Quote :

"Packet shaping is a much much much better way to handle destructive protocols like bit torrent. The funny thing is all the retards getting butt hurt about packet shaping dont realize that if done properly there's almost no impact to torrents. In peak usage times torrents will get throttled in favor of stuff like web traffic or voip, but for off hours they go full throttle. What most dont realize is that when they say "throttling torrents" they're not talking about some guy with a lever turning torrent speeds from high to low, they're talking about making all other traffic higher priority. While the end result during peak times is that torrents have less available bandwidth, its due to high usage of other protocols. If bit torrent weren't such a dick of a protocol it wouldn't even be a problem."

agreed

[Edited on April 15, 2009 at 6:02 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2009 6:01:51 PM

So can we all agree that we would prefer time warner to introduce traffic prioritization rather than outright caps?

4/16/2009 12:38:28 AM

ok heres what i dont get...so like why doesnt time warner just turn people in to the riaa/mpaa so no one downloads torrents

4/16/2009 12:40:26 AM

^ because you can't feasibly prosecute millions+ of people per day.

4/16/2009 12:52:34 AM

Quote :

""Go without" is an option. I don't see anyone protesting other things that are too expensive and there is no "reasonable alternative". Cable service is a luxury, not a utility."

1.) we're not talking about cable television, so your statement is a bit silly (see below)
2.) it's arguable that broadband internet access IS a utility in this modern age...there are thousands upon thousands of people in the affected areas (where TWC is a monopoly) who can't do their jobs (or schoolwork, for that matter) without high-speed internet access

it's a simple fact that the world we live in requires broadband internet access in many cases (certainly not everyone, i agree)...if you still disagree, then what defines a "utility"? i mean, you don't NEED power (put on a sweater if you're cold or drink lots of water if you're hot, you wuss!) or running water (hike to a stream or lake with a bucket, you lazy sod!) or sewage treatment/service (take a crap in the woods, but don't forget to bury your poo!)

4/16/2009 9:21:35 AM

Quote :

"it's a simple fact that the world we live in requires broadband internet access in many cases (certainly not everyone, i agree)...if you still disagree, then what defines a "utility"? i mean, you don't NEED power (put on a sweater if you're cold or drink lots of water if you're hot, you wuss!) or running water (hike to a stream or lake with a bucket, you lazy sod!) or sewage treatment/service (take a crap in the woods, but don't forget to bury your poo!) "

There are plenty of people that have no internet access. There are plenty of people that use dial-up. How do they survive? Basically everyone in my extended family a generation or two behind me fall into this category. To compare broadband internet access to running water or electricity is intellectually dishonest.

And also, why is broadband internet a necessity but cable television is not? They are both providing information and are both interactive.

Having broadband internet access in your home is a luxury. I don't care if you chose a profession that requires you to be on the internet. You would think I was an idiot if I argued that owning an airplane is a utility because I want to be a pilot. You are not automatically entitled to owning airplanes or having broadband internet access.

If you are student and you don't have broadband, go to the library. Before the Internet, was owning every book in the library a necessity too?

Look, I don't like the idea of a broadband cap more than anyone else, but to protest a private company for a service that they are providing is just fucking stupid. It's like protesting McDonalds when they raise prices or take the McRib off of the menu.

4/16/2009 11:35:39 AM

with some of the anti-competitive lobbying/behavior of twc, it's not the same.

4/16/2009 11:46:26 AM

I fail to see that. If they are operating outside of the bounds of the law in regards to trade practices, then the FTC will get them. If you just don't like their business practices, then stop buying their products.

4/16/2009 11:58:26 AM

well the latest anti-competitive thing i can think of has to with their switched digital video not allowing people using third party DVRs to view many channels. they have been dragging their feet to offer a solution for those people. the FCC has fined them, but I'm sure that's a piddling amount for them to worry about.

4/16/2009 12:03:52 PM

Quote :

"Basically everyone in my extended family a generation or two behind me fall into this category."

There's your answer. Your grandparents don't have to compete with one another in grade school. Not having the internet in you home would put your kid at a disadvantage. I guess you could go without, then this guy will be teaching your kids how to use computers when it comes time to enter the workforce:


[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason : -]

4/16/2009 12:11:09 PM

I honestly don't believe simply having broadband internet access at home is going to make you more prepared for the workforce than someone that does not or even put you at an advantage over other kids that do not have it. The real driving factors for success are motivation and the support of your parents. If you need to view web content, you can go to a library and your parents can drive you there. And for fucks sake, we're arguing about broadband here. What the hell web content do kids absolutely need that they couldn't browse on dial-up? If anything, I'd be willing to wager the sheer throughput of broadband provides greater distraction compared to a dial-up connection.

4/16/2009 12:34:06 PM

disco_stu, try and think of it another way. They are not protesting Time Warner. In my opinion they are protesting the government imposed regulatory environment which left Time Warner the only company they could deal with. And, hell, using ones right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances seems sensible to me. This is because the law turned Time Warner from a private service provider into an arm of the government and therefore ripe for political activism.

To address your example, if the city of Cary passed a law saying that McDonalds was the only legal provider of hamburgers, then it seems natural to protest in front of McDonalds if they impose ruinouse restrictions upon hamburger supplies.

4/16/2009 1:03:10 PM

^^ You're a god damned idiot.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : *]

4/16/2009 1:04:50 PM

Quote :

"To address your example, if the city of Cary passed a law saying that McDonalds was the only legal provider of hamburgers, then it seems natural to protest in front of McDonalds if they impose ruinouse restrictions upon hamburger supplies."

i like this example

4/16/2009 1:22:53 PM

But in reality they should be protesting Cary for giving them the monopoly in the first place.

4/16/2009 1:26:36 PM

Quote :

"^^ You're a god damned idiot. [Edited on April 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : *]"

Maybe I just don't have as powerful broadband service as you do.

Also, LoneSnark. I'm not terribly familiar with the laws that make TWC the only provider of broadband internet access or even cable internet access. I'm not even familiar with the

Quote :

"anti-competitive lobbying/behavior of tw"

enough to comment. Do you know of any good resources to read up on this that aren't crazed blogs?

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 1:42 PM. Reason : lonesnark]

4/16/2009 1:33:35 PM

Quote :

"It's like protesting McDonalds when they raise prices or take the McRib off of the menu."

your comparison is horrible, but i at least saw why you weren't comprehending the nature of the issue at hand, so i was going to give you some leeway...but then you came up with this gem:

Quote :

"I honestly don't believe simply having broadband internet access at home is going to make you more prepared for the workforce than someone that does not or even put you at an advantage over other kids that do not have it."

and so i'm forced to honestly believe that:

Quote :

"You're a god damned idiot."

i respect your position that no matter what the company or the service they provide, they should be allowed to do whatever they want no matter the circumstances and that we should suck it up and deal or move on to another provider (if that's even an option, which in a lot of cases, it isn't) or do without...but what you're actually convincing people of is that your parochial viewpoint does not include a comprehensive understanding of monopolies and price gouging or the government's role in providing/enforcing regulations (or a lack of) that result from such environments

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2009 1:42:26 PM

See my edit, quagmire. I admit I'm not familiar with the policies that everyone has a big contention with. I fail to see how RoadRunner has any monopoly on broadband internet access. Any enlightenment on this topic would be appreciated. Obviously the FTC agrees since they have not taken action to change the situation.

Regarding calling me a god damned idiot for asserting that the mere presence of broadband in the home is not a significant factor for success for students was a beautiful ad hominem. Care to provide any data that refutes my claim? Admittedly I'm not basing my opinion on data either, but I believe I deserve a counter point rather than name calling.

Again, what web content would a child need to excel in school that they could not get from a service other than RoadRunner? Or even on dial-up for that matter? Or from a public internet source? A properly motivated student with no internet access at home will do better than a slacker who has RoadRunner (and is probably using it to do a visit a lot of social network sites and crap)

4/16/2009 1:53:34 PM

Quote :

"I fail to see how RoadRunner has any monopoly on broadband internet access."

I live in south Raleigh off of Tryon and Trailwood, just a few miles from campus. I'm too far from whatever hub sort of thing there is to get DSL. U-verse hasn't come to my neighborhood. I don't consider satellite to be a form of broadband because of the fairly low data transfer rates and the super high latency. Road Runner is my only option for broadband. Other companies cannot provide a competing service in my area over the pre-existing infrastructure because the municipalities have granted contracts to TWC granting them exclusive access. It's not like I live in BFE. I live in the second largest population center in the state.

4/16/2009 2:05:20 PM

Quote :

"because the municipalities have granted contracts to TWC granting them exclusive access. I"

This is what I'm interested in. I'd like to see citation on this information. My googling is turning up a lot of blogs with very little actual news stories or anything.

4/16/2009 2:15:42 PM

http://www.raleighnc.gov/publications/Public_Affairs/timewarnerfranchise.pdf

It says its non-exclusive, but it was the only one I could find on their site.

So basically what this doc means is Raleigh grants TWC the ability to use some city owned resources (like phone poles or other utility distribution methods) to run their cable/fiber network. If someone else wants to do the same thing, they need to get Raleigh's permission.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM. Reason : a]

4/16/2009 2:21:22 PM

Quote :

"Obviously the FTC agrees since they have not taken action to change the situation."

really, this is your stance? the lack of a particular regulation imposed by a government organization means they agree with your viewpoint? you're kidding, yes?

Quote :

"Care to provide any data that refutes my claim? Admittedly I'm not basing my opinion on data either, but I believe I deserve a counter point rather than name calling."

second hit on google and i suspect i can find better results if i give it effort (but then, you only asked for "any data" that refutes your claim, and i'm not doing your project for you!)

http://www.silicon.com/publicsector/0,3800010403,39281333,00.htm

Quote :

"Home web access also appears to support higher grade GCSEs. Eighty-two per cent of individuals with GCE/GCSE A to C grade have the web at home, while just 74 per cent of those with grades D to G live in a wired household. Those with no formal qualifications are least likely to have access to the web (56 per cent)."

i realize these are the brits...are their children special in that only they can glean value from internet access at home? i also understand that this simply refers to internet access as a whole and not to broadband...i might have misunderstood you (you keep asking how people with internet survive without the "luxury"), so perhaps you're only arguing that broadband is luxury for students, while you agree that internet access of any kind is, at least, beneficial (see below to find out why you're wrong in saying that broadband does provide an edge over dial-up, though)

Quote :

"Again, what web content would a child need to excel in school that they could not get from a service other than RoadRunner? Or even on dial-up for that matter? Or from a public internet source? A properly motivated student with no internet access at home will do better than a slacker who has RoadRunner (and is probably using it to do a visit a lot of social network sites and crap)"

1.) don't start twisting your assertions around so that it seems like this entire thing is about TWC in places where there are other equivalent options...here, yes, SOME people can go with u-verse, but the FACT is that TWC operates in some areas where there is no viable competition for broadband customers and as such, operate in a monopoly environment where there are little or no current legal repercussions for their price gouging (for service offered) actions

2.) don't start twisting our assertions around so that it seems like we're saying broadband is the magical wand that makes students smarter just because it's piped into their homes...no one said that and no one has implied that...you, however, have out-and-out stated that broadband provides no benefit over dial-up, which is so blatantly stupid that i assume you must be joking

3.) i graduated undergrad 3 years ago and even THEN i had professors that would REQUIRE the watching of videos via youtube or the networks' sites...when was the last time you tried to watch a video on dial-up? my parents have EVDO tethered to their computer at home and even that is practically useless...despite your silly assertions to the contrary, dial-up is only a minimalist substitute for broadband

4.) public internet sources are limited by a number of factors that you're intentionally ignoring...operating hours for one and availability for another...we can argue up and down that if a student REALLY wants the grade, they'll get it, but not without making up some irrelevant examples

in this case, the relevant situational aspects are these:
- people already paying for broadband access (we're not talking new customers or those who can't get broadband)
- people in an area where TWC is their ONLY option for broadband

that's it...i won't go so far as to say that every one of TWC's customers NEEDS broadband, but i will definitely assert that in this particular situation, where TWC targets areas where there is no viable competition for similar service, your arguments are baseless...for an increasing number of people, broadband access is quickly approaching the level of import that is associated with water and electricity...none of them are truly necessary, but all of them make a significant impact on the lives of those who have come to depend on them (and have no options but to pay the cost or go without)

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2009 2:22:47 PM

Quote :

""Home web access also appears to support higher grade GCSEs. Eighty-two per cent of individuals with GCE/GCSE A to C grade have the web at home, while just 74 per cent of those with grades D to G live in a wired household. Those with no formal qualifications are least likely to have access to the web (56 per cent).""

This shows a correlation between people with good grades and people that have internet access at home. Does it explain whether this is a causal relationship or rather a byproduct of the fact that poorer people who have less overall support from their parents get lower grades? I appreciate you looking up this statistic, but I imagine there are other factors at play here. In fact, I contend that parental support is probably the largest factor.

1)My original assertion was and still is that you don't need ANY broadband internet. In regards to this, I don't even care if they are considered a monopoly. I'm not twisting anything. And I see you omit DSL as an alternative to cable. Having never used DSL myself, I'm not sure, but is it really that much worse than RoadRunner?

2)Honestly, aren't we talking about primary and high school students here? If you're in college, you're paying for labs where you can get all of the broadband access you need to do your classes. Having it at home is a luxury. And surely even primary and high school curriculum wouldn't assume you had broadband at home. That would definitely be descrimination against poorer families.

3 and the rest) I've actually e-mail Mike Williams who is the Cable Administrator for the Public Affairs Department of Raleigh to ask about the cable infrastructure and if TWC really has a monopoly on it. If you're interested I'll post his responses here.

This is what I sent him, Shaggy:

Quote :

"Hello Michael, I have always wondered why there are no other cable companies than Time Warner Cable selling cable services in Raleigh and the surrounding areas. Does Time Warner Cable actually own the cable infrastructure or do they have a contract with the city of Raleigh or something? Have there been other cable companies that have tried to set up shop in our city? Thanks for your time and the information. Regards,"

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM. Reason : shaggy]

4/16/2009 2:38:34 PM

^ the pdf i posted is their franchise agreement. TWC doesnt have a technical monopoly because Raleigh can still grant others the same agreement, but they have a practical monopoly because no one else (that i could find) has the same agreement.

Now whether this is because no one has actively sought an agreement or because Raleigh has denied others I dont know. That would be something to ask Mike Williams.

4/16/2009 2:46:57 PM

Quote :

"My original assertion was and still is that you don't need ANY broadband internet. In regards to this, I don't even care if they are considered a monopoly. I'm not twisting anything. And I see you omit DSL as an alternative to cable. Having never used DSL myself, I'm not sure, but is it really that much worse than RoadRunner?"

i didn't omit anything...i can't get DSL where i live, believe it or not, so it's not an option...which is why i specifically identified areas with no direct competition as the issue

Quote :

"Honestly, aren't we talking about primary and high school students here? If you're in college, you're paying for labs where you can get all of the broadband access you need to do your classes. Having it at home is a luxury. And surely even primary and high school curriculum wouldn't assume you had broadband at home. That would definitely be descrimination against poorer families."

i was and am, yes...in fact, i'm directly arguing against your assertion that there is NO benefit or "edge" that a student can gain from having broadband over dial-up...you are wrong in this, and no one in here will agree with you that there is NO educational benefit, under any circumstances, to high-speed access over dial-up

Quote :

"I've actually e-mail Mike Williams who is the Cable Administrator for the Public Affairs Department of Raleigh to ask about the cable infrastructure and if TWC really has a monopoly on it. If you're interested I'll post his responses here."

i'm quite interested...i'd really like to know what they have to say

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2009 2:51:58 PM

I now wish I had seen your post instead of being sucked in by quagmire's wall of text. Based on that document there's no reason another company couldn't set up on the lines, so why haven't they?

quagmire, I'm not saying there's no benefit. Obviously there's a benefit. 20 years ago, owning an encyclopedia set at home was definitely a benefit. Did that mean the kids that had encyclopedias automatically did better than the kids that did not? Of course, it's now and not 20 years ago but my point still applies. The kids have to use the broadband (and use it in the right way) in order to receive the benefit. In that I still maintain that the parents are the key here. If the children aren't guided and motivated to use it correctly, then they will not gain the benefit and may very likely do worse than if they had no access at all.

But let's drop this argument for the sake of not turning this thread into a Soap Box thread. I'll try to steer us back on topic:

I'm honestly not sure if the broadband caps would affect me. I need to update my router's firmware to tomato to turn on the bandwidth monitoring, but at the moment I don't want to risk interrupting my WoW uptime.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM. Reason : quag]

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2009 2:52:06 PM

1. Another company would have to go through the same process to get approved by the City of Raliegh.
2. Running their own infrastructure is expensive.


If they can get past step 1, which would be a question you could send to that Mike guy, step 2 gets into the ROI on infrastructure. They have to roll out infrastructure, set a price lower than TWC, and hope people switch.

4/16/2009 2:59:55 PM

Guy was fast:

Quote :

"Hello Eddie: Thanks for your inquiry. Time Warner Cable (TWC) was the only cable company providing service in the City of Raleigh. But only because no other cable company was willing to provide competition. The City has long sought to attract another cable service provider. TWC does own the infrastructure by which they provide service. AT&T recently announced that they have begun providing cable service to parts of Raleigh and Wake County. At this point they are unwilling to publicly identify their service areas. If you are interested you should call their customer service number. Because the AT&T delivery system differs from that of TWC you should carefully evaluate both services in order to determine which would best meet your needs. The City does not favor either service, but we do want each resident to subscribe to the service that best meets their individual needs. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. And I’d like to invite you to watch RTN 11 on TWC, if you aren’t already a viewer. RTN 11 provides information about the City and the services provided. AT&T is scheduled to add RTN 11 in the near future. Thanks, Mike Williams"

4/16/2009 3:01:48 PM

and you'll notice that raleigh isn't in the crosshairs for these caps (likely because at&t is starting to come in). greensboro residents don't have that same luxury.

and you'll also notice that channel offerings and services are far better in cities with more than one provider. i guess all i'd like is for their to be a healthy market for broadband in the area.

Quote :

"ok heres what i dont get...so like why doesnt time warner just turn people in to the riaa/mpaa so no one downloads torrents"

the mpaa and riaa are not law enforcement (though it's getting harder and harder to tell that)

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2009 3:25:56 PM

Based on the franchise agreement and the response from the City of Raleigh, I'd agree with Shaggy that the primary reason why there are no other cable providers boils down on ROI against the cost of laying the cable and providing a better service than TWC.

I actually live in Cary, so I'm looking for an equivalent contact with them to see if the situation is the same. If anyone has other information regarding the state of TWC's "monopoly" in the area it would be appreciated.

4/16/2009 3:31:53 PM

Looks like TWC pulled the plugs on the caps....

http://stopthecap.com/2009/04/16/we-won-time-warner-killing-usage-caps-in-all-markets/

4/16/2009 3:32:01 PM

well, that didn't take long

4/16/2009 3:36:37 PM

wow nice

4/16/2009 3:42:58 PM

Haha, awesome.

I don't hold it past TWC however to silently still be doing research into this.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM. Reason : -]

4/16/2009 3:49:29 PM

niice

4/16/2009 3:53:56 PM

disco_stu, he is mistaken. AT&T has not deployed a cable system in Raleigh because doing so has been illegal. To do so would have required passing a law through the city council. Why no one did so is unknown. Either way, the more apropriate metaphore would be: "No one but McDonalds may sell hamburgers without first getting a 51% majority of the city council and majorial approval."

Of course, this is a local franchise requirement. As such, what AT&T has done is apply for and receive a state issued franchise agreement, thus bypassing the Raleigh City Government. Therefore, AT&T is expanding its existing telephone franchise to distribute video services. Of course, now that TWC's franchise with the city offers no protection from AT&T, it has chosen to scrap it:
http://www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_411_208_0_43/http%3B/pt03/DIG_Web_Content/news/public/News-PubAff-Time_Warner_Cable_Termin-20090204-16444584.html

Even if TWC is no longer a government protected monopoly, it certainly was before and the legacy of that is how we find ourselves here today. AT&T cannot expand overnight, so even if AT&T is a competent competitor TWC still has a monopoly in many areas. And if both are poor competitors, the state is not that much quicker to issue franchise agreements than the city was.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 3:58 PM. Reason : And the caps bite the dust.]

4/16/2009 3:54:32 PM

This was the response that I got from Town of Cary's rep:

Quote :

"Hello. TWC owns their own infrastructure. AT&T has started rolling out video service on telephone lines in Cary. There are no exclusive agreements; any qualifying company can offer cable here. Hope this helps. ___________________________________________________________ Susan Moran, APR"

LoneSnark, where are you getting this from:

Quote :

"AT&T has not deployed a cable system in Raleigh because doing so has been illegal. To do so would have required passing a law through the city council. Why no one did so is unknown."

4/16/2009 4:32:33 PM

it still pisses me off, and if uverse comes to town, i'll consider switching

4/16/2009 4:36:56 PM

this article has a fair amount of info:
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A271522

apparently there's a law which just took effect which actually has changed a lot of this stuff. so i think lonesnark may have been correct six months ago, but not now. i'm going to read into it a little more.

Quote :

""The state law was passed with the notion that there would be competition, but measuring the impact is going to be tough, because the state law doesn't have build-out requirements," said Catharine Rice of the Southeast Association of Local Government Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. Rice said that means rural areas like Chatham County could be left behind when it comes to high-speed Internet service as well as TV. Under the old system, cable providers had to negotiate franchise agreements with local governments, which could require the company provide service to certain areas. But AT&T, Time Warner and any other would-be provider are now free to offer service only in the areas they choose. In Charlotte, not all of AT&T's phone customers have access to U-verse. Current law gives the company a March 10, 2009, deadline to offer its new service to at least one household in the service area, broadly defined to include the entire state. "With today's launch of service, we are meeting that requirement," Bowling said Monday."

and reading the bill in question ( http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2005/Bills/House/PDF/H2047v6.pdf ) it appears that i was wrong and this just hands the franchisement of cable services over to the cities themselves (maybe?). i'm not patient or knowledgeable enough about law to fully understand what is being said in the bill. so maybe someone else could help out.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/16/2009 5:20:27 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/theyre-gone-after-outcry-time-warner-uncaps-the-tubes.ars

caps are dead

FTW!!

It's amazing too after certain people bitterly defended them ITT.

[Edited on April 16, 2009 at 5:37 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2009 5:36:54 PM

i fear they may just be kicking the can down the road. they say they're delaying it. and that they'll give users access to their monthly data usage on their website (ostensibly to use as ammunition in a future attempt to implement caps)

4/16/2009 5:47:50 PM

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/time-warner-cable-scraps-broadband-capping-plan-in-rochester-ny/

Quote :

"As a few of you have helpfully pointed out in comments, Time Warner Cable has now put out a statement of its own that confirms in not-at-all Orwellian terms that it is shelving all of its consumption-based billing trials "while the customer education process continues." The company also says that it'll soon be making bandwidth measurement tools available to customers, which it hopes will "aid in the dialog going forward.""

lol best line ever

4/16/2009 5:53:26 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark, where are you getting this from:"

Read the TWC franchise agreement. To get one, you must get it from the city council
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, THAT:"

But, like I showed with my link, the franchise agreement between TWC and Raleigh has been scrapped by TWC in favor of one with the state government, which only requires a written request to the Secretary of State.

To reitterate my point, merely pointing out that AT&T is now free to compete with TWC now does not answer the whole story. It was not able to do so before 2006 and the current reality is the result of that situation. Prior to the 2006 law AT&T would have needed to get a franchise agreement from the city to either offer video services or to do anything that would exceed its existing telephone franchise. We have no idea why they did not do that, we don't know if they even tried. Therefore, if you wanted cable modem speeds you had to go with TWC, as all the phone company could legally offer was internet over phone lines, or DSL. As such, I still find it reasonable to portray TWC as a government arm, even though such a portrayal will continue to be eroded with time.

sarijoul: No, it does not hand them to the cities, the cities have been removed entirely from the process. If a city wants to complain over an invasion of its right of way it must go through the Department of Justice or appeal to the Secretary of State to have the franchise revoked.

4/16/2009 6:00:40 PM

Quote :

"ok heres what i dont get...so like why doesnt time warner just turn people in to the riaa/mpaa so no one downloads torrents"

Lol, why would TWC want to turn in paying customers?

Oh well, it's good to hear the caps got canned, for now at least. Perhaps if TWC had thought to implement a more reasonable cap it wouldn't have been such a big issue.

4/16/2009 8:02:04 PM

They canned the thing today.


http://www.wxii12.com/news/19199950/detail.html

4/16/2009 8:31:40 PM

4/16/2009 10:01:02 PM

if they eventually do this, they need some kinda "rollover" option for unused gigabytes

4/16/2009 10:11:48 PM

Victory!!

4/16/2009 10:55:12 PM

he look, protesting did something.

4/16/2009 11:37:02 PM

Good thing the "Tea Party" loons are too busy clogging up city blocks to see the effectiveness of perpetual upheaval.

4/17/2009 3:38:14 AM