

Jim Kirk

Premium Member

join:2005-12-09

49985 Jim Kirk Premium Member Mr. Smiley He's got that "I just beat my wife" look.

Kearnstd

Space Elf

Premium Member

join:2002-01-22

Mullica Hill, NJ Kearnstd Premium Member Re: Mr. Smiley well considering the group he was talking to, Investment bankers. They would likely beat their wives if it would increase the value of their stock.

LostInWoods

join:2004-04-14 LostInWoods Member Re: Mr. Smiley And their mistress. And their mother. And their mother's mistress.

elray

join:2000-12-16

Santa Monica, CA elray Member Price Gouging? We pay a lot less today, for TWC broadband, than we did for dialup access years ago. Hardly price-gouging.



I look forward to TWC re-introducing their original low-volume discount offer, the one that this forum helped to suppress.



pizz

Premium Member

join:2000-10-27

Astoria, NY pizz Premium Member Re: Price Gouging? Majority of the country used AOL, which was unlimited. I don't how you can say this.

whiteyonenh

join:2004-08-09

Keene, NH whiteyonenh Member Re: Price Gouging? said by pizz: Majority of the country used AOL, which was unlimited. I don't how you can say this.

"Unlimited" plus applicable long-distance charges. AOL didn't have many if any local dial-in numbers for many areas.

Mele20

Premium Member

join:2001-06-05

Hilo, HI Mele20 Premium Member Re: Price Gouging? said by whiteyonenh: said by pizz: Majority of the country used AOL, which was unlimited. I don't how you can say this.



"Unlimited" plus applicable long-distance charges. AOL didn't have many if any local dial-in numbers for many areas.



There were no long distance charges anywhere in Hawaii to use AOL (while we waited for Oceanic TWC to expand RR to the neighbor islands). It was a heck of a lot better than dial up from GTE (now HawaiianTelcom) or any local or national (Earthlink) dialup provider. Road Runner free dialup backup used AOL numbers and there were a LOT of them across the mainland. Yes, they were not everywhere (the town in the southern part of the mainland where I grew up had no AOL number but that town STILL has no major cable provider (70,000 pop) as Comcast sneers at them). I could dial in to AOL (back in 1999 - Oceanic TWC on Oahu only had uncapped RR then) on the Big Island of Hawaii (three numbers on this side of the island and I think it was two on the other side) out in the middle of the Pacific ocean.There were no long distance charges anywhere in Hawaii to use AOL (while we waited for Oceanic TWC to expand RR to the neighbor islands). It was a heck of a lot better than dial up from GTE (now HawaiianTelcom) or any local or national (Earthlink) dialup provider. Road Runner free dialup backup used AOL numbers and there were a LOT of them across the mainland. Yes, they were not everywhere (the town in the southern part of the mainland where I grew up had no AOL number but that town STILL has no major cable provider (70,000 pop) as Comcast sneers at them).



ArrayList

DevOps

Premium Member

join:2005-03-19

Mullica Hill, NJ ArrayList to elray

Premium Member to elray

I only paid $20/month for dialup and it was unlimited. I don't know what you are talking about.



RRedline

Rated R

Premium Member

join:2002-05-15

USA RRedline to elray

Premium Member to elray

said by elray: We pay a lot less today, for TWC broadband, than we did for dialup access years ago. Hardly price-gouging.



I look forward to TWC re-introducing their original low-volume discount offer, the one that this forum helped to suppress.





If Internet providers offered 256 kbps service now for only $20 per month, it would still be better than what was available "years ago." I don't see how this is a good argument for not improving current service and value? Fifteen years ago, I paid less than half for my dial-up access compared to what I now pay for cable. Sure, it's FAR CHEAPER per kbps now than it was then, but what is your point? Technology is moving forward very quickly, and this guy is basically saying, "Hey, let's stop here so we can reap giant profits from our existing infrastructure for a long time without investing anything in upgrades. Stop innovating!"If Internet providers offered 256 kbps service now for only $20 per month, it would still be better than what was available "years ago." I don't see how this is a good argument for not improving current service and value?



Anon32

@rr.com Anon32 to elray

Anon to elray

I wish we are still on Dial-up. That way more people would buy local and more exercise.

Nobody(except you) is looking forward to their low-volume discount offer. They even mentioned that plan is to get more money out of their customers! Well, Good luck to you! Hope you don't get bill shock.

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member ~~fine $ print~~ If you look at the fine print of even Verizon FIOS.. and compare with the earliest TERMS OF SERVICE.. the specificity (through revision) of which "COMMERCIAL" and "RESIDENTIAL" high volume data consumption is angling towards this and the consumer is none the wiser about it..



however, without duopoly hand-in-hand anticompetitive attempt at this, it is dead in the water..



BimmerE38FN

join:2002-09-15

Boise, ID BimmerE38FN Member BYOM If they allow BOYM, then avoid the FEE, get your own modem.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: BYOM If you use a different carrier/ISP on the TW network you still pay less with a free modem, better support, and no overages/caps. This works with Bright House, Cox and Charter. Even static IPs are available on residential connections with servers allowed. Going directly isn't always best. We have great plans and pricing in cable and dsl inculding dry line on AT&T's old and new U-Verse networks.

swarto112

Premium Member

join:2004-02-17

El Dorado Hills, CA swarto112 Premium Member Re: BYOM dont forget BrightHouse is half owned by TWC...the other half manages infrastructure and TWC pays the bills only. Was in a BrightHouse & FIOS market before moving to a TWV & ATT U-Verse market. Tell ya what BrightHouse is way better than TWC just goes to show what can happen when its managed properly. I had FIOS was even spades better then them all. Just wish people at TWC got that people weill pay alot if everything works awesome.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband Member Re: BYOM Bright House was TWC before the AOL-TW merger



Probitas

@teksavvy.com Probitas to BimmerE38FN

Anon to BimmerE38FN

Back in the day here in Canada, Bell used to charge rental fees even with customers who had purchased their own phones, until enough people complained about the theft. Yes, it was theft, charging for services not provided is obviously theft.



djrobx

Premium Member

join:2000-05-31

Valencia, CA djrobx Premium Member Paying more for the privilege of unlimited I'll be interested to see what figures TWC is thinking. I already pay a LOT more for the privilege of using 50/5 even vs. 30/5. I shouldn't have to pay even more for an unlimited version of that tier (or at least, my allowances should be pretty fricken high). My current usage seems to hover in the 200GB/month range.



I would agree that unlimited use of "standard" could come at some sort of premium, especially at usual bundle/introductory pricing. I don't necessarily think it's fair for people to suck down terabytes of data while paying $29/month. Heavy users should at least buy into higher tiers.



I'm not really opposed to paying for use. The problem is that it's a slippery slope with these greedy providers. DSL hasn't been able to keep up, so there is nobody to keep their pricing in check. Instead of lowering the base rate and charging for usage, they want to continue to gouge you for the full price of what used to cover unlimited access THEN tack usage on top of it. When TWC first tried their UBB scheme they were trying to limit people to only 10GB for standard and 20GB for turbo!



Limits are OK. Unreasonably small limits and exorbitant overages are not.

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13

Hazelwood, MO Skippy25 Member Re: Paying more for the privilege of unlimited said by djrobx: Limits are OK. Unreasonably small limits and exorbitant overages are not.



Regardless of how it is done (though I would not agree with it being done), ALL data needs to be included in any restriction cap. Whether or not it leaves their network, they have agreements signed or whatever slimy trick they pull doesnt matter. If it leaves your modem through your WAN port it is on the internet and thus counts against any shameful cap they put in place. They start salivating thinking of all the money they lose focus.Regardless of how it is done (though I would not agree with it being done), ALL data needs to be included in any restriction cap. Whether or not it leaves their network, they have agreements signed or whatever slimy trick they pull doesnt matter. If it leaves your modem through your WAN port it is on the internet and thus counts against any shameful cap they put in place.



Eagles1221

join:2009-04-29

Vincentown, NJ Eagles1221 to djrobx

Member to djrobx

At 200 GB a month why not go to the 3 mbit "basic" plan?



Probitas

@teksavvy.com Probitas Anon Re: Paying more for the privilege of unlimited That's the whole point of that though, it's so slow streaming from a site like Netflix becomes untenable due to buffering, which is why they offer it, to protect their tv revenue. It's high time cable companies were divorced from their ISPs to prevent this gouging. Free market is all about competition, but it's only a free market where they can profit from it.



whiteshp

join:2002-03-05

Xenia, OH whiteshp to djrobx

Member to djrobx

The price of providing data has been going way DOWN for ISPs. If they are making huge profits on unlimited now then WHY do you not mind them charging higher prices for "standard" as their costs continue to drop?



mackey

Premium Member

join:2007-08-20 0.9 2.0

mackey to djrobx

Premium Member to djrobx

said by djrobx: while paying $29/month



/M You're joking right? Try $52.99. They've pretty much eliminated any discounts to existing customers. Now, the only way to get that $29.99 price is to prove you're switching from another provider./M



Packeteers

Premium Member

join:2005-06-18

Forest Hills, NY ·Verizon FiOS

·Charter

Asus RT-AC3100

(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

Packeteers Premium Member why this is such bull if conserving network resources was his real concern, then he'd be talking about automatically throttling the speed of over users, not charging more for unlimited use.



charging more to the average user for modem lease, caps and such, is to capture all the revenue lost after TWC suffered nearly a million cord cutters this past year.



they know they can't get into the wireless business, nobody is buying triple play bundles anymore, and TV subscribers are dropping like flies for streaming and IP antenna.



they also neglect to point out that TWC is already the most expensive ISP provider, with 50mbps service costing 25% more than everyone else due to their antiquated network.



TWCable it talking now like Verizon DSL did 5 years ago before Verizon over charged their customer base into oblivion, forced them to buy POTs they didn't want or need, alienated them by not upgrading their copper networks, then finally selling out and giving up on the whole DSL business. the only problem TWCable has compared to what Verizon did with DSL, is TWCable has no other business to run to - at least Verizon's excuse was to focus more on wireless.

elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY elefante72 Member Re: why this is such bull In fact he says that they want the user to use MORE, because then they can harvest more of your usage data and resell it! Also they will start trying to sell you services, which I am OK if they let competitors do the same without interference. I'm all for a company looking to make a buck fairly...



Also, it was said that video had the lowest margins, then phone, then net which costs a few bucks to provide. So the more they can capture the user to internet the better for them raising rates (supply/demand). Within a few years cable prices will simply need to be broken up. TWC has two packages broadcast (10 channels or so) or EVERYTHING. On my FIOS I have at least 4 tiers, and I choose SelectHD which is about $40 less than TWC all in package that we would never use. So I save $500 over TWC and my network blows theirs away 50/25 because I use a lot of cloud apps...



They will be forced into tiers I would say in the next year or two. The full monty of cable just isn't going to cut it. The next will be the emergence of these RSN fees which are BS if you dont want to watch them. Luckily for now my package has NO sports channels and I save big time. If I want to watch sports, I go OTT.



IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA ARRIS SB6183

Netgear R8000

IowaCowboy Premium Member Waive the cap They should waive the cap if you subscribe to their cable offering.



I am not a fan of Netflix's business model of carrying their programming over someone else's pipes.



If I pay $60 or so per month for Pay TV (whether its cable or satellite) and Netflix is offering a video product that is undercutting in pricing by getting a free ride on someone else's network resources, I don't call that ethical business practices.



It impedes network performance (especially on shared bandwidth like cable modem service) and I can tell because the Internet bogs down in the evening with all the Netflix streams. Try getting online on a Friday or Saturday night, forget it.



Hopefully my new 8x4 DOCSIS 3.0 modem will help.



Pay TV has its advantages because you send one dedicated stream down the pipe to all viewers. Streaming services send a bunch of video streams and eat up all the DOCSIS channels leaving no room for web surfing and other computer applications.



Video is a high bandwidth application, which is why cable operators have their video offerings which they have network resources dedicated to.



If Net Neutality is shot down in the Verizon lawsuit, I'm willing to bet the rent that the first thing cable operators will block is Netflix and other streaming services or charge to allow the subscriber access.



I just want to be able to access the Internet as opposed to competing for network resources.



Xioden

Premium Member

join:2008-06-10

Monticello, NY 1 recommendation Xioden Premium Member Re: Waive the cap The second Netflix or any other website/service is forced to pay more to individual ISPs to simply deliver content to their customers, the internet as we know it will be dead.



There is nothing unethical about people using the connections they pay for to receive a service. The only thing that is unethical is companies selling service they are unable to provide.

ke4pym

Premium Member

join:2004-07-24

Charlotte, NC ke4pym to IowaCowboy

Premium Member to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy: They should waive the cap if you subscribe to their cable offering.



This doesn't have anti-trust written all over it at all. Not one bit!



IowaCowboy

Supermarket Hero

Premium Member

join:2010-10-16

Springfield, MA ARRIS SB6183

Netgear R8000

IowaCowboy Premium Member Re: Waive the cap said by ke4pym: said by IowaCowboy: They should waive the cap if you subscribe to their cable offering.





This doesn't have anti-trust written all over it at all. Not one bit!



Maybe they could waive the cap if you agree to block the port for streaming video. There are choices for video programming, Cable/DirecTV/Dish are options. DirecTV is my weapon of choice.Maybe they could waive the cap if you agree to block the port for streaming video.

TBBroadband

join:2012-10-26

Fremont, OH TBBroadband to IowaCowboy

Member to IowaCowboy

And you do realize ALL internet services are shared right??? Cable is no different than dsl or anything else.



whatever nam

@oracle.com whatever nam to IowaCowboy

Anon to IowaCowboy

Sounds like you have seriously bad provider. I've had AT&T DSL, comcast cable, and time warner cable, in the recent past, and never had significant slow downs in the night that make my connection unusable as you say.

Happydude32

Premium Member

join:2005-07-16 Happydude32 to IowaCowboy

Premium Member to IowaCowboy

quote: I am not a fan of Netflix's business model of carrying their programming over someone else's pipes. So then DirecTV must be pretty 'unethical' company for requiring a broadband connection for their On Demand content, right? I mean Comcast is the one that paid for the infrastructure, and your using their main competition to obtain On Demand video. Sounds pretty unethical to me. It's disgusting that DirecTV has to use Comcast's pipes, they should be ashamed as it's unethical. And VoIP providers like Vonage are pretty unethical too, because they're using packets and stealing bandwidth from Comcast and using their infrastructure that should be used for Digital Voice. So then DirecTV must be pretty 'unethical' company for requiring a broadband connection for their On Demand content, right? I mean Comcast is the one that paid for the infrastructure, and your using their main competition to obtain On Demand video. Sounds pretty unethical to me. It's disgusting that DirecTV has to use Comcast's pipes, they should be ashamed as it's unethical. And VoIP providers like Vonage are pretty unethical too, because they're using packets and stealing bandwidth from Comcast and using their infrastructure that should be used for Digital Voice.



TechyDad

Premium Member

join:2001-07-13

USA TechyDad to IowaCowboy

Premium Member to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy: I am not a fan of Netflix's business model of carrying their programming over someone else's pipes.





If you claim that Netflix offering an online video service is freeloading in some way, then how is BBR, Amazon, or any other website/service not doing the same? If your connection is bogging down every night due to other people using Netflix, then don't point your finger at Netflix. Point your finger at your ISP for not upgrading their network. You do know how the Internet works, do you? Netflix pays for their own bandwidth and customers pay for their bandwidth. In the middle, ISPs either pay upstream providers or have peering arrangements between other top-level providers. Nobody is freeloading on anyone's "pipes."If you claim that Netflix offering an online video service is freeloading in some way, then how is BBR, Amazon, or any other website/service not doing the same? If your connection is bogging down every night due to other people using Netflix, then don't point your finger at Netflix. Point your finger at your ISP for not upgrading their network.



Probitas

@teksavvy.com Probitas to IowaCowboy

Anon to IowaCowboy

It's not the bandwidth, it's the SPEED. If your streamed service requires 4- 5 mb/s, who cares about the speed. It's not congesting anything from a streamed site since they don't send it using speed like a file download that is full bore. That's why the punitive overage charges and small caps, to really fleece a customer for attempting to save money on TV services.



The people using bandwidth are big file sharers and downloaders, for the most part everyone else has a service that runs a small download quick and it's done, or a fairly sedate stream. And lets face it, people who pay for a large speed should be able to use it without complaint, since they are paying for it.



All these excuses for bandwidth usage treat the service like a utility, but that's not how the industry is regulated. If they want to treat it like a utility, fine, let's regulate like an industry where they have to justify prices and actually sink money back into it for upgrades and servicing, which would really reduce their revenue stream. They really should let well enough alone before that happens.



RolteC

0h

join:2001-05-20

New York, NY RolteC Member What I hope.. I hope someone can design a site that will tech everyone that goes to it, in plain English, what these companies are charging, how they are charging more in certain area's and how their BS about money and whining is lie compared to their balance sheets and overall profits each year.



If this &**&*^ decides he can get away with changing the business model into 'screw everyone even more' by charging a premium for something that costs almost nothing, then I hope he takes the company down the drain when everyone defects to the competition.



Good job on how Kansas City was handled with Google Fiber. Just brush it away.... keep doing that... you are only brushing away your customers with that BS!



I hope that for my area's second provider, Verizon, they stay unlimited.



fatpipe

join:2011-10-02

Austin, TX fatpipe Member Hey Britt, Stick this Google Pipe where the sun don't shine!



Figuratively speaking of course! Oooo, man, I just can't wait to slam my Google pipe into Britt's shyster-eating grin of a face and his parasitical TWC!Figuratively speaking of course!

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member competing with noone

stupid TV cable service commercials that look like car stupid car commercials... ?

the speeds offered by TWC in nyc go up to 50 megabits for $5 more than cablevision's non-discounted rate on promotion!



Jeez, could they spare it!! what a friggen rip off! they are basically the highest priced 15megabit+ service in the NY metro region for internet on wires.



»www.timewarnercable.com/ ··· ans.html



compare to a little piss-ant of a company RCN:



»www.rcn.com/new-york/hig ··· ew_york# what's all this additional revenue paying for anyway?stupid TV cable service commercials that look like car stupid car commercials... ?the speeds offered by TWC in nyc go up to 50 megabits for $5 more than cablevision's non-discounted rate on promotion!Jeez, could they spare it!! what a friggen rip off! they are basically the highest priced 15megabit+ service in the NY metro region for internet on wires.compare to a little piss-ant of a company RCN:



andyross

MVM

join:2003-05-04

Aurora, IL andyross MVM Business users get no premium The main VPN I use for work is on TWC. For the past month, my upstream (their downstream) has been horrible. Finally, after convincing IT that there was a problem, they finally contacted TWC. TWC said there is noise on the line. The earliest they can get someone to check it? Monday between 1-5pm.



I've gotten faster service with my residential Comcast!



AMDUSER

Premium Member

join:2003-05-28

Earth, ARRIS CM8200

ARRIS SB6183

AMDUSER Premium Member Re: Business users get no premium I've had faster... I had a tech come out with in 2 hours of calling in a trouble call. [I am not a business customer, and do not have any SLA agreements on any of the services I had at the time.] I have since canceled the TWC internet and phone service. The later due to it being very unreliable- missing calls, - it would show up on the caller ID, yet when I pickup / answer the phone no one was there...



At the point in time, if I switch back to TWC cable internet- I have my own cable modem [D3] to avoid paying rental fees.



antdude

ANTh Vader

Premium Member

join:2001-03-25

US antdude Premium Member Ugh. Already and again? Stop it please. I really wish I could get another affordable uncapped broadband service, but no DSL, FIOS (even in the cities but not in my giant hill/small mountain neighborhoods), etc.



Swindle

Shattered Dreams

join:2006-07-24

Tampa, FL Swindle Member Re: Ugh. I miss the days where modems were part of the Internet Service prices.