Slashdot Mirror

A story from someone who used to watch TV like *ALL* the time. It simply costs too much for what is there. They cater to a small segment of watchers the 'sports guy'. The rest of us just suck it up. The 'sports guy' will buy the 200 dollar package. The rest of us are left with the 'low' priced 60-80 dollar packages.

10 years ago it was 25-30 for a decent package. Now it is nearly double on its way to triple. Yeah not a good deal. Then they made using DVRs a pain in the ass. But turn around and rent you a crap one. Then want to rent you a 'digital' box which they overcompress the feed anyway and you end up with the same res as you had before just more boring stations.

Yeah I cut the cord. It was overpriced and my tastes had changed. So I was not watching much anymore. I now buy DVD's and games with that money. I can buy a whole season for 15-60 bucks. Sure I am a bit out of sync with everyone but who cares! I even 'know' that there is a serious amount of stuff on the net. I do not even bother with it. I dont have time for that. I just buy whatever season I am interested in.

I remember as a kid there where few commercials on cable TV. It was one of their main selling points. Your paying for it... I then remember them butchering the shows that were on so they could get their 5 mins of commercials in.

Once you 'cut the cord' you crave it for a couple of months (yes I was 'addicted to it'). But after that you dont even look back. Cable 'missed' the PVR revolution then tried to co-op it. Too late. They should have been ALL over making Tivo and others like it almost stupid easy to do. Instead they were trying to figure out how to monetize it. Instead of making their service more compelling to keep (as they were raising prices) they made it less compelling and still raised prices. The one thing that made cable 'take off' in the late 80s early 90s was the cable ready TV. Then the companies fell back in love with the extra box for some reason (money). But it is costing them dearly.

But here is the BEST bit here
http://stopthecap.com/2010/04/27/ted-turner-slams-former-time-warner-ceo-for-google-is-a-bunch-of-bullsh-comment/

When you have the dude who practically invented the cable franchise telling you your doing it wrong... that says a lot.

So Cable dudes look out your customers are starting to notice you charge too much for too little these days. It was a 'good deal' 20 years ago. Not so much anymore.

Yes that's right, KCN charges $58/month for (truly) unlimited 1gbps symmetrical connections.

Now allow me to quote a news release from a couple of months ago: "The next step towards ever breakneck speeds is commercialisation of 10 GBPs fibre optic deliver. Telecoms firm Oki Japan has successfully tested a 160 GBPs long-distance, high-speed optical connection that delivers the equivalent of "four full movies" worth of data every second. Oki expects it to be commercialized late next year maintaining Japan's bragging rights for some time to come."

No that's not a typo. That really is 10 GB per second. I just wanted to put things in perspective before discussing this European ISP.

Now here's the real issue, that for some odd reason none of you seem to realize. This European ISP is claiming that 1% of its users abuse its network, ruining it for everyone else. This has never been confirmed or reviewed by independent third parties. This ISP has never been forced by the government to reveal its actual network data. If you've been following the kerfuffle with Bell Canada as well as the "special access lines" issue in the US, you would understand just how ridiculous this scenario is. For example, when Time Warner attempted to implement usage based billing, caps, and overages, they talked about how "expensive" managing and upgrading their network was. They then turned around and reported RECORD PROFITS during a huge recession to their investors, and their financial statement to the SEC revealed the money they invested into their network had actually DECREASED for the last two years. That these ISPs can bemoan the expense of managing their network while making obscene profits and never revealing raw network data to the government or an independent third party is beyond preposterous.

Next, peak load and congestion are NOT managed by caps. Caps are meaningless restrictions on users, because congestion actually occurs at peak hours of usage. So Grandma watching her youtube video at 7pm is just as guilty of causing congestion as Mr. Bittorrent User. ISPs purchase bandwidth from backbone providers based on their users' bandwidth usage. They purchase bandwidth at the 95th percentile of peak usage. The idea that they would have to restrict bandwidth consumption by 1/3rd to meet consumer demand is completely illogical.

In addition, cable companies and telecoms engage in periodic "cycles" of upgrades to account for inevitable increases in bandwidth usage at their various nodes. They have to keep up with the increases in usage by "splitting" those nodes. When a provider decides to implement throttling of protocols, this allows them to delay upgrades for a single cycle. However, from then on they are essentially *stuck* with their throttling, and they are still forced to upgrade every cycle at the same rate as before. Throttling is thus a meaningless attempt to stem the tide of bandwidth consumption.

Furthermore, backbone and middle-mile providers consistently talk about how cheap bandwidth is becoming. The pace of the internet's expansion has slowed to an extremely manageable 30%/year (as opposed to 200%/year during the mid 90's). Bandwidth has become cheaper and cheaper because internet speeds increase according to Moore's Law (http://www.physorg.com/news151162452.html). Part of this has to do with improvements in router technology that occur as components shrink.

The issue is, and always has been, the last mile. For cable providers, however, "splitting a node" to increase bandwidth provisions to a particular area is not a large expense, especially when you're talking about a national provider.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is no evidence to back up this ISP's claims. When

AT&T is 'trialing' capping in some areas. So you may still have a cap.

http://stopthecap.com/category/providers/att-dsl-fios/
http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/25/beaumont-area-att-customer-gets-himself-exempted-from-internet-overcharging-can-you/

I urge others to tell everyone that a duopoly in many areas is not acceptable. The providers of the service need to be separated from the providers of the cable.

AT&T is 'trialing' capping in some areas. So you may still have a cap.

http://stopthecap.com/category/providers/att-dsl-fios/
http://stopthecap.com/2009/06/25/beaumont-area-att-customer-gets-himself-exempted-from-internet-overcharging-can-you/

I urge others to tell everyone that a duopoly in many areas is not acceptable. The providers of the service need to be separated from the providers of the cable.

Folks can learn a lot more about the bill, its implications, and the entire background of this issue on Stopthecap.com, an all-consumer website. We have been gathering facts on this issue since 2008 when Frontier tried a 5GB usage cap. Come visit and learn our issues. http://stopthecap.com/

No kidding (my bet is TW, Comcast, CableLabs).

circa 1992 'we are being regulated to death' ok we will remove the regulations.

My bill in 92? About 25 bucks for TV (for 50 stations). Now? It was 70, before I dropped it (for about 60 stations). Maybe I missed the ~2.5x in inflation since 1992.

The SAME dudes who raise our TV rates are the same ones who came up with this 'idea'. I would bet that 70 bucks a month I used to pay for TV. These are the same ones who run our 'lastmile' networks.

We just need to be 're-educated' didnt you know? This is just part of that. http://stopthecap.com/

1. Time Warner's only firm plans for DOCSIS 3 upgrades were for New York, NY (a city that was never on the "experiment" list we note).
2. Despite assurances that test cities would be getting upgrades as a result of the tiered pricing system, the company disclosed today there were no plans to immediately implement DOCSIS 3 in any other city.
3. Company officials downplayed the need for performing the upgrade in the first place, claiming there has not been much clamor for speed (so much for the crisis nearly upon us!)
4. The Lite plans for lighter users impact on the company's returns for broadband, but are compensated for by heavier users who may actually be carrying that financial load with Turbo subscriptions.
5. The company again plans to reduce spending overall in the coming year, not increase it.
6. Most of the infrastructure enhancements in their fiber network aren't for broadband, they're for "switched digital video" which is helpful for cable systems trying to deliver additional HD channels.

a) Raise their prices considerably on all their "unlimited" plans--sucks for the light users, who are basically subsidizing the heavy users who want to stream HD video and movies

b) Covertly start throttling back heavy users--sucks for everyone, since no one even knows how much they're being throttled and there is no option of paying a premium to escape it

c) Set download caps--sucks compared to the "free ride" heavy users are getting now, but at least it's out in the open with no throttling bullshit (and light users don't get penalized).

d) Everything stays priced the same as now, without throttling or download caps

Want to see what the future will be like with the proposed capping system? Step right up folks, and take a look at Australia's largest ISP. You get to pick from unbeatable offers such as US$28.85 for 200MB, and US$93.86/month for 60GB! Want more than 60GB? No problem. For the low cost of just US$110.94 per additional gigabyte, you can download to your heart's content! Oh, what was that? You want to watch online video? Don't worry. As part of this attractive offer, you will also have exclusive unmetered access to our partner network of music, movies, sports, games, and more! Getting excited yet? Seriously though fellas, those were not typos and this is not a joke.

Out of every Slashdot article I have seen in the past year, no single controversy has posed anywhere near this of a threat to rights online or free and open source software; and we've got an almost inconceivable "+5, Insightful" first post that effectively sympathizes with the offenders. At least take a moment to research before rushing to Time Warner's defense. Believe you me, if they are given an inch on this one, they (and all U.S. ISPs) will take a mile.

"Why does this really matter? ISPs in other countries are doing it, and businesses should be allowed to maximize their profit," you might say. Well, for starters, internet access has become a vital lifeline that is second-to-none. It has superseded all other forms of communication and media. Restrictive bandwidth policies do nothing more than perpetuate the digital divide by putting financial strain on the people who are already on the brink. This means that when Johnny's parents have home (telephone, or) cable service with a major U.S. company that offers package deals, they will likely opt to conservatively use one of the most inexpensive service plans. At this point, experimenting with things as simple as Ubuntu and Folding@Home become impractical or impossible for Johnny, unless he really wants to go out on a limb by asking for permission.

As of 2008, 5 ISPs control 56% of the U.S. market share. This means that half of the country will be coerced into using the unmetered media networks offered by their provider. What happened to the vision of net neutrality?

Here's the bottom line: if Japan and South Korea can figure out a way to provide blazing speeds at a low cost, then so can the United States.

P.S. For those opposed to the proposals, please contact your elected officials, or request that it be done on your behalf.

Samuel Greenholtz, a retired manager from Verizon, offered this absolutely impenetrable thinking on why broadband providers needed to impose caps on customers and were forced to charge way too much for them:

While a tiered pricing structure may have been inevitable in the long run, if the corporate bashing horde stayed out of the way, the vast majority of users would have avoided paying more for additional capacity. Time Warner Cable does give the politicians what they are looking for â" more bandwidth availability for all of its subscribers. Still, the lowest speed package is not going to be enough for most of the consumers â" and so they will have to take the higher tier offerings â" along with the new overage charges. Had the MSOs been allowed to just cap excessive users, most of the subs would have continued to receive a reasonable amount of bandwidth at the same flat price.

Ironically, all of the illogic obsession with net neutrality will result in even more of a usage-based pricing scheme. There will now be several layers of capping. The anti-ISP crowd has actually created a more beneficial pricing system for these companies. And there is certainly nothing unfair about this development. But the clamoring for so-called equality resulted in an acceleration of the removal of the all-you-can-eat advantage for consumers.

Stopthecap.com is referenced in the article to which Slashdot linked. The citation above from Sam Greenholtz was so outlandish, so clearly showing pro-corporate stances, I had to call it out. I didn't think the corporate side was so violently opposed to net neutrality and unlimited bandwidth, but with gems like "illogical obsession" and "corporate bashing horde", I'm surprised that there's not any active raping and pillaging.

1. Time Warner - tell them what you think
2. Mayor Duffy - this concerns his city's economy
3. Your Congress[wo]man
4. Gov. Patterson
5. Senators Schumer and Gillibrand

Not all of these people will be able or willing to do anything, but spreading awareness is how word gets out and pressure is put on Time Warner to stop this nonsense.

So you mean to tell me that things change? Holy I-Ching Batman!

Yes, Sherlock, and with technology, they're supposed to improve, not get worse.

The providers are becoming more greedy and looking for excuses to charge more money for equipment they aren't bothering to update

Fixed that for you.

Being asked to pay $150 a month for truly unlimited internet access isn't that bad of a deal.

Sure, if you think paying $1500 for a Pentium 3 desktop in 2009 "isn't that bad of a deal".

I'm only thirty, but I'm already having an old man moment here. I don't think a lot the people posting on Slashdot realize how far technology has come.

No, the problem is you don't realize how far technology has come. Time Warner is talking about overage charges while Japan is talking about Gigabit connections to the home. And before you dig up the "but Amerika is ruuural" argument, that might explain why you can't get good access in Jerkwater, Whyoming, but not in Manhattan or San Francisco. And even that argument is shot down by countries like Sweden, which has better access but has an even lower population density than the United States.

The term "entitlement generation" has reached my ears from time to time

Yes, from Libertarians and elitists who think American workers are being self-centered for wanting at least the same standard of living as their parents, when worker productivity is far higher than it was in the 50's, 60's or 70's.

Where the hell do you people think all of this capability comes from? Do you think that the cable company just plugs in a router, and all of a sudden "the Internet" just works? I wonder how many network engineers Time Warner employees. I wonder how much those guys make a year. How about field techs? Customer service operators? Sales reps? How much do they have to pay in property taxes and electricity to keep their CO's running?

What about the fact that Time Warner keeps making more money from their ISP business, yet is looking for an excuse to raise their rates higher without upgrading their equipment?

"In 2007, TW made $3,730 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 Million to support the cost of the network. 2007 total profit on high speed data: $3.566 Billion"

        "In 2008, TW made $4,159 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $146 Million to support the cost of the network. 2008 total profit on high speed data: $4.013 Billion"

        "It cost TW 11% less money in 2008, to keep their network running, than in 2007."

CEO of time warner said that broadband costs are spiraling out of control.

Their SEC Statements for 2008 said YOY operating costs for their broadband service decreased 11%. It also netted them nearly 4 billion dollars in revenues.

In 2007 they also reported decreased operating costs and massive profits.

I'd love for that asshole to testify to congress the same thing, cause I'm sending my congressmen their 10K statements. Maybe a CEO going to jail for blatantly doing nearly the same shit bank CEO's and other officers have been doing will finally wake these people up.

http://stopthecap.com/2009/04/10/why-is-time-warner-saying-costs-increasing-to-consumers-but-decreasing-to-stockholders/

A good portion of the backlash can be found at stopthecap.com particularly in the comments of each article.

Additionally the local news in Rochester, NY is bringing it up with some regularly and it's more or less inescapable to hear about if you live around here.

Time Warner has already seen a lot of people canceling many if not all of their services in protest and many more angry calls -- I do not envy their customer support staff. I've written and told them outright that if the caps go in place I will cancel their service at a major downgrade to my access simply so they will not get my money until the caps are removed completely.

That title is so bullshit. The spin is so much, I feel sick already.

The title should have been saying something like "Time Warner to limit internet usage, charging 150$ for full use." Or something similar.
The current title has marketing spin of a positive connotation... and this is a very poor, and bad thing.

Take action at Stopthecap.com.