# Is Cable Killing Internet Video?



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Looks like Time Warner has decided to kill Netflix/itunes/Amazon/etc. downloads and try and force people to only use their video service. In the next few months all of their Rochester NY area Internet customers will be converted to a metered system pricing as follows.


5 GB for $30
10 GB for $40
20 GB for $50
40 GB for $55
$1 per GB overage charge for all plans

I don't actually have Time Warner but use their local competitor Frontier DSL which so far is $30 for unlimited use. Of course Time Warner claimed download speeds are over 2X as fast as DSL, but I have never had a problem with my DSL speed.

So what do people think? Are the above prices and download caps really need because of the amount people are downloading or because what they are downloading reduces Time Warner cable TV revenue?

Thanks,


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

Probably they see both. But they are also looking for any excuse to get more money out of people.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I hope Fios comes to your town soon. No limits there.

Yes, killing Internet video is a primary goal behind this crap. But they won't succeed.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I think what TWC is doing is very fair: It is insane to force a service provider to incur substantially higher costs to foster services that compete directly with their own. Unlimited service plans made sense when the disparity between moderate users and heavy users was relatively small. Now that there there is such a big difference between the costs associated with serving the median user and the heaviest users, it would be horrible to be a median user (without caps and/or metering), as you'd be substantially subsidizing the heavy use of other users.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> I think what TWC is doing is very fair: It is insane to force a service provider to incur substantially higher costs to foster services that compete directly with their own. Unlimited service plans made sense when the disparity between moderate users and heavy users was relatively small. *Now that there there is such a big difference between the costs associated with serving the median user and the heaviest users,* it would be horrible to be a median user (without caps and/or metering), as you'd be substantially subsidizing the heavy use of other users.


The part I put in bold and underlined is really an interesting question does it really cost that much more? and if so how much? When a company like Netflix who does pay for the bandwidth at their end, can steam nearly unlimited amounts of video to it's customers at very little cost how much does it really cost my service provider if I download 50 GB instead of 5 GB per month? I'll bet its pennies not dollars.

Thanks,


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Anybody know the content size of an hour of video on Hulu? I is certainly lower quality than tv, but I use Hulu to watch a lot of tv shows, even with the commercials.


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

I've always wondered how much I use in a month.

Is there a free program out there that you can use to measure usage?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

The actual cost of bandwidth (between TWC and the wider Internet) is nowhere near a dollar a gigabyte. It is indeed pennies. However, cable companies tend to really oversubscribe the last mile, spreading a small amount of bandwidth among a large number of users, and counting on them not to use it much. So the illusion of high speed breaks down when many people actually start to use their broadband.

Intensive bandwidth users don't really cost the company more -- they just expose the shoddiness of the network.


----------



## Conard (Nov 15, 2007)

Frontier DSL has had a 5 gig limit on their books for a year but haven't metered or enforced it , yet.
Wait until TWC switches to tiered service and I'll bet Frontier will be right behind them.


----------



## lafos (Nov 8, 2004)

Hope they don't do it in SE Ohio. I've had so many issues with TWC that adding charges like that could be the final push. Wonder how that would work with the package deals? The contract states unlimited internet. Would they have to wait for the term to expire?


----------



## chip_r (Apr 27, 2006)

timr_42 said:


> Is there a free program out there that you can use to measure usage?


Well, not a free program but free open source firmware for Linksys routers (Tomato). Handy for measuring total usage per day/week/month if you have a compatible router and are willing to use non-stock firmware.


----------



## jpd31 (Jan 4, 2009)

This only benefits Time Warner and there products. They want you to use there equipment, use On Demand, and order movies off there cable boxes. This does not benefit people who use other services like Tivo, AppleTV, and Xbox 360, etc. I think that it is unfair and I did post a complaint to the FCC. It may not do any good, but it does not hurt to voice my opinion. I filed a complaint, not because of Time Warner capping the internet, but the usage is too low.


----------



## chip_r (Apr 27, 2006)

Those limits do seem a bit low from TW. I just checked my router logs and I'm at 25GB/month. No movie, music, or much of anything downloads so that puts me at the $50/month level. Admittedly I do have MS updates enabled so that has to be at least 24GB of my total


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

timr_42 said:


> Is there a free program out there that you can use to measure usage?


Some ISPs are now providing a way to login to their website and get your current usage. Unfortunately, at home, you would need to get the stats at the router level if you have more than one device because measuring it on one device doesn't account for the others.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

chip_r said:


> Well, not a free program but free open source firmware for Linksys routers (Tomato). Handy for measuring total usage per day/week/month if you have a compatible router and are willing to use non-stock firmware.


DD-WRT does this as well.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Is installing dd-wrt a nightmare? Has anybody installed it from a Mac? I have an Airlink router that I'd like to install dd-wrt onto so it would behave as a "game adapter" to have a 4 port device that will then wirelessly connect to the downstairs wifi router..

(Tivo related because the purpose is to get rid of my upstairs phone line!)


----------



## carios23 (Jan 19, 2009)

If you have comcast, you can download mcafee security suite for free. This comes with a bandwidth meter. Only measures your computer though.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

Yes, cable is terrified of the day when real broadband makes internet video a serious competitor to traditional cable. This is touched on a bit in today's NY times. I am sure this looming threat to their primary revenue stream plays a far larger role than any network pressure from heavy users on their relatively small, but highest margin (according to the article), broadband divisions.

Still, whether it is fear, shoddiness, or legitimate strain behind the pricing announcement, at least TWC is being up front about it. Instead of vague threats about throttling competitors' traffic, or of penalizing customers without saying what triggers a penalty, it sounds like TWC is putting real, fixed numbers up front, so that you (the customer) have what you need to decide what works best for you. Assuming, of course, you are fortunate enough to live in an area with real competition*, customer dollars will sort out the pricing.

*Yes, I am aware not all areas have real competition -- in my area, TWC was historically terrible, but improved markedly when the first fiber trucks rolled into town.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Only suckers price things based on cost. Winners price things based on value.

Your best defense as a consumer: Do without when you don't feel that what you're paying for is worth it.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

This all makes one wonder how far Verizon will be willing to go to provide that competition, given that indications are that in doing so they're going to scuttle their ability to command a high enough price to make significant profit on the offering. What's in it for them?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> This all makes one wonder how far Verizon will be willing to go to provide that competition, given that indications are that in doing so they're going to scuttle their ability to command a high enough price to make significant profit on the offering. What's in it for them?


My view on Verizon (and AT&T) is they were forced into this to protect their local telephone base, the measure of success for their fiber efforts will be 2 fold one in the profitability of the fiber itself and two in how well they slow the loss of their local telephone customer base and the loss of profits associated with that decline.

Thanks,


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

Saw this article the other day, strangely it doesn't mention bandwidth caps...



> The cable TV industry, confronted with the rapidly rising popularity of watching TV shows online, is grappling with how to prevent the Internet from undermining its business.
> 
> Hot Internet sites Hulu, YouTube and CBS-owned TV.com have become favorite ways for viewers to watch episodes of television shows. It wasn't too long ago that the idea of people turning to their computers to catch episodes of such series as "The Office," "Wizards of Waverly Place" and "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" wasn't considered a serious threat to the broadcast and cable networks.
> 
> ...


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cotown-cable3-2009apr03,0,2006382.story


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> My view on Verizon (and AT&T) is they were forced into this to protect their local telephone base


Yes, you must be correct about that.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I think Comcast is trying to embrace this with your coming Comcast Anywhere philosphy.
Meaning that you can watch any fo your comcast subscribed programs from anywhere via an internet connection. IE A comcast Hulu if you will.

I would think if comcast or other cable services competely dumped their analog and to a large extent and went to a TCP/IP distribution service they would have huge huge amounts of bandwidth.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

zalusky said:


> I would think if comcast or other cable services competely dumped their analog and to a large extent and went to a TCP/IP distribution service they would have huge huge amounts of bandwidth.


Most cable networks are not opting for IPTV, but for Switched Digital Video, to use their huge dedicated-for-TV bandwidth more efficiently. Searching the forums here should come up with a large number of threads on tuning adapters and other implications of SDV for existing TiVO users, but, regardless of what it means for us Series 2 owners, SDV lets the cable companies better allocate their resources on that last mile to the home. Whether that freed-up bandwidth can be translated into higher value internet offerings for customers remains to be seen, but we can hope.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

True its pretty close in that you only need to send as many streams as their are TVs which shrinks the hundreds of channels to maybe 3 or 4 on average. A big difference.

They like SDV because they feel it's more secure and they want control. However just like many other industries I think the open source standards will eventually win out.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

I think lost in this discussion is the fact that people don't JUST use the internet for downloads of movies. I stream my home security cameras and have VOIP. Also I could have easily added SkyAngel IPTV when it's DBS service bit the dust. So that's 2 services that cableco isn't losing any money from competition.

Now whether they are incurring a greater expense between moderate and heavy users I cannot say but I do know that despite a healthy upload bandwidth just with my cameras running my pages on other PCs load slower So I question if I truly have all that espoused upload bandwidth available in practice or not, whatever the reason. Could be my router is at fault I suppose.

I am no fan of metered internet service. Granted some of that resistance comes from the early days of the pre-internet when even a spotty 300 baud connection could be something like up to $1 a minute give or take for primetime use. But it's more than that. As we move more into an internet dependent world where even your refrigerator will have to make a service call it all ads up.

More than anything I think the broadband providers are trying to use extreme cases to justify increasing revenues. Reminds me of the power company in my old hometown crying to the state that even in the face of falling energy prices they needed another price increase (16%) and then proceeding to grant bonuses and raises of up to 62% to it's executives. It may be apples and oranges but since there's no real competition you just have to grin & bare it. 

At least with broadband there is some competition for the foreseeable future and maybe that will quash the tiered pricing trend. I'm afraid that if consumers sit back and take it one day everybody will be doing it whether there is a real need for tiered pricing or not.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

It seems to me its more about the fear of loosing legacy business model revenue than about internet bandwidth problems.

Phone did the same thing fighting naked DSL just like Comcast charges more for internet without basic video service. Some would say it's because those services help pay for the basic infrastructure.

However we are reaching a point where the legacy services could become a negligible part of the use picture and they need a business model that represents the demands. What TWC is trying to do is force you back into the old model not embrace the potential opportunities available with the new model.

We are fast reaching a point where you can get all the video straight from the provider. It's mostly the live events that don't have alternatives.

You can get movies, TV, and even news from many places.
The only reason we don't see PPV with the major sports is the exclusive sat agreements.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> I think what TWC is doing is very fair: It is insane to force a service provider to incur substantially higher costs to foster services that compete directly with their own. Unlimited service plans made sense when the disparity between moderate users and heavy users was relatively small. Now that there there is such a big difference between the costs associated with serving the median user and the heaviest users, it would be horrible to be a median user (without caps and/or metering), as you'd be substantially subsidizing the heavy use of other users.


Ah, but the cable companies got into the ISP business willingly. Nobody forced them to do it. Cable internet wasn't around in most areas until less than 10 years ago. People were already downloading music. They are surprised about video? Seems to me like they had a flawed business plan from the start.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

aadam101 said:


> Ah, but the cable companies got into the ISP business willingly. Nobody forced them to do it. Cable internet wasn't around in most areas until less than 10 years ago. People were already downloading music. They are surprised about video? Seems to me like they had a flawed business plan from the start.


I don't see anything flawed in their business plan. Nor do I see anything flawed in a"pay per use" model. It is very similar to the cell phone model - if you need more usage, pay more. Somebody who doesn't use much bandwidth should not be subsidizing cheap Netflix movie downloads for somebody else.
I have business website that has huge amount of traffic and I absolutely do not mind to pay extra to make sure that my site runs fast. And I feel that it is only fair that somebody, who doesn't have as much traffic as I do, does not have to subsidize my business.
There are alternatives to movie downloads. You can get them via PPV or On-demand. If it cost more to download, then pay for the alternative. Getting something for free or near free is not the God given right.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

mattack said:


> Is installing dd-wrt a nightmare? Has anybody installed it from a Mac? I have an Airlink router that I'd like to install dd-wrt onto so it would behave as a "game adapter" to have a 4 port device that will then wirelessly connect to the downstairs wifi router..
> 
> (Tivo related because the purpose is to get rid of my upstairs phone line!)


I haven't read the procedure for an Airlink install and I don't have OSX so I couldn't say.

I did the Linksys install by using Windows TFTP to load the Micro build then the web interface to load the full install.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

samo said:


> I don't see anything flawed in their business plan. Nor do I see anything flawed in a"pay per use" model. It is very similar to the cell phone model - if you need more usage, pay more. Somebody who doesn't use much bandwidth should not be subsidizing cheap Netflix movie downloads for somebody else.
> I have business website that has huge amount of traffic and I absolutely do not mind to pay extra to make sure that my site runs fast. And I feel that it is only fair that somebody, who doesn't have as much traffic as I do, does not have to subsidize my business.
> There are alternatives to movie downloads. You can get them via PPV or On-demand. If it cost more to download, then pay for the alternative. Getting something for free or near free is not the God given right.


They should have started out this way. ISP's in the 90's charged by the hour. Cable companies decided against this and chose to offer "unlimited" bandwidth to customers to steal away from dial up services and to charge twice what the dial up services were offering.

In the meantime, the rest of the internet found ways to improve the customers experience by offering better and better service due to the increase in broadband. The ISP's should have been keeping up but they weren't. Now they don't have enough bandwidth to support the internet and have to resort to this model.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

samo said:


> I don't see anything flawed in their business plan. Nor do I see anything flawed in a"pay per use" model. It is very similar to the cell phone model - if you need more usage, pay more. Somebody who doesn't use much bandwidth should not be subsidizing cheap Netflix movie downloads for somebody else.
> I have business website that has huge amount of traffic and I absolutely do not mind to pay extra to make sure that my site runs fast. And I feel that it is only fair that somebody, who doesn't have as much traffic as I do, does not have to subsidize my business.
> There are alternatives to movie downloads. You can get them via PPV or On-demand. If it cost more to download, then pay for the alternative. Getting something for free or near free is not the God given right.


The problem is, the cell phone model was always pay per time use so people were used to that.

The Cable companies wanted to get into the broadband Internet game and they started with "all you can eat" plans.
In fact, part of the advertising pitch was "Faster than dial up and no per minute charges".

And with people so used to "unlimited", it's no surprise that people are upset that the cable companies want to switch to metered.


----------



## chip_r (Apr 27, 2006)

It really does come back to the OP's question of do the cable ISPs want to kill internet video. Short answer is yes. My ISP boots users at 250GB/month which is 10x my non-video download usage. They're happy to have average users like myself paying $2/GB but not happy if you're watching movies from Netflix every other night.

So I guess the model is kill the competitors by transfering upstart costs to cable TV users and keeping broadband costs low, become a virtual monopoly, and then finally raise rates on the broadband users. I'm not saying that's a bad model, but it's no fun if you're on the wrong end of that stick. Problem is CATV and BB users have paid no matter what. I kind of laugh when I get my yearly increases from Comcast for CATV but internet access is that sacred cow at $42.95. Sure, that line item is always the same but it's funny how the check amount always goes up.

Metering does give the perception of fairness but if infrastructure costs move up as the average use goes up, metered rates will increase. No business is the the business of losing money. If they can squeeze the video competition along the way, it's just a little lagniappe for themselves.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

The flaw is that cable companies could make a lot of money through internet usage by offering products that make you want to stay. By setting caps they are discouraging that whole market and discouraging any needs to upgrade their plants except through competition.

They could make all sorts of micro transaction money by offering gaming, partnerships with bookstores, Wifi, you name it. Those little .99 transactions add up.

5GB for $30 is fraken nuts and would shut down your usage fast If they started collecting micro transactions for the end product people can see the direct connection and will pay.


----------



## bgc (Jan 13, 2008)

I'm sick of Grandmas downloading a few pics of the grandkids and sending a few emails being held up as the average user. The so called average users in these cap discussions are really people that the cable co's have scammed into thinking they need broadband when their "avg." use is probably better suited to dial up in the first place.

So what happens when Docsis 3 is rolled out? They up the speed and then complain when people actually use it.


----------



## restart88 (Mar 9, 2002)

bgc said:


> I'm sick of Grandmas downloading a few pics of the grandkids and sending a few emails being held up as the average user. The so called average users in these cap discussions are really people that the cable co's have scammed into thinking they need broadband when their "avg." use is probably better suited to dial up in the first place.
> 
> So what happens when Docsis 3 is rolled out? They up the speed and then complain when people actually use it.


I beg to differ. My sister got fed up with DSL basic tier because it was hardly ever working at her house. Oddly, mom lives a few blocks over and her service has always been nearly problem free.

She is a grad student who uses the internet for course work and works full time and overtime, so she only uses the internet a few hours a week.

Out of frustration she canceled DSL because it was down more than it was up (numerous service calls and a new modem did not resolve the problems) and started using free Netzero.

At first it wasn't too bad until in her web surfing she kept running into sites with pictures that would take forever to download. She is an ideal customer for DSL basic because dialup is too frustrating but for her Comcast and Wow are like $50 a month plus at least with Comcast they charge a modem fee. But about the only streaming she would ever do is from an email link I would send her. No more than she watches TV her DBS sub is plenty of programming.

So there's a fair chance that it's not just granny swapping baby photos that's closer to the average broadband user. But as I pointed out as time goes on more and more uses of an internet connection will arise. Updating the map in my GPS comes to mind as another.

But I wonder how the picture changes with some cities adopting free or cheap WiFi and Wireless WiFi options become more adopted? 10 years down the road I mean. I hear in other countries today some places have a blazing fast broadband compared to ours. Odd when you think about it since a lot of the new technology begins here but in this instance we are sadly behind and cableco is looking for more revenue ideas just for today's product.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> The flaw is that cable companies could make a lot of money through internet usage by offering products that make you want to stay. ... They could make all sorts of micro transaction money by offering gaming, partnerships with bookstores, Wifi, you name it. Those little .99 transactions add up. ... If they started collecting micro transactions for the end product people can see the direct connection and will pay.


That's ridiculous. Those are add-ons. They're not core service. If anything, if they did that, you'd be back here complaining about how they're nickel and diming you.  Or, when such offerings fail to be sufficiently profitable to satisfy investors, you'd accuse them of having no good ideas. 



zalusky said:


> By setting caps they are discouraging that whole market and discouraging any needs to upgrade their plants except through competition.


What are you talking about? The objective of business is to make money, not to "upgrade their plants".



zalusky said:


> 5GB for $30 is fraken nuts and would shut down your usage fast


How many people are ditching high-speed Internet due to the downturn in the economy? If nothing else, that indicates that the service is being offered at a price well below what it is valued. So what accounts for that? Seems to me that there is clear evidence that some suppliers are under-selling to try to drive competition out of the market.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> That's ridiculous. Those are add-ons. They're not core service. If anything, if they did that, you'd be back here complaining about how they're nickel and diming you.  Or, when such offerings fail to be sufficiently profitable to satisfy investors, you'd accuse them of having no good ideas.
> 
> What are you talking about? The objective of business is to make money, not to "upgrade their plants".
> 
> How many people are ditching high-speed Internet due to the downturn in the economy? If nothing else, that indicates that the service is being offered at a price well below what it is valued. So what accounts for that? Seems to me that there is clear evidence that some suppliers are under-selling to try to drive competition out of the market.


Do you have proof that people are ditching their internet? I have read that cable companies actually do better in a bad economy since many people stay home rather than go out.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

I have "proof" that people are *not *ditching their Internet. You misunderstood what I wrote.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

bicker said:


> How many people are ditching high-speed Internet due to the downturn in the economy? If nothing else, that indicates that the service is being offered at a price well below what it is valued. So what accounts for that? Seems to me that there is clear evidence that some suppliers are under-selling to try to drive competition out of the market.


It's hardly clear evidence that suppliers are underselling. It could just as easily be clear evidence that people now view high-speed Internet connections as an essential; as something that they will purchase regardless of the economy, just like heat and electricity. It all depends on how you want to interpret the facts.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

At the very least, there has been anecdotal evidence of people downgrading to dial up, as mentioned, among other places, in last week's Chicago Tribune

The article concedes, of course, that these reports are just anecdotes, and the only thing even close to formal numbers so far is not about downgraders at all, but NetZero's best-ever customer retention this past quarter.



> Though there's no hard and fast data about how many people are switching, there are signs that it is becoming an option for cost-conscious customers.
> 
> (a bit snipped here)
> 
> ...


Obviously, NetZero has an vested interest in talking up those stories and numbers, just as a broadband provider would have the opposite concern.


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

samo said:


> I don't see anything flawed in their business plan. Nor do I see anything flawed in a"pay per use" model. It is very similar to the cell phone model - if you need more usage, pay more. Somebody who doesn't use much bandwidth should not be subsidizing cheap Netflix movie downloads for somebody else.
> I have business website that has huge amount of traffic and I absolutely do not mind to pay extra to make sure that my site runs fast. And I feel that it is only fair that somebody, who doesn't have as much traffic as I do, does not have to subsidize my business.
> There are alternatives to movie downloads. You can get them via PPV or On-demand. If it cost more to download, then pay for the alternative. Getting something for free or near free is not the God given right.


There is a HUGE difference between pay per MB/GB and pay per minute. First, you can't necessarily control how much content you download and you won't know until after the fact. Someone with a ****** website could plaster it with 5MB graphics and you could eat up 100MB just loading it but never know because you have the 10mbps plan from your cable provider so everything downloads almost instantaneously.

Where as on your cellphone if someone wants to talk to you for an hour you can just hang up or hang up when you've run out of minutes.

I also think it's false advertising to advertise products like 10mbps cable/DSL and then throw a download cap on it. If you advertise 10mbps I should be able to download 10mbps which comes out to 3 terabytes a month. If they want me to download less then they should sell a lower speed. 5GB is the equivalent of 16 kilobits per second, about 4-5 times slower than dialup. It's almost a bait and switch, especially if they are changing it for existing customers.

Further, why is it necessary to meter usage to the end user? They are not charged per GB for their links to the internet so why create something different for the end user? What they really need to do is learn to not oversubscribe their networks by 10-15x.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lofar said:


> What they really need to do is learn to not oversubscribe their networks by 10-15x.


Holy cow, do you even believe what you wrote? Perhaps what subscribers need to learn is to pay 10-15x as much money.


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

bicker said:


> Holy cow, do you even believe what you wrote? Perhaps what subscribers need to learn is to pay 10-15x as much money.


And do you have any clue how this stuff works? I ditched my cable provider for internet access because they oversubscribed their network too much, to the point where every day at 5pm my internet access slowed to slower than dialup speeds.

So maybe, yes. If you can't provide the service you're selling you either need to charge more money for it or you need to get out of the business because one way or another your customers will decide the latter for you.

And further, placing download caps isn't going to fix their oversubscription problem when all of their subscribers are trying to use their 5gb cap at the same time of day anyways. Because cable companies can't, and never have, provided any dedicated bandwidth for an individual connection they have basically screwed themselves into this problem from the beginning. I would bet money that most cable companies problems are actually not with their upstream bandwith but with their shared neighborhood bandwidth.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lofar said:


> And do you have any clue how this stuff works?


More than you can guess.



lofar said:


> So maybe, yes. If you can't provide the service you're selling you either need to charge more money for it or you need to get out of the business because one way or another your customers will decide the latter for you.


And how does having the only available choice being fractional T1 service from the telephone company help anyone in this thread? 



lofar said:


> And further, placing download caps isn't going to fix their oversubscription problem


You just don't get it. As far as you're concerned, if you don't like it then it must be wrong -- it must be "over" subscription and must be a "problem". Your personal standards for quality of service don't resemble what the mass-market imposes on the suppliers; I know it is frustration to be so marginal, but get over it.


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

bicker said:


> You just don't get it. As far as you're concerned, if you don't like it then it must be wrong -- it must be "over" subscription and must be a "problem". Your personal standards for quality of service don't resemble what the mass-market imposes on the suppliers; I know it is frustration to be so marginal, but get over it.


So we should always pay for services we don't actually receive? And accept sub-standard service just because that's the way it is? I've never had any problems with my DSL service, obviously verizon is capable of providing a great service level with no download caps at an affordable price oh and it's cheaper than what the cable co was charging for their internet service. And i'm guessing you work for a cable company based on your attitude, because that's the same attitude they gave me, "just deal with it, that's how it is" or "our computer doesn't show that there's anything wrong with your line so everything must be ok, must be your router or computer."

I don't think you know how the market works.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

lofar said:


> So we should always pay for services we don't actually receive?


You're receiving exactly the service you're paying for. That's the point. Where did your extra added terms and conditions come from: Your personal desires, eh?



lofar said:


> And accept sub-standard service just because that's the way it is?


How about *doing without* if you don't like the offer as it is?



lofar said:


> I've never had any problems with my DSL service


So of course there are no problems with DSL service, whatsoever, because you say you've never had any problems. 



lofar said:


> And i'm guessing you work for a cable company based on your attitude


Holy crap, that must be a record.

WRONG! I don't work for anyone in this industry whatsoever.  But nice attempt to deflect attention away how off-target what you're trying to say is.

Perhaps I should accuse you of working for Verizon, since you seem to be slobbering all over them. 



lofar said:


> I don't think you know how the market works.


I am pretty sure you don't know how any market works.


----------



## cyberskier (Mar 18, 2009)

The problem is that in many (most?) markets, there is no competition. For example, where I am, I have Comcast cable internet. There are no other providers. If I don't like what Comcast is doing, I can't do what I'd do in a normal situation, and go to a competitor.

I'd have no problem paying for increased usage, if those prices came about because of a competitive market. This may be a relatively short-term problem anyway. With the new technologies out there, and with all the unused dark fiber this country already has, there will eventually be choices, such that TW will have to set its prices accordingly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Think about why there aren't choices now... generally because there isn't enough profit motive. The very thing that will bring about the competition you want is what you're hoping competition will relieve, i.e., higher prices.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

The profit would be in new services - Adds Ons as you called it.
People will by when the amounts are low and the value is perceived. 
When I go on a cruise ship these days the entry fare is low and the are plenty of add ons to pay for the losses related to the base fare.

Investing in increased bandwidth creates more opportunity to sell streaming video to unique content, namespaces, ...

They do it in the video space today by bundling programming. They don't tell you sorry you watched to many shows we need to charge you more. They upsell you.

In the new media space they need to do the same thing and upsell you. They need to figure out what their value add is like getting exclusive streaming deals, and application deals.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> How about *doing without* if you don't like the offer as it is?


I suspect the economy would tank pretty quickly.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> The profit would be in new services - Adds Ons as you called it.


Proof? Where is your business case? Plain-and-simple: I don't believe what you claim in this regard.



aadam101 said:


> I suspect the economy would tank pretty quickly.


You think your doing without something is going to destroy the economy?

The reality is that if enough people do without, the suppliers will modify their offerings and/or pricing. If consumers continue to patronize services at the current service spec and pricing, then they are patently ratifying the service spec and pricing.


----------



## cyberskier (Mar 18, 2009)

bicker said:


> Think about why there aren't choices now... generally because there isn't enough profit motive. The very thing that will bring about the competition you want is what you're hoping competition will relieve, i.e., higher prices.


Which is probably why the government will stick its nose in this if it gets out of hand. This could be much like how the government got involved to make sure that electricity was brought to underserved, rural areas years ago, given the importance of broadband in the modern world.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Except the world has changed a bit since then; now, government will need to put up or shut up. In other words, they're going to to have to stick their neck out and use taxpayer money to incentivize what they want to happen. I suspect the current economic downturn will delay progress along these lines for at least a little while.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

bicker said:


> Proof? Where is your business case? Plain-and-simple: I don't believe what you claim in this regard.
> 
> You think your doing without something is going to destroy the economy?
> 
> The reality is that if enough people do without, the suppliers will modify their offerings and/or pricing. If consumers continue to patronize services at the current service spec and pricing, then they are patently ratifying the service spec and pricing.


Boycotting a service is NOT the way to make them change. It's bad for companies and for consumers. Providing feedback to companies is the way to make them change. They would much rather get 100,000 complaints then have $100,000 cancel their service. Verizon Wireless is a great example. They have done some pretty crappy things to phones but over time they received enough negative feedback from customers that they are getting better and better everyday.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> Proof? Where is your business case? Plain-and-simple: I don't believe what you claim in this regard.


I gave you the example of their video offerings. They don't charge you by the minute when you watch TV every month. They make little off basic cable. They make money in the value adds like HBO, Extended basic, etc. People understand the concept of the value when watching a show versus vague concepts like gigabytes.

I gave you an example of Cruise ships who low ball the basic fare and make plenty of money on all the add on's like drinks, spas, alternative restaurants, shore excursions.

Apple makes 30% for all add on apps sold for the iPhone.

Comcast could easily negotiate exclusive streaming for services like HBO, and other cable services without having to subscribe to the video service. In fact the coming Comcast Anywhere is pretty close to that. They just need to forget about trying to lock you in the legacy service and embrace the internet side of things. It's more efficient than analog and 3 packing anyways.

You need to stop thinking in old business models.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

zalusky said:


> You need to stop thinking in old business models.


I think that people need to stop thinking in terms of dot.com models. Lose huge sums of money upfront and then make money later because you cornered or created a new market. It just doesn't work. TiVo is a good example of it. 3/4 billion dollars of "other people money" down a drain and nothing to show for it 10 years later. The add ons and other potential profits in a future are only good to pump the stocks value, the reality of making money today should be the priority. The facts are that people are willing to pay for PPV and On-demand and they will be willing to pay for bandwidth to download movies. Cheapskates and torrent lovers will not, but they are not profit makers in a first place. You don't need a customer that you don't make a profit on unless you want to blow smoke on the Wall Street. And times of fake profit projections are gone or should be gone with the state of the economy today.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

samo said:


> I think that people need to stop thinking in terms of dot.com models. Lose huge sums of money upfront and then make money later because you cornered or created a new market. It just doesn't work. TiVo is a good example of it. 3/4 billion dollars of "other people money" down a drain and nothing to show for it 10 years later. The add ons and other potential profits in a future are only good to pump the stocks value, the reality of making money today should be the priority. The facts are that people are willing to pay for PPV and On-demand and they will be willing to pay for bandwidth to download movies. Cheapskates and torrent lovers will not, but they are not profit makers in a first place. You don't need a customer that you don't make a profit on unless you want to blow smoke on the Wall Street. And times of fake profit projections are gone or should be gone with the state of the economy today.


Tivo created the DVR. Someday all DVR's will have Tivo software. DTV took them back and they have cable partnerships now. It took a long time but they are gonna make it.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

samo said:


> I think that people need to stop thinking in terms of dot.com models. Lose huge sums of money upfront and then make money later because you cornered or created a new market. It just doesn't work. TiVo is a good example of it. 3/4 billion dollars of "other people money" down a drain and nothing to show for it 10 years later. The add ons and other potential profits in a future are only good to pump the stocks value, the reality of making money today should be the priority. The facts are that people are willing to pay for PPV and On-demand and they will be willing to pay for bandwidth to download movies. Cheapskates and torrent lovers will not, but they are not profit makers in a first place. You don't need a customer that you don't make a profit on unless you want to blow smoke on the Wall Street. And times of fake profit projections are gone or should be gone with the state of the economy today.


Look the big data on the internet is video.

If we started charging for TV by the minute, people would scream.

How would you like to have a TV service where you get 600 minutes a month and you have to guess what shows you going to watch because once you go over its a dollar a minute.

We give them unlimited TV from a certain provider over the same pipe. With downloading and/or streaming the provider can control the rate and you pull it down when you want.

My suggestion of streaming to known video services is real and I would seriously consider dumping my traditional video service altogether if I could get it via streaming/downloading.

AND I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Comcast considers excluding the Comcast Anywhere data from their bandwidth cap.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

zalusky said:


> If we started charging for TV by the minute, people would scream.


Actually I like this idea. I would love to have TV on a "pay as you go" basis.
With "unlimited" TV it cost me over $200 a month to receive the programming I want, but it comes packaged with about 95% of junk I don't care about. If I could pay for hours (or minutes) I actually watch and/or record programming, I probably would save about half of my monthly bill. Perhaps sometime in a future all of the programming will be available for purchase either by Internet or on-demand and I have no problem paying by the minute or by GB or both.
But we are getting sidetracked here. TWC is not restricting you on how much bandwidth you can use, they just charge you per use. If it cost you more to download movies, then rent them or use PPV. If you watch SD it is generally less than 1GB per movie and it will cost you less than a $1. Not exactly huge amount of money unless you run torrents 24/7.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Boycotting a service is NOT the way to make them change.


I'm not talking boycott. I'm talking about being a *responsible, self-accountable* consumer.



aadam101 said:


> Providing feedback to companies is the way to make them change.


Bull. Talk is cheap. Companies had better be following the money, especially these days. Too many consumers have learned that complaining is a cheap and easy way of trying to manipulate companies. Most companies have learned their lesson in that regard and recognize that unless input is solicited and normalized then it is absolutely *suspect*.



aadam101 said:


> They would much rather get 100,000 complaints then have $100,000 cancel their service.


Because they know that they can safely ignore most of the complaints.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I gave you the example of their video offerings.


That's not proof of profit. 

You hope that those are things that will make them more money. Guess what: I bet they know better than you what is and isn't worth their efforts in this regard.



zalusky said:


> I gave you an example of Cruise ships who low ball the basic fare and make plenty of money on all the add on's like drinks, spas, alternative restaurants, shore excursions.


Works on cruise ships.... now prove that is works for MSOs. Prove it; don't just assert it and expect anyone to believe you, over the folks who actually have jobs where they are paid to make decisions that are in the best interests of the owners of the companies.



zalusky said:


> You need to stop thinking in old business models.


You need to stop your wishful thinking and come back to earth.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

samo said:


> You don't need a customer that you don't make a profit on unless you want to blow smoke on the Wall Street. And times of fake profit projections are gone or should be gone with the state of the economy today.


Absolutely. And people need to recognize that we could de-product-ize video entertainment right out of existence. The more people engage expectations of ever-cheaper entertainment, the more entertainment will become, *literally* cheap.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

bicker said:


> That's not proof of profit.
> 
> You hope that those are things that will make them more money. Guess what: I bet they know better than you what is and isn't worth their efforts in this regard.
> 
> ...


You need to start drinking decaf man.

The example I gave you is what they (The cable company) do in their CURRENT analog business model and I am saying apply it to the internet model.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> I think what TWC is doing is very fair


I'm SHOCKED.


----------



## jeepguy_1980 (Mar 2, 2008)

atmuscarella said:


> The part I put in bold and underlined is really an interesting question does it really cost that much more? and if so how much? When a company like Netflix who does pay for the bandwidth at their end, can steam nearly unlimited amounts of video to it's customers at very little cost how much does it really cost my service provider if I download 50 GB instead of 5 GB per month? I'll bet its pennies not dollars.
> 
> Thanks,


Broadband was really popularized by media on the internet, which is why the cable companies have so many internet customers to begin with. Furthermore, they're two separate services that I pay for as a customer. In the case of TWC, their internet service is even branded under another name.

Their decision to cover the full spectrum of bringing media into your home is smart for their long term survival. But using their monopoly status to screw the customer will increase short term profits but it will bring them down in the end. The more dissatisfied their customers are, the easier it will be for competitors to move in (FiOs, Verizon LTE).


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

zalusky said:


> You need to start drinking decaf man.


You need to come back to earth, dude.



zalusky said:


> The example I gave you is what they (The cable company) do in their CURRENT analog business model and I am saying apply it to the internet model.


So what you're saying is that the example doesn't prove anything. That's what I was saying.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jeepguy_1980 said:


> The more dissatisfied their customers are, the easier it will be for competitors to move in (FiOs, Verizon LTE).


Except, of course, when the competitors end up operating exactly the same way.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Except, of course, when the competitors end up operating exactly the same way.


What incentive would they have to limit the customer's use of their service? The answer is of course that they don't. They would lose customers if they charged what the cable company does.

The reason cable companies want to limit it is in the subject title of this thread - they want customers to use the cable TV service.

It has nothing to do with pricing based on cost or profit, it has to do with pricing based on bringing down the use of the provided service.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> What incentive would they have to limit the customer's use of their service?


Getting the customer to pay for a higher level of their television service offering.



MickeS said:


> The answer is of course that they don't.


The answer is, of course, that they do. 

Please stop making silly pronouncements as if your personal preference was actually fact.



MickeS said:


> They would lose customers if they charged what the cable company does.


You do realize you're talking about Verizon, don't you? Don't you realize that they're who Comcast learned their pricing strategies from in the first place?



MickeS said:


> It has nothing to do with pricing based on cost or profit


Of course it does.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Getting the customer to pay for a higher level of their television service offering.


Well, I was talking about a competitor that only offered Internet service, like DSL.

Obviously, the idea of competition to the home when it comes to Internet is a mostly academic topic of discussion anyway.


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

Except companies like verizon, and ATT etc. are regulated by local, state and federal governments as public utilities. As a result they cannot raise prices, add services, or change the terms of services without approval from the proper government agencies. And in theory, we the people elect those government agencies, which means in an indirect way the people get to vote on whether or not verizon and the like can increase their rates or change their services on us.

Unlike the cable companies who are unregulated and can just wake up one morning and decide to charge whatever they want under any pricing structure they want.

That alone means that those companies in particular are much less likely to operate exactly like the cable companies.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Just read this article about Cable and the future of internet streaming implying they will be embracing it fully.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/coming-next-using-your-pc-as-a-cable-box/

Of course you know who will find something to complain about.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Well, I was talking about a competitor that only offered Internet service, like DSL.


And as you evidently later realized, they all have incentive to find a way to offer a television service.



MickeS said:


> Obviously, the idea of competition to the home when it comes to Internet is a mostly academic topic of discussion anyway.


Not at all: Rather, competition simply hasn't reduced prices or improved offerings as much as you personally would want it to have.


----------



## jeepguy_1980 (Mar 2, 2008)

bicker said:


> Please stop making silly pronouncements as if your personal preference was actually fact.


Which of these statements is this referring to?



bicker said:


> Except, of course, when the competitors end up operating exactly the same way.





MickeS said:


> The answer is of course that they don't.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

bicker said:


> Not at all: Rather, competition simply hasn't reduced prices or improved offerings as much as you personally would want it to have.


How does that contradict what I wrote?

The FACT is that there is no real competition when it comes to Internet service to the homes. I don't know why you pretend otherwise. Competition isn't two or three services, offered on a condition of exclusivity.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

A couple of tech sites have reported that Congressman Eric Massa (NY's 29th District, presumably including Rochester) will spearhead legislation to curb some types of capping. There is a press release on Congressmen Massa's portion of the House web site seems to confirm these general intentions, though neither that page nor the tech sites I have seen offer any reasonable speculation yet as to what measures could be proposed or actually passed.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Fassade said:


> A couple of tech sites have reported that Congressman Eric Massa (NY's 29th District, presumably including Rochester) will spearhead legislation to curb some types of capping. There is a press release on Congressmen Massa's portion of the House web site seems to confirm these general intentions, though neither that page nor the tech sites I have seen offer any reasonable speculation yet as to what measures could be proposed or actually passed.


I have been watching this thread's direction and was wondering when someone would mention regulation.

As a customer we really only have 2 options purchase whats being offered or not.

As a citizen of a country with a highly regulated free market system we have the power to set the rules businesses operate under.

As a citizen I find what Time Warner is proposing to do as unacceptable and would support regulations that prevent it and agree with the Congressman's statements.

Thanks,


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jeepguy_1980 said:


> Which of these statements is this referring to?


Neither. I was referring to what *MickeS *was claiming. Someone would have to be pretty daft to have missed that point. Was it your intention to appear that way? Or were you just using the forum to get some personally self-gratification?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

MickeS said:


> How does that contradict what I wrote?


It wasn't a direct contradiction. You were earlier claiming that the folks who provide DSL have no reason to meter the use of the services they provide, and I outlined why you were wrong about that.



MickeS said:


> The FACT is that there is no real competition when it comes to Internet service to the homes.


The FACT is that there is, and that you simply don't like that it hasn't resulted in as much of a decrease in price and improvement in service as you wished it would.



MickeS said:


> I don't know why you pretend otherwise.


I don't pretend at all. You're making statements that are false. I'm correcting those statements.



MickeS said:


> Competition isn't two or three services, offered on a condition of exclusivity.


Competition is two or three services, offered to the same customer. A lot of us have that, and yet the prices and service are what they are... because that is a reflection of what our custom is worth to suppliers.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> As a citizen I find what Time Warner is proposing to do as unacceptable and would support regulations that prevent it and agree with the Congressman's statements.


If government thinks it can do better, let *it *string cable and offer the service on the taxpayers' dime, instead of imposing unfunded mandates on business.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> As a citizen I find what Time Warner is proposing to do as unacceptable and would support regulations that prevent it and agree with the Congressman's statements.


+1


----------



## Nugent (Jan 20, 2004)

bicker said:


> If government thinks it can do better, let *it *string cable and offer the service on the taxpayers' dime, instead of imposing unfunded mandates on business.


We need more competition and the government should devote its energies to this aim. Congress and regulators should remove all barriers to entry for competitors, such as regulations, recordkeeping, policing on behalf of coyright holders, unfunded mandates, taxes and all the legal maneuverings that make it hard for small start-ups to compete the deep-pocketed, well-lobbied incumbents.

I am not in favor of the government being a player and referee on my dime.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

bicker said:


> If government thinks it can do better, let *it *string cable and offer the service on the taxpayers' dime, instead of imposing unfunded mandates on business.


The FCC is looking for proposals on broadband nationwide to promote business, funded by the stimulus package. This is larger than just the cable companies in scope and what is good for the taxpayer is to allow the infrastructure for many new businesses to come about and also let existing companies innovate and pull a workforce from anywhere.
Should the FCC not do what is good for taxpayers?

Should cable companies be allowed to choke the business environment simply because they figured out how to get near monopolies in many areas.
And if you dispute that then ask how many cable companies people have access to in a poll. DBS sucks for broadband - DSL is viable in some ares but has severe coverage restrictions not found in cable plants. FIOS is of course the very definition of broadband - my comment to the FCC on their proposal is not do it halfway and instead just subsidize FIOS installs to everyplace they can. Let cable and DBS have the crumbs of the hard to reach places.

let cable companies choke on their own reluctance to allow broadband without placing CAPS on it


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

bicker said:


> If government thinks it can do better, let *it *string cable and offer the service on the taxpayers' dime, instead of imposing unfunded mandates on business.


Bicker; going to have to call you on this one. If the Government thinks it can do it better or not is not relevant (unless someone would like to propose having the Government become an ISP - which I am not).

However the Government does function as a regulator - with the theory being that the regulations should be in the best interest of the general population.

If you are saying you believe it is in the best interest of the general population for the Government to not regulate ISPs by restricting billing practices such as the one proposed by Time Warner that certainly is a valid view - just one I don't currently agree with.

Thanks,


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

bicker said:


> If government thinks it can do better, let *it *string cable and offer the service on the taxpayers' dime, instead of imposing unfunded mandates on business.


Unfunded mandates suck; no question about it. The current bellweather legal case for the other approach you mention, government (in this case municipal) networking, is Monticello, Minnesota.

When the regional broadband provider (TDS) told the city council they would not be laying cables to their small town for the forseeable future, Monticello, over the next couple of years, drafted a plan, passed bond measures in local elections, and began laying cable. When the city began implementation, TDS immediately announced a plan to lay their own cable, and sued to block Monticello from laying their own. Monticello's project sits idle while the case works through the courts, despite a) the city speaking to TDS first, b) citizens voting for the network, c) citizens voting to tax themselves to pay for that network. I am not sure of TDS or the city's specific arguments, but several other municipal broadband initiatives across the Midwest are also on hold pending the outcome of this case.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Originally Posted by *Fassade*
> Unfunded mandates suck;


Pretty much all regulations effectively cause an unfunded mandate - if they suck or not depends on who you are.


----------



## jeepguy_1980 (Mar 2, 2008)

bicker said:


> Neither. I was referring to what *MickeS *was claiming. Someone would have to be pretty daft to have missed that point. Was it your intention to appear that way? Or were you just using the forum to get some personally self-gratification?


My point was that you self-righteously told someone to stop doing exactly what you had just done a few posts earlier. I may have seeking some *personally* self-gratification, but that's only because I didn't want you to be alone in that department.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

atmuscarella said:


> Pretty much all regulations effectively cause an unfunded mandate - if they suck or not depends on who you are.


You are right, of course. Perhaps I should not have spoken in absolutes there, but it was off my main point, bringing up the municipal broadband lawsuit, and I already had typed too far on my cel phone to go back, even if my data plan is (for now) uncapped.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Fassade said:


> You are right, of course. Perhaps I should not have spoken in absolutes there, but it was off my main point, bringing up the municipal broadband lawsuit, and I already had typed too far on my cel phone to go back, even if my data plan is (for now) uncapped.


some regulations do have funding as part if their implementation


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

The problem isn't that government is trying to regulate the charges. The problem is that congressman is making the blank statement not even considering how reasonable the TWC rate structure is. Absolute majority of home cable broadband users will not come even close to the cap of 25GB. The only people who would exceed that limit will be torrent users, movie downloaders and people who use home rates for the business. I have a website that gets 250,000 page-views a month and my traffic on this website is about 20-25 GB. If my traffic doubles, I would be glad to pay extra $25 for doubling my profits.
The congressman has no clue how large the initial cap is and that 99% of the home users will not be affected by this cap at all. If anything, this cap will keep rates down for the people who use broadband for recreational home use. People who have unusually high traffic should pay extra, it is only fair to majority of people who don't.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

ZeoTiVo said:


> some regulations do have funding as part if their implementation


Yep...which is why I agreed with a post saying _pretty much_ all regulations. Some do. Here in California, not enough (IMHO), but that is a much bigger and irrelevant topic. 

The Monticello case is not about regulations, anyways, but about a private company suing to block an elected measure on competitive grounds. The case could set a significant precedent, and at least is an interesting read, should you follow the link.


----------



## jeepguy_1980 (Mar 2, 2008)

samo said:


> The only people who would exceed that limit will be torrent users, *movie downloaders* and people who use home rates for the business.


I think you just made the OP's point. This handicaps the end user's ability to watch/download movies from Netflix and other TiVo content providers, especially if they ever transition to HD content.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

jeepguy_1980 said:


> I think you just made the OP's point. This handicaps the end user's ability to watch/download movies from Netflix and other TiVo content providers, especially if they ever transition to HD content.


It doesn't handicap them, it just makes them pay for extra traffic. Paying less than a $1 for the SD movie or $2-$3 for HD movie is not unreasonable at all. I don't know TWC rates for movies, but on DirecTV I'm paying $5 for SD PPV and I don't think that it is excessive.
How many movies can reasonable person watch per month? 5? 10? Most likely the majority of people will still be under the cap, but even if they exceed the cap, what is the big deal to pay few dollars for the entertainment.
For people who are too cheap to pay there are other alternatives. We are not talking about food and shelter here, it is just an entertainment.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Yet you can watch the same movie on their coax video service as much as you want with out extra service fees. It is an anti-competitive practice since they are in both businesses and are trying to protect their own video business.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

samo said:


> For people who are too cheap to pay there are other alternatives. We are not talking about food and shelter here, it is just an entertainment.


That's the problem you don't know what future development and products will be killed because of download caps - once people have to pay per GB many will not use products with high download volume - which translates into to much risk to develop the products which is what the cable companies want - the elimination of anything that might compete with them. This plan will help eliminate Time Warner's competition but it may also stop the development of something not related to entertainment at all.

One thing I do find fairly funny is that the US postal system can deliver rented HD moves in the highest quality possible to my house and return them for under a $1. With Time Warner's new plan it would cost $30-$40 to do the same electronically.

What is actually relevant and not funny is Time Warner will rent and deliver an HD move to you for around $5 - with their $1/GB cost their delivery charge would exceed the same $5 if Amazon were to move into renting of high quality HD moves.

I call Bull **** on all of it - and when enough people feel the same way they will get what they deserve - Government regulations.

Thanks,


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

atmuscarella said:


> That's the problem you don't know what future development and products will be killed because of download caps - once people have to pay per GB many will not use products with high download volume - which translates into to much risk to develop the products which is what the cable companies want - the elimination of anything that might compete with them. This plan will help eliminate Time Warner's competition but it may also stop the development of something not related to entertainment at all.


If downloaded products are worth it - people will pay. If service is worth it - people will pay. If they are not worth it - perhaps these new products are not needed.


> One thing I do find fairly funny is that the US postal system can deliver rented HD moves in the highest quality possible to my house and return them for under a $1. With Time Warner's new plan it would cost $30-$40 to do the same electronically.


If you are talking about blue-ray quality movies, then I don't see them being offered for the download any time soon. But again, if postal delivery is cheaper, then people should use it (and it will help USPS to minimize the loses). If people want instant gratification, then they should pay for it. 


> What is actually relevant and not funny is Time Warner will rent and deliver an HD move to you for around $5 - with their $1/GB cost their delivery charge would exceed the same $5 if Amazon were to move into renting of high quality HD moves.


If Amazon wants to compete with cable for HD movies delivery, they shouldn't get a free ride using cable assets. They should do what they did with Kindle - provide their own means of delivering the content or make deals with delivery providers for the discount rates. If is not economical for the Amazon to do that, then they shouldn't get into this type of business.


----------



## jeepguy_1980 (Mar 2, 2008)

samo said:


> If downloaded products are worth it - people will pay. If service is worth it - people will pay. If they are not worth it - perhaps these new products are not needed.
> 
> If you are talking about blue-ray quality movies, then I don't see them being offered for the download any time soon. But again, if postal delivery is cheaper, then people should use it (and it will help USPS to minimize the loses). If people want instant gratification, then they should pay for it.
> 
> If Amazon wants to compete with cable for HD movies delivery, they shouldn't get a free ride using cable assets. They should do what they did with Kindle - provide their own means of delivering the content or make deals with delivery providers for the discount rates. If is not economical for the Amazon to do that, then they shouldn't get into this type of business.


I think you fail to see the point of this thread. Amazon doesn't get a "free ride." They've teamed up with TiVo and other partners to deliver content to your television, using services the customer already pays for (internet). It's because of this competition that the cable companies feel they must cap their data.

It's the same reason AT&T fought Skype on the iPhone, or cable companies fight VoIP services, or why long distance companies fought 10-10 number back in the day. The cable company doesn't want to compete in the market place. They'd rather unfairly eliminate their competition.

If the cable companies started their own online market place and restricted your access to Amazon.com or eBay, forcing you to make all of your online purchases from their website, would you support it?


----------



## lofar (Mar 21, 2008)

samo said:


> If Amazon wants to compete with cable for HD movies delivery, they shouldn't get a free ride using cable assets.


It's hardly a free ride for Amazon. They need enormous amounts of bandwidth to support their service, and the same applies to netflix. That bandwidth would dwarf the amount of bandwidth any single cable company could ever dream of having. Amazon has to aggregate bandwidth for and entire world of customers, where as your local cable company only has to supply bandwidth for their limited list of customers.

It wouldn't be so bad if the cable companies weren't a competitor for these services, by being a competitor it's really hard to say that they are not flexing their muscles solely to drive away competition. Microsoft found themselves in anti-trust lawsuits for doing less than what the cable companies are doing by limiting bandwidth.

Ultimately I feel that the cable companies are hanging themselves by doing this. Just like the record industry almost put themselves into bankruptcy fighting the mere existance of the MP3 instead of finding a way to embrace it and make a fortune out of it.

Times change, technology changes, consumers change. Darwin has showed us time and time again that those who do not change and adapt to change quickly become extinct. That is where the cable company is going and putting bandwidth caps is only going to accelerate it.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

samo said:


> Actually I like this idea. I would love to have TV on a "pay as you go" basis.
> With "unlimited" TV it cost me over $200 a month to receive the programming I want, but it comes packaged with about 95% of junk I don't care about. If I could pay for hours (or minutes) I actually watch and/or record programming, I probably would save about half of my monthly bill. Perhaps sometime in a future all of the programming will be available for purchase either by Internet or on-demand and I have no problem paying by the minute or by GB or both.


You can already do this, for huge amounts of programming.

e.g. iTunes, Amazon (can even do it via your Tivo!), etc.

I think it's way overpriced. (Personally, I think $.25, MAX for a show in almost all circumstances.. most likely WAY less than that.. literally nickel and dimed for shows would be reasonable. For very rare things, like paying for the actual production of new Star Trek shows, I could ALMOST imagine $1/episode.. But not the current $1.99/episode model.. though you see articles all the time about people dropping cable and going free online + buy some episodes.)


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

cyberskier said:


> The problem is that in many (most?) markets, there is no competition. For example, where I am, I have Comcast cable internet. There are no other providers.


I presume you mean 'high speed'. There's at the very least satellite internet (which IIRC, uses a phone line for upstream communications).



restart88 said:


> at least with Comcast they charge a modem fee.


Actually, you can buy your own modem for about $50.. (though admittedly we're still renting, which is dumb)


----------



## jeepguy_1980 (Mar 2, 2008)

mattack said:


> I presume you mean 'high speed'. There's at the very least satellite internet (which IIRC, uses a phone line for upstream communications).
> 
> Actually, you can buy your own modem for about $50.. (though admittedly we're still renting, which is dumb)


I move a lot and every time I sign up with a new cable company, they give me a new cable modem for signing up. I have 4 sitting in my drawer. I didn't even know that the cable companies still rented them out anymore.


----------



## Fassade (Apr 8, 2004)

For what it is worth, Time Warner Cable's COO has published some revisions to the tiered plan in response to the firestorm of coverage around the internet. (The concepts and justifications are the same, just the numbers have shifted.) Highlights of the changes since this thread began:


A lower end plan, 1 GB/month for $15/month, with a $2/GB overage charge.
The 5/10/20/40 GB tiers mentioned in the OP are now 10/20/40/60 GB, with the same $1/GB overage charge as before
A new 100GB/month tier for $75, with the same $1/GB overage charge
A cap of $75 on overage charges on that highest package, which the post says means a user would have "virtually unlimited" bandwidth for $150/month. Of course, nobody knows what "virtually" means in this context, but the NY Times is taking it at face value, as truly unlimited.
 For two billing cycles before this pricing takes effect, current customers will get their usage measurement in their billing statments before they must choose a tier.
 Plans for a 50 down/5 up package similar to what Comcast offers in some areas, though no mention on if or where that would fit with the above caps.

Links:

Original Post from TWC COO Landel Hobbs
NY Times report


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Fassade said:


> For what it is worth, Time Warner Cable's COO has published some revisions to the tiered plan in response to the firestorm of coverage around the internet. (The concepts and justifications are the same, just the numbers have shifted.) Highlights of the changes since this thread began:
> 
> 
> A lower end plan, 1 GB/month for $15/month, with a $2/GB overage charge.
> ...


Those prices are better, but still laughable. Of course, it depends on what speeds they have too - with my cable speed I wouldn't be able to get to 100GB even if I tried.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

Nugent said:


> We need more competition and the government should devote its energies to this aim. Congress and regulators should remove all barriers to entry for competitors, such as regulations, recordkeeping, ..., unfunded mandates, taxes and all the legal maneuverings that make it hard for small start-ups to compete the deep-pocketed, well-lobbied incumbents.
> 
> I am not in favor of the government being a player and referee on my dime.


I agree with 90% of what you've said. (I omitted your anti-property rights advocacy.) These things listed above are really what people who want competition should be clamoring for.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

ZeoTiVo said:


> The FCC is looking for proposals on broadband nationwide to promote business, funded by the stimulus package. This is larger than just the cable companies in scope and what is good for the taxpayer is to allow the infrastructure for many new businesses to come about and also let existing companies innovate and pull a workforce from anywhere.
> Should the FCC not do what is good for taxpayers?


That's a false dichotomy. The FCC can do what is good for taxpayers, and for investors, and for consumers, in proper measure.



ZeoTiVo said:


> Should cable companies be allowed to choke the business environment simply because they figured out how to get near monopolies in many areas.


Ask yourself: Why aren't the telephone companies service those areas? What damage have consumers and invasive governments wreaked to preclude competition? Beyond that, how do you account for the application of the reasonable pricing practices, that you are trying to condemn, being applied here, where there *is *competition? Your whole argument falls apart, right there.



ZeoTiVo said:


> let cable companies choke on their own reluctance to allow broadband without placing CAPS on it


Let them charge you by the bit, if you go over a cap. I don't want to pay one penny more than I have to, just because someone else wants to get their television entertainment along the same conduit I use for email, and web surfing. Why do you think I should pay more for getting less, so you (or whoever you're advocating for) should pay less for getting more?


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> Bicker; going to have to call you on this one. If the Government thinks it can do it better or not is not relevant


Of course it is.



atmuscarella said:


> However the Government does function as a regulator - with the theory being that the regulations should be in the best interest of the general population.


Including in the best interests of investors, and the best interests of folks who won't be using high-speed Internet for video entertainment. Since so few people are using Hulu and bittorent, then the government should be doing practically nothing to foster benefits for those people at the expense of the vast majority who aren't going to benefit from what you're advocating.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jeepguy_1980 said:


> My point was that you self-righteously told someone to stop doing exactly what you had just done a few posts earlier.


Except that *you *were wrong about what *you *asserted.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

samo said:


> The problem isn't that government is trying to regulate the charges. The problem is that congressman is making the blank statement not even considering how reasonable the TWC rate structure is. Absolute majority of home cable broadband users will not come even close to the cap of 25GB. The only people who would exceed that limit will be torrent users, movie downloaders and people who use home rates for the business.


Absolutely on-target: Decisions need to be made with regard to what's best for the overwhelmingly vast majority of the people, not the infinitesimally small minority of people. This is business, we're talking about here; not civil rights, where the rights of minorities are supposed to be protected. Even with civil rights issues, such a small minority would have a hard time asserting the kind of primacy that some anti-cable folks in this thread is trying to assert on behalf of Internet video consumers. That kind of advocacy is consumerism gone amok, placing the desire to have something offered for purchase in a manner more advantageous to the consumer than essential freedoms are offered to citizens.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jeepguy_1980 said:


> I think you fail to see the point of this thread. Amazon doesn't get a "free ride."


You mean, to give you and folks who agree with you an unrebutted soap-box to assert that your perspective is the only valid one with regard to this issue?  That seems to be what you're saying with statements like "I think you fail to see..."


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

One solution to all of this is to have the cable companies simply offer a capped service and an uncapped service, and let the pricing float for both based on average usage of each group of consumers. The uncapped service pricing will, obviously, increase sharply over time, while the capped service fee will remain relatively steady. Everyone gets what they deserve.


----------



## jeepguy_1980 (Mar 2, 2008)

bicker said:


> Except that *you *were wrong about what *you *asserted.


And *you* are wrong in this assertion.



bicker said:


> You mean, to give you and folks who agree with you an unrebutted soap-box to assert that your perspective is the only valid one with regard to this issue?  [confused icon] That seems to be what you're saying with statements like "I think you fail to see..."


I am sorry that you're so easily confused. You might be less confused if you were to read beyond the first sentence of a post. Then you would have realized that my _"I think you fail to see..."_ statement was not dismissing someone's argument for a data cap. At no point did I say there was only one valid argument (whether I believe there is one or not).

Here is the whole sentence, with the key part you omitted in bold (just try reading the whole thing):


jeepguy_1980 said:


> I think you fail to see the point of *this thread*.


That was in response to the post below, which says that people will pay for downloaded content if _"it's worth it."_ The whole point of the OP was that the cable companies are trying to increase the cost of downloaded content, so that it's not even a matter of being "_worth it_." Rather, so that it's cheaper to just use the VOD service provided by cable _"if it's worth it."_ With _"it"_ being electronically provided media.



samo said:


> If downloaded products are worth it - people will pay. If service is worth it - people will pay. If they are not worth it - perhaps these new products are not needed...


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

A good example is if the Cable companies come with a version of HULU lets call it "Comcast Anywhere" and exclude any TCP/IP traffic to it from the bandwidth cap.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Wow, even with bicker on my ignore list, he still manages to fill up my screen -- seven replies in a row! You might want to think about consolidating multiple replies into one.


----------



## samo (Oct 7, 1999)

jeepguy_1980 said:


> I think you fail to see the point of this thread. Amazon doesn't get a "free ride." They've teamed up with TiVo and other partners to deliver content to your television, using services the customer already pays for (internet).


Precisely! And they did it without giving any consideration to how much the customer has to pay for content delivery. Amazon pays for the distribution rights and upload bandwidth. Customer has to pay for the download bandwidth. Had Amazon partnered with bandwidth providers, they could potentially reduce the amount customer has to pay (or have it free like that did with Kindle), but they chose not to do so. Therefor you, the customer have to provide and pay for the download capacity.


> If the cable companies started their own online market place and restricted your access to Amazon.com or eBay, forcing you to make all of your online purchases from their website, would you support it?


You seem to have a hard time to distinguish between restricting you from using service and charging you for using service. If cable company restricted you from using too much of the bandwidth (that would be in their right, they get to decide what is normal home use and associated price and what is business use that has less or no restriction at higher cost), then you could have some beef.
Making you pay for excessive use is not restriction - it just makes it fair for people like biker who "don't want to pay one penny more than I have to, just because someone else wants to get their television entertainment along the same conduit I use for email, and web surfing."
On the related note. Perhaps I'm out of touch with current broadband pricing, but TWC new pricing structure does not strike me as being outrageous. I'm currently paying $60 a month for home DSL and $100 for the business DSL (I could have cheaper but slower connection). It looks like average TWC customer can have home broadband cheaper than what I pay and unlimited is only $150 a month. What's wrong with that?


----------



## innocentfreak (Aug 25, 2001)

A new article on Time Warner caps.

ars technica


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

jeepguy_1980 said:


> [your self-indulgences omitted]
> 
> That was in response to the post below, which says that people will pay for downloaded content if _"it's worth it."_ The whole point of the OP was that the cable companies are trying to increase the cost of downloaded content, so that it's not even a matter of being "_worth it_."


It is relatively easy for something to be "worth it" if much of the cost of service is shifted off onto a patsy (in this case, the HSI service). The point is that "worth it" requires that people are willing to pay *all* the price, not just a part of the price, i.e., the price for the movies and the price for transport, metered if necessary to account for heavy users and light users.


----------



## bicker (Nov 9, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> Wow, even with bicker on my ignore list, he still manages to fill up my screen -- seven replies in a row!


I respect your right to bury your head in the sand. I can understand your desire to avoid reading messages that actually treat business fairly.


----------

