April 16, 2009
According to the official announcement from @JeffTWC on Twitter, CEO Glenn Britt says, “. . . we continue to believe that consumption based billing may be the best pricing plan for consumers . . .”
We still need Massa to bring his bill to congress, and we still need to contact Verizon about getting FiOS competition to the area. We can’t rest on this! The battle was won, but there may be many more to this war!
April 16, 2009
This is an excerpt that I found very interesting (from http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2009/04/15/free-press-questions-internet-limits/):
We looked at the TWC pricing schemes, and we noticed that the cost appears to bear no relationship to the price at all. According to Time Warner Cable’s Securities & Exchange Commission filings: “High-speed data costs decreased for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2008 primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs.” In Rochester, N.Y., Time Warner Cable currently charges consumers $44.90 for unlimited access to the Internet. But under the new pricing scheme, consumers would have to pay $150 — over $100 more — for the same access. If it is costing the company less to connect consumers, why are consumers being charged more to connect? There may be a good answer to this question — but so far even tenacious reporters haven’t gotten it from Time Warner Cable.
The rationale being used to justify this large increase – an impending “exaflood” or Internet brownout — is not supported by the data. In fact, the argument that bandwidth is somehow a scarce resource was refuted by Time Warner Cable’s own CTO Mike LaJoie, who quipped: “Cable is like the Federal Reserve of bandwidth. … we can practically print the stuff!” LaJolie also commented that supplying consumers with more bandwidth is “basically free.”
On the whole, what we see is a major cable operator rolling out a new pricing model that looks like it has the scale to become a permanent system — which is an appropriate moment to raise a red flag. We see a bandwidth cap that is very low compared to others industry players like Comcast — and given the current rise of online video services, it isn’t unreasonable to suggest why this is happening and that it might be a problem. And we see a price that bears no relationship to cost. These things raise questions. And, when called on these questions by the media, the justifications TWC gave were weak obfuscations that just made it seem all the worse.
April 16, 2009
Usage caps! Buffalo doesn’t have it, Syracuse doesn’t have it. Why? Verizon FiOS is there. If Time Warner thought this was a good thing for consumers, and that we’d all want it so we only pay our “fair share”, then why are they so hesitant to roll it out where there’s strong competition? The evidence stands for itself that they know it’s good for them, bad for the consumer. They’re only doing this while “the gettin’s good”, and trying to get as much cash flow from us as possible before FiOS or another competitor drives their prices back down.
April 15, 2009
I arrived home this evening to find my 8 year old daughter on one of our Linux computers, visiting a web page that has full length episodes of sponegbob! I didn’t realize this was even available on-line but there she was streaming full length shows, full screen and I must say it looked pretty good! That was no shabby feed.
Had I been on a plan with a usage cap, I would have been rather upset. That show was probably on the Dish DVR, but she innocently chose to watch it on-line instead. This brought me to thinking about this further. If our usage was rationed, how would we handle it? I’d somehow have to setup our server to apportion the allowed gigabytes into sensible quotas for each family member. If my children drive us over quota and I need to perform research for a customer on-line, then I’d be paying extra for it! Looks like I’d have to charge my customers extra for any on-line research time! So, remember the “fuel surcharges” added to various purchases of products, shipping services, etc. Well, get ready to see a “over-my-gigabyte-cap surcharge” on your next restaurant bill – as they likely submit your credit card payment to Visa over the Internet!
So, what about college students that need to research on-line, download coursework, watch video lectures then upload a paper to the professor? I’m sure there will be plans for neighborhoods and apartment complexes to obtain one plan, max it out at $150/month and share it between multiple houses, apartments, etc. This is likely frowned upon by Time Warner, but what choice would some people have for reasonably priced service? Everything is moving on-line, and my children are exploring beyond the pbskids & nick sites by doing their own searches for things. This scares me even WITH Internet filtering of porn, etc… but that’s another topic.
April 14, 2009
I am strongly opposed to Time Warner’s proposed Internet caps, and actively working to spread the word about why this is bad for our economy. Eric Massa has my full support, and I will also be sending information to him and the media. There are several claims made by TWC that are false, misleading and a blatant lie. Their own SEC filings show that the claims as to why this is “necessary” are lies. The consumer MUST be educated to make a wise decision.
Usage caps are not the answer, and only shows that Time Warner is trying to drive out competition from Vonage, T-Mobile @ Home, Phone Power, Broadvoice, etc on the phone side, and Netflix, Hulu, NBC, youtube, ustream, AppleTV, iTunes, etc on the video side of things. Cable broadcasting is outdated, and this approach instead of helping, is simply holding back progress and stifling innovation of IP based solutions of the future. Furthermore, people that work from home over a VPN so they don’t have to hire a babysitter (which would completely negate the income from working) will be hurt, since they likely cannot afford $150/month for residential Internet access.
Comparing these prices to the rest of the country, even Buffalo & Syracuse, it’s evident this this is price gouging. FiOS, Comcast, AT&T, etc all offer much higher speeds than we have now at similar prices to the 10Mbps options.
They don’t need to line their pockets… especially not from people who are already hurting in this economy. Please discourage and/or find a way to prevent them from implementing this horrible plan.
April 14, 2009
Please, everyone, visit this page, and submit an inquiry. If their database is flooded with requests from this area, they may update their strategy.
Demand FiOS for home