Time Warner to begin internet billing based on usage in SA (updated title) (maintenance, taxes)

[Bo]

Originally Posted by 01Snake

And here we go again!!

Time Warner to add Internet meters for S.A. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/Time_Warner_prepares_Internet_meters_for_SA_custom ers.html - broken link)

Part of the education process. Do you Time-Warner customers feel more educated yet?

[budjb]

Originally Posted by Bowie

Part of the education process. Do you Time-Warner customers feel more educated yet?

Infinitely more educated. I know now, with absolute certainty, that Time Warner cares only for its bottom line and not the customer.

[scuba steve]

Originally Posted by budjb

... We've got no other options here besides AT&T, and even they are planning on doing tiered usage pricing...

You've got to be kidding me. After seeing how horrible this has been going for their competition they really want to take a jump off that cliff?

What are the other options? Do they do this with DSL? A satellite company as an ISP? Clearwire? Is dialup literally the only other option?

[budjb]

I've got no insider information here but AT&T have said they were looking into doing trials of it a while back. I'm assuming it's for both of their products, but don't quote me on it.

Grande is a great option if it's available in your area; it's not in mine. And satellite broadband is useless in practice. Latency city.

We need alternatives, like cablevision or fios. If either of those folks came here they would absolutely clean up the competition, because there would be none.

[mtdave2]

I know that I emailed them to tell them it would be a stupid idea, and bottom line is if you do it, i leave, period.

One thing though, i don’t want the government evolved in any of these sort of things. i know people seem to want to call their congressman for everything, or get a law passed to stop someone from doing something they don’t like. Big mistake, let the market fix these sort of thing. it works well, do want your customers want, or go out of business.

[Spock's Beard]

Originally Posted by mtdave2

I know that I emailed them to tell them it would be a stupid idea, and bottom line is if you do it, i leave, period.

One thing though, i don’t want the government evolved in any of these sort of things. i know people seem to want to call their congressman for everything, or get a law passed to stop someone from doing something they don’t like. Big mistake, let the market fix these sort of thing. it works well, do want your customers want, or go out of business.

That's where technically-illegal collusion and cartel agreements come in. They're trying to get AT&T, Comcast, and other providers on board so WHEN they do it, customers simply will not have a choice.

All this BS about changing their minds is to minimize the number of customers leaving while the "educate" you on Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" and work with competitors to do a more united front against the internet.

[intmd8r]

Originally Posted by budjb

We need alternatives, like cablevision or fios. If either of those folks came here they would absolutely clean up the competition, because there would be none.

I'm so bummed that Fios isn't there...

[Irish13]

"Critics of the bill-by-the-byte business model say bandwidth caps are a strategy to deter users from accessing high-definition video streams that can detract from Time Warner (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/org_detail.html?orgcode=F171CBB7211C4341988465753F 9E8B84 - broken link)'s main source of revenue: cable subscriptions. But supporters say something has to be done to prevent a small group of heavy users from slowing the Internet experience for everyone else. Metered billing, they say, is a solution to that problem."


thats the excuse supporters are using????

those darn downloaders sure are slowing down my internet experience today...

[Spock's Beard]

Originally Posted by Irish13

"Critics of the bill-by-the-byte business model say bandwidth caps are a strategy to deter users from accessing high-definition video streams that can detract from Time Warner (http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/org_detail.html?orgcode=F171CBB7211C4341988465753F 9E8B84 - broken link)'s main source of revenue: cable subscriptions. But supporters say something has to be done to prevent a small group of heavy users from slowing the Internet experience for everyone else. Metered billing, they say, is a solution to that problem."


thats the excuse supporters are using????

those darn downloaders sure are slowing down my internet experience today...

They're lying. For one thing the taxpayers and not TW, AT&T, or any company pays for all the lines. It's like how a pro sports team owned by a billionaire can get a $1 billion stadium built by taxpayers.

Secondly, the lines they're using now have been in the ground for years and up to a decade now, and due to productivity, they get cheaper to use by the day.

Thirdly bandwidth space falls in costs every day. If it were so expensive, half the internet wouldn't be so flash-intensive and we wouldn't have sites like Hulu and youtube. Research the law of diminishing costs.

Fourthly it is very much a deliberate attempt to drive people away from legal movie/entertainment sites like Hulu and netflix, and steer them towards TW cable TV alternatives like video-on-demand. Anti-trust laws should have kicked in to stop this, but as we saw with a few lenders and mortgage companies being allowed to get so big that any one of them can hurt our economy, the government doesn't seem to care for enforcing anti-trust laws any more.

Fifthly (is that a word?) these companies ar epocketing money from taxpayers for lines we're not even using because they want to maximize profits of pre-existing lines (law of diminishing costs).
You've Already Paid $2,000 For A Fiber Connection You'll Never Get | Techdirt

As the Baby Bells falsely complain about how people aren't paying them for the internet, or whine about how it's unfair to expect them to compete against muni-broadband, there's something important to remember. For the last decade, those same telcos have made promise after promise to local governments concerning the delivery of truly open fiber optic connections to the home. In exchange, they've been granted all sorts of privileges and rate increases by the government, costing all of us money. And where did the money go? Not towards what was promised. Bruce Kushnick, who we've written about before is now coming out with a book that details how the telcos scammed approximately $200 billion (http://muniwireless.com/community/1023 - broken link) from all of us (about $2,000 per household), promising fiber to every home with symmetric 45 Mbps speeds and an open access model that would allow anyone to offer competitive internet services over that connection. This is a promise that they have not kept (http://www.bwianews.com/2006/01/new-book-lays-bare-fiber-optic.html - broken link)... though, they have kept our money. That fiber was supposed to be delivered this year (earlier in other cases), but it's not coming. The fiber that telcos are finally starting to offer is much more expensive, much slower, and locked down. In fact, after all of these promises, remember that the telcos said they wouldn't offer fiber at all, unless the FCC promised not to require them to let others offer services on it. Yet, for all of this, there's been very little outcry, or very little discussion -- and the latest moves concerning network neutrality show that the telcos are looking to take more of our money and deliver less yet again. For more details, check out Kushnick's book, $200 Billion Broadband Scandal, and think about it next time the telcos whine about government interference.

This is a profit scam and an illegal anti-trust move to attack those online competitors for sources of movies and TV shows.

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by Spock's Beard

For one thing the taxpayers and not TW, AT&T, or any company pays for all the lines.

Hey SB, not so sure about that one. Utility companies all pay for their own lines. If they piggyback on existing lines, poles or conduits owned by other companies, then they typically have to lease those. Now, the telecoms do get some taxpayer subsidies to run lines out into rural areas, but that's about the extent of it.