:
in canada we have two choices for the most part...shaw or telus, have fun dealing with both XD
I love how Time Warner doesn't mention that they bill BY THE SECOND, as well as by the month now. Customers who use more DO pay more, TWC, that's why you have pricing tiers based on transfer speeds. They hope that we don't look at the whole bill at the same time and see that we're being charged for a specific data transfer rate, as well as the amount transferred total.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
blah. blah. blah. if you truly wanted to provide a metered experience, there wouldn't be flat-rate tiers with a certain allotment of bits/mo. instead, you would charge a straight per bit fee.
& if that's what you want to do, go for it. i suggest 6 mos. of \"metered bills\" (along with the future proposed rate) before you adjust your billing method so that customers can determine how much their bill will change.
i could see metering broadband like other utilities as a good thing, but this isn't like other utilities. this is like cellcos. that charge outrageous overage fees when you go over your allotment, but never give you credits for when you don't use what you paid for.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-844897-100x100.png\")
If they went to a truly per-bit system, I expect no less than the TOP bandwidth speeds (100 mbit or 1 Gbit connection) to my House. I'm not going to pay for metered internet when the connection is only 10 Mbit/s that is just shit.
I absolutely despise companies that try to do this to their customers... ESPECIALLY in markets where the customers don't have a choice.
@mac-phisto: metered broadband will not work out well any time soon, because it does not work like other utilities. TW has to pay to get you up to a certain available speed. Once there, the cost difference between using 1MB or 1GB in any time frame is negligible, even multiplied over many subscribers.
OTOH, when you (and everybody else) use more electricity, more has to be produced. When you use more water, more water must be gathered and processed. Data networks don't work that way. So, when you see metered billing come up, there's a 99.99% chance it is designed to get people to pay more (as you use more, FI, you will need to go up to the next tier--now a light user is not on the bottom tier; TW billing folks sing and dance).
@cerbie: i understand there's a huge difference, but it's not entirely dissimilar. electricity works in a similar fashion - electricity must be produced simply to keep electricity on the grid, so the less you use, the more expensive maintaining that run is to the electric co. even if you used no electricity, it costs them money just so you can flip a switch at any time. it all works out, though, b/c multiple users are hooked into the same grid.
maybe you could refine my perspective, but my understanding is that the cost of broadband is primarily dependent on the number of users on a node. the more users, the cheaper the node. however, at a point, it becomes overburdened. now the cable co. must either fork out money for new infrastructure (increasing the overall cost of providing service) OR throttle/constrict existing traffic (allowing them to overload nodes even more).
i don't really support this endeavor, but i could see some positive aspects to it. for one, i'd damn well be bugging my legislators to redefine metered broadband as a utility, require installation of gov't-approved/tested meters for customers, & strip TWC of their franchise protection in areas where they use metered broadband. i'd advocate a series of laws that determine what broadband use customers must pay for & what they wouldn't be responsible for (e.g. -> updates for TWC software) & require them to develop a method to determine what's billable & what's not (all while keeping your info safe).
basically, i would bury them with enough paperwork to make them wish they had shut their piehole & simply raised rates $5 across the board. bastards.
@mac-phisto: that is all true. The thing is, this kind of cap does not help the situation. The cost you pay per month should include that expansion and reinvestment. I don't bitch about Cox here, because they keep expanding service, and upgrade the service. I don't know how much of their rising rates is based on profit motive, and how much is based on cost; but, as long as they are not charging insane amounts Not only that, but fairly priced metered would probably start at a minimum cost per month, just like water, gas, and electricity typically do.
But, as to how the networks operate, there exists technology that can dynamically throttle us heavy users. They can actually improve the service offered to us heavy users during prime hours, too. Since we are no longer able to congest the network, we maintain good responsiveness, just not with as much throughput. I'm not against the idea that the heavy users might need to pay more...but usually we already do, by taking the fastest or near-fastest speed tier.
A transfer cap? It makes sure that as demand grows (especially for services Time Warner does not offer, which seems to be what counts towards the caps), more people get put into higher tiers, or otherwise get billed more, with no correlation to how the technology works. Raising the minimum price, I can see. Raising rates in general, I can see. Inflation costs them, so it is going to cost us--I'm not against the ISP making some money. This billing they are proposing/testing, however, is monopoly abuse.
@cerbie: submitted too soon. Anyway, IMO, local protection of ISP monopoly should have been done away with years ago. It made sense up until DSL began mature, but now, they need to beaten into submission, and tax breaks given to small ISPs, to foster real competitive services and pricing. That should be done regardless of metered billing. We need to start treating broadband internet access as a utility like natural gas: not everyone uses it, but those that do often rely on it too much for these companies to be punishing them for trying to use the services being offered.
Likewise, net neutrality should be put back in place, with kick-ass violation penalties. TW is trying to create exactly the kind of tiered internet that the doom prophets of the 'net have been talking about for years, by not counting their own video service to the cap (also, can anyone confirm, via a bill or something, that they offer this service outside of the cap, just to be sure? It seems legit, but we've got good evidence of other stuff, but that one's a little more vague...I hate to leave it alone, but am not as confident as with the other topics).
@mac-phisto: & if that's what you want to do, go for it. i suggest 6 mos. of \"metered bills\" (along with the future proposed rate) before you adjust your billing method so that customers can determine how much their bill will change.
Now that is a good point...
@1234tu: I think what he means is 6 months for all of their customers to get pissed off at them and quit their services.
@cerbie: Data's a one time, flat, sunk cost with minor upkeep costs.
@Herbz: That thing you despise? That's what they almost did here. The overlooked just how pissed off people get when their unlimited gets limited. Pissed off enough to go to a lesser alternative to stay unlimited out of spite.
Without all the B.S., TW's plan to effectively change the price of unlimited internet from 40 bucks a month to 75 bucks a month but ONLY in markets where it has no competition is practically screaming for a visit from the anti-trust division of the justice dept.
@dbshaw: I don't think the use of existing monopoly power is an antitrust violation - the relevant part of the Sherman Act only outlaws acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through exclusionary conduct.
So the DOJ couldn't do much about the strategy you're describing, even if a company were blatantly extracting monopoly rents. Congress could do something about it - i.e., rate regulating them like a utility - but I'm not sure that works so well in practice. It adds enough bureaucracy and transaction costs that we wouldn't necessarily be any better off.
@McKay: I'm sure you're right, nonetheless, given congress' ability (though probable lack of will/spine) to regulate rates if it felt like it, I'm sure TWC doesn't want to highlight the fact that it is exercising its current monopoly to jack rates up over 200%. Especially during these times when big companies are only marginally less hated than congress in the public right now.
@dbshaw: Couldn't Congress just threaten to regulate unless TWC came up with a more reasonable pricing structure? If regulation would be so terrible for them, then it seems to me that such a threat would be pretty effective.
@dbshaw: Actually, the top proposed tier was $75 a month, with an overage cap of no more than $75. So, for truly \"unlimited\" data, it could cost up to $150 a month.
@palookapalooza: Ahh, I must have misread, I was under the impression that TWC's original plan was 150 for effective unlimited, but I thought they'd changed it so it was 75.
A change from 40/mo to 150/mo only in markets with no competition is even more glaring.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-286941-100x100.png\")
If if actuly came down to paying what you use then I'd be all for it, but history has shown that they cannot be trusted. What they say is only as good as your having some government office hold them to it for about 5 minutes. It seems what they want to do is something like the internet was back in the pre internet days with AOL. They want to put walls up, the meter wont run so long as we're looking at things thats in the \"time warner approved\" areas, also will be refered to as \"shit people pay us to give away that no one wants\". It then boils down to network neutrality because well things on their network your not paying extra for, and everything else you are.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-738213-100x100.png\")
You know they've done the research, and I bet that if they charged a metered rate (as in for electricity) the only fair way they could, which is to take \"average\" usage and come up with a rate that equals the current monthly fee--
What they'd have is 80 percent of people paying MUCH less- and 20 percent paying so much more they'd seek an alternative- thus killing the golden goose.
So.. seems to me they're better off the way it is-- and they're just getting greedy.
@JGKojak: Not to mention the number in that 80 percent who either don't know how much they use and freak out, panic, and leave and the people who leave on principle.
I'm an media professional. If I took on freelance work then I'd have to pay up the wazoo for all my file-transfer use, not to mention the amount of video-streaming I have to do. It'd sure make things a LOT more difficult.
I don't know why this is even considered a good idea. The internet is integral to business and education, not just recreation. If we want to compete aggressively in a global marketplace, we need to make sure that more Americans have affordable, unlimited access the internet. Price-gouging people for \"over-usage\" of the internet can only hurt.
@johnva: This is entirely the reason. Their internet business is very profitable, but only if they can keep their cable TV business alive. Raise rates, restrict the internet, and they will need shovels to count their profits.
@orlo: Until their customers get tired of putting up with their crap and accept a decrease in quality of service in exchange for unlimited usage for an equivalent price to what they used to pay.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
I truly believe that the purpose of this is to attempt to kill off online video before it cuts too deeply into cable television profits.
@drb023:
1000% agreed. They're trying to keep current users of online video from using more, and future users from ever even trying. (\"Oh that Hulu, it's so expensive!\")
@josquin021: Plus I listen to Pandora radio while I cook, while I clean, while I hang out around my house. I have it on almost constantly when my computer is on, and I'm in a \"test area\" for TWC. You can't take my streaming music from me!
@josquin021: This should be the subject of antitrust action, in my opinion, if they can prove that that is the goal the cable companies have in doing this.
@johnva: since TW offers many services, and has monopolies on them in many areas, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-22998-100x100.png\")
Do they think that we can't do a comparison of the price per gigabyte from the old way versus the new way? It's basic math for \"F\" sake.
Greed, pure and simple. Especially lame while attempting to overcharge for a beleaguered and poorly maintained TW net during a recession. Unconscionable!
We need the cable co. monopolies in certain cities broken down so competition can come in and people can have a choice on which ISP they choose. That would stop stupid crap like this really fast.
@axiomatic: Verizon and AT&T could fairly easily bulldoze into the market if TWC tries the crap again. Right now, people are fine to keep what they have until their trust is betrayed.
\"Anti-metered broadband advocates are rejoicing today as TWC admitted defeat and delayed its plan to expand metered broadband to Rochester, NY.\"
A delay of a plan is not a victory, just a temporary stay of execution.
\"According to TWC's press release, the dust-up was caused by a \"vocal minority\" of customers and that the problem is that they just haven't educated everyone.\"
Translated: We thought our bullsh*t explanation was good enough, but obviously we were wrong. The vocal minority will now enter our \"re-education\" camps where they will be rehabilitated through education and socially constructive labor.
@Blueskylaw: I think the delay is to save face and not admit they were wrong or that the customer has power. It's one of those indefinite holds.
Where was their \"those who use less should pay less\" attitude when the FCC was toying with a la carte cable channels? This is just a cash grab.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6170-100x100.png\")
TWC says they are planning to relocate the \"vocal minority\" to a \"Reeducation Camp,\" where there will be no danger of them spreading false information. Or any other kind of information.
@segfault: I was tempted to Godwin this. Badly. But, I will refrain. Still, that begs for the probabiluty to reach 1.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-75647-100x100.png\")
Have you people gone insane? This is still Consumerist right? TWC hasn't surreptitiously gained control of the website somehow?
Of course this is a ruse to make more money, and not just from the 'heavy users'. Have you ever known any cable company, including TWC, make changes to their policies that was not motivated by profit?
The idiotic and specious comment 'We think users who use less should pay less' comment is a farce. Well then identify who those users are, and charge them less.
What the real argument is, and prectically everyone already gets this, is that they are trying to take an unlimited commodity, and limit it for their own personal gain.
@loueloui: And they realized that, regardless of how many people would be negatively effected by the change, they made EVERYONE mad at them. That makes people take their business elsewhere and advise others to do the same. That means less money.
This doesn't just affect the customers though, this will affect a lot more than that. Services like Netflix and iTunes depend on customers using them, if customers were suddenly paying more for broadband the first things to get cut would be any services they are currently paying for. If this was severe enough it could seriously hamper certain businesses and cause more job losses and contribute to even more of an economic decline than what we are already in! If Netflix cannot sell streaming video it would likely shut down at least a whole division of Netflix. If Apple could not sell music through iTunes then they would not sell iPods, which would be huge since no one would bother buying them since it would cost double or triple what it does now to use an iPod.
Not to mention that I am sure the gaming industry which is moving closer and closer to an all-digital model has a lot to say about this, and this is not even including those who play games online, you would be paying triple the cost just to download the large game file.
This is not even including the huge work-at-home sector and people who have their own businesses that depend on a one-price solid internet connection. There just so many implications that are bad with a pay-per-use model for internet service.
The reason they can't \"educate\" people on this is because there's no precedent for it. Let's compare it to it's closest cousin, the cell phone. You'd have to buy a cellphone that offers only a single \"one-size-fits-all\" plan that is different for each model of cellphone, with, say, 100 ($40 / month cellphone), 200 ($60 / month cellphone), or 400 minutes ($199/month cellphone). If you own the 100 minute cellphone you need to use a different cellphone to do 200 minutes, for example.
Each minute after that costs $1 per minute, despite the fact that with the cheapest per-minute plan (200 minutes) you're paying $0.30 per minute. When you try to buy another 200 minute cellphone to save money, the company blocks your attempts. When you try to ask them to just bill you twice the price and give you 400 minutes on your 200 minute cellphone the company won't do it.
You realize that there's no way to actually give your money in a reasonable manner to this company. The company works on the same alternate reality the IRS does, where what you pay isn't directly proportional (or even proportional in a buying-in-bulk-is-cheaper) to what you make.
This is where the issue sets in. The same thing is coming to Canada by way of Bell Canada's (soon to be, but not yet passed) billing scheme that will be applied against virtually any ISP that offers DSL service (unless they want to come to your neighborhood with a backhoe, that is).
Lopping off a bit of precision:
First 60 GB: $20 ($0.33/GB).
Next 10 GB: $22 ($2.2/GB for this portion, $0.60/GB overall).
Next 230 GB: $0 ($0/GB for this portion, $0.14/GB overall).
Next GB (and every GB after that): $1/GB ($0.35/GB overall at 400 GB, $0.57/GB at 600 GB, up to a maximum of $0.86/GB on a fully saturated 5/0.8 mbit line).
So, yeah, you tell me why people would be confused when they can end up paying as much as 6x more per GB because they use their internet more. In what crazy-ass world do prices start reasonably low for a few widgets, then suddenly shoot through the roof if you buy the \"wrong amount\", then get dirt cheap if you buy a bunch more, and then all of a sudden get super-expensive if you order more than that amount? That doesn't follow any normal laws of economics I've heard of.
It follows the law of stupidity is what it follows.
The normal way of doing things metered like this (for consumers, Tier 1 ISPs use 95th percentile billing or just charge per mbit the pipe can handle) would be to charge a base connection cost. This just gives you carrier. You'd then have a base charge per GB used, starting at GB 0 (hey, you're in this for profit, yes?), and you'd charge a surcharge per GB used during peak hours (since this affects the size of the pipe the ISP needs coming in--your torrents at 3 am cost the ISP zilch, due to the aforementioned billing methods). That'd be it.
That would actually make sense. And it would actually save most consumers money, and heavy users would be funding the network proper. Oh wait, there's the problem! You'd have to first of all offer what your premium (heavy) users want (which most ISPs here *don't* do, witness traffic shaping) and you'd have to second actually spend the dough to get decent service to the door and into your network.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-211131-100x100.png\")
Also happening in North Carolina, per a friend who lives there. I think this says pretty much the exact same thing, though.
@lalaland13: Well hallelujah. I thought it was just Rochester and I was still very pissed about my area being targeted. We don't have Fios around here!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16526-100x100.png\")
You 3% who voted that TWC is right are all going to hell.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-161207-100x100.png\")
Assholes. I'll educate them as soon as my contract is up. I'm not misinformed, I'm quite well informed. Sadly, because they're not doing this in my area, I can't get out early.
What an awful, awful idea.
Those who use less will pay the same; those who use more will pay more.
Those who used less paid more for years. Why does Time Warner believe they should pay less now?
@orlo: Pretty much.
It's the words used with which I take offense. They are trying to sell themselves as the hero of the small-time user, but really they lived off the low-end user for years as they charged them exhorbitant fees as compared to that demographic's usage. Now that the low-end user is watching Youtube videos and streaming Netflix, NOW they must fight for the little guy because the little guy is hurting Time Warner's bottom line! Guess they should've invested some of that money in their infrastructure!
@Blinky987: 30% use less than 1GB? Those people were being raped and should have used DSL. Now they will be waiting for web pages to load and their usage will be capped. Luckily, they probably can't feel anything anymore.
You know what I find kind of amusing? The fact that [as of this moment] 3% of people said TWC was 'right'.
I usually try to understand how people think and what reasons they have for thinking a certain way. In this case, I think those who voted for TWC likely saw the popular catchphrase \"Those who use less should pay less/Those who pay more should pay more\". This was more than likely immediately appealing to those persons.
I'm not saying who's 'wrong or right', I just found it kind of interesting that people would side with the company.
@NeverLetMeDown: Which is their given right, but when they abuse their position as the only provider at that level of speed, then we have a problem. They backed down because people were willing to take a hit in speed to stick it to an abusive monopoly. You don't live in a monopoly, do you?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-615273-100x100.png\")
According to the San Antonio Express-News (well, their online partner, mySA.com), TWC has also dropped the metered billing trial in San Antonio and Austin.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-856526-100x100.png\")
The last time I heard the words \"vocal minority,\" they were coming from Richard M. Nixon during his 1969 Vietnamization speech:
\"If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this Nation has no future as a free society.\"
Needless to say, the \"vocal minority\" won that battle. I certainly hope that they win this battle as well.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-932865-100x100.png\")
That was about 99% PR weasel words with 1% filler.
Only legislation will stop TWC. They simply won't allow their cable business to die. The education process will involve pacifying the majority that they will be OK as long as they continue paying for TV; it will be the \"other people\" that will have their rates raised.
If it is pay less for those who use less, how about we put timers on the cable boxes and start charging that way as well?
Well time warner , I am a stock holder, Look if you did not lie to us in the first place with all your ads , UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited UNlimited internet at fast speeds for a price. remarketing and trying to change what you started and created with the public is an uphill battle and you will lose both money and customers in the long run. This IS NOT ABOUT USEAGE, IT's about CHARGing for FOR ALL THE LAME ASS PRODUCTS AND SERVICE YOUR USERS DO NOT WANT. GET OUT OF THE PHONE BIS. FOR ONE.
I pay less for my water than my neighbor (yea, the guy with the big inground pool).
My other neighbor pays more for garbage because he has 9 kids generating 3 dumpsters x2 per week versus the normal 1 dumpster x2 per week.
High consumers always pay more. Lower consumers pay less. Seems fair.
@Corporate-Shill: Where I live water and trash are unlimited. I bet you still pay more for both than I do.
@Corporate-Shill: Do they charge more for water to protect other services and have a monopoly on all of them, and then charge you insane water prices if you use more than a gallon a week?
'Those who use less should pay less'
Y'know, I only watch about 20 out of the 200 channels I get.....
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21380-100x100.png\")
They believe that \"users who use more should pay more, and users that use less should pay less.\" What that really means is \"We want to rape our customers who use more, and keep charging users that use less exactly the same so we can keep our profit margins sky high!
Oh, the age-old philosophy of Telecom companies, cell, providers, and cable-TV companies! Charge everyone a really high price just for the privilege of having basic service and then really screw people who actually use the service.
Enough is enough!
Educate a vocal minority= payoff those in power who can stand in the way.
Watch for the campaign donations before the next attempt.
\"While I understand that some of my constituents may object for pay-for-use billing plans, doesn't it make sense that those who use more should pay more....\"
TW got caught, has a PR mess on it's hands and it backing off as the should. Oops!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-52155-100x100.png\")
I am a TWC Roadrunner user. I stream from Netflix to my Xbox. TWC does not like me streaming from their competition, they would rather have me streaming from their product, especially since I ditched their digital cable product because it was overpriced as hell.
Stop and think about this. Then think about all the hoopla surrounding the net neutrality fiasco. Add 2+2, the answer is obvious.
When the caps happen I will summarily ditch my internet connection and find other stuff to do. Simple really.
Don't let these monopolies control you so much people!
I don't have a problem with paying by usage, but it's BS when they were only raising prices. If they were really interested in charging fairly by usage, they would have lowered prices for most of the existing users first.
I wouldn't want it like a phone charge either. I flat rate for every 10 gigs I actually USED I'd probably accept, as long as that charge was based on a fair publicized rate. And if I use none one month, not get charged at all.
But the other big problem with this is that the costs for them are largely fixed. The cables are already laid, partly paid for with taxes. Since they are not only not being maxed out yet, considering all the dark fiber, charging by usage is BS because using more doesn't cost them more.
TWC is a bunch of a-holes. As soon as they do that, I will sign up for ATT Uverse. It sucks that my condo association prohibits satellite dishes.
@mbnovik:
Do you have a private balcony or patio? If so, you can get a satellite dish, and the condo can't, by law, stop you.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-64039-100x100.png\")
whoever this eric massa is and whatever platform he's running for or whatever bill he is supporting, he's got my vote.
@diablofreak: Eric Massa is a Democratic Congressman representing NY's 29th District. I can't tell you how thrilled I was to see he was going after TWC. He was just elected this past fall, and so far, he's doing a great job.
I was seriously about to change to Time Warner a month ago for my internet as AT&T has screwed up my DSL line (after 5 years of having it) and I can't get more then about 600kb d/l speed. As I saw this story developing I decided to wait. I'm glad I did. They won't be getting my business, and I sent them an email stating so. I will live with this horrible DSL speed until ATT gets their uverse working in this neighborhood. Call me a vocal minority if you want. I have a choice, and I am choosing to not do business with Time Warner.
Between this, the bandwidth throttling, The Pirate Bay in the process of getting fucked, social networking sites, and the threat of complete governmental control over the content... the internet is seriously close to jumping the shark.
What I want to know is who is the 3% of you voting that TWC is correct here? Please speak up why.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
I agree...people that use less should pay less, and people that use more should pay more. That being said...
I think $15 a month for 1 mb down and 500kb up unlimited would satisfy the people that use less (grandmas sending emails).
Next would be 3 mb down, 750k for $30 a month, 8mb down 1 mb up would be $45, and we go from there. Of course all of these plans are unlimited. Internet in America is overpriced as-is, and I can't believe they think we should go to tiered download limits.
Why aren't broadband rates regulated like electric, gas, and telephone rates are? At least in FL the utilities commission has to approve and rate changes/term changes. Could be the perfect way to stop this nonsense before it starts.
Of course, there aren't too many rate hikes the FL utilities commission hasn't approved. They're practically in bed with the utilities, but at least it's something.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-222420-100x100.png\")
If metering the internet is good, meter TV too!
I ditched cable TV exactly because I was paying to get 200+ channels that I never used. So I stopped subsidizing the all the channels by dropping all of them. Yes, there are other things for me to spend my time doing, rather than paying $80+/mo for something I don't use.
\"This relationship just isnt working...
It's not me, its you.\"
Now usually, anything concerning New York means nothing to me as that place is a toliet. But this whole metered/capped/whatever service is just a way to rip people off. The assholes already make a killing on the service; now are just getting even more greedy. The only permanent way to stop this is to not get service from them. If they lose massive amounts of customers, they will get the picture. But I imagine they probably dominate the market there and there may not be anyone else to get service from. That sucks.
From the TWC Dictionary:
educated: [v., past tense] to brainwash; to make another think as you do.
I am the vocal minority.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-456956-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-296530-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-48863-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-438422-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-13958-100x100.png\")
Bunch of PR BS. They really don't care that those who \"use less should pay less.\" This is nothing but a money grab and they're unhappy that they have been exposed. Their own financials say that broadband costs are going down while customers are increasing.
@tailstoo: Well, technically they will pay less...than the people who use more data! The lower users will not see an appreciable reduction in monthly service fees, they will simply have a new cap imposed upon them.
High data users will be required to pay more then they are currently paying for \"unlimited\".
@tailstoo: Use less, pay less?
How about I pay less for the 70% of the cable channels TWC forces me to pay for that I do not use? Take them away, I don't want home shopping and CMT, amongst others.
I'm still waiting on their CEO to respond to that line of questions.
@tailstoo: They call it \"use less, pay less,\" but in reality it's \"use more, pay more; use less, pay not as much as the 'use more' people but still more.\"
Of course, that doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
@tailstoo: Exactly. Did anybody's bill go down with the adoption of metered access? All I heard about was surcharges for using more than 20,000,000 bytes in a month (which, honestly, isn't very much).