Time Warner Cable Metered Billing Will Return - With a much glossier coat of public relations paint...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Time Warner Cable Metered Billing Will Return With a much glossier coat of public relations paint... (old news - 11:26AM Friday Apr 17 2009) tags: competition · business · bandwidth · Op/Ed · cable · RoadRunner Cable
While yesterday's decision by Time Warner Cable to back off their extremely unpopular metered billing trial in four markets was a huge consumer victory, the phrasing of the company's announcement makes it clear that the debate is far from over. Buried quietly in their statement is the suggestion that the trial will continue in the Beaumont, Texas market -- and that the plan will resurface with a glossier coat of public relations paint. It's highly unlikely that Time Warner Cable will ever scrap their lust for per-byte billing, as the lure of monetizing HD Internet video delivery is simply too great. Given companies like AT&T (who is testing metered billing in two markets) are also interested in "educating" consumers on this front, expect a cross-carrier collaboration to form aimed at convincing users that without billing by the byte the Internet will collapse, and your pets will run away. While Time Warner Cable's proposal of caps as low as 1GB with overages as high as $2 per gigabyte was bad, worse was the company's public statements from COO Landel Hobbs and CEO Glenn Britt. Over charging consumers for bandwidth in the middle of a recession is one thing, but millionaire executives assuming their customers weren't bright enough to discern the truth (or read a 10-K earnings statement) was something else entirely. Britt and Hobbs spent two weeks scaring people with tales of Internet brownouts, arguing that a flat-rate business model they've made a fortune off of was not profitable, and proclaiming that customers really wanted metered billing despite unprecedented, Internet-wide public backlash. When the execs finally did back off the plan, they heaped the blame on their customers -- arguing that they were simply confused and needed "education." Even some cable industry insiders were dumbfounded by Time Warner Cable's poor handling of the announcements. One insider at a major carrier tells me they were amazed to see Time Warner Cable issue three extended statement positions in roughly the span of a week. Another felt sympathy for the carrier's public relations employees on Twitter, who spent the last two weeks taking repeated abuse for comments made by Landel and Hobbs. What happens next isn't entirely clear, but Time Warner Cable will issue all of their customers bandwidth meters in order to collect a broad amount of data to use in future "customer eduction" efforts. It will likely be several months -- and countless Time Warner Cable headquarter meetings -- before we get to see Time Warner Cable's next move. Whatever that move is, expect it to be accompanied with a far more ambitious and sophisticated public relations campaign, with oodles of selective data arguing that per-byte billing is necessary -- for the good of all mankind. Related:- Time Warner Cable Will Increase Caps
- Time Warner Cable Protests Planned
- Time Warner Caps Go from Ugly To Invisible
- Time Warner Cable Acknowledges 'Debacle'
- Customer Battles Time Warner Overages
- Time Warner Cable GETS MORE EXTREME!!!
- What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About
- There's Still No Evidence That Metered Billing Is Necessary
|
Links: New Topic
Forums »
Simba7 @ 17th Apr 10:03AM:
TWC = Ignorance
Yep.. From TWC's point of view, every one of their customers is a complete IDIOT and doesn't know anything about computers or technology.
I just love this. At least if I get technical with Bresnan, they know how to answer me. If I get too technical, they transfer me to a Network Engineer to better answer my question.
Ugh.. I hope TWC dies a horrible takeover. I know if I had TWC I'd be hunting for a different ISP immediately. Even my friends and family who read this were like "Huh? Are they crazy?"
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|MyWS[P4HT@4.01GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|WifeWS[P4 2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo Linux]
reply
myokitis @ 17th Apr 10:08AM:
More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
I'm sick of all of this carping about corporate "greed" on this site and elsewhere. IMO, TWC is trying to manage a complex, capital-intensive business in a highly competitive environment.
Consider these factors:
- Demand for bandwidth is growing rapidly as customers use more bandwidth-intensive applications like video, and in the near future, HD video. This would certainly put strain on backend networks.
- TWC is carrying a massive amount of debt dumped on it upon divestiture from the larger Time Warner corporation. I wonder if they have the financial ability, in tight credit markets and under intense competition from VZ & DirecTV/Dish, to make massive capital investments to beef up their network.
- Changing customer habits to increased video streaming/downloading puts their entire video business model at risk.
I think I understand why they're doing this. It has nothing to due with greed and everything to do w/ long-term survival. Unfortunately, caps would probably cause increased churn, so in my estimation they're between a rock and a hard place.
reply
woody7 @ 17th Apr 10:10AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
and your point is?
--
BlooMe
reply
jimbo2150 @ 17th Apr 10:12AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by myokitis :
a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
Varlik @ 17th Apr 10:14AM:
Looks like the spit and polish routine didn't work
so it's time for plan B. But unfortunately for them you could use an endless amount of air deodoriser and paint it white but a it will still be a turd. And it will still stink more then a heavily used porta potty on a hot summer day.
reply
myokitis @ 17th Apr 10:17AM:
ISP/Video Competition
said by jimbo2150 :said by myokitis :
a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
reply
Bit @ 17th Apr 10:17AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
They don't have capacity issues and they are profitable.
This has nothing to do with consumption of internet services and everything to do with TWC moving to defend their video revenues from ever-rising streaming competitors.
IOW, it's everything to do with greed.
reply
anon @ 17th Apr 10:23AM:
Re: TWC = Ignorance
If TWC is stupid enough to force metered service on it's customers I will take my $135.00 monthly payment for it's services and find another provider that does not charge more money for the same service. In my experience TWC has good service, but I refuse to pay per GB for any reason just for their greed. The cable companies are due for more competition and it in my area they are the only provider allowed on land lines. So in addition to going to Direct TV and another internet provider, my city would see pressure from us to allow another land line provider in. This could be the start of more competition as I said and that is a good thing. So bring it on TWC and we will see what happens to your monopoly.
reply
the tribble @ 17th Apr 10:21AM:
at what point
will it be enough, if they do have this instituted, what then, every year the per gigabyte extra - rate will go up? Personally, I'll stick to Verizon dsl until FIOS comes along in Brooklyn, NY :p.
reply
jimbo2150 @ 17th Apr 10:22AM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
You obviously don't live in an area where you only have 2 options that have not changed in over a decade and commonly see people in areas that have 1 or no broadband options. From what I hear Virginia is already one of the most wired states in the nation.
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
me1212 @ 17th Apr 10:23AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by Bit :
They don't have capacity issues and they are profitable.
This has nothing to do with consumption of internet services and everything to do with TWC moving to defend their video revenues from ever-rising streaming competitors.
IOW, it's everything to do with greed.
Maybe we need more internet only ISPs, they would not have any video or phone money to protect.
reply
kaila @ 17th Apr 10:27AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
If things are that hard and that complex, then TWC should quit the broadband business and get out of the way. Their stockholders will thank them.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.jeffhowe.net/Jeffhowe.net/Blog/Blog.html
reply
myokitis @ 17th Apr 10:32AM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by jimbo2150 :
said by myokitis :
You obviously don't live in an area where you only have 2 options that have not changed in over a decade and commonly see people in areas that have 1 or no broadband options.
I understand where you're coming from. But that doesn't change the fact that both groups of companies are indeed intensely competing against each other for survival. It's just that your area probably isn't one of their primary battlegrounds.
reply
KodiacZiller @ 17th Apr 10:33AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by myokitis :
I'm sick of all of this carping about corporate "greed" on this site and elsewhere. IMO, TWC is trying to manage a complex, capital-intensive business in a highly competitive environment.
What exactly is competitive about monopolies and duopolies? Verizon's FiOS is only in, what, about 10% of markets? The "big dogs" like TWC, Comcast, and Cox usually only have mediocre DSL to contend with in most areas, and sometimes no competition at all in other areas.
- TWC is carrying a massive amount of debt dumped on it upon divestiture from the larger Time Warner corporation. I wonder if they have the financial ability, in tight credit markets and under intense competition from VZ & DirecTV/Dish, to make massive capital investments to beef up their network.
As Comcast's CEO and others in that corporation have said, the cost of D3 upgrades equates to "couch change." I am sure the relative cost for TWC would be about the same.
- Changing customer habits to increased video streaming/downloading puts their entire video business model at risk.
Precisely. So their strategy is to drive up the price, cap usage, and charge 2000% mark-ups for overages so they can "discourage" too much Internet video viewing. No, a real business plan would include innovation and investment in the right areas in order to find a way to change with the times (hello RIAA).
TWC's attitude should be, "OK, there is a shift towards using TCP/IP for video, thus we need to make this experience the best possible for our users and focus more on it than the TV side of the business."
Of course, this will never happen without real competition. Period. If TWC can't do it, someone else will be happy to (that's REAL capitalism). The problem is the silly zoning agreements keep the competition out.
reply
RayW @ 17th Apr 10:35AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by me1212 :said by Bit :
They don't have capacity issues and they are profitable.
This has nothing to do with consumption of internet services and everything to do with TWC moving to defend their video revenues from ever-rising streaming competitors.
IOW, it's everything to do with greed.
Maybe we need more internet only ISPs, they would not have any video or phone money to protect.
You mean a REAL ISP and not a corporate monster? Those folks are not worth talking about, they do a good job and keep users happy (and most of them do have caps since they have to pay for the bandwidth their customers use) and can not hide profits and losses among the other businesses they have.
I like Xmission and listening to what some of my neighbors say about Comcast and the MSN/QWEST offering, I am not about to change, even if it is a few dollars cheaper to do so.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time.
reply
Luminaris @ 17th Apr 10:36AM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :said by jimbo2150 :said by myokitis :
a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
This makes no sense in this case. If TW were trying to win customers, they wouldn't even be introducing caps at all. If you want to win customers, you have to be innovative and for the consumer which TW is NOT in this case at all.
reply
Corehhi @ 17th Apr 10:38AM:
Re: at what point
said by the tribble :
will it be enough, if they do have this instituted, what then, every year the per gigabyte extra - rate will go up?
They're going right after movie and TV downloading. I don't run a server or anything but just netflix and some TV streaming video would put me in TWC heavy user category.
reply
me1212 @ 17th Apr 10:42AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
When you say REAL ISP is that a good thing? Ether way I have a "real" ISP(I love them their tech support is GREAT and the owner himself will come to your house, even after hours if you have a problem and the tech guys are @ another house), if they have a cap I have never hit it, even with hq youtube a great amount if time each day, lots(actually about the same, some times juts do not want to go up stairs and use the PC but when I do I get HQ so.....) of nq youtube on the wii, VOIPo, and online gaming.
reply
djrobx @ 17th Apr 10:43AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by Bit :
Maybe we need more internet only ISPs, they would not have any video or phone money to protect.
And that is the actual source of this problem. Our telecommunications providers have become video providers, so none want to be a pipeline for their competitor. That does makes some sense, which is why I'm not totally opposed to metered billing. But it has to be fair, and capping your standard customers at 20GB is not fair. $1/gb overages is not reasonable.
If anyone should be screaming about rising costs of bandwidth use, it should be the smaller independent ISPs that use their own transit, like DSLExtreme. They have very little margin to play with after the gorillas get their share. Yet somehow they're not the ones driving this shift.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
reply
b10010011 @ 17th Apr 10:45AM:
They just need a good name like "On Advantage"
Remember On Advantage and how AT&T Broadband some how thought that we would accept capping our cable modem speeds at 1Mb as advantageous to the users?
Maybe TW should call it "Advantage Billing". :uhh: :huh:
reply
Simba7 @ 17th Apr 10:54AM:
Re: at what point
TWC would LOVE me then. I use around 20GB a day.
I'd get my first bill and be like "WTF!!??!"
reply
Mr Matt @ 17th Apr 10:57AM:
The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
:( The cable television industry and all broadband services should be regulated the same way the Telephone Companies voice services are regulated. That way such abusive money grabs will be stopped.
Comcast just raised rates in this area. As a result of these increases my total monthly rate increase was $9.50 including taxes. In view of the fact that there is a recession the only way that Comcast can raise prices is that they are a quasi monopoly.
The most diabolical part about the price increase was the fact that they did not raise the price of their premium channels or broadband service. Why? Customers can drop any or all premium channels and still have cable service. Many customers can get DSL Service from the local telephone company so Comcast did not raise prices on that service. On the other hand Comcast did not match Embarq on the price of their economy broadband service which is $24.95 for a 768 Kbps download speed. Embarq offers 1.5 Mbps for the same price. I guess that Comcast wants to keep their economy service so lame that no one will order it.
Time to re-regulate the Cable Television Industry.
reply
TKJunkMail @ 17th Apr 11:02AM:
Re: The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
They are regulated - for the basic TV tier by franchise agreements. Everything above that is considered an optional premium service and NOT a utility that needs regulation.
reply
Matt @ 17th Apr 11:11AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by myokitis :
I'm sick of all of this carping about corporate "greed" on this site and elsewhere. IMO, TWC is trying to manage a complex, capital-intensive business in a highly competitive environment.
Consider these factors:
- Demand for bandwidth is growing rapidly as customers use more bandwidth-intensive applications like video, and in the near future, HD video. This would certainly put strain on backend networks.
- TWC is carrying a massive amount of debt dumped on it upon divestiture from the larger Time Warner corporation. I wonder if they have the financial ability, in tight credit markets and under intense competition from VZ & DirecTV/Dish, to make massive capital investments to beef up their network.
- Changing customer habits to increased video streaming/downloading puts their entire video business model at risk.
I think I understand why they're doing this. It has nothing to due with greed and everything to do w/ long-term survival. Unfortunately, caps would probably cause increased churn, so in my estimation they're between a rock and a hard place.
A highly competitive environment?!? I have two choice, my local ILEC or TW, some have AT&T (DSL, not even U-Verse yet) or TW. That is called a duopoloy and is hardly "highly competitive." In how many areas does Time Warner actually have to compete? Why aren't they rolling out the usage based trials in THOSE areas if they are serious about it? Why are they rolling them out in their extremely UNcompetitive markets? Perhaps because they know the consumers in those markets have little choice but to accept the slop they're fed?
Secondly, Time Warner has turned a $7 or $8 billion profit year after year. That's net, not gross. They took a huge writeoff last year and contrary to what you think, will probably make an even larger profit next year due to the separation from Time Warner Inc. $45 a month internet accounts and $60 TV bills pushed across decade old infrastructure equals a very nice profit margin.
The proof of this is right in their 10-K filing and I've heard it out of the mouths of local engineers when I was given a tour of their local RDC. They make an absolutely BOATLOAD of money on TV and VoD services. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Unbox, all are eating not only into their TV profits as consumers downgrade cable packages, but they state it's expected to cause their advertising revenue to fall.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to protect that revenue stream, but at least make a reasonable effort and be very clear about your reasoning. The caps and outrageous overages were designed to discourage use of these online services, but were also designed to increase existing revenue. So in the middle of the largest recession most can remember, Time Warner wants to eliminate the ability for you to save money and simultaneously pop the average family with an extra $5-$10 a month on their cable bill in overage charges.
It is absolutely ludicrous and the fact they thought they could just slip it in under the noses of 8 million customers and technical minded people shows the arrogance and complete disregard for consumers that is prevalent throughout corporate america.
reply
Matt @ 17th Apr 11:14AM:
Re: The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
said by TKJunkMail :
They are regulated - for the basic TV tier by franchise agreements. Everything above that is considered an optional premium service and NOT a utility that needs regulation.
Perhaps it's time we updated that then. I am going to suggest as much to my local franchising authority.
reply
six9 @ 17th Apr 11:14AM:
Then just make it reasonable.
I am not necessarily against metered billing. HOWEVER, it has to be reasonable. Second, there has to be an accurate way to measure usage at my router. One PC doesn't matter when you have VoIP, 3 computers and a DirecTV receiver all on the internet.
So how about a base price plus usage? Maybe $10 for the line and $0.25 per gb from there. I don't have any clue how much that would be for me, but I can almost bet it would be less than the $60 I pay now.
The problem I have with metering talk is the $1 per gb. There is no way that is an accurate measure of bandwidth cost.
reply
anon @ 17th Apr 11:15AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
A few of your point are valid. Time Warner has not kept their network current, as much of the system is still on Docsis 1.1,
while other companies have moved on to Docsis 2.0 and even Docsis 3.0.
This causes a strain on the entire network. Result...
High latency, frequent disconnects, cable boxes continuously needing to be rebooted, Etc.
This didnt stop TW from rolling out new services like Phone service, to make them even more money, all while failing to upgrade their network to support the increased demand.
In your thought process, TW should be excused because the rest of the world evolved and became innovative in new expanding uses of the internet, yet they didn't plan ahead for this ? And now they have an extreme debt burden.
And all this while just one of their executives is taking $19.9 Million in salary and stock option bonuses in 2008.
How is this not everything to do with GREED ?
reply
fireflier @ 17th Apr 11:16AM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :
They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
I don't work for a MSO or Telco but I'm smart enough to observe that someone desperate to win customers is not going to do so with ridiculous cap levels and insane markups when a competitor in the same market has no caps.
If TWC had simply opened their stats for public or independent scrutiny that could determine that in fact they are having bandwidth issues, it would go a long way toward resolving this dispute. That will never happen though.
So I see now, there's hinting at the layoff boogeyman if TWC doesn't "compete" (translation: caps and overages).
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com
reply
fireflier @ 17th Apr 11:19AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by Matt :
It is absolutely ludicrous and the fact they thought they could just slip it in under the noses of 8 million customers and technical minded people shows the arrogance and complete disregard for consumers that is prevalent throughout corporate america.
I couldn't agree more!
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com
reply
sivran @ 17th Apr 11:19AM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
Ain't it funny, too, how the "trial areas" are all non-competitive market...
I live in the middle of the DFW area, and the "competition" here is little more than the mere presence of two broadband ISPs: AT&T and TWC. They set up shop, display their wares, and that's pretty much the extent of the competition. They don't even try to respond to one another. It's a "We're here. Pick one." kind of situation.
Being that Verizon FIOS is ~30 miles away from Arlington (and practically non-existent in Tarrant County, and our ILEC is AT&T, I wouldn't be surprised if one of those "trials" showed up here.
Frontier did everyone a favor by making noise about dropping caps in Rochester. What did AT&T do in Beaumont? Implement caps themselves. If you ask AT&T, competition is the race to see who can gouge their customers more.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause...
reply
Matt @ 17th Apr 11:25AM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by sivran :
If you ask AT&T, competition is the race to see who can gouge their customers more.
I couldn't agree more. It seems as though the two compete against themselves to see who can create the most confusing package to entice a customer to their service. All the while providing the least amount of actual service possible.
They don't compete on the actual merits of their respective offering. Verizon and Cablevision seems to be the only larger companies who do that.
reply
Dolgan @ 17th Apr 11:43AM:
Corp Greed is the reason
This model has every thing to do with greed. TWC is trying to circumvent network neutrality and kill off possible competition from online video providers--instead of adapting their business model to reflect the shift in services that customers want, and how those services are delivered. TWC has been/is profitable, and the threats of "internet brownouts" are nothing more than browbeating the public into believing this pricing is a necessity for them to survive when the reality is much different.
TWC should be investing in network upgrades instead of taking the easy, and shady, way out of avoiding competition.
reply
patcat88 @ 17th Apr 12:03PM:
Re: The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
Not happening, FCC law prohibits franchising authorities and states from regulating it, and it bans itself from regulating it in CFR.
reply
sturmvogel @ 17th Apr 12:05PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :said by jimbo2150 :said by myokitis :
a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
I am a CUSTOMER. In my area the competition is ZERO, I have as the only option for good high speed internet access Comcast.
The lies about competitive market are just designed to hide the truth from uneducated politicians and customers. and that is what they are:
LIES.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.
reply
Combat Chuck @ 17th Apr 12:06PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by Luminaris :
This makes no sense in this case. If TW were trying to win customers, they wouldn't even be introducing caps at all. If you want to win customers, you have to be innovative and for the consumer which TW is NOT in this case at all.
Did you read the part where he said they're between a rock and a hard place?
What do you do when you have two bad choices? They're going with the one they think everyone will be doing in a couple years and hoping they can ride out the churn.
Here's the thing, everyone is looking at this from the point of view of right now. People see they had good profits last year and using that to "prove" that their cries of running out of money are nothing but BS. They are looking 3 to 10 years in the future something the majority of people don't do, which is pretty much the root cause of all the problems in society.
You can be sure that the people at the helm of Verizon and the others are all sitting at the helm with their finger on the button. No one wants to be the first to do it, the desperate companies are going to be the first to do it and the rest will hang onto flat rate as long as they can comfortably do so to snatch up all the defectors of the early adopters, then they'll switch to metered billing.
--
Come let us reason together.
reply
El Quintron @ 17th Apr 12:08PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
Seriously...
I worked for a major Telco, and that's the refrain they'll keep repeating not to pay you a decent salary, and the one they tell the customers to keep gouging them.
If I had to do it all over again, (work in the Telecom field that is) I'd go with a start-up, cause my career would have nowhere to go but up.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household.
reply
iansltx @ 17th Apr 12:41PM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
DSLExtreme is a real ISP...no caps :) Too bad you can't get them where I live :(
reply
iansltx @ 17th Apr 12:46PM:
Re: at what point
I believe they cap the overages at $75. So your 'net bill would only be $100+ :p
reply
anon @ 17th Apr 01:00PM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
While comcast, Cox, ATT, and Verizon spent millions of bucks rebuilding their infrastructure, TWC didnt... WHY should the customers be punished for that?? You obviously dont get it...
reply
Sammer @ 17th Apr 12:58PM:
Re: The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
said by patcat88 :
Not happening, FCC law prohibits franchising authorities and states from regulating it, and it bans itself from regulating it in CFR.
True but TWC's bad behavior got the attention of members of Congress who can change all that.
reply
dentman42 @ 17th Apr 12:59PM:
Re: The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
said by patcat88 :
Not happening, FCC law prohibits franchising authorities and states from regulating it, and it bans itself from regulating it in CFR.
The FCC doesn't make laws.
reply
voipguy @ 17th Apr 01:02PM:
Re: Then just make it reasonable.
At $1 per GB, they could upgrade their network by delivering the data on flash drives.
Hey, maybe that's how they priced it? :-)
reply
dentman42 @ 17th Apr 01:03PM:
Re: Then just make it reasonable.
said by six9 :
I am not necessarily against metered billing. HOWEVER, it has to be reasonable. Second, there has to be an accurate way to measure usage at my router. One PC doesn't matter when you have VoIP, 3 computers and a DirecTV receiver all on the internet.
So how about a base price plus usage? Maybe $10 for the line and $0.25 per gb from there. I don't have any clue how much that would be for me, but I can almost bet it would be less than the $60 I pay now.
The problem I have with metering talk is the $1 per gb. There is no way that is an accurate measure of bandwidth cost.
Even $.10 per gigabyte is pushing it but closer. .25 = $1 per 4 gigs $10 per 40 gigs, $50 per 200 gigs, so a $60 bill for 200 gigs usage, and that includes both up and downstream.
reply
jimbo2150 @ 17th Apr 01:16PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :
I understand where you're coming from. But that doesn't change the fact that both groups of companies are indeed intensely competing against each other for survival. It's just that your area probably isn't one of their primary battlegrounds.
I understand that, but you were also making it sound like the select few areas that they are competing equates to the entire (or at least a majority) of the market, which it does not. I just don't see the "ravenous" competition that they so often claim. For example: Just because they are competing in, lets say five, select markets... is it really necessary to claim stiff competition when the majority are not in areas with much or any competition? See my point?
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
maartena @ 17th Apr 01:20PM:
But.... don't you guys know that....
5 Gb is a whopping 500.000 emails, and 100.000 websites, and it is at least 500 songs!
5 Gb is HUGE! ;)
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
reply
lacklusterbb @ 17th Apr 01:22PM:
Re: Then just make it reasonable.
When we talk about TW profit, let's be clear, last year's annual report showed that the only 2 divisions in the company that made a profit were publications and cable. Of those 2, cable earned the most. Their other "investments"--AOL and entertainment--were the huge money losers. So, what TW really wants if for cable subscribers to subsidize their poor management of broader company activities.
IMHO, the spinoff of cable from the parent company this year was in great part positioning in anticipation of net neutrality arguments over their metered billing plan. They've got too many captive markets in cable (you don't see them trying to impose obscene rate hikes on their publications--they know that market is too competitive and that they'd lose subscribers). It's clear that something needs to be done in this country to keep our pipes open, innovation occurring, and the Internet (the creation funded by the US taxpayer) healthy in it's birthplace. I really think there needs to be restrictions about the pipes being owned by any entity related to a content provider, period. Greed is too strong a human motive to control.
reply
myokitis @ 17th Apr 01:39PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by jimbo2150 :
... is it really necessary to claim stiff competition when the majority are not in areas with much or any competition? See my point?
I think I do, but it sounds like you're speaking in terms of %of geography, while the companies need to look at things in terms of %of customers (where their revenue comes from).
The current acquisition offers d'jour from select MSOs & Telcos are around $200 in value (cashback,credits, etc; I know of at last one major telco and one major MSO w/ offers like this), and the companies wouldn't be spending that $$$ to win customers from each other if they didn't think they needed to, if their management and shareowners weren't applying the pressure on their organizations to do so.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. This is a situation where "position determines perspective".
reply
maartena @ 17th Apr 01:54PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :said by jimbo2150 :said by myokitis :
a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
Sure, if you look at an area like the greater southern california area, where half of telco-land is owned by Verizon, the other half owned by AT&T, and where Time Warner Cable owns about 90% of the cable business.... (and 5% to Charter, and 5% to Cox, give or take) ... there is plenty of competition there.
I get calls from AT&T at least once a month (and they are allowed to do so as they supply one of my phone lines, thus existing customer) if I don't want to switch to their DSL service. TV ads from FIOS, Uverse, and Time Warner are slamming each other.
I never believed for one minute that in the greater SoCal area, they would ever introduce caps, as both Verizon and AT&T would have a FIELD DAY and rake in the customers.
But if you are living in a city like Boise, ID where the competition is a sub-par DSL provider that considers "standard" to be 1.5 Mbps and "ultra" is 3 Mbps, and the city is so widespread, with so many neigborhoods far away from any CO.... cable companies can easily introduce caps and get away with a whole lot more.
reply
en102 @ 17th Apr 02:00PM:
Re: TWC = Ignorance
TWC = We're going to bill by the byte (as will Comcast, AT&T and others).. we just can't ram it down your throats for really high profits on it from day 1.
Eg. the 5GB-40GB 'standard' packages that would be netting TWC profit from day 1 would probably have to start off more like:
10GB (1.5Mbps or less connections)
100GB for 'standard' (6-10Mbps)
160 GB for 15/2 Mbps
250GB for the higher packages
I suspect that since TWC can't make immediate profits on the low end billing by the byte TODAY that it wants, it will do 2 things:
1. Raise rates (the 10Mbps/1Mbps 'standard' package will be probably $52/month now vs. $46)
2. Make the low end packages less attractive - the 1.5Mbps or less packages at +$30/month or require install fees, bundling, etc.
3. Offer an 'internet lite' package. Not 'true' internet, but have filters, caps, and all sorts of other methods to make 'lite' users happy and not cost much. Downside, being a 'not true' internet would be sort of old school AOL ish, with no access to bittorrent, etc. It would have to be sold as a unique service.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
Matt @ 17th Apr 02:02PM:
Re: The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
said by dentman42 :said by patcat88 :
Not happening, FCC law prohibits franchising authorities and states from regulating it, and it bans itself from regulating it in CFR.
The FCC doesn't make laws.
The franchising authority can add whatever stipulations into the franchise agreement they want. That is the same effect as regulation.
reply
en102 @ 17th Apr 02:18PM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
I agree... indie ISPs have a tough time out there, but are willing to do this.
I am not against 'reasonable' caps either. TWC's caps are similar to that of wireless cellphone.
--
Canada = Hollywood North
reply
jadebangle @ 17th Apr 02:35PM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by kaila :
If things are that hard and that complex, then TWC should quit the broadband business and get out of the way. Their stockholders will thank them.
Most of us do have a choice its called going back to dialup
You can get it for 5 to 10 bucks a month and there is no limit on bandwidth transfer
Beside if you can't use it for video, and if all you do is check your email and surf the web little bandwidth is sufficient
Road Runner, ATT both can go to hell :|
reply
jadebangle @ 17th Apr 02:36PM:
Re: But.... don't you guys know that....
said by maartena :
5 Gb is a whopping 500.000 emails, and 100.000 websites, and it is at least 500 songs!
5 Gb is HUGE! ;)
Thats only true if you compare it to dialup connection and take video content out of the picture...
reply
bicker @ 17th Apr 02:36PM:
The right way to offer metered Internet service
I think the mistake TWC made was replacing unlimited service. What they should be doing is creating a new, metered offering. Instead of $XX per month, make it 85% of $XX per month with a YY GB cap. Folks who normally stay under the cap will switch to the metered service. As time goes on, the prices for the two services will diverge according to the comparative value proposition each offers. As average consumption among un-metered customers climbs, then obviously the average value derived from the offering by those customers climbs, and so the price should climb (beyond inflation) commensurately. Meanwhile, the average value derived from the metered offering is effectively capped, so its price will not climb (beyond inflation).
reply
jadebangle @ 17th Apr 02:39PM:
Re: The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
said by Mr Matt :
:( The cable television industry and all broadband services should be regulated the same way the Telephone Companies voice services are regulated. That way such abusive money grabs will be stopped.
Comcast just raised rates in this area. As a result of these increases my total monthly rate increase was $9.50 including taxes. In view of the fact that there is a recession the only way that Comcast can raise prices is that they are a quasi monopoly.
The most diabolical part about the price increase was the fact that they did not raise the price of their premium channels or broadband service. Why? Customers can drop any or all premium channels and still have cable service. Many customers can get DSL Service from the local telephone company so Comcast did not raise prices on that service. On the other hand Comcast did not match Embarq on the price of their economy broadband service which is $24.95 for a 768 Kbps download speed. Embarq offers 1.5 Mbps for the same price. I guess that Comcast wants to keep their economy service so lame that no one will order it.
Time to re-regulate the Cable Television Industry.
The only way to get their attention is to cancel service with them. I just will not put up with this and neither should you. Hopefully they will lose even more profit in the long run and we the consumer are the ones that are feeding them... we are master, they are servant. We win...
reply
patcat88 @ 17th Apr 02:42PM:
Re: The Cable Television Industry should be regulated.
said by Matt :
The franchising authority can add whatever stipulations into the franchise agreement they want. That is the same effect as regulation.
The franchising authority's authority was created in the first place by the FCC. Any attempt by a local or state government to regulate something reserved to federal jurisdiction will quickly result in a cable company running to a federal judge and get instant strike down by a federal judge as the state or local government exceeded its scope/standing. States tried to regulate cellphone provider prices, plans, etc, ILEC style in the late 1980s, instant lawsuit, instant block by judge and jurisprudence that only the FCC can regulate cellphone providers, and states can only regulate it through commercial code or consumer protection code, not PUC code.
reply
jadebangle @ 17th Apr 02:45PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
said by bicker :
I think the mistake TWC made was replacing unlimited service. What they should be doing is creating a new, metered offering. Instead of $XX per month, make it 85% of $XX per month with a YY GB cap. Folks who normally stay under the cap will switch to the metered service. As time goes on, the prices for the two services will diverge according to the comparative value proposition each offers. As average consumption among un-metered customers climbs, then obviously the average value derived from the offering by those customers climbs, and so the price should climb (beyond inflation) commensurately. Meanwhile, the average value derived from the metered offering is effectively capped, so its price will not climb (beyond inflation).
You can't have both way, its confusing and unnecessary
wolves and sheeps don't dine together do they?
There are metered billing in 3rd world country and many ppl are not happy because: 1. the price for the service is pretty steep as is and 2. you have to pay more for bandwidth
Why would it be any different here in America where unlimited is what we have become accustom to?
reply
jimbo2150 @ 17th Apr 02:48PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by maartena :
I get calls from AT&T at least once a month (and they are allowed to do so as they supply one of my phone lines, thus existing customer) if I don't want to switch to their DSL service. TV ads from FIOS, Uverse, and Time Warner are slamming each other.
Advertisements do not equal availability. Time Warner and Comcast advertise in my area but do not serve my house. They serve neighborhoods up north and south I think, and in my area is a smaller cable co, but as far as I can tell none of them compete with each other... only with satellite.
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
Lazlow @ 17th Apr 02:49PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
Combat Chuck
If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself. It has been obvious what direction the bandwidth usage has been headed for years. Yet, TW still has a ton of systems still running D1.1 and D2. If they had really been looking forward, a significant amount of their footprint would be D3 today.
All cable companies (or companies in general) have debt. Take a look at their 10k. After expenses they still made 4 BILLION dollars. Spend, say 1/3 of that, on network upgrades (today) and they will no longer have capacity issues for the next few years. You are correct in that the demand for more bandwidth will continue to grow. But the way to handle that is to plan for the future and provide the capacity for that bandwidth, not to try and stop it. Essentially what they are doing is like a car company selling a car that you can only drive 40 miles a day. If you want to drive more than 40 miles a day, they are going to charge you $1/mile. All trying to do stuff like this is going to accomplish is to drive customers elsewhere.
As far as other ISPs watching this; sure if customers are actually stupid enough to put up with this, they will want in on the action too. If customers will put up with it, any business would be foolish not to try something that will ten fold their profit margins. There is nothing in this that the ISPs have to do this.
reply
Lazlow @ 17th Apr 03:09PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
Bicker
The problem with that idea is that the basics premise is off. Isp do not pay by the GB, they pay by peak Mbps. This applies both to transit costs and hardware costs. The only time that GBs actually cost something is during peak hours. During off peak hours whatever GBs are downloaded costs the ISP absolutely nothing (0) extra.
The other problem is that if they did this (on a cost based rate) all those people that do only download 2-3GB a month would find out how badly they have been ripped off for years. When Gigaom did a survey last year (Q2 2008) the the average of major US city ISPs were paying $10-$12 per Mbps per month for backbone transit. 1Mbps is over 300GB per month. That works out to under $.04/GB for transit costs. On top of this the technology is rapidly getting cheaper almost by the day, there are some vendors who are now selling bandwidth at under $4/Mbps (under $.01/GB). Cablevision stated last week that the upgrade to Docsis 3 was costing them between $70-$120 per customer. I think it is pretty safe that the D3 upgrade will safely carry them for the next three years (36months), which would mean a cost per customer of less than $3.34/month.
reply
viperpa33s @ 17th Apr 03:59PM:
Why don't they offer TRUE metered billing?
I don't understand why they don't offer TRUE metered billing if it's all about fairness? They say they should have a system like the electric company but don't apply it that way. They offer bread crumbs with packages that make people think they are getting a great deal with metered billing when they're not. Then they offer high bandwidth content hoping that people will go over there caps. The overage fees is going to bring in huge money for TWC.
--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" Thomas Jefferson
reply
NetAdmin @ 17th Apr 04:14PM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by myokitis :
Consider these factors:
- Demand for bandwidth is growing rapidly as customers use more bandwidth-intensive applications like video, and in the near future, HD video. This would certainly put strain on backend networks.
Without knowing what their "backend networks" are, how do you know that?
The problem isn't the "backend" networks, it is the last mile. DOCSIS 3 fixes that problem for the foreseeable future.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"
reply
ElJay @ 17th Apr 04:18PM:
Re: at what point
That reminds me of the frightening ISP bills I ran up for my parents in 1996 back in the great days of hourly dialup billing.
reply
six9 @ 17th Apr 04:43PM:
Re: Then just make it reasonable.
said by dentman42 :
Even $.10 per gigabyte is pushing it but closer. .25 = $1 per 4 gigs $10 per 40 gigs, $50 per 200 gigs, so a $60 bill for 200 gigs usage, and that includes both up and downstream.
I base my numbers on the assumption that Comcast gives me 250gb for $60. Note, I have to pay more because I don't have their TV service.
reply
soothsayer15 @ 17th Apr 04:46PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by Lazlow :
Combat Chuck
If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself. It has been obvious what direction the bandwidth usage has been headed for years. Yet, TW still has a ton of systems still running D1.1 and D2. If they had really been looking forward, a significant amount of their footprint would be D3 today.
All cable companies (or companies in general) have debt. Take a look at their 10k. After expenses they still made 4 BILLION dollars. Spend, say 1/3 of that, on network upgrades (today) and they will no longer have capacity issues for the next few years. You are correct in that the demand for more bandwidth will continue to grow. But the way to handle that is to plan for the future and provide the capacity for that bandwidth, not to try and stop it. Essentially what they are doing is like a car company selling a car that you can only drive 40 miles a day. If you want to drive more than 40 miles a day, they are going to charge you $1/mile. All trying to do stuff like this is going to accomplish is to drive customers elsewhere.
As far as other ISPs watching this; sure if customers are actually stupid enough to put up with this, they will want in on the action too. If customers will put up with it, any business would be foolish not to try something that will ten fold their profit margins. There is nothing in this that the ISPs have to do this.
Use the profit to upgrade the network and invest in the company's future? Probably won't happen. They will use the profits to pay out dividends and increase the value of executive stock options.
reply
andre2 @ 17th Apr 05:04PM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by jadebangle :
Most of us do have a choice its called going back to dialup
You can get it for 5 to 10 bucks a month and there is no limit on bandwidth transfer
And if you leave it running 24/7, you can download almost 15G/month which is 3 times TWC's lowest cap.
reply
maartena @ 17th Apr 05:32PM:
Re: Why don't they offer TRUE metered billing?
said by viperpa33s :
I don't understand why they don't offer TRUE metered billing if it's all about fairness? They say they should have a system like the electric company but don't apply it that way. They offer bread crumbs with packages that make people think they are getting a great deal with metered billing when they're not. Then they offer high bandwidth content hoping that people will go over there caps. The overage fees is going to bring in huge money for TWC.
That is very easily answered. You electrical company charges a base fee of only a FEW dollars including local taxes, fees etc.... If you don't use ANY electricity whatsoever, you will pay a bill somewhere along the lines of $3 to $8, depending on city, state, etc you are in.
If we take $5 as an average, and because the cable companies are greedy and you have an expensive modem that you rent, we'll just double that to $10.
Now lets charge per GB at $1 per Gb. In order to reach the same income level that they have now, based on a $45 average price (some people have lite, some people have premium), they will break even ONLY if everyone downloads 35 Gb, OR the total amount of GB's downloaded by all customers combined equals or exceeds the 35 Gb per customer mark.
The reality is that - and these are GUESSED numbers - 80% of customers probably download less then 20 Gb, 15% downloads less then 100 Gb, and 5% downloads more then 100 Gb.
If one downloads less then 20 Gb in this scenario, the monthly bill will never exceed $30, and more often then not is probably around the $20 mark, which would mean that TWC would lose a HUGE amount of money.
Also, all utilities are regulated by the local government of the county or city. THEY decide what the rate is going to be, or at least what the maximum can be. Prices are heavily regulated. If broadband needs to be a utility, then the local government is going to want their say as well.
Bottom Line: They would lose a lot of money if they are operating it as a utility, and I don't believe we'll see a lot of investing if that were to be the case.
So no thanks, let the market decide, not some bureaucrat.
reply
Combat Chuck @ 17th Apr 05:37PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by Lazlow :
Combat Chuck
If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself.
You're deluding yourself if you think that looking ahead is limited to the goal of figuring out how they can provide more bandwidth for you. They're looking at money, it's fairly clear that Time Warner cares little about their front end infrastructure.
--
Come let us reason together.
reply
Lazlow @ 17th Apr 05:50PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
Combat Chuck
You really do not understand how business works do you? In a consumer based market, if you do not keep up with what the consumer wants, you are going to loose customers. Loosing customers (in significant numbers) means that you are loosing money. The only reason companies reinvest in their infrastructure is so they can continue to be competitive. Fios did not come into play becuase it was a "cool" idea. It came about becuase it was obvious that ever increasing amounts of bandwidth were the direction things were/are headed. Cablevision understood this too (which is why they have 30Mbps D2 available today). Comcast even understands this, as evidenced by their rapid (relatively) switch to D3(despite their official caps, there has been no significant amount of action done to those that have exceeded the caps). Even Charter (broke as they are) recognizes that they have to offer more bandwidth (slower switchover to D3).
reply
anon @ 17th Apr 06:25PM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
Hell, even then there isn't. I live in Kansas City Mo, and TW is the only cable game in town.
reply
GyroCaptain @ 17th Apr 06:39PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by Lazlow :
Combat Chuck
You really do not understand how business works do you? In a consumer based market, if you do not keep up with what the consumer wants, you are going to loose customers. Loosing customers (in significant numbers) means that you are loosing money. The only reason companies reinvest in their infrastructure is so they can continue to be competitive. Fios did not come into play becuase it was a "cool" idea. It came about becuase it was obvious that ever increasing amounts of bandwidth were the direction things were/are headed. Cablevision understood this too (which is why they have 30Mbps D2 available today). Comcast even understands this, as evidenced by their rapid (relatively) switch to D3(despite their official caps, there has been no significant amount of action done to those that have exceeded the caps). Even Charter (broke as they are) recognizes that they have to offer more bandwidth (slower switchover to D3).
Loosing eh?
Classic.
reply
Lazlow @ 17th Apr 06:46PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
My apologies for my typo. I should always have caffeine before I type. Despite my typo, I think everybody understood my point.
reply
fiberguy @ 17th Apr 07:01PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
Ok, then take it from someone that has been in the industry for many years when I tell you that I disagree with you 1001% on what you said.
Billing by the byte is not necessary.. its a much better billing model for THEM. RIGHT NOW, they say "most only use about 5g to 10g of data" which is about right... for RIGHT NOW. So, there IS urgency to get this plan in place NOW rather than later. NOW, it's true, LATER, when people will start moving over that 5 to 10g of data per month, NOW it makes sense to have that kind of billing system in place. HOWEVER, by that time, where AVERAGE data (which is important to say AVERAGE in billing terms) IS exceeding say even 50gb a month AVERAGE, then it will be easier to justify a higher charge AND the "back haul" systems will be able to more than accommodate. If they CAN'T handle that kind of data flow, then the consumer is being screwed.
Profits from broadband are very high right now and with those profits they need to be reinvesting into their pipes. If they are not, they are simply screwing the customer. Internet use IS on the rise, however, with the profits they make they need to be keeping up with those demands.
Billing by the byte is insurance in advance protection so secure more revenue as they need it in the future. They need to ALL simply be honest and charge for the service what it's worth. I don't think that DSL at $25 a month, and cable service at $40 a month is an honest price. I believe they need to raise the price about $10 on average.. if they did that, alone, they could EASILY rebuild their networks sooner, rather than later, and make everyone happy.
The consumer needs to realize that broadband prices are a deal right now - that I will say is true. You can't expect lower prices and demand better service at the same time. The consumer is also demanding that they see return on their monthly fees in the form of improvements.
I can't disagree with you ANY more on your post and if there was EVER a shill on this site, it's you.
The most dangerous thing you can say on this site is "Take it from somebody in the business"... becuase you just opened yourself of for attacks, and quite honestly, you sound totally arrogant at the same time. Not everyone here is stupid OR ignorant. However, in what you are talking about, which is mostly speculative and opinionated, to say "take it from someone in the business" you just told everyone they have no clue what they are talking about. You look dumb saying this.
No, the competition is NOT intense as you think.. Much of the DSL providers have contracts so their base is somewhat secured. Cable doesn't go by contract but they sell on speed and value. They have a harder job keeping a customer than phone. AND, I find it ironic that cable is actually being more consumer friendly in the lack of contract over phone any day.
"It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game."
Good one.. :huh:
reply
fiberguy @ 17th Apr 07:04PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :said by jimbo2150 :
said by myokitis :
But that doesn't change the fact that both groups of companies are indeed intensely competing against each other for survival.
At every post, you're displaying arrogance. Survival? Hardly.. dominance? Sure..
In the SMALLER areas, you may have a provider, such as Embarq, competing for survival.. bu that just goes to show why all the smaller companies merged and sold to larger ones back in the late 90's/2000's.
No.. right now, it's about dominance and king. But, it's not an over blown survival game like you say it is... far from it in MOST cases.
reply
bicker @ 17th Apr 07:43PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
said by jadebangle :
You can't have both way, its confusing and unnecessary
Why can't they offer both services? It isn't confusing at all. And it is clearly necessary, given TWC's recent experience.
reply
bicker @ 17th Apr 07:47PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
said by Lazlow :
The problem with that idea is that the basics premise is off. Isp do not pay by the GB, they pay by peak Mbps.
Only suckers price offerings based on cost. Great companies price offerings based on value. Customers don't perceive value in "peak Mbps" -- they do perceive value based on GB.
said by Lazlow :
The other problem is that if they did this (on a cost based rate) all those people that do only download 2-3GB a month would find out how badly they have been ripped off for years.
See above.
reply
Lazlow @ 17th Apr 08:08PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
We obviously have a difference of opinion on the definition of great.
Yes, customers certainly do perceive value by peak Mbps. Every time a customer complains that the internet is slow (almost always during peak hours) they are seeing their connection speed (Mbps) limited by the ISP having insufficient capacity(not enough total Mbps available in the system to share between online users).
Before people start calling me socialist, look at Henry Ford. He was probably one of the greatest capitalist in history. Yet he paid his workers 2-3X the going rate (which infuriated other employers) and was the first large company to switch to 8hr days/40 hr weeks. You can take an honest profit without resorting to abusive prices. Charging $1/GB when it costs you closer to $.04/GB is not an honest profit.
reply
bicker @ 17th Apr 08:44PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
said by Lazlow :
We obviously have a difference of opinion on the definition of great.
We shouldn't. We live in the United States, and the law requires that corporations operate in the best financial interests of their owners. Great companies are those that do that.
said by Lazlow :
Yes, customers certainly do perceive value by peak Mbps.
Also. Yes, I'll grant that. They pricing should factor in both.
said by Lazlow :
You can take an honest profit without resorting to abusive prices.
I bet that the company disagrees with you about at what level prices become "abusive". The best indicator of whether prices are reasonable or not is whether customers are canceling their service in large numbers.
reply
Lazlow @ 17th Apr 09:03PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
The difference is if the company is looking at long term financial interests or near term. Companies like Fios, Cablevision, etc are looking after the long term. Which is why they have invested a significant % of profits back into infrastructure. This insures that they will continue to have long term profitability. How much longer can TW compete with a significant portion of it's infrastructure still at D1.1 levels?
Obviously cut throat companies will insist that they need triple digit percentage profits just to survive. But for companies that are thinking long term they will hold their profits down to more reasonable levels (low double digit?). Just take a look at TW's 2008 10K. After a one time write down (3 billion?) they still cleared 4 BILLION dollars. Their reinvestment in ISP infrastructure was well below 800 million.
reply
HexCalamity @ 17th Apr 09:22PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :said by jimbo2150 :said by myokitis :
a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
Ahh, competition, sucha wonderous thing. Come on out to Salem OR where its been Comcast and Qwest DSL for years. Qwest is finally competing somewhat with new 12mbps fiber service in some neighborhoods. Many are still 1.5mps or 6mbps. They send me directly 1-2 mailers a month, newspaper ads and tv as well. Their deal is 15.99/month for 6 months for 1.5mbps. Of course that requires a 2 year contract and the price jumps up to 39 I think. It all depends on their packaging deals too. That doesnt include buying their approved modem or renting it at $8/month (which is just insane). Though they have offered deals for cheap modems thru BestBuy etc.. The non contract price is $10 more per month last I saw.
Comcast is almost as bad with their mailers, simply because they want me to reup beyond the basic tv package (which made no sense unless you wanted digital cable until the Feb. HDTV switch over).
reply
myokitis @ 17th Apr 09:56PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by fiberguy :
I can't disagree with you ANY more on your post and if there was EVER a shill on this site, it's you . . .No, the competition is NOT intense as you think..
This is now getting personal . . .
I won't bother replying to all of your points. But my viewpoint is formed by this: I've seen way too many colleagues laid-off/RIF'd to be comfortable that is is somehow not a competitive industry. The jobs aren't going away because there's not competitive pressure.
According to their annual reports, in 2007 T & VZ combined lost 6.4M residential access lines, and only gained 1.5M broadband lines. To somehow imply that competition is not having a profound impact on these companies is just not rational.
The intensity-level in my daily work environment is constantly escalating. The corporate culture has irrevocably changed. Again, complacency is not causing this.
I care not what you or others on this site say. Myself and all of my colleagues live it daily. We're fighting for our jobs.
reply
JoeG4 @ 17th Apr 10:42PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
Don't throw out your unused Rollover Megabytes(tm)! Some customers just aren't lucky enough to be on TimeWarner Cable, the world's most reliable network!
reply
espaeth @ 17th Apr 11:41PM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by Lazlow :
If you think TW has been looking ahead, you are deluding yourself. It has been obvious what direction the bandwidth usage has been headed for years. Yet, TW still has a ton of systems still running D1.1 and D2. If they had really been looking forward, a significant amount of their footprint would be D3 today.
That's a little optimistic -- DOCSIS 3 early-use hardware didn't start manifesting itself until Q2/Q3 of 2008, with final full D3 certified gear arriving in Q4.
Comcast appears to be leading the way in DOCSIS3 deployments, and they aren't even close to 50% deployed yet.
reply
Mele20 @ 18th Apr 12:11AM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
said by myokitis :said by jimbo2150 :said by myokitis :
a highly competitive environment
I highly disagree. I only notice decent to good competition in larger cities.
You obviously don't work for a MSO or Telco. Take it from somebody in the business: The level of competition is intense. They're desperate to win customers from each other, with employment (or lack thereof) implications depending on how the battle goes.
It's the difference between being an armchair quarterback and actually being in the game.
Intense competition? Bullshit. In Hawaii TWC has a complete monopoly on all FOUR ISLANDS. This hell was predicted several years ago when the last holdouts were eaten by TWC. As for DSL, that is from Hawaiian TelCom which is in bankruptcy and doesn't have the funds to compete well with TWC. I live in the second largest city in Hawaii and I cannot get DSL. HawTel refuses to extend it to this very nice area of Hilo where there are three large condos as well a residences. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by "intense competition". I have NO choices. It is TWC or dialup. With TWC we have NO TURBO RR...only standard and lite plans. That is because Oceanic TWC cannot get Turbo working on any of the neighbor islands. Again, where is this intense competition? If HawTel cannot get out of bankruptcy the PUC will likely dump the POTS on Verizon again. You think Verizon would ever build up DSL in Hawaii? They couldn't wait to dump Hawaii after the merger of GTE and Bell Atlantic. So, again where is this "intense competition"?
You see, Hawaii is the VERY PLACE that TWC will force these horrible caps on. And there will be NOTHING that the vast majority of users can do as there is NO competition in many areas of Hawaii, and limited in the areas where there is some, much less any "intense competition" in Hawaii.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason
reply
viperpa33s @ 18th Apr 02:27AM:
Re: Why don't they offer TRUE metered billing?
said by maartena :said by viperpa33s :
I don't understand why they don't offer TRUE metered billing if it's all about fairness? They say they should have a system like the electric company but don't apply it that way. They offer bread crumbs with packages that make people think they are getting a great deal with metered billing when they're not. Then they offer high bandwidth content hoping that people will go over there caps. The overage fees is going to bring in huge money for TWC.
That is very easily answered. You electrical company charges a base fee of only a FEW dollars including local taxes, fees etc.... If you don't use ANY electricity whatsoever, you will pay a bill somewhere along the lines of $3 to $8, depending on city, state, etc you are in.
If we take $5 as an average, and because the cable companies are greedy and you have an expensive modem that you rent, we'll just double that to $10.
Now lets charge per GB at $1 per Gb. In order to reach the same income level that they have now, based on a $45 average price (some people have lite, some people have premium), they will break even ONLY if everyone downloads 35 Gb, OR the total amount of GB's downloaded by all customers combined equals or exceeds the 35 Gb per customer mark.
The reality is that - and these are GUESSED numbers - 80% of customers probably download less then 20 Gb, 15% downloads less then 100 Gb, and 5% downloads more then 100 Gb.
If one downloads less then 20 Gb in this scenario, the monthly bill will never exceed $30, and more often then not is probably around the $20 mark, which would mean that TWC would lose a HUGE amount of money.
Also, all utilities are regulated by the local government of the county or city. THEY decide what the rate is going to be, or at least what the maximum can be. Prices are heavily regulated. If broadband needs to be a utility, then the local government is going to want their say as well.
Bottom Line: They would lose a lot of money if they are operating it as a utility, and I don't believe we'll see a lot of investing if that were to be the case.
So no thanks, let the market decide, not some bureaucrat.
I agree with most of what you said but we still have the fairness issue to contend with. If we go by what a lot of of people have said about being fair, true metered billing would be the way to go. I believe the company would still make money with true metered billing because the electric company makes money.
If they charge .30 cents a gb and you download 300 gigs one month, then you would be paying $90. If you decide to download less the next month, then of course you would end up paying less. People would actually pay for what they are using. Then you wouldn't have the fight between the grandma's of the world and the people who use the internet the way it was intended.
Like I have said previously, they want people to go over the caps so they can get the overage fees. The overage fees is like free money to them. They know a lot of people would go over there caps and that's what they are counting on. Saying that you can still download thousands of web pages and emails is a bunch of garbage.
The company can make as much as it wants, I don't have a problem with it. I don't believe government intervention is the answer either. The problem I have is the company insulting the intelligence of there customers. If this is all about fairness, then go to true metered billing. Don't water it down and make it like your getting more when your not.
--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" Thomas Jefferson
reply
fiberguy @ 18th Apr 03:25AM:
Re: ISP/Video Competition
Maybe it's time to stop raping customers for $upwards of $40 for local phone service.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you can spin this how you want, but not many are going to buy it. Residential access line loss? to what? VZ's own cellular service? And, are they losing residential lines to the fact they are charging WAY too much for a land line anyway?
.. get this one. AT&T service.. if you buy a regular POTS line, local service with a typical feature pack is about $40 a month. HOWEVER, when you buy it as part of U-Verse, somehow, that copper line is subject to different rules, terms, etc. SOMEHOW that VERY copper line's Voice Mail becomes no charge, ie: included. They give you the option of using their voip service or remain on copper.. but again, the copper line now falls under a different set of rates and rules DRAMATICALLY lowering the price.
Phone companies I do NOT feel sorry for. It has NOTHING to do with competition. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact they do not want to get into the game.
You call it competition, I call it the loss of a horrendous century of strong holds on consumers and over charging them for sub-par services.
You're not the only one here, guy, that works or has worked in the industry, yet you make it all dramatic and sound like you know more than anyone else. Again, smug..
The providers need to stop manipulating consumers, and the prices they pay. Put out a product, sell the service at a reasonable rate, PROVIDE CUSTOMER SERVICE and the customer will come. But, ANYONE in the industry that thinks the consumer wants to talk to a recording, or have a recording call their home to do the job of a human, or that somehow the copper service provided is worth far more than it really is.. well, it deserves to die.
I, and many people here, are not about supporting a business that continues down the past of yesterday just for the name of it's own survival. The communications industry needs to focus more on the customer's needs like every other's business.
reply
bicker @ 18th Apr 06:41AM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
FiOS isn't a company. The company is Verizon. They're looking to gain market share with their new offering, so they're underselling the competition. Then, once they have enough of the market, they will likely raise their prices and lower their service levels to (literally) capitalize on the market share that they've gained through this introductory period. The reality is that TWC has more market share within its operating area than Verizon -- lots more. All that would happen if they went up against deep-pockets Verizon price-to-price and service-to-service is a price-war leading to one of the two offerings' demise, leaving only one terrestrial supplier in the market.
Companies have no personality. They are conglomerations of investors. So what you're really pointing out is that the American investor is "cut throat". Yes, we are. Do you look at your 401(k) statements and think, "Gosh, my investments are making too much money. I wish they'd stop focusing so much on profit and just provide better service, even though customers won't reward better service with greater loyalty or other revenue streams." If you do, then you're utterly unique.
reply
Lazlow @ 18th Apr 07:51AM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
Despite that fact that I used Fios instead of Verizon you (and virtually everybody else) knew exactly what company I was speaking of. While the price of Fios service may climb in the future I doubt it will be the huge jumps you seem to be indicating. Their system has far more head room than cable does. Last I heard just 32 subscribers where splitting the 1.2Gbps (on the older systems).
As to market share: take a look at these 2008Q3 numbers.
»www.isp-planet.com/research/rank···usa.html
By subs Road Runner has 9% of the market share while Verizon has just 8.8%. AOL also has 7.7% of the market but it is my understanding that it is a separate company from TWC and that it is next in line to be separated from TimeWarner(to be a stand alone company).
reply
joetaxpayer @ 18th Apr 08:15AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by myokitis :
Consider these factors:
- Demand for bandwidth is growing rapidly as customers use more bandwidth-intensive applications like video, and in the near future, HD video. This would certainly put strain on backend networks.
Whatever their motive, their PR blew it. There was a better way to roll this out. First, put up the account meters, and offer the GB used on the monthly statements. Then, whatever the service level offered are, a customer can see right off the bat where they fall. The stereotypical "emailing Grandma" can see she can save some money, and is happy. TW can state that only X% of our customers use over XGB, and this will cost them more.
You see, I am on Comcast, where the cap is 250GB, and the rants are no different because most users claim to have no idea of their usage. TW should have learned from other ISPs how to introduce the caps and avoided this PR mess.
If the caps are so low that most will pay more, that's another story, I suspect it's about 10% of users that will have real issues.
reply
Mele20 @ 18th Apr 08:48AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by joetaxpayer :
If the caps are so low that most will pay more, that's another story, I suspect it's about 10% of users that will have real issues.
Many RR users from the time TWC introduced the caps in Texas went and got a free or paid bandwidth meter. I have been using NetMeter (free) since Oct 2007. I have all the stats from that date to present.
The caps proposed by TWC are definitely low enough that MOST will pay more. My bandwidth usage, as seen with NetMeter, varies widely from month to month and is never what I would even begin to consider "excessive". I'm always below 40GB a month but if I started downloading netflix movies or increased my BitTorrent usage from extremely modest to just a small amount more with proper seeding, (necessary to getting a good download speed, plus, not seeding is extremely rude), then I would go over the 40GB quickly some months and I am a very conservative user of bandwidth. I have the standard plan. (That is the only plan here. Turbo does not exist for us).
So, yes, most everyone, except a person who only uses email and only turns on their computer for one hour or less a day, and has no other users in the household, will have to pay more. Since TWC has a monoply here, I don't think they should be allowed to place these low caps ...or any caps for that matter.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason
reply
jadebangle @ 18th Apr 10:59AM:
Re: More Populist ISP Bashing from BBR
said by andre2 :said by jadebangle :
Most of us do have a choice its called going back to dialup
You can get it for 5 to 10 bucks a month and there is no limit on bandwidth transfer
And if you leave it running 24/7, you can download almost 15G/month which is 3 times TWC's lowest cap.
That's true... but most of us would probably use a lot less then that since all we gonna do with it is email and buy stuff online :)
with a slower connection it would be impossible to use 15gb in a month
if road runner want us to use a lot less then offer slower tier for a lot less
256/128kbps for 9.99 a month
512/256kbps for 14.99 a month
1mbps/384kbps for 19.99 a month
They don't want that, it won't make them good money and it will save the consumer lots of money
They want to gouge those high paying user a lot more then what they have already paid
That's 44.95 a month or 59.95 a month plus 1 dollar per GB
For 24.95 a month you're capped at 384k/128k for a mere 5gb pretty shitty matey :hmm:
10gb at 44.95 a month
20gb at 59.95 a month
doubling that to 10 to 40gb is still pretty much the same crap with the same overage charges of 1 dollar per gb.
reply
bicker @ 18th Apr 11:04AM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
said by Lazlow :
Despite that fact that I used Fios instead of Verizon you (and virtually everybody else) knew exactly what company I was speaking of.
I'm not so sure, which is why I made a point of it. So often I see people write messages glorifying FiOS as if it is some new up-start, working to do battle for the consumer against the hordes of corporate America. FiOS is part of the epitome of corporate America. There is no reason to believe that they will not "do to you" exactly what the legacy providers are "doing to you" just as soon as they secure enough market share.
said by Lazlow :
Their system has far more head room than cable does.
True, but just think about what we're talking about in this thread... we're talking about people downloading a number of GB per night, to watch television programming. Most folks will be pulling down a lot more in one night than they currently pull down in a month! Even that will cause problems for FiOS.
Beyond that, in time, the cable companies will have to replace their 1980s-era and 1990s-era networks, and when they do they'll be replacing those networks with technology far beyond what FiOS has. That's the nature of things, when you're talking about services based on expensive infrastructures: You're often going to get technological leap-frogging.
reply
BigVe @ 18th Apr 11:40AM:
Re: Why don't they offer TRUE metered billing?
Don't think that would work at all with metering.Their meter would say like 200GB and yours maybe 75GB.Fight bills every month is not the answer either and that's what would happen(greed)
reply
Simba7 @ 18th Apr 12:38PM:
Re: at what point
Oh jeez. Same here.
I'm surprised I lived through that one.
reply
Sammer @ 18th Apr 01:08PM:
Re: Why don't they offer TRUE metered billing?
said by viperpa33s :
I don't understand why they don't offer TRUE metered billing if it's all about fairness?
Never going to happen because TWC still wants to charge Granny who uses her connection for little more than communicating with her grandchildren $40/month. This has nothing to do with fairness, it's about price gouging and protecting cable TV from video competition. You won't see true metered billing for the same reason you don't see al a carte for cable TV.
reply
Lazlow @ 18th Apr 03:05PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
bicker
I do not think you really understand what 1.2Gbps split between 32 users means. If all 32 of those users are online at the same time(downloading) they will each have 37Mbps. Now remember each channel of Docsis only has 38Mbps to be split among all the users. 37Mbps is about 16GB/hour. A full blown uncompressed HD stream is 19Mbps. It is going to be a "few" years before everybody is downloading 16GB/hour. You also have to remember that 1.2Gbps is Fios's old technology (no longer being installed), if I remember correctly the stuff they are installing now is 2.6Gbps.
reply
bicker @ 18th Apr 04:58PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
I don't think you really understand the business of technology.
reply
Lazlow @ 18th Apr 05:30PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
I think it is pretty clear. One system has 37Mbps available to each user when all users are on line. The other system has 38Mbps split between all the users. Even if you go to 4 channel Docsis3 the users are still sharing only 152Mbps.
reply
bicker @ 18th Apr 06:24PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
I believe you misread the message you replied to.
reply
Lazlow @ 18th Apr 06:47PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
No, I understood. It is right back to the situation of a business looking at short term profits or taking the long term view. Verizon, Cablevison, etc are taking the long term view. They are investing and reinvesting in their infrastructure so that they have sufficient capacity to support the speeds they are offering. Customers who do not experience slowed service due to the lack of capacity their provider has, are happy customers. Happy customers spread the word about a good product and are not looking to switch providers. Unhappy customers also spread the word about capacity issues and migrate to companies that do have such issues(when they can). If TWC continues in the direction they are headed, they will soon find themselves in the same situation as Qwest, disparately needing to upgrade but with insufficient income (due to failing to keep up) to do the upgrades.
reply
bicker @ 18th Apr 07:11PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
No, sorry, I don't think you understand. There isn't a choice between looking at the short term realities or taking the long term view. Companies must always do both. Furthermore, there is nothing here that differentiates between short term and long term view: Metered service may indeed be the BEST approach from the long term view. Remember, your personal preference doesn't determine what is best; the business realities do. Your comments about "happy customers" is nice wishful thinking on your part. It isn't the realities of mass-market business today. Customers are utterly unloyal.
reply
Lazlow @ 18th Apr 07:53PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
If happy customers are not a concern anymore why did TWC back off?
While it is true to some extent that companies need to look at both long term and short term interests, TWC's refusal to accept where the market is and where it is headed makes it clear that they are exclusively looking at the short term. Along with that a company that has kept its eye on long term interests generally does not have to worry about the short term (they already took care of that when they paid attention to the long term in the past). TWC's low caps with outrageous overage fees (well over 10X cost) was an attempt to keep people from seeing how badly they need to improve their capacity.
For the most part I have concentrated on Fios becuase I think it is the best long term solution (10 years or more). But Cablevision is taking a completely different path. Since they understood that even with D3 they were going to have to significantly split their nodes in order to have enough capacity 2-3 years down the line, they chose(till recently) to stick with D2 and split the nodes now instead of later. This allowed them to offer 30Mbps service (for over a year now) without significant congestion, while still using the cheaper D2 technology. When they come back and switch those nodes to D3 they should be able to easily offer 100Mbps speeds without significant congestion. Both the Fios and Cablevison paths allowed them to offer the higher speed tiers without congestion issues. TWC on the other hand has chosen not to upgrade to D3(still a lot of D1.1 systems) and not to split the nodes to ease congestion, instead they went with ultra low caps. So when they finally do upgrade they are going to be so far behind that they will have to split the nodes and switch to D3 at the same time just to remain competitive(again the same situation Qwest is in).
reply
chronoss2009 @ 19th Apr 12:18AM:
canada 2005 p2p numbers
sept 2005 : 5.4 million using p2p all the time.
March 2006 ( before throttle of course)
9.8 million canucks ( canadians )using p2p simultaneously at same time on average.
NOW give me that users BS about 20-30GB avg use.....
go for it, utter non sense and backed by stats prolly form 2000 before bit torrent existed.
reply
bicker @ 19th Apr 06:15AM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
said by Lazlow :
If happy customers are not a concern anymore why did TWC back off?
Because the media created a fire-storm, which could have led to political implications.
said by Lazlow :
While it is true to some extent that companies need to look at both long term and short term interests, TWC's refusal to accept where the market is and where it is headed makes it clear that they are exclusively looking at the short term.
Ridiculous. This has nothing to do with TWC's acknowledgment of lack thereof. That's a red herring.
TWC was unlucky. That's it.
said by Lazlow :
Along with that a company that has kept its eye on long term interests generally does not have to worry about the short term (they already took care of that when they paid attention to the long term in the past).
That's simply not the case. Companies have to work at the short term and the long term every single day. Taking a long term view in the past does nothing to absolve a company of concerning itself with short term considerations in the future. You're just plain wrong.
reply
Lazlow @ 19th Apr 05:06PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
Why did the media create a fire-storm? Because people were p^ssed off(not happy) about the issue.
The VAST majority (certainly not all) of short term issues only become short term issues becuase they were not addressed (in the past) when they were long term issues. The rate of bandwidth consumption has only been headed in one direction since the birth of the internet and it will continue to go in that direction for a lot longer. Everybody knows this. TWC has tried to ignore and prevent this.
If you think I am wrong, just look back at the article on stock jocks(front page). They thought that Verizon was throwing away their money and Qwest was the smartest kid on the block. Compare the two companies positions today. Verizon is a HUGE threat to its competitors in every market they have moved Fios into. Qwest is looking at having to sell its long distance lines just to stay in business(a move that would probably mean the end of Qwest). For the most part, if a company stays on top of its long term issues the short term issues do not offer any significant problems. Conversely if a company ignores long term issues(Qwest in the past, TWC past/now) they create short term issues that they may or may not be able to overcome.
reply
bicker @ 19th Apr 05:42PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
And people weren't unhappy about a billion other things? No, sorry Laz, but reality isn't anything like what you assert.
reply
Lazlow @ 19th Apr 06:02PM:
Re: The right way to offer metered Internet service
It is a matter of degree. If I get a $10 parking ticket that I do not think I deserve, I will probably just pay it. Not becuase the ticket was right, but becuase it is not worth my time to fight over a $10 ticket. Now move that ticket up to a $100 and I am FAR more likely to fight it. The $1GB was not going to be some minor annoyance. People could easily see how it was going to cost them $150/month for the same service that they were getting at $60/month(or less).
reply
anon @ 20th Apr 05:33AM:
msg deleted
deleted by a moderator
reply
anon @ 20th Apr 07:47AM:
doesn't feel right
suggestion that it might continue with a glossy PR coat
people have made it clear, there's bills in congress, there's competitors that don't do it in many markets
my gut feeling tells me this is over.
statements are statements, they want to keep the door open, but this is done.
metered billing isn't going to work - everyone knows that. Remember, they want metered billing - not "this is what it takes to get booted". If most people use 5-10 gigs, having a "cap" that is over and above that is pointless, right?
Why metered bill only the top 5% or whatever of your customers? You have to metered-bill everyone!
This is poorly thought out, and it isn't going anywhere. Sometimes I wonder.
reply
anon @ 20th Apr 01:57PM:
gubment regulation again anyone?
so whos up for letting the gubment control it all again? :D
hands? anyone?
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC