Mirell writes "Time Warner Cable has recently changed their Terms of Service, so that they are allowed to charge you at their discretion via consumption-based billing. They were shot down a few months ago after raising the wrath of many subscribers and several politicians. Now they're trying again, but since they make exclusions for their own voice and video not to count against the cap, this could draw the attention of the FCC."
AT&T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth. I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.
What's most important is that for truly equivalent services, the providers should not be able to discriminate.
If they use that justification, than I want to be able to have torrent(any) traffic that stays inside their network not classified against my cap either.
The cable companies do their throttling at the cable modem. It turns out this cap can be bypassed. There were some guys back in my hometown that got caught doing just this. The cable company threw the book at them.
It would make more technical sense to do this at the headend, since they could keep the control closer to them. It would also allow customers who wanted to exchange data locally to do so at the full loop speed without chewing through upstream bandwidth. Instead, I'm stuck talking to my neighbor two apartment buildings away at 384kbit/sec. Obviously what makes the most technical sense does not necessarily mesh with what makes the most business sense.
>I'm stuck talking to my neighbor two apartment buildings away at 384kbit/sec.
The problem is that you dont know where the bottleneck is. Im sure in cable networks the bottlneck in many scenarios is local and in other times its the backhaul. Assuming there's 100mbps of unused bandwidth between the cable node you are on and the node your pal is on may not be correct.
Not to mention, the docsis protocl may not be able to understand who to lift the cap for and who not too. Considering there's no business reason to provide that service, perhaps you and your neighbor should spring for a wifi link.
I think the sad part of this scenario is that there should be a business reason to provide this type of service. I imagine a municipal run ISP would be able to handle this pretty well and it would help the community. It would be nice to have a 50 or 60mbps link to everyone on my local node. Oh well, perhaps someday the municipal government will wise up.
The thing is, the large telco/cablecos' VoIP offerings don't come anywhere close to being an equivalent service. I can't do nearly as much with TWC's VoIP service as I can with my current ala carte provider (Vitelity [vitelity.net]), and it costs many, many, many times more than what I pay now.
I would have to say that these large Cable Companies are probably getting scared of possibility of IP based Television Companies cropping up and taking their client base. Their core product has to change from Cable Television service to IP Connectivity.
Well the reality is, it is not about what they are planning to charge it is about economically excluding other content distribution companies from potential customers and establishing a content distribution monopoly.
This is forcing a legislative stance, where bandwidth providers will only be allowed to supply bandwidth and absolutely nothing else, otherwise the will always attempt to restrict use of that bandwidth so as to increase profits well beyond reasonable terms for cost of provision of that bandwi
You can write whatever you want on your checks in 1 point font, it normally has zero effect on the agreement, although it may in theory be taken as an anticipatory breach of contract on your part..
That is, because an attempt at changing the agreement under such irregular conditions is an unenforcable one, and you're obligated under terms of existing contract with TWC to send payment. You cannot impose new conditions before you meet the terms required of you.
As a result, you also can't automatically bind TWC into an agreement based on them having payment made from your check.
Even if you had no prior agreement with TWC, you couldn't do it, because of the special nature of a check.
To condition accepting terms based on a payment, you have to make them sign the contract before or separate from the check.
And all the requirements to have a contract have to be met; consideration, meeting of minds, etc.
e.g. You'd have to send them a document that is the agreement but not a check / payment instrument that has another clear intent.
1 point font is also small enough as to make its contents unenforceable, as the other party can rightly claim the text was not visible.
But changing the TOS in a small-type on a flimsy insert sent with the bill that takes a law degree, additional experience, and hours of careful reading to comprehend constitutes a "meeting of the minds"? Bullshit.
The fact that this sort of thing is legally accepted shows only that common sense in the application of the law was thrown out the window long ago in order to accommodate the existence of mega-corporations.
It may be a necessary evil, but that's no reason to dissemble about what's actually happening.
If they and the other major providers form a cartel and manipulate the government to implement this across the board, and kill off competition, then we are all baked, baked, and baked.
Actually they don't even need the government-they just do what they did here. i am at the edge of a rural area, and three times in the last five years a small startup has come along and tried to offer broadband to those that have gotten the finger from the local duopoly. The latest is Wifi, and it looks like they'll go under by summer. the pattern they use is always the same. They let the startup come in, sell them backbone access at a decent price, and then when their dialup customers begin dropping their crazy priced dialup services they just jack the backbone access until they can't stay in business. So basically they have decided that the rural customers can "suck this dialup and like it!"
I learned this is their SOP by a buddy of mine who had his own mini-ISP trying to serve the same area nearly a decade ago. His business was out of their "service area" and when he saw plenty of other businesses and homes that were in the same shitty boat that he was in, he just did what any capitalist American should be able to do and tried to solve the problem. He paid a good chunk of money out of his own pocket for a T-1 and leased space off of it to his neighbors. He set up a little server with a freeware repository and Windows updating from there, and according to him after having "10k on a good day" dialup he and his customers were quite happy.
Then the teleco got wind when the neighbors stopped paying for their crappy dialup and changed the TOS to "number of attached nodes" or some BS and raised his rates 4000%. They made it real clear "don't like it? Sue us". When he talked to his lawyer the lawyer said "Yeah you can sue them. For about half a million and a decade or so out of your life. Of course by then you will be completely bankrupt and won't be able to afford the appeals. If you are that crazy good luck, but I can't take the case. It would be economic suicide." So now the line sits rotting in a field, the business is empty because he moved away rather than go back to trying to run his business on 10k dialup, and the people there are screwed. Just as the WISP will be out of business by summer because the backbone charges are forcing them to charge $150 for 756k and of course at that price they can't keep enough customers in a rural area to stay afloat.
So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them. They have used our public right of way to run their cables, we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger, it is time to take it back. Take it back and force companies to compete for the lines while we use part of the money we make from the lease to run nationwide fiber. To those companies that want a monopoly? We say "See those rural customers? The ones we paid you to serve once before? You will get a monopoly for x number of years for running fiber to them. The farther and fewer there are, the more time you'll get. Have at it." The maybe those like my mom who was 2 blocks from the cable when she and dad built their house 29 years ago will actually be able to get broadband instead of STILL being two blocks away after 29 fricking years even though nearly 2 dozen houses have sprung up on the lousy quarter mile straight line from the junction box!
No, they not the least bit stupid and are totally "in touch". They just know they are a borderline monopoly so they really don't care what their customers want.
Ok, if so few people pirate stuff then why does the RIAA think it necessary to sue people to "send a message". Then, if most people only download few things and the network is slightly slower because of the heavy P2P user they won't feel it because they will just assume their computer is a bit slower due to anti-virus, etc.
The average customer isn't going to care if their internet is slightly slower because of a P2P user so if everything is as you say it is there is no need to cap.
This is absurd. What in your mind constitutes an "abuser" of a service that is advertised as unlimited? "Completely legal"??? So you assume that people who are download "abusers" are also pirates? Ridiculous. With the popularity of Hulu, YouTube, and any number of proprietary video-on-demand sites (Amazon, Netflix, iTunes, and an assortment of TV sites) it's quite easy to rack up the gigabytes on a monthly basis, all of which are completely LEGAL. Don't forget VoIP, Steam, X-Box/PS3, MMOs, and other assorted on-line gaming resources, all of which also pack on the gigabytes, and again, all LEGAL.
By your rationale, people who watch only a few hours of cable TV a month should pay less than those watching hundreds of hours of cable TV, as they are essentially "abusers" of what is advertised and sold as an unlimited service. Total bullsh*t. Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu. They want you to pay outrageous amounts of money for their crappy cable TV service, VoIP telephone service, and PPV movies on-demand service. They know it, we know it, and the feds know it. They're not fooling anyone.
At best it's anti-competitive, at worst it's extortion. The feds need to come in and smack TWC back in line.
Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu.
Correct. This is a consequence of the owners of the infrastructure also selling services over that infrastructure. That is the key. The infrastructure needs to be owned by the public (just like with our roads and airwaves) to ensure there is no conflict of interest.
And notice how the TOS change only applies to people who exceed the caps. What about those that only move a tiny amount of data every month? Are they going to see their bill automatically reduced to accommodate their usage? Yeah, not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
So it's okay if you pay for a certain level of service and never come close to using it, but not okay if you take full advantage of what you've paid for. Riiiiiight...
In Australia, we get to choose our plan by both speed AND quota. If you exceed your quota, in most cases you will get shaped to 128kpbs. Some of the bigger players like Telstra charge you excess usage per megabite over the limit.
This pricing structure has been in Australia for many years.
There are also 100+ GB plans from several ISPS at the 'standard' ADSL1 speed of 1.5 Mbps, which is quite close to your 1 Mbps example.
If you wanted to get upwards of 200 GB though, you'd have to buy a 24 Mbps plan with 200+ GB and tell your modem to connect at 1 Mbps if you insist on it... why
Why not mandate that if Time Warner uses any public property for their lines that they must be high capacity and they must not throttle/charge based on bandwidth. While I despise regulation of any free market the fact remains that a lot of Time Warner's lines run through public property so they should answer to the people.
Well, currently there isn't any economy that is free enough, you only need to look at the internet as a whole to see where little to no taxes, minimal government regulation, and close to universal participation gets you, and that is a ton of content made cheaply that anyone can access. Take away the government regulation (with content), abolish all internet taxes and with increased broadband adoption the internet will continue to grow and flourish. Its only with government regulation that any stagnation occurs.
Wow, how American of you. Idiot. If you look to the east you'll find dozens of countries in Europe that have amazing infrastructures, not to mention extremely cheap and very fast broadband. And their poverty to wealth ratio is a fraction of what it is here. How DO they do it???
The problem with a "free market" is that greed trumps all. This is fine when you're dealing with yachts, luxury homes, and bling, but not so much when it comes to basic and ubiquitous goods and services like homes, automobiles, healthcare, and yes, Internet.
There was once a time in this country when making a buck was not the end-all-be-all of running a business. Unfortunately that time has long passed. Instead we have corporations with no moral compass, no compassion, no sense of right and wrong, only the financial bottom line. And we excuse this behavior on the grounds that they are businesses who are beholden to shareholders, blah blah blah blah blah.
When a company lays off 500 people yet continues to pay their top executives $20+ million a year, how can anyone with half a brain think this is right? Axe one of those execs and you now have enough money to hire back those 500 people. Or cut their pay by 10% each (like they're really going to notice). But when was the last time that happened?
I'm tired of the all the excuses. A business can be profitable AND be socially conscious. They are not mutually exclusive. Until the people of this country stop buying corporate America's excuses as to why they can't do this we will continue to see the working Joes get beaten down while the wealthiest of wealthy keep getting richer and richer.
So yeah, explain to me how great the "free market" is again...
Don't blame corporate america - blame every single person who has bought into the stock market bubble (including everyone who has a 401K or IRA).
At one time people bought stocks based on their dividend yield. These people held on to the stocks for a long time and did not want the company to sacrifice the long term for the short term.
Now the market is dominated by speculators that want instant profits now. Stocks are no longer priced by the actual condition of the company and its long term outlook but by the "greater fool" theory.
The companies are just responding to what their owners are telling them.
There is no competition in many neighborhoods because the government made it that way.
Uh, no. You don't have competition because of natural monopolies - you aren't going to have multiple cable companies make the massive investments in infrastructure when a maximum of one line will be used at one time - not because of government. Yes, monopolies are granted, but that's so an unregulated company doesn't come in with lower rates the regulated company, and then jack up rates when the regulated company is driv
Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market". Just can't get enough of that corporate cock, can you?
That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.
Yes, because paying 1000% more for monopolized products and services will be such a boon for you, as well as deadly workplaces and poisonous food/medicine/products/drinking water.
I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.
If you want to grab your ankles to increase TW's already high profit margins while they spend a fraction of a percentage of revenue on improving the infrastructure, knock yourself out. It's a free country. But don't be surprised as the abhorrence the rest of us have for it.
they are allowed to charge you at their discretion
When selling most goods and services, it's "here is our price per [measurement], take it or leave it". They do not look into why you are buying the item, and what you are using it for, and charge you based on that. And you are informed of the rate before you decide to purchase the goods or service.
For some reason I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words just now, but when they're deciding what to charge me for bandwidth based on what they think about my use of it... I don't think so.
Yes, and we are allowed to bitch and moan and create massive campaigns about what poor service we're getting for the price that they want to increase.
The only problem is that many of us don't have real choices (choosing between powerful corporations known for colluding isn't much choice). We're doing exactly what we should be doing in a free market. We're shouting at the vendor that they're overpriced and looking at legislation to keep them from changing prices (which is appropriate in this case since the c
Here's what's going on. Big content providers are primarily in the business of distributing movies, music, tv shows. Distribution used to be expensive because of exclusive licenses for limited radio spectrum or having cable pay for your content. Along comes this damn inconvenient packet switched broadband and basically reduces distribution costs to a ridiculously low number. So, some people who aren't as smart as you, or for that matter a poblano pepper decided that:
* By raising the cost for residential broadband, it would make it cost you more to download Heroes vs. just watching it on their cable/on demand network. * Because you can get your shows for less through the cable company, then they can sell all the commercials and make more money. * Big content benefits because they can wrap everything up in a nice DRM wrapper on the DVR box you rent and then they get to sell you Cloverfield eight times over the next four years.
There's just a couple of small holes in the plan:
* It's probably illegal. If it's not it's so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers. * The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights. Last I looked there were at least a few more things to do online than movies and music. * There are emerging technologies that are going to absolutely screw any business plan counting on a last mile monopoly (google meraki just for fun). Just for the hell of it, I'm going to start a mesh in the apartment complex I live in ($20/month/2.5MBPS). * Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time, and last I looked, the internet only ISP isn't gone yet... and won't be gone for some time.
Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time, and last I looked, the internet only ISP isn't gone yet... and won't be gone for some time.
But most people really only have access to either Comcast, Time Warner or AT&T other then the occasional local ISP (which usually has slow connection speeds because of the lack of infrastructure) or dial up (unusable to download anything really) there are many people who can't switch even if they wanted to.
* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights. Last I looked there were at least a few more things to do online than movies and music.
I disagree. When TWC announced their proposed changes many states, NY in particular, made it very clear they would fight such obvious predatory pricing by passing new laws to restrict or outright ban it. And TWC backed down. While I generally don't trust politicians to do the right thing, on this they do seem to be looking out for the consumer. So I'm at least optimistic. If push does come to shove we very well might see things on a state-by-state basis, where TWC will be permitted to change their pricing in
I think this is just a 100% money grab. Nothing as well thought out as 'internet is cannibalizing our other business'. Remember that the internet segment of their business is a growing segment. Their video is a declining one. The reason it is declining is due to competition from directtv/dish/att/others...
This is a money grab, no doubt. At the same time, this is also a lame attempt to save the content distribution business and avoid simply becoming a pipe. This is why net neutrality and a "genuine internet" initiative are so important. TW wants to charge less for their content than everything else you get online. This is all about owning the bridge, then being allowed to put up a toll bridge to make more money.
Is it legal to change the terms? Do they count as a contract in the legal sense?
I guess if you're paying month by month, changing them and, ideally, notifying your customers that you did and that's just the way the cookie crumbles, they can continue to purchase their services or not. But what if you got locked into one of those deals? You know, three months at such and such price but then you have to stay on for nine more months at full price or whatever?
If you read the ultra fine print you will probably find a clause that allows them to change the terms of the contract at their discretion, and that posting a update on their web site is sufficient notice, it's usually right before the clause that allows them to have any disputes settled by their cousin Harrold in a kangaroo court of their choosing....
The funny thing is, TWC is still the cable provider, but Earthlink is the ISP. I still have the same cable modem TWC installed, etc. After I called Earthlink and signed up for their service ($20 a month cheaper than TWC for 6 months, then $10/mon cheaper than TWC forever...no contract) I had to call my local TWC office and they toggled something in software that made me get an Earthlink IP.
I don't know if TWC will be able to start making Earthlink charge more, but when I talked to the people at Earthlink they specifically told me there were no bandwidth caps, no tiers, and no plans for such.
Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data. Gigaom is just reading controversy where there is none. Video and telephony infrastructure operate on private channels on private infrastructure.
I was frankly disappointed to see the redundancy in your sig (not to mention bad security practice). Also in an effort not to be offtopic one could liken it to TimeWarner being struck down last time but just ploughing on anyway.
Whah, whah, whah. We got users actually taking advantage of our "unlimited" offer... now we don't like it and we want to charge them through the nose for going over some arbitrary limit (absurdly low in the era of VOD etc.), or gouge them with an "unlimited plan" that costs hundreds of dollars (over the cost of the cable TV if they have it.)
Sorry, if they didn't want people using it "unlimited", then don't advertise it like that and then change TOS while the customer has your service. Either man up and friggin' say it's "X" GB a month (like they SUED Comcast into doing), or don't put a cap on it at all. Throttle the up/down speed past a certain amount (certainly more than 50GB).
The cable companies made serious bank off the benevolence of imminent domain, using federal subsidies to lay the cable (meaning using OUR money to do it). Now they complain people are using "too much"? Bite me. Why didn't TWC try any tiered pricing in places where there was competition? Because it's a BAD IDEA. And if TWC does go through with their plans (try #2), you might well be the only one on their network. Good luck with that. The internet is filled with actual studies that prove your points to be incorrect regarding bandwidth caps and usage, not some "whining" by people who don't feel like being gouged by TWC.
AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own content (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not at all strange.
AT&T justifies it by noting that accessing internal content doesn't use up their backhaul bandwidth. I would think the FCC would be somewhat sympathetic to this argument.
What's most important is that for truly equivalent services, the providers should not be able to discriminate.
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:5, Interesting)
If they use that justification, than I want to be able to have torrent(any) traffic that stays inside their network not classified against my cap either.
Parent
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a good point and technically possible aswell. I wonder if anyone has suggested it to them tho, rather than just bitching about it on forums :)
Parent
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:4, Interesting)
The cable companies do their throttling at the cable modem. It turns out this cap can be bypassed. There were some guys back in my hometown that got caught doing just this. The cable company threw the book at them.
It would make more technical sense to do this at the headend, since they could keep the control closer to them. It would also allow customers who wanted to exchange data locally to do so at the full loop speed without chewing through upstream bandwidth. Instead, I'm stuck talking to my neighbor two apartment buildings away at 384kbit/sec. Obviously what makes the most technical sense does not necessarily mesh with what makes the most business sense.
Parent
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:4, Informative)
>I'm stuck talking to my neighbor two apartment buildings away at 384kbit/sec.
The problem is that you dont know where the bottleneck is. Im sure in cable networks the bottlneck in many scenarios is local and in other times its the backhaul. Assuming there's 100mbps of unused bandwidth between the cable node you are on and the node your pal is on may not be correct.
Not to mention, the docsis protocl may not be able to understand who to lift the cap for and who not too. Considering there's no business reason to provide that service, perhaps you and your neighbor should spring for a wifi link.
I think the sad part of this scenario is that there should be a business reason to provide this type of service. I imagine a municipal run ISP would be able to handle this pretty well and it would help the community. It would be nice to have a 50 or 60mbps link to everyone on my local node. Oh well, perhaps someday the municipal government will wise up.
Parent
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well the reality is, it is not about what they are planning to charge it is about economically excluding other content distribution companies from potential customers and establishing a content distribution monopoly.
This is forcing a legislative stance, where bandwidth providers will only be allowed to supply bandwidth and absolutely nothing else, otherwise the will always attempt to restrict use of that bandwidth so as to increase profits well beyond reasonable terms for cost of provision of that bandwi
Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they read the last check I sent in... (Score:5, Funny)
I changed TWC's terms of service first.
It's written on the back of the check in 1 point font.
"Accepting this check indicates the acceptance of the following changes in
service billing:..."
Parent
Re:I hope they read the last check I sent in... (Score:4, Informative)
You can write whatever you want on your checks in 1 point font, it normally has zero effect on the agreement, although it may in theory be taken as an anticipatory breach of contract on your part..
That is, because an attempt at changing the agreement under such irregular conditions is an unenforcable one, and you're obligated under terms of existing contract with TWC to send payment. You cannot impose new conditions before you meet the terms required of you.
As a result, you also can't automatically bind TWC into an agreement based on them having payment made from your check.
Even if you had no prior agreement with TWC, you couldn't do it, because of the special nature of a check.
To condition accepting terms based on a payment, you have to make them sign the contract before or separate from the check.
And all the requirements to have a contract have to be met; consideration, meeting of minds, etc.
e.g. You'd have to send them a document that is the agreement but not a check / payment instrument that has another clear intent.
1 point font is also small enough as to make its contents unenforceable, as the other party can rightly claim the text was not visible.
Parent
Re:I hope they read the last check I sent in... (Score:4, Informative)
But changing the TOS in a small-type on a flimsy insert sent with the bill that takes a law degree, additional experience, and hours of careful reading to comprehend constitutes a "meeting of the minds"? Bullshit.
The fact that this sort of thing is legally accepted shows only that common sense in the application of the law was thrown out the window long ago in order to accommodate the existence of mega-corporations.
It may be a necessary evil, but that's no reason to dissemble about what's actually happening.
Parent
Not really (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, the textile lobbies have already formed a cartel and manipulated the government specifically so that you aren't baked. ;-)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually they don't even need the government-they just do what they did here. i am at the edge of a rural area, and three times in the last five years a small startup has come along and tried to offer broadband to those that have gotten the finger from the local duopoly. The latest is Wifi, and it looks like they'll go under by summer. the pattern they use is always the same. They let the startup come in, sell them backbone access at a decent price, and then when their dialup customers begin dropping their crazy priced dialup services they just jack the backbone access until they can't stay in business. So basically they have decided that the rural customers can "suck this dialup and like it!"
I learned this is their SOP by a buddy of mine who had his own mini-ISP trying to serve the same area nearly a decade ago. His business was out of their "service area" and when he saw plenty of other businesses and homes that were in the same shitty boat that he was in, he just did what any capitalist American should be able to do and tried to solve the problem. He paid a good chunk of money out of his own pocket for a T-1 and leased space off of it to his neighbors. He set up a little server with a freeware repository and Windows updating from there, and according to him after having "10k on a good day" dialup he and his customers were quite happy.
Then the teleco got wind when the neighbors stopped paying for their crappy dialup and changed the TOS to "number of attached nodes" or some BS and raised his rates 4000%. They made it real clear "don't like it? Sue us". When he talked to his lawyer the lawyer said "Yeah you can sue them. For about half a million and a decade or so out of your life. Of course by then you will be completely bankrupt and won't be able to afford the appeals. If you are that crazy good luck, but I can't take the case. It would be economic suicide." So now the line sits rotting in a field, the business is empty because he moved away rather than go back to trying to run his business on 10k dialup, and the people there are screwed. Just as the WISP will be out of business by summer because the backbone charges are forcing them to charge $150 for 756k and of course at that price they can't keep enough customers in a rural area to stay afloat.
So IMHO the only way we are going to get real competition is to go eminent domain on them. They have used our public right of way to run their cables, we paid them billions of dollars in tax breaks for nationwide high speed and got nothing but the finger, it is time to take it back. Take it back and force companies to compete for the lines while we use part of the money we make from the lease to run nationwide fiber. To those companies that want a monopoly? We say "See those rural customers? The ones we paid you to serve once before? You will get a monopoly for x number of years for running fiber to them. The farther and fewer there are, the more time you'll get. Have at it." The maybe those like my mom who was 2 blocks from the cable when she and dad built their house 29 years ago will actually be able to get broadband instead of STILL being two blocks away after 29 fricking years even though nearly 2 dozen houses have sprung up on the lousy quarter mile straight line from the junction box!
Parent
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they not the least bit stupid and are totally "in touch". They just know they are a borderline monopoly so they really don't care what their customers want.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The average customer isn't going to care if their internet is slightly slower because of a P2P user so if everything is as you say it is there is no need to cap.
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
By your rationale, people who watch only a few hours of cable TV a month should pay less than those watching hundreds of hours of cable TV, as they are essentially "abusers" of what is advertised and sold as an unlimited service. Total bullsh*t. Lets cut to the chase -- this has NOTHING to do with saturating bandwidth or degrading performance. Time Warner doesn't want you downloading movies from Netflix, using Skype to make free phone calls, and watching TV on Hulu. They want you to pay outrageous amounts of money for their crappy cable TV service, VoIP telephone service, and PPV movies on-demand service. They know it, we know it, and the feds know it. They're not fooling anyone.
At best it's anti-competitive, at worst it's extortion. The feds need to come in and smack TWC back in line.
Parent
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct. This is a consequence of the owners of the infrastructure also selling services over that infrastructure. That is the key. The infrastructure needs to be owned by the public (just like with our roads and airwaves) to ensure there is no conflict of interest.
Parent
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's okay if you pay for a certain level of service and never come close to using it, but not okay if you take full advantage of what you've paid for. Riiiiiight...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funnily enough, you can get sorta close to both of those plans.
There are ADSL2+ plans (i.e. 24 Mbps) with 2 GB/month allowances: http://www.tpg.com.au/products_services/adsl2plus_pricing.php [tpg.com.au] (first plan in the list).
There are also 100+ GB plans from several ISPS at the 'standard' ADSL1 speed of 1.5 Mbps, which is quite close to your 1 Mbps example.
If you wanted to get upwards of 200 GB though, you'd have to buy a 24 Mbps plan with 200+ GB and tell your modem to connect at 1 Mbps if you insist on it ... why
Why not.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with a "free market" is that greed trumps all. This is fine when you're dealing with yachts, luxury homes, and bling, but not so much when it comes to basic and ubiquitous goods and services like homes, automobiles, healthcare, and yes, Internet.
There was once a time in this country when making a buck was not the end-all-be-all of running a business. Unfortunately that time has long passed. Instead we have corporations with no moral compass, no compassion, no sense of right and wrong, only the financial bottom line. And we excuse this behavior on the grounds that they are businesses who are beholden to shareholders, blah blah blah blah blah.
When a company lays off 500 people yet continues to pay their top executives $20+ million a year, how can anyone with half a brain think this is right? Axe one of those execs and you now have enough money to hire back those 500 people. Or cut their pay by 10% each (like they're really going to notice). But when was the last time that happened?
I'm tired of the all the excuses. A business can be profitable AND be socially conscious. They are not mutually exclusive. Until the people of this country stop buying corporate America's excuses as to why they can't do this we will continue to see the working Joes get beaten down while the wealthiest of wealthy keep getting richer and richer.
So yeah, explain to me how great the "free market" is again...
Parent
Re:Why not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame corporate america - blame every single person who has bought into the stock market bubble (including everyone who has a 401K or IRA).
At one time people bought stocks based on their dividend yield. These people held on to the stocks for a long time and did not want the company to sacrifice the long term for the short term.
Now the market is dominated by speculators that want instant profits now. Stocks are no longer priced by the actual condition of the company and its long term outlook but by the "greater fool" theory.
The companies are just responding to what their owners are telling them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no competition in many neighborhoods because the government made it that way.
Uh, no. You don't have competition because of natural monopolies - you aren't going to have multiple cable companies make the massive investments in infrastructure when a maximum of one line will be used at one time - not because of government. Yes, monopolies are granted, but that's so an unregulated company doesn't come in with lower rates the regulated company, and then jack up rates when the regulated company is driv
Re:Why not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, so on one hand you don't want the companies to have to pay rent on the land they use, yet on the other you want a "free market". Just can't get enough of that corporate cock, can you?
That's a very slippery slope for someone who despises regulation of the free market.
Yes, because paying 1000% more for monopolized products and services will be such a boon for you, as well as deadly workplaces and poisonous food/medicine/products/drinking water.
Parent
Re:Why not.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't quite understand the total abhorrence of transfer capping around here.
If you want to grab your ankles to increase TW's already high profit margins while they spend a fraction of a percentage of revenue on improving the infrastructure, knock yourself out. It's a free country. But don't be surprised as the abhorrence the rest of us have for it.
Parent
Oh no, no, no (Score:4, Interesting)
they are allowed to charge you at their discretion
When selling most goods and services, it's "here is our price per [measurement], take it or leave it". They do not look into why you are buying the item, and what you are using it for, and charge you based on that. And you are informed of the rate before you decide to purchase the goods or service.
For some reason I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words just now, but when they're deciding what to charge me for bandwidth based on what they think about my use of it... I don't think so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and we are allowed to bitch and moan and create massive campaigns about what poor service we're getting for the price that they want to increase.
The only problem is that many of us don't have real choices (choosing between powerful corporations known for colluding isn't much choice). We're doing exactly what we should be doing in a free market. We're shouting at the vendor that they're overpriced and looking at legislation to keep them from changing prices (which is appropriate in this case since the c
New Name of The Game is Content Value (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what's going on. Big content providers are primarily in the business of distributing movies, music, tv shows. Distribution used to be expensive because of exclusive licenses for limited radio spectrum or having cable pay for your content. Along comes this damn inconvenient packet switched broadband and basically reduces distribution costs to a ridiculously low number. So, some people who aren't as smart as you, or for that matter a poblano pepper decided that:
* By raising the cost for residential broadband, it would make it cost you more to download Heroes vs. just watching it on their cable/on demand network.
* Because you can get your shows for less through the cable company, then they can sell all the commercials and make more money.
* Big content benefits because they can wrap everything up in a nice DRM wrapper on the DVR box you rent and then they get to sell you Cloverfield eight times over the next four years.
There's just a couple of small holes in the plan:
* It's probably illegal. If it's not it's so anticonsumer the FCC will have a lot of fun with these jokers.
* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights. Last I looked there were at least a few more things to do online than movies and music.
* There are emerging technologies that are going to absolutely screw any business plan counting on a last mile monopoly (google meraki just for fun). Just for the hell of it, I'm going to start a mesh in the apartment complex I live in ($20/month/2.5MBPS).
* Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time, and last I looked, the internet only ISP isn't gone yet... and won't be gone for some time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Getting tiered pricing requires everyone to do it at the same time, and last I looked, the internet only ISP isn't gone yet... and won't be gone for some time.
But most people really only have access to either Comcast, Time Warner or AT&T other then the occasional local ISP (which usually has slow connection speeds because of the lack of infrastructure) or dial up (unusable to download anything really) there are many people who can't switch even if they wanted to.
Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value (Score:5, Funny)
* The internet is not exclusively used for infringing on big media copyrights. Last I looked there were at least a few more things to do online than movies and music.
Porn?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I generally don't trust politicians to do the right thing, on this they do seem to be looking out for the consumer. So I'm at least optimistic. If push does come to shove we very well might see things on a state-by-state basis, where TWC will be permitted to change their pricing in
Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is just a 100% money grab. Nothing as well thought out as 'internet is cannibalizing our other business'. Remember that the internet segment of their business is a growing segment. Their video is a declining one. The reason it is declining is due to competition from directtv/dish/att/others...
This is a money grab, no doubt. At the same time, this is also a lame attempt to save the content distribution business and avoid simply becoming a pipe. This is why net neutrality and a "genuine internet" initiative are so important. TW wants to charge less for their content than everything else you get online. This is all about owning the bridge, then being allowed to put up a toll bridge to make more money.
Parent
Terms of Service = Contract? (Score:2)
Is it legal to change the terms? Do they count as a contract in the legal sense?
I guess if you're paying month by month, changing them and, ideally, notifying your customers that you did and that's just the way the cookie crumbles, they can continue to purchase their services or not. But what if you got locked into one of those deals? You know, three months at such and such price but then you have to stay on for nine more months at full price or whatever?
Re:Terms of Service = Contract? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the ultra fine print you will probably find a clause that allows them to change the terms of the contract at their discretion, and that posting a update on their web site is sufficient notice, it's usually right before the clause that allows them to have any disputes settled by their cousin Harrold in a kangaroo court of their choosing....
A change is gonna come... (Score:2)
Looks like I may have to switch off of TWCable... sad. It was good service for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you going to switch to? AT&T and Verizon are doing, or will be doing the same thing.
Re:A change is gonna come... (Score:5, Interesting)
FWIW I just switched from TWC to Earthlink cable.
The funny thing is, TWC is still the cable provider, but Earthlink is the ISP. I still have the same cable modem TWC installed, etc. After I called Earthlink and signed up for their service ($20 a month cheaper than TWC for 6 months, then $10/mon cheaper than TWC forever...no contract) I had to call my local TWC office and they toggled something in software that made me get an Earthlink IP.
I don't know if TWC will be able to start making Earthlink charge more, but when I talked to the people at Earthlink they specifically told me there were no bandwidth caps, no tiers, and no plans for such.
Parent
Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that the point? If they where forced to use those channels for data, wouldn't that mean they would have even more capacity?
I don't mind. (Score:5, Interesting)
No more of this "up to X mps for $50 a month". If they promise X but can only deliver 1/5X then they only get to bill me $10 a month instead of $50.
Just send them a blank check... (Score:4, Funny)
So basically Time Warner is saying "we can charge you whatever we want based on whatever we feel like and you must agree to this or fuck off"
Time Warner really gets it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was frankly disappointed to see the redundancy in your sig (not to mention bad security practice). Also in an effort not to be offtopic one could liken it to TimeWarner being struck down last time but just ploughing on anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is nice, but most people have four choices for Internet service:
Cable
DSL
3G
Dialup
For a lot of people, choice #2 or #3 isn't an option due to coverage areas, choice #3 and #4 are too slow to be useful for a lot of things.
So, essentially Cable is a monopoly. This is why they are trying the usual garbage.
Its ironic that while the rest of the world gets faster links like 4G, US bandwidth actually suffers and gets more expensive as time goes on.
I'm also pretty sure that it is only a matter of time before a
Re:It's "triple play", not all "Internet" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, if they didn't want people using it "unlimited", then don't advertise it like that and then change TOS while the customer has your service. Either man up and friggin' say it's "X" GB a month (like they SUED Comcast into doing), or don't put a cap on it at all. Throttle the up/down speed past a certain amount (certainly more than 50GB).
The cable companies made serious bank off the benevolence of imminent domain, using federal subsidies to lay the cable (meaning using OUR money to do it). Now they complain people are using "too much"? Bite me. Why didn't TWC try any tiered pricing in places where there was competition? Because it's a BAD IDEA. And if TWC does go through with their plans (try #2), you might well be the only one on their network. Good luck with that. The internet is filled with actual studies that prove your points to be incorrect regarding bandwidth caps and usage, not some "whining" by people who don't feel like being gouged by TWC.
Parent