Time Warner ToS Changes Could Mean Tiered Pricing, Throttling 162
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."
Could they possibly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AT&T's UVerse also excludes their own conte (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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 :)
Re:New Name of The Game is Content Value (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:Why not.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First post (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:Oh no, no, no (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 carriers like to get legislation passed to block competition).
It's the loud, messy sorta-free market in action.
Re:Why not.... (Score:1, Insightful)
How do you strip value from a homeless and broke person. Your idiotic statement only takes into account the extremely short run where prices can go up and consumers still have money. Once they run out of money they can't fork any more over.
Sure there are differences in wealth but not everyone is equal. Those that head big businesses have a huge responsibility to keep he company running smoothly or thousands could be out of jobs. Do you really want to pay the person in charge of thousands of peoples futures the same amount as the janitor sweeping the halls? Do you want the janitor and the CEO to trade jobs if you worked for that company?
You have twisted the fact that a large infrastructure is required to deliver these services into "barrier to entry" while the company views this as "risk". If they assumed the risk of building it shouldn't you have to pay to use it OR build your own?
You would have to be an idiot to think differences in wealth are there for no reason. If there was no reward to starting a business and running it well then no one would do it and we would still be 'apes' living in the forest eating roots. So please say thanks to the free market instead of making it out to be the root of all evil.
Re:Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data (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?
Re:Could they possibly... (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)
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.
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.
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...
Re:Could they possibly... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is absurd. What in your mind constitutes an "abuser" of a service that is advertised as unlimited?
Right. That's what this is all about. Some of the connectivity providers are being caught out, selling more bandwidth than they have. Rather than shifting into an honesty mode, they're trying to classify those that actually make use of what they've bought as "abusers". It's as if a restaurant were to complain of the abuse of those patrons that ate their entire meal.
They lied before because there wasn't enough demand for them to be caught. That's changed, and their dishonest ways have been exposed.
Re:Voice and Video isn't on same channel as Data (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
Re:Why not.... (Score:2, Insightful)
We are also questioning the motivation. As you've pointed out, transfer caps have very little to do with bandwidth saturation. So while TWC is using this as their rationale, we who know better are calling bullsh*t.
And seriously, did you actually read the new TOS? Does anyone think it's okay to sign up for a service for an agreed upon price of $40 a month (based on connection speed, not transfer amount) only to get a bill for $150 because you went over some transfer cap? Where they don't actually disclose where that cap is nor give you tools to monitor your usage???
This would be like a getting a car lease, knowing you had a mileage limit but never being told what that limit is. Oh, and having your odometer removed. Or like a cell phone plan that you knew had a monthly minute restriction, but no idea what that restriction is or any way to find out how many minutes you've used.
If TWC wants to eliminate pricing by speed and switch to a transfer tiered system I don't have a problem with that. But the prices of the new tiers needs to be comparable to current offerings (not 3x what it is now like their proposed change), with full disclosure of the limits, and easy to use tools to monitor usage.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Why not.... (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 driven out of business.