Quote :

"Time Warner decided to postpone a tiered pricing plan"

Quote :

"It's a temporary victory"

Quote :

"Time Warner officials said it's only fair. "We don't believe that the low users should have to pay for the heavy use of a few," Buscher said."

They haven't canned anything. They already weren't going to implement it until "later this year," from what a customer service rep told me, and they were already going to give you 3 months to determine what your usage is before making you pay for it. All they're doing now is announcing that more publicly and maybe trying to find a softer and more customer-friendly way of announcing that they're going to screw you.

The one good thing I've heard is that they were going to cap everything at $75 / month no matter what, so at least you couldn't end up paying hundreds of dollars for your torrents and late-night frag sessions.

4/17/2009 3:49:29 PM

Quote :

"ACCK... I'LL BE BACK! YA HAVEN' SEEN THA LAST A WILLIE!"

4/17/2009 4:00:41 PM

Quote :

""We don't believe that the low users should have to pay for the heavy use of a few," Buscher said.""

lol

If this were the case, they'd be lowering the price for the current speed level, and charging everyone else more. Otherwise, they're forcing the "low users" to either pay the same as they're paying now WITH a cap, or switch to a cheaper tier with slower speeds.

4/17/2009 4:03:04 PM

If they are going to continue this whole "Pay for what you use" mantra straight out of 1998 then the same should apply to their cable service. They should let you pick the channels you want and have to only pay for those. Since monitoring how much you watch tv may not be a feasible pricing scheme I don't see why I need to wade through the sea of 100+ channels that I will never land on just to get to the 5 or so that I do. Now I realize this doesn't apply to everyone but there are actually couch potatoes that can watch 100+ channels so it makes sense for them to pay more. "Pay for what you use", right?

4/17/2009 4:12:42 PM

Seriously I should be able to dump 80% of the channels and add a few like HBO and Showtime for the same price imo if they wanna pull this bullshit

4/17/2009 4:54:37 PM

although it will probably never happen...amen to that

4/17/2009 4:55:35 PM

That would be pretty awesome, but TWC is forced to resell alot of those channels as packages by the channel owners. So for example if company A owns channels 1,2,3,4, and 5 they wont let time warner sell you only channel 3. Which really sucks a bag of dicks because there are alot of channels that are forced into the basic package that make up a large percentage of the cost. ESPN costs something like $2 per subscriber, but its something i'd never watch.

[Edited on April 17, 2009 at 5:00 PM. Reason : a]

4/17/2009 5:00:18 PM

conversely, the only channels i would need are the locals and sports channels and maybe HBO

4/17/2009 5:33:13 PM

I only watch science channel, history channel, and network tv. Science channel is always on the most expensive tier FML

4/17/2009 7:26:04 PM

^

4/17/2009 9:26:37 PM

Quote :

"The one good thing I've heard is that they were going to cap everything at $75 / month no matter what, so at least you couldn't end up paying hundreds of dollars for your torrents and late-night frag sessions."

I'm pretty sure that the cap is at $150. The plan for like 40 gb's or whatever is like $60 I think.

4/18/2009 1:09:41 AM

yea the cap was $150...

4/18/2009 1:33:20 AM

I'm basing this off of what I heard on NPR, but here it is too

Quote :

"Time Warner Cable, sensitive to the public outcry about metered broadband, has tweaked its policy — capping overage fines at $75. Does this make it all better?"

http://consumerist.com/5207002/time-warner-cable-caps-metered-broadband-overage-fees-at-75

Maybe that's a new development to stem the outcry...

4/18/2009 12:02:29 PM

the $150 number came from turbo + max charge = $150 for turbo speed w/ unlimited downloading (ie what you get now for half that price)

4/18/2009 12:18:29 PM

seems they're scraping it

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

4/18/2009 12:49:00 PM

how many times has that been posted now?

4/18/2009 12:53:04 PM

Time Warner, Embarq Fight to Outlaw 100 Mbps Community Broadband in Wilson, NC
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=14934#cmt434908

One more reason I hate TimeWarner.




[Edited on April 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2009 1:24:30 PM

i can't believe an effort to squash greenlight is even being considered

4/22/2009 1:29:50 PM

according to the article it's not the first attempt

4/22/2009 2:35:18 PM

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/twc-without-data-caps-internet-upgrades-now-in-doubt.ars

They only roll out docsys 3 whereever there is fios or uverse... elsewise, its no competition, so fml if you dont have those 2 in your area.

4/22/2009 5:22:01 PM

Quote :

"i can't believe an effort to squash greenlight is even being considered"

Why can't you believe it? This is how TWC has stayed in business, you pay politicians to eliminate to competition so you can gouge customers and don't have to innovate.

4/22/2009 5:54:26 PM

Which political party is in control of the NC legislature?

4/22/2009 6:01:48 PM

Well, time warner pays taxes to the city, I can see where it wouldn't be fair for one competitor to levy a tax upon another.

What they needed in Wilson was competition, not city owned internet. Surely someone in wilson had the cash to start even a crappy ISP.

4/22/2009 6:34:53 PM

There's no need for redundant ISP infrastructure. Destructive competition will destroy the market! It almost did in the 90s, I mean look at what happened to America Online! If we had legislature that forced out anyone but AOL, they would still be around.

4/22/2009 7:53:17 PM

Quote :

"The real irony, of the situation is that a recent report, by local newspaper IndyWeek indicates that the city first approached Time Warner Inc. and Embarq with a request for faster internet for residents and local businesses. The cable companies refused, unwilling to cut into their profit margins. So the city took it upon itself, and in the end found out it could sell the service to citizens at a fraction of the cost. Local provider Embarq still defends its decision, saying it has the right to make money (which it argues Greenlight Inc. does not)."

L O L.

i don't think i've ever hated TWC (and Embarq, for that matter) more than i do right now after reading that article.

4/22/2009 10:22:15 PM

jesus.... there's nothing to get fired up about anymore so young people these days have to sublimate their energies into fury at the slightest things.

4/22/2009 10:24:24 PM

TWC must really want people to hate them.

I feel like theyve completely ruined what little reputation they had left in the past two weeks

4/22/2009 10:24:44 PM

Quote :

"Here’s the part that really surprised me. Several times, members of the committee asked bill sponsors Rep. Ty Harrell (Wake) and Rep. Thom Tillis (Mecklenburg) for clarification. The lawmakers turned to a Time Warner staff member and an attorney who represents the industry to speak on their behalf. You read that right. The sponsors, elected by their communities, had to ask a Time Warner rep to clarify what their own bill said."

ahahaha.

if there was any doubt in anyone's mind as to the real motive behind this legislation, that answers your question.

Quote :

"at the slightest things."

this is not a "slight thing" by any means. this bill could affect broadband access all over the state of NC. stop trolling.

4/22/2009 10:35:54 PM

whats the incentive for Ty Harrell (Wake) and Rep. Thom Tillis (Mecklenburg) to sponsor this?

4/22/2009 10:45:43 PM

they get campaign contributions from TWC and Embarq, most likely.

that's how those things work.

people think that voting is the backbone of democracy; it's actually lobbyists. nobody gives a fuck what you have to think, it's all about the money (and who's willing to give the most).

4/23/2009 12:25:39 AM

Maybe I'm just retarded, but I don't get how this is even possible. On what legal grounds can TWC/Embarq just up and say "get rid of our competition for us". Do they have any legal precedent at all? I understand they can throw money at legislatures, offer incentives to lobbyists and all that, but doesn't there have to be some sort law they can point to first? Exactly what rule are they saying Greenlight is breaking?

4/23/2009 9:56:48 AM

^ There is no rule, so TWC/Embarq are throwing money at the legislature to get a rule put in place before the system is rolled out.

Without getting too political, it's a huge problem - it's basically sanctioned cheating. Those with the most money get their way.


I just emailed Ty Harrell - you guys should, too.

The bill is HB 1252.

Ty.Harrell@ncleg.net

Quote :

"Hi Rep. Harrell - I wanted to drop you a quick note regarding my feelings about your choice to sponsor this bill. This bill is harmful and dangerous to many people in NC who would prefer an economical way of accessing the internet. The internet has become a staple of life for many, and the accessibility and information shared on it are critical to many individuals and businesses, large and small. By sponsoring this bill for Time Warner Cable - a company whose profit margins have dramatically increased over the years, while service levels have dramatically decreased - you are enabling a monopoly to keep its grip over your constituency by not requiring them to stay competitive. In effect, you are handing TWC a free pass to over charge the people who voted to put you in office. There is a rule you would do well to remember while you're in office: The people who voted for you are the ones you should be representing, NOT the businesses in your district. If this supporting this bill were to prevent TWC's going out of business, your logic would be valid, as it would be preventing the placement of members of your constituency in the unemployment line. This bill does nothing of the sort - it simply hinders competition, and enables TWC to continue their long held policy of price gouging and under-serving their customer base while they stack ill-gotten revenue that I can assure you is not passed down to most employees. The people in your district deserve better. You serve one of the most technologically advanced districts in the nation, with the highest percentage of people with post-secondary educations, and it's laughable and deplorable for you to even have your name on this bill. You are doing your constituents no favors here at all. In fact, choosing to sponsor this bill puts you firmly in the pocket of big business - and will not be forgotten on my or the parts of others during the next election period. Thanks <me>"

[Edited on April 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2009 10:10:27 AM

Quote :

"If this supporting this bill"

4/23/2009 10:15:33 AM

D'OH


too late now.

4/23/2009 10:26:19 AM

shoulda been all like "you firmly in the pocket of Big Business"

4/23/2009 10:51:29 AM

This makes me


The quality of service in that area (I'm from Bailey - ~15 miles) is absolute shit. My parents JUST got DSL this year from embarq. This is 2009. They claimed DSL service would be in our area in 2004.

4/23/2009 11:47:24 AM

My in-laws live a mile off of 401 in southern Franklin County and they can't get cable or dsl. They use Verizon wireless broadband. I have a feeling it will be a long time before either company figures out that there's a lot of people in "rural" nc (meaning not that far away) that would kill for cable/broadband internet. Interestingly, houses 400 yards further away from the highway have TWC. I guess without seeing their actual infrastructure maps and understanding the costs associated it will remain a mystery.

4/23/2009 12:31:29 PM

since the dedicated greenlight thread got locked...

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/TWC-Embarq-Wilson-Greenlight,news-30960.html

4/24/2009 7:33:02 AM

If I were them, I would wait. Thanks to the television changeover we are going to get a bunch of new wireless broadband companies offering near-cable speeds to rural areas. Such services won't fair well in urban areas because the channel is shared and the user base is too dense. But should work nicely in sparse rural areas. Here's hoping the changeover goes as planned.

4/24/2009 11:35:03 AM

^^^ i would assume that something like clearwire would be more economically feasible for those in rural areas

my parents live in podunk and can't get anything truly broadband (they're less than a mile from a backbone, though)...they use alltel data, which is better than dial-up, but still sucks

i would think that it would cost less to deploy wimax (or whatever is passing for that these days), given the population density of certain areas, rather than running physical lines

^ oh, well there we go

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : NEW INFO]

4/24/2009 11:38:08 AM

^^ your logic belies your answer. Because theres no one out in rural areas, why deploy it? No money made. Density = money.

4/24/2009 11:50:16 AM

Wireless is much easier to deploy than cabled networks. The biggest limiter to wireless is the bandwidth. The freeing up of additional space in the radio spectrum should help this problem.

If you have to run fiber to each person in the boonies its prohibitively expensive, but if you can run fiber to one wireless tower and hit the same people its much more viable.

4/24/2009 11:57:47 AM

Quote :

"i would assume that something like clearwire would be more economically feasible for those in rural areas"

the problem with rural areas right now is the backhaul, it's pretty expensive to run fiber out to rural areas without a significant infrastructure in place. even when you get it there, the lines are usually so old and decrepit that the broadband sucks anyway.

a lot of companies are looking at using wimax for last-mile and either running one fat pipe to a tower or a point-to-point microwave link, like they use for cell towers.

(like ^ said)

4/24/2009 12:08:10 PM

Honestly, I just read the proposed bill and people might be blowing this out of proportion.

The bill doesn't not ban local governments from providing communications services.

The bill has 6 provisions, in summary:

1) Local governments have to comply with all laws private companies do
2) Local governments have to establish a seperate fund for all expenses and revenues associated with the communication services
3) Local governments cannot charge less than the cost of providing the service, and to that end cannot subsidize the service with non-communication revenue sources (e.g. revenue from water service).
4) Local governments, when calculating the cost of providing the service, have to include i) a cost of capital component equivalant to the cost of capital for private communcation companies in the area ii) a cost equivalant to the taxes and fees a private company would have to pay to local, state, and federal gov't for providing a similar service
5) Pay an annual amount to the general fund of the goverment equivilant to what a private co would have to pay in taxes & fees
6) Have an annual independant audit to make sure they are reflecting appropriate costs & revenues

These don't seem particularly unreasonable to me. While TWC sucks, would we be better off if 10 years down the road the whole state had government provided internet? That thought concerns me.

Here are links to the bills: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=H1252 and
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=S1004

[Edited on April 24, 2009 at 12:50 PM. Reason : d]

4/24/2009 12:49:40 PM

Quote :

"3) Local governments cannot charge less than the cost of providing the service, and to that end cannot subsidize the service with non-communication revenue sources (e.g. revenue from water service)."

does this mean that they have to factor in up-front set-up costs or that they have to charge what the maintenance costs are?

4/24/2009 1:07:47 PM

Quote :

"4) Local governments, when calculating the cost of providing the service, have to include i) a cost of capital component equivalant to the cost of capital for private communcation companies in the area ii) a cost equivalant to the taxes and fees a private company would have to pay to local, state, and federal gov't for providing a similar service "

4/24/2009 1:09:31 PM

4 is the bullshitiest provision of all. What the hell does the cost of capital of TWC have to do with how much the gov't can charge for their service?

Why does government provided internet concern you? We already have government-regulated internet. Your privacy should be as well protected as it is now.

4/24/2009 1:24:04 PM

Quote :

"4 is the bullshitiest provision of all. What the hell does the cost of capital of TWC have to do with how much the gov't can charge for their service?"

In legaleeze, what they are saying is that the interest paid on borrowing should be calculated at the going corporate rate instead of the government bond rate. You need to remember that government bonds tend to pay lower interest than private corporate bonds and since a vast component of the costs in this industry is interest paid on their debt, having the government knock a few percentage points off your debt is a huge advantage. But, nevermind fairness to time warner, my objection would be unfairness to the tax payers. If this service goes under and defaults on these bonds, then the city will be forced to raise taxes or cut back on services to pay back the bonds.

This bill is not only reasonable but I would argue necessary because, I believe, it would be wrong to tax all of us, particularly the poor, to provide subsidised internet access to some, which tend to be wealthier individuals, as the truely poor do not own computers.

4/24/2009 2:03:37 PM

hey Shaggy, what ever happened to wimax?

4/24/2009 2:05:29 PM

afaik its been used in a few places around the US, but its limited to around 3mbps in most places.

4/24/2009 2:18:23 PM