Time Warner Boosts Broadband Customer Speed — But Only Near Google Fiber

An anonymous reader writes " Rob is a Time Warner Cable customer, and he's received two really interesting things from them lately. First, a 50% speed boost: they claim to have upgraded the speed of his home Internet connection. That's neat. Oh, and they've also cut his bill, from $45 to $30. Wow! What has prompted this amazing treatment? Years of loyalty and on-time payments? No, not exactly. Rob lives in Kansas City, pilot site for Google Fiber. Even though they have shut off people in other states for using too much bandwidth. Is Google making them show that it's not that hard to provide good service and bandwidth?"

Comments

I don't know which is worse.

[mark_reh]

Cell phone carriers or cable TV companies.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada they are both the same company.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[TimeandMaterials]

The Devil can answer...

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phone carriers because there's no alternative to them, while cable TV companies are slowly heading for extinction and you can live without a TV.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable TV, hands down. If I wanted to, I could switch cell carriers fairly easily (though likely from bad service to worse service), whereas if I want cable (not satellite), my choices at my home are currently Comcast or.... Comcast

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[smg5266]

But cable TV companies are often the only option for decent home internet.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Devil's Answer:
They are both good minions. I can't favor one or the other like a father can't his two sons.

HA, my capatcha was "meanings".

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[compro01]

Only in the east. Shaw doesn't run cell phones. They had plans to and bought some AWS spectrum, but they've apparently decided against that and recently sold the spectrum off to Rogers.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[supertrooper]

If Google ever creates network in Canada (there is almost no competition there) I will switch to their service immediately.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[yesurbius4822]

SHAW is no better than Time Warner in this regard. They whined and whined that they cannot keep up with the data needs of streaming video and then pushed through their new data caps. So we ended up paying the same amount as before - but now its capped. SHAW aggressively pushes their cable service and their On-Demand service. But its an obsolete business model - they need to get with the times. Lets asy I wanted to catch Game of Thrones on Shaw's On-Demand service.. I can't just subscribe to it - I have to pay for their Digital service .. then pay for the Movie Central service .. THEN pay for the On-Demand service. So $80/mo later I am able to pay the premium on-demand rental price which happens to be the same amount that I'd pay by renting from iTunes, Playstation, or XBox stores. Furthermore - I'd bet the farm that the only people that are being pestered about their data usage are the people using Netflix and competing services. Its Greed - plain and simple.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[UltraZelda64]

They're all the same. Scumbags and assholes. But I can do without all the garbage that makes up TV... so aside from cable Internet if for whatever reason I have to switch back from DSL, I will likely have to deal with the cell phone companies before the cable companies. And even then, I'd likely get satellite TV if I absolutely must have TV; problem is, their "package" deals are designed to screw you in the same way as cable's, so again, I'd more likely just avoid TV as I have for years.

I really don't know why people continue to do business with a company that repeatedly bends them over and fucks them in the ass, especially for a completely unnecessary service: subscription television.

Re: I don't know which is worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you live that you have no choice of cell carriers? Most of the northeast US I know is covered by at least four major networks (Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and Spirit) plus a wide variety of carriers using rented space...meanwhile where I live now I have two options for tv/internet (RI - Cox or FiOS) and previously only had one (PA - Comcast)

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[lightknight]

Says someone who doesn't live where they are rolling out fiber.

Re: I don't know which is worse.

[unitron]

"Where do you live that you have no choice of cell carriers?"

It's not a lack of choice of cell carriers, it's having a cell phone means having to deal with a cell phone carrier, which is sort of like having your choice of slow, painful, fatal diseases. You still die before your time and do so slowly and painfully.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[Nexzus]

Furthermore - I'd bet the farm that the only people that are being pestered about their data usage are the people using Netflix and competing services.

Which is absolute shit, at least now. Shaw is a member of the Netflix SuperHD program, which means they have (or otherwise directly hook into) a Netflix appliance on their network, so they don't pay any transit fees for netflix data now. If they're complaining about Netflix users "taking all the bandwidth" then it's because they've oversold their network.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

which is way, way, waaaay bigger segment of the market, you smug cunt.

Re:I don't know which is worse.

[Shirley Marquez]

If you live anywhere that is served by Verizon FIOS they can also be the same company. So far as I know, none of the other cable companies have any presence in wireless, though some have cross-marketing agreements with wireless carriers.

Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

We've known providers are capable of doing this for sometime.

Re:Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

We've known providers are capable of doing this for sometime.

Snort. Just because they say the speeds are higher doesn't mean they did anything more than put a faster binfile package on the cable modem. How's that performance treating you during peak use times? How about those usage caps, you hitting them any faster than before?

Oh, one more thing most people forget about- how is your latency treating you?

Good

[stewsters]

This is what healthy competition is supposed to do to the market. Now, we need google fiber in more cities and the average speed and price of internet will get better for everyone (unless you live in a rural area).

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an unsustainable race to the bottom. They both are losing money here and one of the two will eventually shut down their system in this area to stanch the flow of red ink. Then, the other will gradually start to raise their pricing back to the break-even point. Competition works well for fungible commodities, but not for things like basic public infrastructure which is extremely costly to build and maintain.

Re:Good

[bmo]

>This is an unsustainable race to the bottom.

Bullshit. It's been established that caps and rate limiting are just a cash grab. And the customer has been raped enough through billing ever since we threw billions of taxpayers' money at the network providers in the 90s only to watch it go out as dividends to shareholders and board bonuses.

Competition is *always* good.

--
BMO

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment reminds me of political corruption cases. When no cases appear on media/courts, some people (mainly politicians themselves) will say that's a good thing, because it means there are no corrupt politicians, so the system works. However, when corrupt politicians are caught and appear on media and courts, these same people will keep on saying that that's a good thing, because it means corrupt politicians are caught, so the system works. With such a mindset, it is nigh-impossible to argue that the system is in fact rotten. No matter how many corruption cases arise, they will try to argue that making them surface is a success of the democracy, and not a sign of anything being wrong with what they call "democracy" nowadays.

If all of a sudden a company like TimeWarner does something "right", forced by competition, far from being a good sign that competition does work, for me it's a sign that it doesn't. The reason being that it shows that for years they were allowed to do "wrong", so where was all this free-market competition goodness then?

Re:Good

[wvmarle]

And that is why infrastructure is a government task (either direct or by government appointed company - which is how the POTS got rolled out and why it's available pretty much anywhere there is a public road), and everyone should be allowed to use that infrastructure at a fixed cost.

You want to run your car on a public road? You can do that, after you pay your vehicle taxes and get a driving license. You want to run a bus service? Sure, go ahead, just make sure you pay the vehicle taxes and have the proper licenses. Where those taxes are the same for everyone, and licenses are available for anyone who qualifies and passes certain exams. It's a level playing field.

I come from areas where data infrastructure is treated like that. Result? Excellent service at rock bottom price.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-and-what-it-means-for-u-s-broadband/

Analysts say $670 / customer to provide fiber-to-home. On a $40 plan, the break-even point is 1.6 years and on a $70, 9 months.

Add in a few extra additional expenses, and double it for kicks... 2-4 years to profitability, depending on the service amount.

Considering the copper / cable they used has been laid over 30 years ago, I think their* copper/cable lines have been well paid for and that some of that profit could have easily been used to create a fiber network that will be in use for the next 20+ years?

Race to the bottom. Yes, please.

Re:Good

[erroneus]

Healthy from whose perspective? Yours, mine and the rest of the consumer public? Certainly. But there's another side, a tragic side, of this you are not considering. Many dinners, golf games, gifts, donations and contributions were made to acquire the exlusive access to customers in an area which enabled them to maximize their executive bonuses, inflate their stock values and, when the time comes, fill their golden parachutes.

Now, thanks to this "healthy competition" the fruits of all that hard work is in jeopardy.

Thanks for nothing Google!

In truth, this is not really fair competition. This is unfair competition similar to Mozilla vs. Microsoft. Microsoft used its monopoly on the desktop to kill any notion of a web browser that costs money. We don't need to go into whether or not the damage to Mozilla was intentional or not. After all, the car wasn't invented in order to kill the horse ranching industry. So here we have Google trying to work around the problems presented by the carriers who have managed to restrict and reduce the effectiveness of Google's business models. So rather than continue to engage in fruitless discussions on the matter, Google is routing around the damage.

And while these carriers have historically sued and won against municipalities attempting a similar feat, charging them with unfair competition, they have obviously decided not to challenge Google's deeper, more powerful pockets to a duel in the courts over this.

Re:Good

[afidel]

Yep, look at the cost per Mbps for colo bandwidth versus last mile, they were on a roughly parallel trajectory until the media companies bought up the cable companies and decided to increase costs to protect their existing models, they can only do that because in most markets they have a monopoly/duopoly position, give them some real competition and suddenly things get back on track.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

"race to the bottom"... What crack are you smoking? Google isn't losing any money in this. Sonic.net in California is offering 1Gbs internet with prices on par with Google and is saying that they are making money in their endeavor.

The only thing the end user has to pay for is the initial connection and then the monthly service. Google fiber is offering the same type of internet deals; pay for the one time connection to the network then pay your monthly charge. Unless you subscribe to the believe that the bits download are "wearing the wires out" then there really isn't that much maintenance cost to rolling out fiber. Provided nobody comes in and cuts the damn thing then the wire should take care of itself.

What companies like Google, Sonic.net, and the myriad of other companies in the U.S. that are offering 1Gbs internet (there are a few) are doing is showing the consumer that a 1Gbs internet infrastructure is feasible contrary to what the telecom and cable industry would have you believe.

And as bmo has pointed out these fiber networks that we were promised in the 90's but cost-so-much-money-and-are-not-possible-unless-we-go-bankrupt-oh-noes have already been bought and paid for through telecom lobbying and taxpayer money. . What a lot of people don't understand is that with this lobbying came deregulation of pricing which allowed them to jack up pricing under the guise of building out a fiber infrastructure. It wasn't until recently that they started claiming that it wasn't possible because the expense was to great. Unfortunately for the consumer the bean-counters never got that memo and have never dropped prices.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

A fine idea, but eventually google will up their prices like everyone else. When my area first got FiOS, TW dropped their prices and did a lot of promotions. Verizon wiped the floor with them initially, but then Verizon did what they always do, increase prices - a lot, and then created contact terms for the service, just like wireless. Cancel the service, expect a large early termination fee. People then moved back to TW, but the prices were no longer competitive, there were merely inline with Verizon's inflated prices. However, their bottom tier, which is suitable for most people, is very cheap. Verizon don't have one. Guess which service people are returning to?

Verizon's FiOS is rock solid here, and you get the full bandwidth advertised, unlike TW's, but they're pricing themselves out of the area. Surprisingly, they don't actually seem to care or wonder where their customers are going.

Re:Good

[firex726]

Exactly, we already paid for these upgrades, but instead of doing them, the companies just pocketed it and claimed people were using too much and capped us.

They either need to do the upgrades or give back the tax money.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Its about time someone with deeper pockets than the media corporations can stand up to them. Look at Europe and their bandwidth capabilities, we are slowly turning into a third world nation all in the name of profits.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that this attitude runs counter to the "government = bad, private enterprise = good" attitude that is so prevalent in today's society. Somewhere along the way, people forgot why government exists, why private business exists, and how to keep them separate.

Re:Good

[erroneus]

Google is "new media" the others are "old media." The old media has simply failed to adapt. Watch out for the new media... likely worse than the old media. For now, I applaud Google. Later, I will despise them.

Re:Good

[Bob9113]

This is what healthy competition is supposed to do to the market.

Indeed it is. And this isn't even healthy competition -- this is just a small-n n-opoly in which one party has a personal interest in disproving the bandwidth whining and excuses by the others. If most places had a major ISP that didn't voluntarily participate in Six Strikes -- which would get them a massive share of the business in that region -- then I'd believe we had healthy competition.

Re:Good

[Krneki]

This.

But I'll add something, forbid the government from owning (fully or partially) a company providing Internet services, or they will put anyone out of business using dirty tricks.

Re:Good

[yesurbius4822]

I totally agree with you. The other advantage is that by using a single infrastructure approach, we can limit (and standardize) wireless frequencies so we have less towers in our back yards. The two fundamental problems are: #1 - This gives the government complete access to the communications of the country. Even if they claim not to be monitoring it - how do we know? #2 - Governments are notoriously BAD at efficiency and innovation ... so while they could run it to solve one problem - they'd be creating at least two more in the process. Point #1 I can live with .. but point #2 would be hard to live with. On the other hand .. if they distributed the task and made each municipality responsible for designing, implementing, and managing their own communication network that may work. State/Provincial governments could mandate peering arrangements and dispute resolution within their jurisdiction and the Feds could mandate the states/provinces. This would eliminate both points .. as it would make the people of each municipality responsible for getting on their local government's backs to upgrade and improve the systems ...

Re:Good

[SilentStaid]

They either need to do the upgrades or give back the tax money.

Could you imagine if the world worked like that? How awesome would that be? Unfortunately, their lobbying pockets are a bit deeper than yours or mine will ever be.

Re:Good

[firecode]

US ISPs are money-hungry.

In Finland I pay 12 euros (16 usd) for having wireless 3G with speed 5 Mbps or more (ping 75ms) and I don't live in a big city.

Re:Good

[NeoNormal]

I have been preaching this same message for years. I was hoping some of the "stimulus" money the US has spent in the last 4-5 years would be targeted at building network infrastructure.

May I ask where you've experienced this in the past?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny part is that how much government is involved with a particular part of infrastructure is based directly on how old that kind of infrastructure is.

Roads, water/sewage, and postal service? Those date to at least the Roman Empire, so of course they're run directly by the government as a general rule. The Post Office is specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, and "Postmaster General" used to be a cabinet level position.

Electricity? Heating gas? Ah, now we're only going back a little over a century, so we have heavily-regulated private companies providing the infrastructure.

Telephones? Less time still, with a commensurately less-regulated industry.

Cable TV? Even more recent, very little regulation. And, of course, residential Internet access is done on the incumbent phone and cable networks, so it ends up there on the spectrum.

Cell phone service? It's completely Wild West, with the government just divvying up spectrum. Is anyone surprised at predatory contracts and usurious rates and terrible service?

Here's the revelation: you go on that list in reverse order, newest and least regulated first, and I bet you're reading it from worst customer service to best. I've literally never had problems with my water utility, and rarely had problems with my electric service, but Comcast and Sprint? It is to laugh.

Re:Good

[Githaron]

I think it would probably be best if the local governments owned a high bandwidth infrastructure in town and then simply rented off the bandwidth to ISPs via auction. The town could decide the appropriate number of ISPs and auction accordingly. The town can have a plan for how often they want to update the infrastructure and budget accordingly. The ISPs would be responsible for the street to house wiring, being a point of contact for problems, and management of their virtual bandwidth segment. The city would be responsible for infrastructure upgrades and maintenance. Of course, if they wanted they could contract out those responsibilities as well. ISPs could also build and own the long-distance, backbone lines between towns.

Re:Good

[guises]

That doesn't make any sense. What dirty tricks? The only dirty tricks that have been happening have been by private companies who hate competition. Those few municipal networks that have actually got up and running as utilities have had nothing but good press.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

So Google should get out of the ISP business? It seems in this one case, the private enterprise market is doing what it's proponents claim it should do. Not that this is a usual situation, but it seems a strange example to launch a government-is-only-qualified-entity-to-build-infrastructure rant.

Re:Good

[firex726]

Yea, cheaper to buy a few senators than upgrade the network.

Re:Good

[Githaron]

Another reason I like the idea of local governments managing their own local network is that it increases the number of customers interested in networking equipment and technology. If everything was controlled by one entity, there would only be one customer for network technology. This would likely lead to only one or two companies getting contracts for equipment. They could charge whatever they wanted because eventually everyone else will be so far behind them in research that it wouldn't make sense to go with another company. If every town controlled their own network, the customer based is much larger. This allows for a market that would encourage a greater number of companies to exist and leaves the possibility for new players to get into the market.

Re:Good

[SillyHamster]

ROFL.

So which one is going out of business? Time Warner or Google?

Re:Good

[mea_culpa]

I agree so long as the government doesn't choose winners and losers like they have done and still currently do.
AT&T prior to the breakup is a good example of how far this cronyism can go. Don't get me started on the industrial media complex. Right now it is cellular carriers and cable companies. Both are using public resources unfairly.
Your public road analogy is good, but if you were to accurately compare it to the telecommunication industry there would be roads that only Ford, Chevy, and Crystler vehicles were allowed to drive on. Chevy would make and agreement with Ford to allow eachother's cars on their roads but not Toyota, KIA and many others. The barrier to entry would be so high that newer better cars would not be allowed in.

When Cox bought out our local Cable America in Phoenix all they did was switch subscribers over, and charge 20% more. Did they use any of the infrastructure of the competitor that they bought out? No, they systematically dismantled it. All of those years of negotiations with various municipalities to get access to easements, poles, alley ways, etc. all gone. The millions of dollars spent to install that mostly redundant infrastructure also gone. There is no possible way now, unless you are Google, to come in and compete with them.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how it worked for rural electrification in the 1930s. The power companies did not want to run power lines to the rural areas and government had to get involved. Result, the rural areas got electricity. The same can happen for broadband and fiber if the government would do something. Of course, the companies would have to actually install stuff or get nothing from the government. Also, if they did nothing, the government would have to do the job.

Re:Good

[cdrguru]

Oh that is pretty funny. You seem to think that once the physical plant is in that is the end of the matter.

Well, there is this little thing called maintenance. If you don't maintain the physical plant, it goes to crap in a short period of time. Copper rusts. Coax deteriorates in other ways. Every connection point is a risk factor, and every box with some electronics in it is vulnerable to failure. Pretty much that means line crews are out at least five days a week and they need some coverage 24x7. The maintenance costs are high.

Cable companies generally farm out the installs to other companies but keep the hardline and node maintenance to themselves. Fiber has its own set of problems with physical damage but every connection point has a bunch of electronics that is subject to failure, so while the problems are different there is still a heavy maintenance requirement.

No, these folks aren't just sitting there and letting the system rot around them. Well, not if it is working. There is nowhere near as much profit as you seem to think in running the system.

If only it could be outsourced to someplace with cheap labor. Sadly, in Arizona they can't use cheap illegals because of the training and turnover requirements. Obviously, the cheaper illegals are used anywhere they can be.

Re:Good

[turkeyfish]

The point is that Time Warner was FORCED to compete. That's what we as consumers need to encourage. Then and only then will we truly have "more choices". As citizens and as consumers we need to get government back into the business of making competition easier not harder. We need more "pro-competitive" politicians, who can then stand back and let truly "free" markets work.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

your right, the right to profit depends on how much you donate to campaigns.

either that, or we really need to start making sure big oil pays more taxes, or stops getting subsidies

big oil didn't upset another loby in congress recently

Re:Good

[antdude]

It doesn't have to be Google Fiber. It is anyone to match the services. For me, I only have cable option for affordable broadband. No DSL (20K ft. to CO) and fiber. I had to use dial-up (3 KB/sec with lots of line noises even on 56k modems) yesterday morning due to a ten hours most of the city outage! :(

Re:Good

[curunir]

I don't see why this is the case.

My ISP is small and can't afford to sell service at a loss. They serve only a limited area, but one where Comcast's service is no different than anywhere else. And yet this small company without large pockets can offer 200mbps symmetric service, though (*sob*) my building only has 100mbps installed (speed test result), for under $40/mo with no caps and no contracts. The only reason Comcast cannot offer similar service at a similar price is because they choose not to.

In rural areas, the situation might be different, but there's no excuse for gouging in areas where it is cheaper to serve just to keep things equal.

Re:Good

[cheater512]

Even Australia with our massive submarine cables is better.

I pay $49 for a measly 500gig. $10 more if I wanted unlimited.
12Mbit only due to DSL and distance from the exchange but that is unavoidable with any ISP in Australia.

Plus my mobile only costs $15/month on top of that with the same company.

Re:Good

[nmr_andrew]

What's worse, they're using our tax dollars, that were supposed to upgrade their systems, to lobby against us (or at least whatever portion of those tax dollars they didn't give their C level execs).

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If all of a sudden a company like TimeWarner does something "right", forced by competition, far from being a good sign that competition does work, for me it's a sign that it doesn't. The reason being that it shows that for years they were allowed to do "wrong", so where was all this free-market competition goodness then?

They were not allowed to do "wrong". They were allowed to have a monopoly. As is the case in most cable markets. Remember, the role of ISP is something extra that they piggybacked onto the cable TV monopoly they were given by the locals. Google is disturbing the ISP monopoly, not the TV monopoly. TWC isn't lowering their cable TV rates, only their broadband rates. Because that's the only market where they now have a competitor.

There was NO real competition for them for years in any of the markets they served (I don't count any DSL service that may have been available). The free-market competition goodness couldn't work, because there were no competitors. Now that there is a competitor in one of their markets (broadband), we see prices there going down. But the market where they still have no serious competitor (TV) is theirs alone, so those prices don't change.

However, I think they'll start feeling the pinch on the TV side as well within the next few years as more people start watching TV online. So, even though they will have no direct competitor as they do in broadband, market forces will force them to lower TV rates to keep people from dumping them entirely for online viewing.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he means not running it like a nonprofit, and running the corporates into the ground.

Why on earth would you want to run a .Gov organization like a business, not only would you have .gov rules and pensions to worry about, you then have all the sleazeball trapping and foot shooting that happens in business.

That is the worst of both worlds.

Re:Good

[AlphaWolf_HK]

That's the problem. Some people say "NATIONALIZE IT!" Only problem is that historically when this happens the service tends to fall into disrepair while the prices go up.

Price controls are an even worse idea. I didn't live in the 70's, but my parents told me how horrible it was to get gas because there were always long lines at the pump, and you probably spent the amount saved on gas just moving your car through the line. When it went back to the free market, these problems went away.

I'm a very libertarian guy, but I think the government can play a role in broadband development. I would think something in the interest of preventing monopolies from having the same effect of nationalization. That is, if the company can provide better service in one area (in this case, Kansas City) they should do the same in other areas within a reasonable amount of time (say, a year,) unless it creates undue hardship.

For example, it will probably cost more to run broadband in New York than Kansas City, so a price difference is understandable. A speed difference is also understandable if city regulations make it impractical to have the physical capacity towards higher bandwidth. But only of course if the broadband carrier can prove such a hardship, and see if putting pressure on the local government can make things easier in order to overcome that objection. Also, rural areas are another thing entirely. You get low subscriber counts so it isn't as easy to oversubscribe (a very necessary evil, by the way, speaking as a network engineer myself) and the costs go way up.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 - This gives the government complete access to the communications of the country. Even if they claim not to be monitoring it - how do we know?

Haven't you been paying attention? Heard of CALEA or the NSA/ATT affair? In the USA they already have that.

Re:Good

[Hamsterdan]

That, and to protect their market. Most ISPs are also TV providers, so low caps are just another way of protecting their TV market against Netflix and such.

Here in Montreal, it's either Bell or Videotron. Both are ISPs and TV providers. We get a low 60GB/Month of bandwith, which pretty much prevents anyone from ditching TV.

I would welcome something like Google Fiber...

Re:Good

[marka63]

Google could deliver IPTV and cut into the TV market as well. TV is digital these days. The analog cable plants are almost all gone.

Re:Good

[jonwil]

Actually, the REAL reason for caps and rate limiting is because more and more people are dropping (or considering dropping) Cable TV (or some of the more expensive tiers of Cable TV) for "cloud" entertainment (Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, Apple etc etc) and the cable companies will do whatever they can to make switching difficult or expensive.

Re:Good

[wvmarle]

First in The Netherlands. POTS is owned by KPN, the telecom part of the former PTT, the Dutch national mail and telephone company. KPN still owns all the wires, but is by law obliged to give anyone that asks access to those wires to provide ADSL services. That network was rolled out under government mandate, with government subsidies. Still now they are the common carrier for fixed-line telephone and anyone can be connected at a fixed fee, whether you live in the city or in the countryside, as long as it is near a public road. And that fixed low fee is even if they have to dig a trench of a few km to get the wires installed for you. Now anyone can choose from dozens of Internet service providers, who of course compete hard for customers.

In Hong Kong the situation is a bit different, networks were not rolled out with as much government subsidies, but until recently the second fixed line provider had the right to use the cables of the first one. The second provider has now rolled out its own network so well that this is not so any more. Most of the buildings here are high-rises, making rolling out networks cheap. Fibre optic is getting more and more available, I am currently paying about USD 40 per month for a 20 Mb (up/down) business service, with fixed IP.

In mobile there are about five networks competing, and by law customers can switch networks within days while keeping their number. Providers do lock in customers with contracts, but many people do not have a current contract and are free to switch any time. So a basic 2G voice plan with some 800 minutes and voice mail and call forwarding can go as cheap as USD 3-4 a month. 2G and 3G is basically legacy by now (here it's considered the old technology - while US is barely on 3G), and as such data is getting cheap too. Currently major providers all have 4G services.

Re:Good

[bmo]

I never said it wasn't.

It's the "elephant in the room" conflict of interest.

--
BMO

Re:Good

[wvmarle]

Indeed, the physical infrastructure is the key. Very expensive to build up, needs huge upfront investments. And indeed you don't want ten cables from ten providers but much rather just one shared cable. The companies that historically own infrastructure have a huge advantage.

Re:Good

[networkzombie]

Competition is *always* good.

All generalizations are bad.

Sometimes it is a race to the bottom, which can be bad.

Re:Good

[strikethree]

Could you imagine if the world worked like that? How awesome would that be? Unfortunately, their lobbying pockets are a bit deeper than yours or mine will ever be.

Weird. I read your idea and had this thought that we citizens should get together and "unionize" so we can have a stronger voice... and then I thought WTF? The government is SUPPOSED to be OUR "union".

My brain hurts. :(

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard this claim many many times, but I've never been able to find anything to back it up. Not to be a dick "citation needed" type, but I'd really like to know more details!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what healthy competition is supposed to do to the market. Now, we need google fiber in more cities and the average speed and price of internet will get better for everyone (unless you live in a rural area).

Not necessarily.... Just to give an example, I'm in expat in Cairo, Egypt. My monthly internet fees from TEData (the only high speed provider here) costs the equivalent of ~$11 per month for unlimited 10 Mbps up/down. That may not seem like much, but consider that this is a shitty third world country that has been through shit the past several years. it's cheaper than my unlimited high speed data plan on my phone (~$20 a month) when there is competition in that market between four mobile providers. I feel that I have the same level and quality of service as I received with Comcast and Verizon (cell phones) back in the States for $70 a month and $160 a month respectively. I don't know what the problem is back home in the USA, but I don't think lack of competition is the entire answer. I don't think the cost of living is the entire answer either since telecom equipment is a globally traded commodity.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the copper / cable they used has been laid over 30 years ago,

You seriously think you can get any kind of decent service over 30 year old lines, copper or coax? How cute. Are you still using your old Cat3 Ethernet cables and trying to push a full Gig over it as well? How about that cable/dsl modem you're using. Is that thing 30 years old?

Re:Good

[daleallan]

Not entirely true. While some North Carolina municipal networks have done well, (Wilson), other were not so lucky. http://www.coalitionfortheneweconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/10.31.12-GON-MI-Connection-Final.pdf. The TechJournal did some extensive reporting on both sides of this. When the GOP took over the NC legislature, it passed a law restricting municipal broadband networks. The same is apparently true nationally. While a number of municipal networks have been successful, some struggled. http://www.techjournal.org/2011/05/nc-gov-bev-perdue-to-let-bill-restricting-municipal-broadband-become-law/

Re:Good

[sincewhen]

It would also be interesting to study the profit levels of each of those industries. I wonder if there is another correlation.

Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

A textbook example of why monopolies are bad for consumers.

Re:Monopoly

[UnknownSoldier]

I would generally agree with you but also don't toss the baby out with the bath water.

Government's grant monopolies all the time -- usually for essential services. i.e. The Government has a monopoly on how the country is run.

Standards are a good thing. It is only when they are abused (and I'll agree that monopolies tend to be abused) is when the problem starts.

I got that message too

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I got that message a while back. They claim a 50% boost, but I haven't seen it. Even after resetting the modem and router, everything seems to download at about the same speed as before. I suspect BS (hardly atypical for Time Warner).

Re:I got that message too

[Anonymous Coward]

I should add that I don't live near Kansas City, but in another part of the country. I suspect here it's to compete with AT&T U-verse, not Google Fiber or FIOS (which are nowhere near here).

Re:I got that message too

[PlusFiveTroll]

Yeah, I got that message a while back. They claim a 50% boost, but I haven't seen it. Even after resetting the modem and router, everything seems to download at about the same speed as before. I suspect BS (hardly atypical for Time Warner).

Since you don't list what kind of router you have, what kind of firewall rule processing it's doing, and if you're using wireless it's hard to tell who the weakest link is.

I never use a ISP integrated modem/router(/wireless gack), too many of them suck and lock out too many options. If a regular router you can stick your own server on the WAN port and run something like http://www.speedtest.net/mini.php , across the LAN you should see 100Mbps (or more if it's Gb the entire way). If it's slower then 100Mb on wired your routers performance sucks. Test wired first then add your WLAN in, I have seen many wireless setups that where showing a 150Mbps (good) connection not even perform 30Mbps transfers.

Even more advanced tests would be to try to run 2 speed tests locally at the same time. Most equipment will starve one stream (one 99Mbps/one 1Mbps), some equipment will give bad jitter and the total speed will be less then 75% of line speed, and latency will be high, and very rarely the equipment will have decent queuing and the two streams will be close to even at around 95% of total line speed and latency will be decent.

Actually getting 20Mbps+ from the random internet host is not very common. Testing a close, fast host inside the TW network is the best way to tell. This might help.

http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential-home/support/speed-test.html/

Re:I got that message too

[Anonymous Coward]

Speedtest.net is not a reliable test. Charter just "upgraded" me from 15 to 30 mbps. If I go to speedtest.net, I'm smoking fast - just over 30 down. If I download any file, It bursts to 30 for about 10 seconds, then settles back to 15. They have speedtest.net excepted from the burst rule.

My tests from work (60mbps full-duplex Inet) are reliable on this. Fast then ramp down to steady 15 flat.

Re:I got that message too

[Anonymous Coward]

I got boosted from 30Mbps to 50Mbps an it's NOTICEABLE!

It's called competetion

[Dyinobal]

It's called competition, which is something that has been sorely lacking in the broadband market. It's actually missing in just about any market that is dominated by a few large corporations. See the publishing industry etc.

Re:It's called competetion

[Anonymous Coward]

The publishing industry exists in a state know as "monopolistic competition" in which several (many? not actually sure how many book publishers there are, and couldn't find a number in quick Google) companies offer similar products, but not perfect substitutes. War and Peace != Fifty Shades of Grey, basically.
By contrast, the number of cable companies are considerably smaller since cost of entry is much, MUCH higher (can you say infrastructure?).

Re:It's called competetion

[Anonymous Coward]

Infustructure

Infustucture

Infrustruchre

Infrustuckture

No, you insensitive clod!

Re:It's called competetion

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what happens in industries where mergers are unregulated. Good regulation preserves competition. No regulation kills competition as much as bad regulation.

Re:It's called competetion

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed!

It's amusing to see the so called capitalists come out of the woodworks here, and cry foul. Apparently even they don't know what *fair market competition is when it's right in front of them.

* - not necessarily legimiate in the US

Re:It's called competetion

[alexgieg]

Loved the typo in your comment subject ("competetion"). I guess I got a new catch phrases from it: "Competition leads to competention". Much better than the grammatically correct but non-rhyming "competence". :-)

Re:It's called competetion

[Rockoon]

Don't mod this guy up.. it has nothing to do with mergers. The fact that you only have one choice of cable provider and one choice of telephone provider is entirely because your local governments have signed exclusive deals. Mergers in no way alter this.

Re:It's called competetion

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course this has to do with mergers.
GP starts from a status quo with perfect competiton. Each merger reduces competition(by definition, as after a merger there are then n-1 firms in the market).
Until the situation is reached, that you are in now.

This leads to an observationally equivalent result, as in the case where there is a monopoly from the get go.

However this is also the result of bad regulation. Any sane regulation would break up the monopoly to create competition. Or at least force the monopoly to allow competitors to use the same cables at reasonble rates. You may fight about what is reasonable.

Competition is overrated

[SpeedBump0619]

I mean, look, it lowers corporate revenue and increases operating expenses! Competition lowers tax revenue and taxes are how corporations support our troops. This competition thing has *got* to stop!

Re:Competition is overrated

[RevDisk]

I did chuckle. Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn't. If the companies decide not to collude, then yes. Google has no interest in forming an unofficial cartel. Traditional carriers do, hence why they have.

Re:Competition is overrated

[degeneratemonkey]

Moderately funny, but more important, probably not an entirely inaccurate reflection of how the lobby-drones in Congress will some day try to swing the discussion as the dinosaur companies reel and flail and squirm and die.

Re:Competition is overrated

[englishknnigits]

Colluding isn't a case of competition "not working." It is a case of there being no competition.

Re:Competition is overrated

[sjames]

It's a case of the under-regulated market not working.

Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax

[Joe_Dragon]

Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax (can't get that on google fiber) and the out of market sports packs.

Also does google fiber have ppv movies and events?

Re:Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax

[michael021689]

Who cares about those? Really, who cares?

Re:Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax

[wvmarle]

Some people care about ppv.

The rest knows about the existence of The Pirate Bay.

Re:Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax

[BitZtream]

Most of the country? You're silly little oddball habits are only important in the vacuum between your ears. The rest of the world works differently than your silly ideas of how it is.

To specifically answer your question, Joe_Dragon obviously cares, so the message you were replying to already answered your silly little questions. Your attempt at being snarky just made you look stupid.

Re:Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax

[larry bagina]

Huh? I have Google fiber and I can torrent that stuff just fine.

Re:Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax

[Kotoku]

Not me.

Re:Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares about those? Really, who cares?

Not us, that's for sure.

And that's the point: There's a LOT more "not us" than there are "us", and "not us" is more willing to dispose of income for these things. You don't get out much, do you? Or do you just generalize the rest of the world's population as "a single problem" and dismiss it as a non-concern in your solipsistic view?

Re:Time Warner Cable should push HBO / cinemax

[HiThere]

I may know about the existence of Pirate Bay, but I decline to use their wares. Their ethics may be higher than those of the MPAA, but that's an extremely low bar.

The speed increase was for all customers.

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't a response to Google, it was a response to a report that they were slow. But hey, the fact that it was nationwide doesn't destroy the theory, if you define the Kansas City "region" as big enough.

Re:The speed increase was for all customers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I searched the internet, but I couldn't find any news of a Comcast speed increase from this year. Did you just make this up?

Re:The speed increase was for all customers.

[1000101]

I tried sending an email to anonymouscoward@timewarner.com to get evidence of this but didn't get a response.

Re:The speed increase was for all customers.

[Rob the Bold]

I searched the internet, but I couldn't find any news of a Comcast speed increase from this year. Did you just make this up?

I suspect that by "all customers," the first AC meant "all customers of TW," not "all customers of any ISP".

Re:The speed increase was for all customers.

[flimflammer]

Nationwide? I live in San Diego, and I got no such notice or automatic increase from Time Warner.

I suspect you're full of shit.

Re:The speed increase was for all customers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I got an increase near Milwaukee. It could be a phased rollout.

Re:The speed increase was for all customers.

[networkzombie]

Also San Diego here. No speed increase. I did just get a mailer last week advertising higher speeds for a higher price (Work & Play Plan bundle). Up to 50Mbps for $74. I pay for Turbo ($55 for up to 20Mbps) but it only goes above 15.6Mbps for the first 10 seconds. When I complain they tell me that there are no guarantees and I should upgrade if I want faster Internet. I had Standard (up to 15Mbps for $44) but I never got above 10Mbps, ever, not once.

Re:The speed increase was for all customers.

[Anonymous Coward]

I searched the internet, but I couldn't find any news of a Comcast speed increase from this year. Did you just make this up?

I suspect that by "all customers," the first AC meant "all customers of TW," not "all customers of any ISP".

I live in glorious Cascadia, a few months ago, my maximum down link on my router graphs went from 20Mbps to 30Mbps unprompted, and has stayed there ever since. For the record I am a Comcast victim, I live too far south to get FiOS service.

Defending TW

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel dirty but I have to defend TW a little. I've had 10Mb/s for quite awhile and the price has gone up $5/month every 3-4 years since 1998. About 3 months ago they upped us to 15Mb/s and I am no where near google or any other can of fiber (50 miles outside of Albany, NY).

Old Comparison

[Bill Hayden]

I'm not at all one to defend the Cable/Internet/Cell monopolies that currently exist, but the linked story about people getting shut off is 4 YEARS old!

Re:Old Comparison

[JasterBobaMereel]

That is because this happens still but it is old news and so is not reported anymore....

    People get into car accidents every day you do not see it on the news anymore because it happens all the time ...

Re:Old Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

That is because now you have caps.

Yes, that is exactly what Google is doing.

[degeneratemonkey]

It is in Google's best interest to have a world that is as fully connected as possible. Driving down the artificially inflated price of consumer-grade bandwidth is a win for Google and a win for everyone outside of the colluding or monopolistic telcos.

Re:Yes, that is exactly what Google is doing.

[wvmarle]

It would be great if Google is taking up the task really seriously, and becomes an infrastructure provider. Where anyone who wants can get access to that infrastructure, at fixed prices (level playing field). So that where-ever Google's network is available, you also have a dozen providers that can sell you an internet service.

The trickiest part may be the last mile, the actual connection to the end user's home.

Cancelled today

[methano]

I was one of the first Road Runner customers in the RTP, NC area. I've been a good customer. TW recently upped my rates and their remote is terrible. Unfortunately for TW, some real competition recently showed up for what once was a monopoly. I switched and just got off the phone to tell them that I am canceling. Amazingly, some promotions, that I was previously unaware of, became available to me. No way. A little competition can be a good thing.

Re:Cancelled today

[blahbooboo]

What did you switch to using?

Re:Cancelled today

[BitZtream]

I live in Cary. Canceled my service because they wouldn't give me a new subscriber rate on their own channels. First month after they sent me a letter, half the original price, more bandwidth, for one year. I had already switched to Uverse (which is shitty in my neighborhood unfortunately) so I didn't take it. The next month, as I as getting fed up with Uverse, I get a second letter. Sign back up and for $60/month will give you cable and Internet (second from the top tier) for 2 years.

I switched back.

In another year and a half, I will again cancel my service for as long as needed to get the price back down to where I accept it.

Having dealt with them intimately over the past few years, they make so much profit they could literally replace every single piece of equipment they own, EVERY SINGLE MONTH, and still make a comfortable profit. Can't lay new cables monthly, but its not off by month.

Re:Cancelled today

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, please. Do share. Got rid of TWC phone and cable here in RTP area about a year ago, but kept the data service. Would love to hear about competition for the data service.

Re:Cancelled today

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched and just got off the phone to tell them that I am canceling. Amazingly, some promotions, that I was previously unaware of, became available to m

I do this about once a year. A lot of people don't realize that their cable price is negotiable. I was paying a fraction of what my friend was paying for the same cable. Told him about it, and he learned how to negotiate too. They will generally knock $20-$40 a month off your bill if you do it right. But you have to hang tough with them. I've spent as long as 45 minutes on the phone with them, and had them give me the "I'll talk to my supervisor and see what we can find" line several times before they finally gave me a decent deal. You have to make it clear to them that you're ready to walk, and it helps to cite specific competitors and the deals they're offering (like DirectTV, etc.).

The "promotions" they give you usually only last about a year though, so you have to remember to call back when they expire and wrestle with them again.

Re:Cancelled today

[Anonymous Coward]

Having your triple-play provider raise your rates is avoidable in a competitive market. If you let your rates increase, you're leaving money on the table.

If you are beyond your "initial customer period" and want to save money, find the other provider in your area (if you have one) and price a comparable plan. Then call your current company's customer service and tell them you'd like to cancel on some specific future date. They transfer you to their "customer retention specialist" who will offer to lower your rates. The specialist will use FUD, perhaps even lie, to make you think you're going to be worse off. Don't fall for the FUD. Until they offer to lower your rates close to the introductory rates, continue to say that you still want to try the new provider. If you have second thoughts afterward, you can still change your mind before your service termination date.

If you don't live in a competitive market, well, what else can you do? Complain on SlashDot?

Re:Cancelled today

[flimflammer]

They will do the promotion thing even if they have no competition. It is in their best interest to keep you as a customer even if they're not making as much as they usually can, so they will keep throwing you bones until your service is mega cheap...for a year. Then you have to do it all over again.

Re:Cancelled today

[lexman098]

I used to live in that area (cary) and I switched to UVerse from ATT, which is like FiOS from verizon. I got a solid 12 Mbps for the same price without any outages or slowdowns etc. I've heard from an ATT rep that they're not expanding UVerse as much recently because they would rather invest in greater LTE coverage. It's sad really, I'd much prefer UVerse.

Re:Cancelled today

[JazzLad]

Uverse is like FiOS like these are like each other.

(In other words, even if that is technically true, one is an ugly, messed up version of the other and only a fool would choose it given an option. Unfortunately, Uverse and FiOS coverage areas appear to be mutually exclusive.)

Re:Cancelled today

[dj245]

Don'y even bother switching next time. Usually you can get good results by haggling with the "customer retention" person. Keep it polite and friendly and good rates can be yours for only 1 phone call a year.

Re:Cancelled today

[Icy]

I live outside Raleigh and I switched to uverse about a two years ago, and as soon as one year went by I got an amazing deal from TWC for almost half what I was paying with them. I had to send them my last bill from uverse but it was deal I couldn't pass up. Uverse is now coming back with deals that are almost as good and I am just waiting for one a bit closer as I hate the TWC DVR interface and the internet is all over the place. Everyone else I know is paying over $130 for twc tv/dvr and standard internet, while I am getting the same thing for just over $70. Competition is awesome!

Re:Cancelled today

[PPalmgren]

They are petrified of Netflix. I got a lower rate than he did for the same exact service because I wanted to retain the iternet and drop the cable subscription, saying I don't watch TV enough and will use Netflix. My total bill is $55. I think they do this because while I don't watch much TV, it ups their subscriber number for advertising negotiations, and gives them an avenue to make a little money off me in on demand movies.

Not just Google.

[MachineShedFred]

I had my Time Warner Cable bandwidth increased without asking about a month ago here in Cincinnati because of competition from Cincinnati Bell laying down their fiber service all over town. That being said, if I could kick Time Warner to the curb and get Cincinnati Bell's Fioptics service where I live, I would in about three shakes of a lamb's tail.

This isn't only happening where Google is doing their fiber experimentation.

Re:Not just Google.

[characterZer0]

No, but it is only happening where TW has competition. I have no other option for high-speed Internet. I live too far from the DSLAM for DSL. TW has raised my rates from $35/mo to $56/mo in the last decade without any increase in speed or reliability.

Re:Not just Google.

[afidel]

Yeah, it was also happening anywhere that Fios was being installed, unfortunately Verizon has basically halted that project and sold off most of their landline holdings outside the densely packed east coast to Frontier which will never roll out another yard of Fios.

Re:Not just Google.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cincinnati Bell FiOptics is the worst example of lambswool over your eyes... They offer up ridiculously cheap for the first year, then up your package 30-75% depending on your original agreement. After the service is turned on for you and your neighbors and they try to expand in your area, your service gets diluted because of the infrastructure they use...copper. You do not have a dedicated run back to their CO like you did with their DSL... Instead it's shared just like TW.

You will be running back to TW within 180 days of signing up on FiOptics. Guaranteed.

Yes and no

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for TWC. The standard internet was bumped up from 10/1 to 15/1 across the Midwest region (KC/WI/OH/KY/TN). The top end internet was bumped up from 50/5 to 100/5 in KC only. Can't really speak to the change in the bill though.

Re:Yes and no

[flimflammer]

Really with TWC would get its act together regarding upload. Everyone I know in other services gets at least 4 megabits. I used to get about that too, but one day years ago I was dropped like a sack of shit down to under 1.

Can we please just get rid of the corporations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. The dominant American corporations have all moved into full-on rent extraction mode. They no longer produce anything, or benefit anyone except a small group of entrenched elitists who've captured large swathes of the economy and use the government like a sock-puppet. Just get rid of the damn things and let us get on with living our lives.

Captcha: needless

if Google comes to Austin I'll drop my isp quick

[Dan667]

Years of abuse from time warner and att makes that a really easy decision to ditch them at the first opportunity.

Bandwidth is cheap, cheap, cheap

[xtal]

Most people have been sold a bill of goods.

Bandwidth is cheap. Very, very cheap. Getting cheaper all the time. Once it's fiber to the home, the rest is all done. Top tier providers get bandwidth so cheap it's almost free.

It should be a national embarassment there's not gigabit infrastructure everywhere. Props to Google for helping out the shame.. and may they eat the lunch of all the incumbents.

Re:Bandwidth is cheap, cheap, cheap

[HiThere]

You are overstating the case.

That said, I basically agree with you. The anti-comettition nature of governmental rulings should be a MAJOR embarassment. I have a harder time blaming the corporations for using the unjust regulations to extract money. What I blame them for is corrupting the government and the regulators.

OTOH, bandwidth over long distances isn't cheap. Not if you want it to be at all reliable. I don't know what a reasonable cost would be, and in a state authorized monopoly (well...not *exactly* monopoly, as there are several players in the game, but few enough to conspire on prices) one can't really even guess what a fair price would be.

I

I didn't realize Google Fiber was near Los Angeles

[PalmAddict]

I live in the San Fernando Valley, 20 minutes from downtown Los Angeles. It's a quaint 260 square mile community of 1.76 million of your closest neighbors. Two months ago I had my broadband boosted by 50% (the same 15 Mbps as the Consumerist article customer), I was given free telephone service free for a year (long distance included) and had by bill dropped by 20% as well (I am now pennies over $100/mo), without asking for any of it. My parents, living just a few miles from me, were offered the exact same thing. Does this mean that Time Warner is terrified that Los Angeles is next on the list to get Google Fiber?

For ALL TWC customers not just near google fiber

[Brownian Motion]

This is a story from last month (Dec 12 2012), and it's for all TWC customers. http://news.yahoo.com/time-warner-cable-boosts-internet-speeds-50-standard-022153999.html

Competing with Verizon FIOS up here in NY

[bratloaf]

Its amazing. For the past 10 years TW has been steadily increasing rates, "confusing" their billing (Oh, sorry sir for the $12/mo mistake for the past 3 years that was hidden in your "bundle"), and their service of ALL types has been getting crappier and crappier. To the point where I was ready to just ditch them all together and do ANY thing else.

Crappy cable box problems. Internet outages. S L O W internet (at times) and OK others. Finally FIOS came around here about a year ago, and several people I know switched. Initially they had some technical issues but nothing really bad, and NO one I know including myself has had any issues at all in the past year.

I called TW 4 times, and got all the way to a management type 3 of those times, to ask about a billing situation after our bill went up $60 a month. For no reason. They were NOT interested in fixing the situation and retaining me at ALL. In fact, the last words they told me, when I said I prefered to stay with them but was going to just go to FIOS if they couldnt fix it, were "Well, you have to do what you have to do". From a manager.

When I turned in my boxes, the girl said "wow, you have been a customer a LONG time, why are you leaving?" I told her, she just rolled her eyes and apologized and said "Thats typical (of the TW customer support folks)".

Now TW is running these commercials on the radio around here 24/7 trying to get people to "come back". "See the difference" "Your money back if you are not satisfied" etc. Too funny really. As long as VZ - another HUGE company - keeps their customer service and value where they are now, Im staying. For sure.

Competition is a GREAT thing....

Re:Competing with Verizon FIOS up here in NY

[Formorian]

Man they stopped laying fios near Albany NY awhile back. Stinks, I'm about 10mile south of Albany and I think they stopped laying the west side of Albany. I'll probably never see competition for TWC for internetz.

Re:Competing with Verizon FIOS up here in NY

[Anonymous Coward]

you were a customer for a long time. you weren't satisfied. might as well ask for your money back. they won't give it to you, which you can then be very public about.

That's all well and good...

[Anonymous Coward]

... for the handful of people who live in that particular bit of the middle-of-nowhere.

But come on Google, how about laying fiber and slapping down the cable companies somewhere that matters?

San Francisco Bay Area? (Your own backyard!)
New York?
Boston?
Los Angeles?

Where are you, Google?

Pirate Bay does not work for live sports / events

[Anonymous Coward]

Pirate Bay does not work for live sports / events and stuff like NHL game center live has a poor frame rate

MCI of broadband?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like MCI broke the long-distance price stranglehold, I'm hoping Google does the same for broadband.
I live in KC and am patiently awaiting the Google trucks to roll into to my neighborhood.
My 1.5 MB AT&T DSL never even reaches 756KB when I'm home...and they call that "broadband"!?

Milk, milk, milk all you want AT you'll get my call to drop you soon enough...

how such low prices?

[Jodka]

So I live in Overland Park, a suburb of Kansas City. Google fiber is not in offered in Overland Park yet, but because it is close by and spreading I checked out the prices and signed up for email notification when their service becomes available in my area.

The prices. Holy cow. It's free. A one time $300.00 installation fee but then it is free. So I was wondering for months how is that possible? Is Google taking a massive loss? Did Google invent a new technology which allows them to undercut their competitors?

Then on a drive across town to the local Fablab I was listening to the local public radio station which just happened to be interviewing Susan Crawford, author of the recently published book Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age. As the summary at Amazon states:

This important book by leading telecommunications policy expert Susan Crawford explores why Americans are now paying much more but getting much less when it comes to high-speed Internet access.

Well as you might guess from the subtitle of the book, what she finds out when she explores is that internet and cable service in the U.S. are regional monopolies. Even when multiple internet and cable service providers operate in the same city they divide up the city into regions of monopolistic coverage and only overlap on small percentages of territory.

So Google offers such spectacularly low prices by undercutting monopolists, having enough clout to overcome barriers to entry which block startups, and Moore's law has reduced the cost of providing internet service to something pretty close to free. The inflated prices for internet broadband service which we have paid in the U.S. have not followed Moore's law because service provider are monopolies. Now with the disruption of that monopoly in one regional market prices are back on track with Moore's law there.

Re:how such low prices?

[cdrguru]

The question to ask is since it is proven that people will pay $30-60 a month for Internet service, why would Google offer it for free? Just to build market share? I doubt it.

Google is getting compensated in some manner. Now the first thing that comes to mind is they are avoiding paying someone else to deliver their exclusive content - plenty of places are waking up to the fact that Google is making billions off of delivering ads to people with the local cable company picking up the tab for the delivery of that content. It isn't common in the US (yet) for high-volume content providers to be paying for delivery but things are changing - look at what Netflix is doing.

Another thing is Google makes money from selling demographic and marketing information, not just delivering ads. So if you are using their Internet connection they obviously know the most popular Internet sites for your connection. Aggregated with all your neighbors gives them the information of what is popular for your zip code and that is saleable. How much monitoring and tracking are you comfortable with? Google will push that envelope as much as they can and will make billions doing it.

Re:how such low prices?

[Rob the Bold]

The question to ask is since it is proven that people will pay $30-60 a month for Internet service, why would Google offer it for free? Just to build market share? I doubt it.

The one-time charge for "lifetime" service gets you the lowest tier data service Google is offering. There are other monthly-billed packages with higher bandwidth and bundled TV service, too. Google's looking to wire -- fiber? -- entire neighborhoods at a time, rather than one house here, one house there all over town. Your neighborhood ("fiberhood," as Google calls it) gets on the list only if they have enough commitment from residents.

Re:how such low prices?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable company picking up the tab? Is your cable service free? Because mine is $50 per month. $50 that I pay for that content, ads and all. The tab, sir, is all mine. Clearly it doesn't cost the cable company anywhere near $50 per month for that service, THAT'S the how and why Google is delivering their service at those prices. They may be making enough money from you in other ways, as you say, but in that case you can actually say:

...with [Google] picking up the tab for the delivery of that content.

Re:how such low prices?

[Fallout2man]

Sad as that may be, are you saying there are actually better options that might work? If not I'd rather we just go with Google. The problem with Privacy isn't so much about actual privacy. The Problem with Privacy is information asymmetry. When your Boss gets to know about your private life and judge you at work on it, but you don't get to know or judge theirs. That is when lack of privacy becomes dangerous as it enables for cruel and hypocritical behavior by people in power and it enables them to lie to make excuses as to why that sort of situation is necessary or tolerable.

We may have a much better time going from a privacy-focused society to a free-information society. The cost of liberating the data of the "Elites" in our global society seem to be far less than the costs of locking up all that exposed private data already out there.

No, they are demonstrating that competiton works.

[John Hasler]

So get your government to allow it. I have multipair cables (as well as fiber) belonging to two different telecoms crossing my property but the state will allow only one to offer me service. Your cable company has a "franchise" (i.e., monopoly) that they purchased from your local government.

Monopoly power

[concealment]

Competition works well for fungible commodities, but not for things like basic public infrastructure which is extremely costly to build and maintain.

I think this is true, and that's why the state grants monopolies to utilities companies.

This is an unsustainable race to the bottom. They both are losing money here and one of the two will eventually shut down their system in this area to stanch the flow of red ink. Then, the other will gradually start to raise their pricing back to the break-even point.

Generally what you are saying is true. After all, that's the reason Comcast isn't improving in most markets; they're already at the top, and offering a better service than the competition.

The one wrinkle here is that Google's business model is not to profit off the fiber, but to use it as a means to sell other products.

I'm not sure how that one will work out. I don't trust large corporations because they're made up of humans, and if humans screw up badly on their own, in groups they screw up by creating an echo chamber and following each other into oblivion like lemmings.

For that reason, large anything (corporation, volunteer group, government, empire) is prone to fail and fail hard. And with the increasing standardization across the industrial world, "too big to fail" becomes a prophecy of the vast consequences that occur when they do. To substitute a colloquial expression: "the bigger they are, the harder they fall."

Re:if Google comes to Austin I'll drop my isp quic

[Sponge Bath]

AT&T and Austin Time Warner are in a battle for anti-customer supremacy. Both have bizarre and opaque pricing schemes that have stopped me from upgrading to higher speeds. AT&T wants to bundle their overpriced video service or they hit you with added up front fees. Time Warner won't even tell you what their actual prices are after the initial discount period. It's not on their web site, and when I called they said they could not tell me because "things change". They want a long term contract for an unspecified rate... no.

Competition is good

[Anonymous Coward]

In my area Verizon FiOS stops two towns over. Coincidentally, that's where Time Warners "Extreme" service stops as well. I've called and asked when my area might get a higher tier, and they don't currently have any plans to improve the infrastructure in this area. Without proper competition there is really no incentive for them either.

Hardly unexpected

[GodfatherofSoul]

I'm in KC and when "lower end" fiber services in the 24 Mbps range started appearing, so many people started flocking to them that the entrenched service provider started offering better deals. Of course, this didn't happen until they were hammered with defections.

Re:I didn't realize Google Fiber was near Los Ange

[Rob the Bold]

Does this mean that Time Warner is terrified that Los Angeles is next on the list to get Google Fiber?

Is there any other competition coming or recently arrived there?

(As an irrelevant but amusing aside, Chrome thinks "Los Angeles" is spelled wrong, but "LA" and "L.A." are not.)

Re:For ALL TWC customers not just near google fibe

[Rob the Bold]

This is a story from last month (Dec 12 2012), and it's for all TWC customers.

What about the price cut? I didn't see a mention in the yahoo story, have you seen anything about that? Is it nationwide, too?

Insulting Gesture

[backdoc]

I always resent when a company does this. This is akin to leaving a job for more pay, then your employer offering you more money to stay. It's insulting.

Re:Insulting Gesture

[Anonymous Coward]

I always resent when a company does this. This is akin to leaving a job for more pay, then your employer offering you more money to stay. It's insulting.

Wait, being offered more money to stay at your job is an insult? I'm not being facetious, but genuinely interested- What about it is insulting? That they didn't notice that your market value may have increased faster than their standard raises (which are usually determined by senior management, not your boss or their boss)?

Isn't it a compliment when they realize how much you contribute, that the threat of you leaving gets them to throw more money at you to compete with other potential employers?

Re:Insulting Gesture

[Anonymous Coward]

I always resent when a company does this. This is akin to leaving a job for more pay, then your employer offering you more money to stay. It's insulting.

I know that I am at my absolute angriest when my employer offers me more money. The nerve of those jerks for employing me for years, and then offering me more money when they realize that my value as an employee has increased disproportionately to the standardized 'raises' allowed in most companies.

Re:Insulting Gesture

[Nexzus]

You were lucky. When I left my last place for my current place (for 40% more), Senior Management offered 8% retention. I actually laughed at the CEO (a controlling, tight-fisted asshole). They then had to hire two people to replace me.

Re:Insulting Gesture

[lightknight]

Because noticing the increase in 'market value' of the people you employ is, I don't know, a standard part of business operating procedures? Because people aren't serfs? They aren't tied to the land, so to speak, and if they are treated ill, they can leave (and not return)?

The market, when functioning properly, is neither pro-employee nor pro-employer. It will, in general, match up, in the job market, the best employee with the best employer. That's when it's functioning properly. When it isn't, chaos rules the day; the bad kind of chaos, where people's lives are ruined during a Tuesday afternoon, from afar, simply because killing a profitable company would make someone else's stock rise a quarter point (the real kind of madness, where someone would execute a large corporation, like IBM, with a double tap to the head, on a day when it made no sense to happen, simply because it was doing well, and because it was doing well, the chaos to follow would be that much more volatile; people expect sick companies to die, decent ones to grow; they don't expect sick ones to be borderline immortal, and good ones to suddenly keel over from a heart-attack; why? Because if you short a sick company, you don't gain much; but if you short, then execute, a healthy company, then you make out like a king).

But back on topic. I am going to resort to a crude caricature here, for the sake of argument: the company who does not notice your increase in worth is possibly the same company which does notice your decrease in worth. They're the kind of people who do not want to pay a dollar more than they have to, and will press their advantage as much as possible when the job market is in their favor; then they'll play the loyalty card when it swings in your favor. Switching to a more sane argument: who wants to work at a company who DOES NOT notice your worth? A company who would rely on you to do important things for decades, but never issue a raise or promotion? Who would want to work for a company who is not attuned enough to the ongoings of the market such to care about such minor, but important details? You might as well be storing money in a bank that didn't notice that it had been robbed 3 months ago, but did notice that your payment for your mortgage was 30 minutes late.

Re:Insulting Gesture

[Anonymous Coward]

You lost me with the mortgage analogy.

Re: Pirate Bay does not work for live sports / eve

[Rob the Bold]

Pirate Bay does not work for live sports / events and stuff like NHL game center live has a poor frame rate

Conversely, cable TV is becoming a niche for viewing live sports broadcasts.

Re:I didn't realize Google Fiber was near Los Ange

[jeff4747]

They're rolling out those changes wherever they fear competition. For us, it was the nearby Verizon FiOS install that caused TW to change.

Re: Pirate Bay does not work for live sports / eve

[Anonymous Coward]

And they shove espn and espn2 into everyones package to pay for it.

I DO NOT WANT ESPN DAMMIT! Wheres my opt out for all the stupid channels i have no desire to ever see.... It's not even the paying for that bothers me... It's having to flip thru 30 useless channels with the cable company REQUIRED digital box i cant get around or replace.

Oh right.. monopoly...

And thats why piracy is king. It gets what i want with the least annoyances... Being free is a bonus on top of all that.

Same old story

[BenJeremy]

Here in my small town, the locally-owned cable company ran fiber and whatever else they needs back in 1997, ready to plug in the equipment and throw a switch for broadband.

Then Charter bought them out.

Since Ameritech wasn't offering anything beyond expensive ISDN, Charter didn't feel the need to enable broadband for 4 years. Likewise... Ameritech didn't feel the need to upgrade to DSL. It was a stalemate of stubborn stupidity, with the residents of our town being the victims.

Local utilities commissions need to hold the threat of bringing in competition to get broadband providers to start playing fair. It's the only thing that will work.

Called yer bluff, Mister...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats, suddenly the artificial scarcity is shown to be a complete farce, as if it wasn't already obvious.

The free market sounds great on paper, until you have cable companies that can undersell their competition, force them out of business, and then claim that networks are strained, and people are using too much of their resources. Google comes in and forces them to admit that they're full of it. Go Google.

Re:Called yer bluff, Mister...

[lightknight]

Bob, your problem here, as always, is that cable companies do not operate in a free market: they're regional monopolies, not by market forces, but because your local politicians / committees voted, into law, that these particular companies would receive special treatment in return for certain considerations. They have rights of ways, special low rates / taxes, etc. and whatever, for the thousandeth time, that their competitors do not get, and have trouble competing against. That's about as free market as blue is red.

Free market, like it or not, is kind of an all or nothing deal. The entire market is free, or it isn't. There is no middle ground, because any compromise destroys the part of it known as 'free.' Guess which part everyone compromises on? If you said the free part, you'd be right. Everyone wants what the free market offers, unless it's not in their favor; they all want a little button to press to 'fix' the market whenever it looks like it might do something they don't like. The problem is, is that the market is kind of like the AI that controls a jet engine -> you may not like a time T0 that the engine suddenly requested more fuel than you deemed necessary, but that's because the AI was trying to prevent an engine stall at T1; your little override causes a much worse problem than if the engine was completely manual, or completely controlled by the AI. The market is a state-machine, like what you have in a logic course, a computer science course, or a math / engineering course; once put into action, it will continue to reassert valid states in the event of any exceptions. Your problem is that you are denying it that opportunity, and in doing so, making things worse.

But it's more idiotic than that. You're the guy who, despite using a program that can work, and work well, wants to run the program, after it's out of QA, in debug mode, just so you can swap individual values on the stack when you feel like it. It doesn't matter that that's not how it's meant to work, nor that you're not a programmer; it's just what you want to do, and think, hey, instead of getting someone to rewrite the code if there's a problem, I'll just randomly swap values that the program thinks are constants. Holy ^*^*&, the program didn't like that! Well, I guess I need to keep tampering with it, until it stop throwing up errors / output I don't like. You could drive an AI mad, like batshit crazy; you would be the General who would demand an AI be outfitted with a robotic arm so it could salute you whenever you walked by.

Only Good Thing About the Free Market

[dcollins]

This is actually the only good thing that justifies the free market. Not the right for someone to make money. It's the fact that competition reduces prices and improves quality to consumers. (This used to be common knowledge in circa 1970's-80's, but many free-market defenders nowadays don't even pretend it's supposed to be good for anyone except the profiteers.)

That said, it only works for products and services for which (a) you have a choice, (b) you have quality information about the prices and benefits, (c) it's something you have time to carefully weigh the benefits (non-emergencies), and (d) you have the ability to easily change the choice from time to time. Other than that, free-market solutions are not going to benefit the public.

Re:Only Good Thing About the Free Market

[dumky2]

I agree with the benefits of competition (ie government not blocking competitors), but I question your broader understanding and appreciation of the free-market. In particular, when you say "it only works [...]", that is not the relevant question. The relevant question what works better.

Consider the alternative (presumably government control) against your four criteria: (a) you have a choice between two paternalistic and power-hungry parties which give out goodies and sell out principles for staying in power with very little differences in actual policies, (b) politicians routinely lie and voters have rational incentives to be ignorant (see Bryan Caplan's book on the myth of the rational voter), (c) critical decision allow time for deliberation (invading Iraq, bailing out banks) and government is any good even at decision when it has a long time ahead (think debt ceiling, bankruptcy of social programs), (d) individuals voters have infinitesimal ability to change which politicians win (consumers have relatively much more ability to change, even if there is lock-in, switching cost, contractual limitations, etc).

Side note regarding your signature. You may have taught both in unionized monopoly schools and non-unionized monopoly schools. But given your appreciation of competition, have you considered teaching in non-monopoly schools?

Still Paying Out the Nose for TWC in KC

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in KC and am absolutely counting the days until I can get Google Fiber. I'm still paying an incredible amount for the slow service TWC has (my cell phone service is almost faster), and they have actually kept raising my prices to over half again what it was when I signed up a couple of years ago. What a racket!

They did this to me too

[GeneralSecretary]

I live in LA and I also got a 50% speed boost for free. I think this is because they changed their pricing tiers. Probably to compete with at&t not Google Fiber.

Re:They did this to me too

[m1ss1ontomars2k4]

I think the pricing tiers have remained the same; only the speed changed. I don't think they have a problem competing with AT&T, because AT&T gives you worse speeds for higher cost and adds a data cap to boot.

Secrets and lies

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm nowhere near a Google fiber market (Southeastern Wisconsin) and got the same upgrade.

this is trying to drive the huns from the homeland

[swschrad]

TW is trying to underprice Google in hopes of driving them from the market. classic reaction. I have heard from a local telco exec that their strategy if somebody overlays the fiber and service they run to homes with, they will undercut whatever competitive price by a buck for a year beyond what the other guys do, and will knock on every single door in the area with installation within 2 hours.

Re: Pirate Bay does not work for live sports / eve

[cdrguru]

Excuse me, but have you tried a Roku box? Or Apple TV? You can subscribe to services for live sporting events without having cable TV.

Unfortunately, it isn't free, but I'm sure someone is figuring out a way to pirate those services.

of course!

[tilante]

Of course they're doing it because of Google.

Where I grew up, we were close to a military base. The town allowed a cable company to have a monopoly. The base didn't, and had competing cable companies. Guess who got much lower prices and a broader selection of channels? Thankfully, the town council at least had enough sense to notice that the base was getting better deals, and to apply pressure to the cable company each time their monopoly came up for renewal. Thus, while they didn't have quite as good prices and selection as the base, my parents still get better prices and selection than I do, even though I now live in a city with about five times the population.

Competition does wonderful things to markets.

We Need More Good Old Fashioned Competition

[turkeyfish]

Google, please come to Poulsbo, WA and Ocean Springs, MS where the local cable monopolies (Comcast) and (CableOne) have a monopoly stranglehold on service and pricing. I'll switch in a heartbeat.

Same Here

[dnahelicase]

I live in a rural community that limited DSL through Verizon and cable through TWC. A company called Cinergy Metronet, now just Metronet, came in and started offering fiber-to-the-home. The day they went live, TWC doubled their advertised speeds and dropped their prices to match Metronet.

Re:Thin skins

[turkeyfish]

Probably not. Like so many of these ideologues, he is just a one trick pony.

I'm less concerned than I thought I would be

[damn_registrars]

10-15 years ago I thought I would never be able to get a "fast enough" internet connection (of course that was after 10+ years on 28.8 dial-up). But now, I am using just a basic cable modem and I can't find a good reason to upgrade my speed. Cable company calls or mails me every week or two with offers and I always turn then down. My wife and I each have a laptop and a smart phone, we also have a blu-ray player doing netflix and an ipad. Yet we never really seem to find ourselves starved for bandwidth.

I get the argument for decreasing the cost of high-speed internet access in general, but if the cause is just for more speed, I'm not sympathetic.

Price Fixing

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the fact that Time Warner can just lower the price on a whim to compete with a new local internet provide show Antitrust practices of price fixing? They have obviously created a standard price in all their cities (consistently raising them along with other providers at the same time) but have demonstrated that they can provide faster and at a cheaper cost. Come on lawyers, get to work and find those documents which show them conspiring with other ISP.

This explains my price hike

[Admiral_Grinder]

This explains why they raised my rates last month. I pay at least $10 dollars more with no change in service. Didn't even send a letter to tell me why.

One gov-approved racketeering ring 2 rule them all

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

20 years ago, my dad was in a test city for AT&T digital cable (?), and instantly his Comcast bill dropped from $70 to $35 and Comcast rolled out digital itself.

Competition works. Beware politicians wanting to grant exclusivity using the "this here town ain't big enough for two" argument.

Hint hint, taxis in major cities.

real facts, real figures from 5 years later

[Anonymous Coward]

And now ... the rest of the story. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//document/view.action?id=7021691575 is a filing to the FCC with real-world measurements of how competition between FIOS, Comcast and RCN cable in Montgomery County, MD has affected broadband internet and broadband TV prices over a (roughly) 5 year period that the three providers have been competing.

The bottom line is that the competition not only failed to lower prices over the long run, but it does not even appear to have slowed the rate at which the prices rise.

Jerks

[Anonymous Coward]

Jerks, about time someone made them be less evil.

Apparently Going Postal Means Good Customer Servic

[RobinEggs]

Um...what now? If you believe that list reads from worst customer service to best, then you apparently believe that our highway departments and the post office have the best customer service in the entire service and infrastructure industries.

The fairness of price is certainly better as you move up the list, and the quality of service is much more consistent...but let's not delude ourselves into thinking the US postal service or the federal highway administration represent paragons of efficiency and politeness here.

Competition missing...

[Anonymous Coward]

It just proves that the telecom market in US doesn't work.

There is not enought competition!

I live in a google fiber area

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting it in spring.

The deals that come in the mail now are:

"No contract, super duper awesome deals" etc...

And even better ones if you get contracts.

I am going to get google fiber though, it is one of the reasons I chose to live in an otherwise... shitty neighborhood.

What is funny is the place actually had several houses for sale, and several open for rent when Google made the announcements for their fiberhoods. Now the area is filled with quirky computer nerds and students from KU med who want to have fiber when it is available. Good times.

Speed increase here

[RandomPsychology]

TWC increased my throughput by 50% a month or two ago, yet I live in the coastal southeast, nowhere near Kansas City. I certainly haven't received any price cuts though. In fact, just two months ago Time Warner implemented a "modem rental" fee of $3.99/mo on top of the existing rate. If only I could get Google Fiber or a municipal ISP :-/

Re:Apparently Going Postal Means Good Customer Ser

[HiThere]

It's not that they are paragons of efficiency and politeness. They clearly aren't. It's merely that the rest are worse. (Well, since the post office went private, they've gotten a lot worse...but there are plausible reasons why that don't have anything to do with going private. But it *sure* didn't get better. Not even briefly.)

Re:One gov-approved racketeering ring 2 rule them

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware politicians wanting to grant exclusivity using the "this here town ain't big enough for two" argument.

It's not usually the pols who come up with that. It's the company that says "we won't wire your town without a franchise", while the locals are calling their pols demanding to know how come they're not wired. The pols don't want to be blamed for not having service, so they give in. When a company negotiates with a government, it's usually pretty clear that the government is terrible at negotiating. (In my city, it's sports teams. Team A says "if you don't build us a new stadium we'll move away". Fans say "Don't let Team A move away!" Pols say "Oh, ok, we'll build you a new stadium." Then Team B works the scam. Then Team C. The pols never learn, and neither do the citizens.)

Where I live

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live (Canada), the switchover to digital television happened in September 2011 (16 months ago). At that time, the cable companies offered people who had been watching TV over the air an opportunity to receive the basic over-the-air TV channels with one of their boxes (and a cable line of course) for a very low fee. They did not offer this service to people who could not receive the service over the air (roughly 50 miles away). Cable/internet/phone companies will compete where there is competition. Where there is no competition, they very much enjoy the monopoly, and take full advantage of it, every time.

What does Moore's law have to do with it?

[hackertourist]

Moore's law has no bearing on the big-ticket items for ISPs:
- cabling. Stringing new cables or worse, digging up the street is never going to be free. If Google is putting in FTTH, they're spending a lot.
- subscriber equipment: cramming ever more bandwidth into a phone line means ever more complicated signalling equipment. Using fiber simplifies this (although fiber signalling equipment isn't cheap either), but then you have to lay the cables first, see the point above.
- support
- administration

Shutting people off?

[gravis777]

Even though they have shut off people in other states for using too much bandwidth

The link provided is 4 years old. I moved to a TWC area a couple of months ago, and this was the first thing I asked, as I am a fairly heavy bandwidth user. (Usually between 80-150 gig a month, depending on the month, with 100 being average. I have gone as high as 400 gig with Charter when I was using newsgroups alot, and as little as 20 gig). I was assured that they no longer do this, and the bandwidth usage portion on their website is for informational use only (although I did read somewhere that if you go UNDER a certain amount of data a month, they will give you a discount).

If someone has a more recent story about TWC cutting user's services for abuse of bandwidth (say from 2011 or 2012), I would like to see it, and know exactly how much data those users were using.