1
2
Eat it you time warner fruit cakes.. See what happens when you mess with tons of RIT alumni still living in Rochester.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30252543/
Time Warner Cable Inc. is shelving its plan to bill customers based on how much Internet traffic they generate, following mounting public and political outcry
Nerds win again... bitches.
As a current RIT nerd I am happy to see this. It has been the big talk for awhile now. It also goes well with my overall hatred for Time Warner and Clear channel.
My first and only response to any broadband provider saying theywere going to meter my internet service would be " Im canceling my service"
As a former RIT Engineerd and FSAE cult member, that is good news. However, i no longer live in Rochester so it doesn't help me much. There are enough RIT grads out here in MI, though... I wonder if we can take on Commicast?
i hate the fact that ISP's want to charge per download. blah.. eat it.
As a UofR grad and still living locally in Rochester I'm very happy that TW has shelved this plan for now, but not very happy that the local media didn't make much of this story at all. Nobody had the guts to stand up and say, this is just another way TW is screwing the consumers who are captive to cable in this market. There's no competition to speak of in the internet business here, unless you want to live with DSL, if you can even get it. The DSL is so bad that when I was looking into my options they told me there's no more available lines in my neighborhood so I can't get DSL. Of course there's no FIOS here, so it's TW or nothing. Sucks.
charge per download... how does that work for internat gaming or streaming?
TWC = Turds With visible Corn content
mad_machine wrote:charge per download... how does that work for internat gaming or streaming?
From what i understand they wanted to put a 5gb cap on downloads. Streaming an HD movie thats about an hour and a half is around 5GB. meaning i would blow through such a cap and then some in an evening.
I can't believe this idea is catching on around he country. This might have been fine ten years ago when no one was really doing mass downloads/streaming but with streaming movies and online gaming having taken off this is just ridiculous.
Jacques
ignorant wrote:Nerds win again... bitches.
Why "bitches"? Why are you so convinced that everything business/capitalism-related is Absolute Evil?
GlennS wrote:My first and only response to any broadband provider saying theywere going to meter my internet service would be " Im canceling my service"
OK, I understand this with no issue, since you can get non-metered internet from other providers. Vote with your wallet and go elsewhere. You'd be a fool not to buy an unlimited plan unless you KNEW you would be a low-level user. But it's not like the Rochester people were required to use that service - they had options. I didn't see anywhere in that article that said TW had a monopoly.
But you don't expect to pay $50 a month to the oil company for all the gasoline you can consume. You burn more, you buy more. Why is the idea of paying more money for more internet consumption such a heinous, evil, despicable idea? I don't get it.
I don't get the fundamental hatred of everything business. I'd like to see people like ignorant try to get by without all the products and services made by the companies they love to despise so much.
Duke wrote:ignorant wrote:Nerds win again... bitches.
Why "bitches"? Why are you so convinced that everything business/capitalism-related is Absolute Evil?
My next job is an executive fast track position with a blue chip. Try to figure me out now..
It could be the fact that I used to read phrack.
edit let me clarify. back when phrack was a text file.
Wow. How many times can the people at phrack congratulate themselves at being "underground"?
W00t for them.
Duke wrote:Wow. How many times can the people at phrack congratulate themselves at being "underground"?
W00t for them.
I was underground before there was an undergrounds...
Here's my big issue with time warner. I think they're out of ideas. They're looking to take a solid, but not expanding, market and divy it up further to try and generate new revenue from a fairly(almost) stagnant market. I think that the cap business model is particularly a toxic one. Webpages are getting larger and larger and a 5GB cap could be used up by a heavy surfer. There is no justifcation for this cap other than greed and corporate greed is something that I absolutely despise. Yeah thats right.. Not money or capitalism or business.. It's Greed. I believe corporate greed smothers the drive for innovation. Innovation is the key to long term success and viability. SO that once an organization starts being greedy and not innovative they are headed down the wrong path. How's that? Much different than you imagined huh?
If you used this model with cable TV you'd have to turn your set off after so many hours of watching per month because you went over the limit. The model makes no sense.
As for the rochester market.. It is fairly beholden to Time Warner for internet and cable. Rochester is fairly rural and a great deal of the people cannot access DSL. So your choices are one cable provider or satellite. Satellite is much slower than cable and much more expensive; so therefore they are not perfect substitutes. It is a near monopoly for most of the area.
Duke wrote:ignorant wrote:Nerds win again... bitches.
Why "bitches"? Why are you so convinced that everything business/capitalism-related is Absolute Evil?
GlennS wrote:My first and only response to any broadband provider saying theywere going to meter my internet service would be " Im canceling my service"
OK, I understand this with no issue, since you can get non-metered internet from other providers. Vote with your wallet and go elsewhere. You'd be a fool not to buy an unlimited plan unless you KNEW you would be a low-level user. But it's not like the Rochester people were required to use that service - they had options. I didn't see anywhere in that article that said TW had a monopoly.
But you don't expect to pay $50 a month to the oil company for all the gasoline you can consume. You burn more, you buy more. Why is the idea of paying more money for more internet consumption such a heinous, evil, despicable idea? I don't get it.
I don't get the fundamental hatred of everything business. I'd like to see people like ignorant try to get by without all the products and services made by the companies they love to despise so much.
We're consumers. It's our job. 
Corporate entity's goal = maximize profit (charge highest price possible).
Consumer's goal = minimize expenses (pay lowest price possible).
If nobody complains, prices go up. If consumers complain, prices go down (or stay flat). As long as it is not catastrophic for either entity, this sort of thing is healthy. And natural. (All natural.)
But honestly, if this were something that could benefit both sides, I'd be for it. I have Time Warner and my internet connection with those mother berkeleyers is so slow that I couldn't download 5 GB of data in a month if I tried.
They're heading down this road because the cable TV business model is nearing it's end. I can watch most of the shows I like legally on the internet now, in HD, with much less commercial interruption, whenever I want. They have to get us used to paying for this extra privilege now before we get used to our current "unlimited" internets. You have to remember that they don't have the capacity for everyone in your neighborhood to stream video at once. You'd better hope most of your neighbors just check their email and creep around on facebook all day...
Also, we the taxpayers installed most of the internet infrastructure, not your local telco or cable operator. They get to charge us to use it, but it was ours at one point.
skruffy wrote:They're heading down this road because the cable TV business model is nearing it's end. I can watch most of the shows I like legally on the internet now, in HD, with much less commercial interruption, whenever I want. They have to get us used to paying for this extra privilege now before we get used to our current "unlimited" internets. You have to remember that they don't have the capacity for everyone in your neighborhood to stream video at once. You'd better hope most of your neighbors just check their email and creep around on facebook all day...
Also, we the taxpayers installed most of the internet infrastructure, not your local telco or cable operator. They get to charge us to use it, but it was ours at one point.
Indeed. We need more competition... PERIOD!
Duke wrote:Why "bitches"? Why are you so convinced that everything business/capitalism-related is Absolute Evil?
Its not capitalism, its greed. The oil company analogy is not valid, oil is a finite resource and you are paying for what you use. Oil is not paid for ahead of time and sitting there regardless of usage, like a comm line.
Eveytime some compnay pulls an immoral cost saving or customer gouging measure purely for the sake of profit and peaple protest, "Oh, you must hate captilisim..." Its a crock. TW is making money now, they just want to make more money and they introduced a hsamless scheme to pull more of it out of the pockets of their users so their VP could get a bonus as the stock rose .025 of a piont.
This short sited mamagment is exactly what put this nation is the crisis it is in today. I love capitalism and business, but when companies I use pull things like this, I am going to protest loudly with my voice, my actions and my wallet. If we as consumers had done this starting in 1988 instead of assuming that anything that make smoney is good, we'd be in better shape right now.
ignorant wrote:Duke wrote:Wow. How many times can the people at phrack congratulate themselves at being "underground"?
W00t for them.
I was underground before there was an undergrounds...
...before l0pht => @stake
...before smashing the stack was popular
...back when hobbit was penning netcat instead of hacking his prius
Mental wrote:Duke wrote:Why "bitches"? Why are you so convinced that everything business/capitalism-related is Absolute Evil?
Its not capitalism, its greed. The oil company analogy is not valid, oil is a finite resource and you are paying for what you use. Oil is not paid for ahead of time and sitting there regardless of usage, like a comm line.
Eveytime some compnay pulls an immoral cost saving or customer gouging measure purely for the sake of profit and peaple protest, "Oh, you must hate captilisim..." Its a crock. TW is making money now, they just want to make more money and they introduced a hsamless scheme to pull more of it out of the pockets of their users so their VP could get a bonus as the stock rose .025 of a piont.
This short sited mamagment is exactly what put this nation is the crisis it is in today. I love capitalism and business, but when companies I use pull things like this, I am going to protest loudly with my voice, my actions and my wallet. If we as consumers had done this starting in 1988 instead of assuming that anything that make smoney is good, we'd be in better shape right now.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
You guys do realize that about 15 years ago, most internet service was metered, right? There were advertisements for "new unlimited service", which was substantially more expensive than the metered service.
Then more people wanted unlimited service, and companies went that way. But it hasn't always been that way at all.
I agree it's a bad business decision on TWC's part. But I find it really odd that you guys are all saying that there isn't the capacity to run wide open streaming video to an entire neighborhood, yet also saying that the wiring is all there and paid for and this is just greedy profit-grabbing.
Duke wrote:But I find it really odd that you guys are all saying that there isn't the capacity to run wide open streaming video to an entire neighborhood, yet also saying that the wiring is all there and paid for and this is just greedy profit-grabbing.
The incremental cost to provide full on service all the time is pointed out to be in the New York Times article at $6.50 per household(one time cost). The cost does not justify their tactics.
Data on the internet is an infinite resource. Metering an infinite resource is wrong. The only limit should be bandwidth - you're paying for infinite data at a finite speed. They want to sell you finite data at a finite speed. The ISP provides the speed, not the data. It's as if the oil company tried to charge you for the distance you drive on their gas.
And avoiding products from evil corporations isn't hard. I've cut out all of them except Microsoft so far (I still need their OSes for gaming...at least until ReactOS can replace Windows).
If you want free unlimited internet access, build your own network and use it.
I really just do not understand this mentality. It's not at all like the oil company is trying to charge you for mileage, not volume. The oil company has X gallons of gas to sell. If they sell those gallons to you, they can't sell them to someone else, but they don't care, because they've been sold. What you do with your portion is not limited. You can light a fire with it, you can drive an SUV 12 miles or a moped 75 miles. But what you CAN'T do is all 3 of the above.
But if they charge a flat rate no matter how much gas you use, how long is their gas supply going to last?
Duke wrote:If you want free unlimited internet access, build your own network and use it.
I really just do not understand this mentality. It's not at all like the oil company is trying to charge you for mileage, not volume. The oil company has X gallons of gas to sell. If they sell those gallons to you, they can't sell them to someone else, but they don't care, because they've been sold. What you do with your portion is not limited. You can light a fire with it, you can drive an SUV 12 miles or a moped 75 miles. But what you CAN'T do is all 3 of the above.
But if they charge a flat rate no matter how much gas you use, how long is their gas supply going to last?
Two problems here - my taxes built a good chunk of that network as has already been stated. Second - You keep using the fuel analogy - to carry on that analogy - let me know when you reach the end of the internet.
A better analogy would be forcing us to lease a car at $60 a month, pay for all the other things to make it go like fuel and insurance - and then for us to be forced to stop driving it after 250 miles. Sure the old lady who only goes to the grocery store every week won't care but how about those of us who drive for a living? It just wouldn't be right.
What makes this worse is that these companies are only proposing this solution in areas where there isn't really any competition. Since I live in suburbia there are about 8 different companies that will offer me high speed internet. 20 miles north of here there is one - and they have a 500 MB cap per day - after that you get throttled back to 50k speeds.
