Time Warner Cable Acknowledges 'Debacle'Though CEO says he still thinks metered billing will work... 01:35PM Friday May 29 2009 by Karl Bodetags: business · bandwidth · Op/Ed · cable · RoadRunner CableSpeaking publicly on the issue for the first time since Time Warner Cable's PR disaster, CEO Glenn Britt admitted to attendees of a Sanford Berstein investor conference that efforts to hoist per-byte billing upon unwilling customers didn't uh, go very well. Time Warner Cable temporarily shelved their metered billing ambitions after consumer backlash, though the company has consistently asserted that the problem wasn't their low caps and high overages, but "confused" customers who needed "education." "Clearly we did not handle the public-relations side of it very well," Britt admits in a bit of an understatement. "We had a bit of a debacle, to be honest. So we pulled back from that," says Britt. But it's been clear that Time Warner Cable plans another go, and Britt told conference attendees "I still think the use-less-pay-less and use-more-pay-more model can work." Britt told attendees that tiers sold based on speed has become "deeply embedded in the marketplace to the point where it has become somewhat meaningless." "We never really had the element of consumption in the picture, which is actually going to be more of an important dimension, I think, over time," he says. Despite company claims, consumption-based pricing is aimed at monetizing the growing explosion in video delivery over the Internet, protecting TV revenues, and pleasing investors. "If, at an extreme, you could get all of the programming you get over cable for free on the Internet, over time people will stop buying (TV)," Britt told investors in a bit of candor that wasn't apparent in the company's communication with its customers. That would leave Time Warner Cable as just a dumb-pipe bandwidth provider -- and that's the deepest, darkest fear of any cable or phone company CEO. Carriers are terrified of a future where they just provide high quality cheap bandwidth and other companies make a killing from video, content, and communications services. When the company suspended the trials, they announced they'd release a usage meter for all customers. Like their DOCSIS 3.0 launches, the monitoring tools have so far been a no show. We expect that Time Warner Cable is working on the presentation of a new metered billing plan this summer that they'll unveil this fall.
Related:- Time Warner Cable Expands Metered Billing
- There's No Data To Prove Metered Billing Is Necessary
- Rochester, NY Versus Time Warner Cable
- Time Warner Cable Offers Weak Concessions
- Time Warner Cable Protests Planned
- Time Warner Cable Metered Billing Will Return
- Time Warner Caps Go from Ugly To Invisible
- Time Warner Cable GETS MORE EXTREME!!!
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | Its back off the shelf We all know that their plan will be back off the shelf and re-accounced in the coming months.
I just hope their caps will be more reasonsable (100gig+), not 5-40. | |
|  | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits | Re: Its back off the shelf said by baineschile  :We all know that their plan will be back off the shelf and re-accounced in the coming months. I just hope their caps will be more reasonsable (100gig+), not 5-40. They would be smart if they kill the caps altogether & move to a sliding consumption model that charges more the more you use. And then structure the fees so that average users pay the same they are paying now; very light users pay less(good PR value); and the hogs pay a lot more. End result is the same revenue with a good upside potential as more users use the connection for video.
LOL. I should be charging the cable companies for these ideas. They need a change in their marketing and business plans. »Some observations
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Its back off the shelf said by GOLFnSUN : And then structure the fees so that average users pay the same they are paying now; very light users pay less(good PR value); and the hogs pay a lot more. End result is the same revenue with a good upside potential as more users use the connection for video. Well, I don't think any users will pay less, if they get an ARPU dent, that CEO is out of there and the stock gets sell ratings from Craig Moffett.
50 MB has to be the lite tier so grandma checking her email is going to go over the limit for the lite tier. | |
| | | |
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | Re: Its back off the shelf said by patcat88 :said by GOLFnSUN : And then structure the fees so that average users pay the same they are paying now; very light users pay less(good PR value); and the hogs pay a lot more. End result is the same revenue with a good upside potential as more users use the connection for video. Well, I don't think any users will pay less, if they get an ARPU dent, that CEO is out of there and the stock gets sell ratings from Craig Moffett. 50 MB has to be the lite tier so grandma checking her email is going to go over the limit for the lite tier. Marketing analysts and the accountants could structure the fees so that the chance of a dropping ARPU are close to zero. And then you get the customer on slowly increasing costs so that they will hardly notice. That reduces the chance of them jumping ship to a low probability - especially since the other companies will likely adopt this winning strategy. No competition on price to worry about.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Its back off the shelf said by GOLFnSUN : And then you get the customer on slowly increasing costs so that they will hardly notice. That reduces the chance of them jumping ship to a low probability - especially since the other companies will likely adopt this winning strategy. No competition on price to worry about. So, your suggestion is they treat their customers like the "boiling frog": don't turn up the heat (charges) to high all at once or they'll jump out; turn up the heat (charges) slowly, and before they realize it, they will be cooked (fleeced)!
as far as "No competition on price to worry about", it's more like "no competition to worry about". | |
| | | | | | k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| Re: Its back off the shelf said by nasadude :said by GOLFnSUN : And then you get the customer on slowly increasing costs so that they will hardly notice. That reduces the chance of them jumping ship to a low probability - especially since the other companies will likely adopt this winning strategy. No competition on price to worry about. So, your suggestion is they treat their customers like the "boiling frog": don't turn up the heat (charges) to high all at once or they'll jump out; turn up the heat (charges) slowly, and before they realize it, they will be cooked (fleeced)! as far as "No competition on price to worry about", it's more like "no competition to worry about". We don't like change, so TW and others could have easily gotten away with this if they just eased it in (ie high caps BEFORE the recession, then during the recession they can use the "excuse" "due to economic times we have to lower the caps" which of course we all knew would be BS but they could get away with it.) But when you mix stupidity and greed all you get is a badly run business. But now that TW has screwed up any possible chance of a per-use model, I really doubt they are going to try it again. TW has proven that this is NOT what customers want, no matter what they say or do. | |
| | | | | | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: Its back off the shelf said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :said by nasadude :said by GOLFnSUN : And then you get the customer on slowly increasing costs so that they will hardly notice. That reduces the chance of them jumping ship to a low probability - especially since the other companies will likely adopt this winning strategy. No competition on price to worry about. So, your suggestion is they treat their customers like the "boiling frog": don't turn up the heat (charges) to high all at once or they'll jump out; turn up the heat (charges) slowly, and before they realize it, they will be cooked (fleeced)! as far as "No competition on price to worry about", it's more like "no competition to worry about". But when you mix stupidity and greed all you get is a badly run business. But now that TW has screwed up any possible chance of a per-use model, I really doubt they are going to try it again. TW has proven that this is NOT what customers want, no matter what they say or do. I kind of disagree with that, TW has proven time and time again that they are not consumer friendly, and they continually try to leave the door open for this blantant gouging in the future. Furthermore, they have yet to address how they plan to upgrade any of their existing customers. The "surgically upgrade" statements should show their customer base just how much TW cares about the ever expanding consumer need.
Or in other words...they've slung so much sh*t that they can't help stepping in it again!
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
| | | 
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| So pretty much metered billing, exactly how is that any different then what they were offering?
The problem is who defines who the hog is? The cable company? They already made it quite clear they think anything over 40gigs a month would be considered insane amount of data for the average user.
If the cable company wants metered billing so bad, then they are going to have to be heavily regulated like any metered service, something they don't want, and spend millions a year lobbying against.
I think the real problem is that they are a cable company before they are a internet service provider. They are trying to protect the outdated business model, when à la carte is what people want, and you can find online now. You don't have to subscribe to some over inflated package of 50 channels you will never watch just for the one or two they stick in the package you watch all the time.
That is really what this is all about, I don't even think they care if they make more from the metered billing aspect, and if they do that is just the gravy on top, as long as it keeps people from being able to watch online video. Being Time Warner prohibits operators to sell channels which stand alone it sort of points to the fact they think à la carte is not a profitable business model and are doing everything in their power to make sure consumers don't have that choice online either. | |
| | | | | | | | 
PI Vacationer
@holdenandrew.com
| While vacationing in the Philippines, I watched a commercial from Sky Cable which offered a la carte service - pay for the channels you only want to watch. That is so cool! To think the cable companies here says we Americans do not need a la carte in our cable TV service. Screw them! Now these same American cable companies are offering Internet services capped and metered. While the world moves forward, we are moving backwards. Bleh! :-P | |
| | | | |
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL
| Re: Its back off the shelf The whole argument that we can't do a la carte in America is based on that different cable companies are the content holders and also the provides and will only give premium channels in package deals with channels no one watches simply to make more channels to sell more advertising time. It is so stupid and backwards as you say the rest of the world is moving ahead seeing that you need to change with the times, instead of trying to force things to remain statues quo.
In the end the fear that TWC has of being just another "dumb pipe" will be a reality because they did not change with the times. They are so busy looking backwards not seeing the forest through the trees, thinking that old business model is going to last forever as long as they squash innovation.
And just a side note about the whole you will pay a lot for one channel if they took it out of a package. Well I rather pay 5 bucks for 1 channel I will watch, then 35 bucks for 1 or 2 channels I watch and 50 added I have not intention to ever watch. But I gave up cable tv service 3 years ago, there is plenty of good OTA free programing. And what little I did watch over cable, now has migrated to also being online, such as The Daily Show. | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | I was thinking "Please don't give them anymore bad ideas!"  | |
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Agreed. The problem is, there's nothing constraining them to be reasonable.
Is there competition in the cable business in any market in the USA today? And for internet, most cities have at best a cable monopoly and a telco monopoly.
Without competition, they will probably keep the tiers and caps so low that substantial fractions of the userbase will be paying overages or having to restrain internet activity. The solution is public ownership of the "last mile" and a larger number of companies competing to provide service to each household or business. | |
| | | 
hamburglar_
join:2002-04-29
Columbus, OH
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: Its back off the shelf said by swhx7 :Is there competition in the cable business in any market in the USA today? And for internet, most cities have at best a cable monopoly and a telco monopoly. Yes, there is. Here in Columbus, Ameritech built a cable system using their right-of-way back in the '90s, called Americast. It is completely separate from the Time Warner and Insight plants and they overlap with both in the metro. Once Ameritech (now ATT) decided they weren't a cable operator, they sold it to another company »www.wowway.com We are one of the lucky markets with another choice. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Its back off the shelf said by hamburglar_ :said by swhx7 :Is there competition in the cable business in any market in the USA today? And for internet, most cities have at best a cable monopoly and a telco monopoly. Yes, there is. Here in Columbus, Ameritech built a cable system using their right-of-way back in the '90s, called Americast. It is completely separate from the Time Warner and Insight plants and they overlap with both in the metro. Once Ameritech (now ATT) decided they weren't a cable operator, they sold it to another company » www.wowway.com We are one of the lucky markets with another choice. In Connecticut, Americast was just outright abandoned, I wish RCN bought the plant back in the day, but I guess SBC couldn't allow a competitor to their internet and phone services. | |
| | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Its back off the shelf Americast was sold off when Ameritech merged with SBC. SBC is the one that didn't want in the cable business. But what do you know. They're back at it again.
WOW should expand their areas and actually make use of their network instead of just staying where Ameritech built out. | |
| | | |
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | There may be a "cable" monopoly in many cities, but there isnt a "video provider" monopoly anwhere. The dishes are everywhere in the US, and more and more areas have cable overbuilds (like WOW) and telco TV (FiOS and UVerse) | |
| | | | ominae
join:2003-05-11
Columbus, OH
| said by hamburglar_ :said by swhx7 :Is there competition in the cable business in any market in the USA today? And for internet, most cities have at best a cable monopoly and a telco monopoly. Yes, there is. Here in Columbus, Ameritech built a cable system using their right-of-way back in the '90s, called Americast. It is completely separate from the Time Warner and Insight plants and they overlap with both in the metro. Once Ameritech (now ATT) decided they weren't a cable operator, they sold it to another company » www.wowway.com We are one of the lucky markets with another choice. It's still not a competitive heaven, though. I have lived in 2 different areas of Columbus (currently live southeast of 161 & Karl Rd. in the Forest Park area) served by Insight and wasn't able to get Americast (or WOW) to service me in either location, only Insight or AT&T. Still stuck with the duopoly.
My dad's house in Gahanna has service from both TWC and WOW, but is considered too far away for AT&T DSL. It's nice to have another option as TWC gave him a better deal since they knew WOW also serviced the area, but it just goes to show that when the consumer has options (competition) it usually leads to better service at a better price. I can guarantee you that there would be zero talk of metered billing or caps if people could take their business elsewhere. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Re: Its back off the shelf Well they found that website somehow didnt they?
It's not like it was advertised on TWC homepage or anything. | |
| | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Re: Its back off the shelf LOL. It's only a matter of time that VZ does the same thing. They're watching and they have something planned. Also what happens if areas that are serviced by VZ doesn't get FiOS they're screwed either way huh?
VZ isn't all what it's cracked out to be. Their own CTO said last year he was interested in caps. | |
| | | | 
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Its back off the shelf said by hottboiinnc :LOL. It's only a matter of time that VZ does the same thing. They're watching and they have something planned. Also what happens if areas that are serviced by VZ doesn't get FiOS they're screwed either way huh? VZ isn't all what it's cracked out to be. Their own CTO said last year he was interested in caps. The difference between caps from VZ and TWC is. VZ isn't in the business of TV, while TWC is. VZ will cap higher, while TWC will cap lower (as you've seen).
Also i don't think VZ will cap at all, because they're number 1 competitor at the moment OOL, doesn't plan on doing it.
--
The more you talk, the less you listen. | |
| | | | | 
hobgoblin
Sortof Agoblin
Premium
join:2001-11-25
Orchard Park, NY
clubs:
| Re: Its back off the shelf "VZ isn't in the business of TV, while TWC is. VZ will cap higher, while TWC will cap lower (as you've seen)."
Of course they are....Its what they have been spending billions of dollars on over the last few years!
They will be next to cap.....for sure!
Hob
--
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
| |
| sharksfan3
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Poughkeepsie, NY | Give me true metered billing. Charge me $10-$15/mo for the connection, then charge $.10-$.15 per GB.
All will be happy! | |
| | 
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Re: Give me true metered billing. said by sharksfan3 :Charge me $10-$15/mo for the connection, then charge $.10-$.15 per GB. All will be happy! Not at those high prices! | |
| | |
iansltx_
@spcsdns.net | Re: Give me true metered billing. Did you forget sarcasm tags or are you serious? Because I think that pricing structure would be just fine, | |
| | | |
aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| Re: Give me true metered billing. said by iansltx_ :
Did you forget sarcasm tags or are you serious? Because I think that pricing structure would be just fine,
I'm serious. I use 1TB to 2TB a month on average. A low month of 1TB would cost me $100 to $150 plus the $10 to $15 connection fee.
I currently pay $90 a month for a FIOS 50/20 tier.
I think 10 cents to 15 cents per GB is twice what I would even consider. | |
| | | | | 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Give me true metered billing. 1-2 TB/month is in no way an average amount of usage. I pay .50 cents per GB in a high quality data center which doesn't have last mile expenses but also doesn't have the economy of scale that a large ISP does. If I wanted 1TB of transfer, I'd pay close to $1,000 dollars a month for bandwidth alone.
So $.10-$.15 is already artifically low and although it would raise your pricing (which sucks) the proposed changes would very likely lower the average bill for most consumers. | |
| | | | | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by sharksfan3 :Charge me $10-$15/mo for the connection, then charge $.10-$.15 per GB. All will be happy! Based on their own price schedule, the connection should be $5 month. That is what they charge you more for Internet if you want no TV so that is what they compute their actual cost is (or why is the bundling discount only that amount)? | |
| |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
1 edit | said by sharksfan3 :Charge me $10-$15/mo for the connection, then charge $.10-$.15 per GB. All will be happy! Agreed.
The problem with this is that their ARPU would plummet. | |
| | 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Even with metered electricity or water ( at least in my area ) there a minimum price you pay for so many kilowatts or gallons of water whether you use NONE or up to that limit. THEN you get charged by the kilowatt/gallon. Also the more you use the price per kilowatt/gallon DECREASES.
So if these ISPs want to start metered billing they better do it correctly. Also my electricity and water are regulated do ISPs want to be regulated? Can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't use electricity and water as examples then dismiss the idea of regulation. | |
| | |
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: Give me true metered billing. said by BF69 :Even with metered electricity or water ( at least in my area ) there a minimum price you pay for so many kilowatts or gallons of water whether you use NONE or up to that limit. THEN you get charged by the kilowatt/gallon. Also the more you use the price per kilowatt/gallon DECREASES. That decrease is done in graduated tiers (like Income Tax). IOW: You pay the fixed fee for the first W units, the $X/Unit for the next block of units, $Y/Unit for the the third block, and so forth. X is more then Y which is more than what you would pay per unit for going over the 3 tier limit. Also, if you the initial tier amount by the 2nd tier price it will/should be less than the fee to cover the cost of delivery/etc. I most cases, unless you use next to nothing, you are going to be paying for 2nd tier usage (IOW: The initial allocation is minimal and does not cover much actual usage). | |
| gqkull
Premium
join:2004-04-06
Round Rock, TX
clubs: | Lower price for low usage, um where was that part? A lot of the issue too was that they were not lowering the price for low usage folks, then imposing an unrealistic limit on the higher usage folks, that would drive them broke looking at that pricing scheme. | |
| | 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Re: Lower price for low usage, um where was that part? Yes, I believe Mr. Brittiot meant, ""I still think the use-less-pay-more and use-more-pay-a-lot-more model can work." | |
| 
birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | For one thing... They didn't attempt to hoist anything. Consumers rejected the plan foisted on them. 'Debacle' indeed.
For another, I don't know why they are so worried about people pulling the plug on the TV. Delivery method matters little if the content is so crappy. RIAA thinks their revenue is down for the [same] wrong reason.
TW is barking up the wrong tree because the investors are on a different scent. They might be thinking 'less', but their nose smells 'more'.
edit to add bracketed text | |
| | thederf
join:2007-05-20
Scranton, PA | Re: For one thing... If the cable co's move to metered billing, then they need to change their video service billing, and only charge for the channels that I watch. | |
|
romulus
@bigfishgames.com | Obligatory cynical witticism In the corporate world, there's no such thing as a bad idea, just bad PR. | |
| | 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Re: Obligatory cynical witticism Its funny that Republicans use the same type of wording to describe gov't. | |
| neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA
·Comcast
·Verizon Online DSL
| It needs to be fair... if done it should be $19 for the first 40GB then 10 cents per GB after that or something.. so even with 250GB of usage you would hit what the cost is now for comcast at 250GB... the whole people dont use more then 4GB is BS as every modem on cable networks I've seen use that up alone in ARP and other "noise" packets which providers like comcast count against you! | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
| me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| Wow! "I still think the use-less-pay-less and use-more-pay-more model can work."
Of course it CAN IF you do it right, aka NOT the way TW has been. If a package cost you $40 b4 it STILL does, but now you can only use like 20GB when b4 you could use more. If they want it to work the way they say they do they should charge $20 for a 10/3 with 40GB and $0.10-$0.15 per GB after that.
"Of course the idea of consumption-based pricing is aimed at monetizing the growing explosion in video delivery over the Internet, protecting TV revenues, and pleasing investors. "If, at an extreme, you could get all of the programming you get over cable for free on the Internet, over time people will stop buying," Britt told attendees while discussing the threat of users eventually cutting the TV cord. "
Did he just admit what I think he admitted?!?!?!?!
If they want more people to keep tv lower the prices make an ala carte pack where I only pay for the channels I watch, and most of all put some good stuff on tv lie 90% of the stuff on the IMHO is pure 100% CRAP.The only shows I watch on pay for tv are: Mythbusters, operation repo(my fav show), bev hillbillies on TVland(and a few other tvland shows from time to time), some fox, married with children on i forget what channel, G4, history stuff some times, and some si-fi stuff. | |
| 
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | Liar, it will NEVER be use less pay less, use more pay more It will be use less pay the same with annual price increases and use more pay insanely punitively we're looking to defend our video revenues more.
--
POKE 65495,1 | |
| 
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Corporate Greed at it's finest! ....and Britt told conference attendees "I still think the use-less-pay-less and use-more-pay-more model can work."
Use less, pay less? Right.... I don't believe for a MINUTE they would actually lower my bill if I only download 5 Gb in a given month.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
1 edit | Re: Corporate Greed at it's finest! Tell Glenn Britt IMHO it can only work for consumers if TWC is highly regulated as a dumb pipe! Give it up Glenn or millions of angry internet consumers (voters) will loudly let their members of Congress know how much TWC needs to be regulated! | |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Competition here in Socal Well, my neighbor just got "triple play" installed from AT&T. Phone, Internet and Television using uVerse. I haven't watched her TV to see what the quality is, but where I used to really dislike AT&T for not going fiber right from the get-go, it starts to look more and more interesting to go that way.
Actually, I would probably go with DSL Extreme, still use my Vonage for my main phone line, and use my second phone line (business) to hook up the uVerse goodness.
I just am not fully convinced yet I need to switch, as I like TWC's cable quality and roadrunner speed.
But.... if they start implementing data caps like that, it may just push me over the edge and switch. And I am pretty sure I am a profitable client having been one for over 6 years now with DVR, HBO, and Turbo Internet.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| | | ke4pym
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
·Verizon BroadbandA..
·Packet8
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Dumb-Pipe said by benc :That would leave Time Warner Cable as just a dumb-pipe bandwidth provider -- and that's the deepest, darkest fear of any cable or phone company CEO. And why is that so bad? Maybe that's exactly what people want? Out of an ISP, all I want is access to the Internet, with no restrictions or filters. I don't even want to lease the modem, although it's fine to purchase the modem from the ISP if I don't already have one. I'll worry about the content, the set-up, and the maintenance of the internal network (if the problem really is at my end I won't call the ISP's technical support). I agree. If TWC wants to get into the content game, they should buy Hulu. | |
| | 
pokesph
It Is Almost Fast
Premium
join:2001-06-25
Sacramento, CA
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by benc :That would leave Time Warner Cable as just a dumb-pipe bandwidth provider -- and that's the deepest, darkest fear of any cable or phone company CEO. And why is that so bad? Maybe that's exactly what people want? Out of an ISP, all I want is access to the Internet, with no restrictions or filters. I don't even want to lease the modem, although it's fine to purchase the modem from the ISP if I don't already have one. I'll worry about the content, the set-up, and the maintenance of the internal network (if the problem really is at my end I won't call the ISP's technical support). EXACTLY!
Just give us the unfettered unfiltered access to the internet. Period.
--
Webmaster - Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - -
»www.1-gb.net
»www.ppnstudio.com | |
| |
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA | Right on.
Just give me an IP address, and I will do the rest!
All I really want is a dumb pipe.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| 
hhawkman
Premium
join:2001-02-08
Port Hueneme, CA | Pay Less, my A** "I still think the use-less-pay-less and use-more-pay-more model can work."
No, the model they REALLY want is "use-less-pay-same and use-more-pay-more " | |
| | 
Hpower
Roflmao
join:2000-06-08
Glendale, CA
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Pay Less, my A** said by hhawkman :"I still think the use-less-pay-less and use-more-pay-more model can work." No, the model they REALLY want is "use-less-pay-same and use-more-pay-more " Yup. Frigging corporate greed. Honestly with the way things are going, I think more people are going to ditch their TV and just stick to internet use. Let's hope TWC doesn't totally blow it with 4GB caps per month on 50mbps connection rofl.
--
The Internet is about to go down....it is actually. | |
| | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by hhawkman :"I still think the use-less-pay-less and use-more-pay-more model can work." No, the model they REALLY want is "use-less-pay-same and use-more-pay-more " I would pay less under TWC's proposal. So would all of my kinfolk. A lot less.
Their mistake was not publishing the pricing data until after the firestorm.
Bandwidth may be cheap, but it is not infinite, nor does it approach infinite at consumer rates. We will either have throttling, caps, or inflated, cross-subsidizing access rates.
I know that TWC's true motivation is to thwart video competition, but I have no problem with paying less. | |
| 
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28
·magicjack.com
| "...use-less-pay-less..."? Where exactly was that in their first attempt at "educating" customers? I remember the use-less-pay-lots-more approach they tried, but that's about it. I guess double-digit ROI isn't enough; they want triple- or quadruple-digit ROI.
Poor babies...  | |
|
Gage
@charter.com
thumbs down from:
Pizz
| Get it over with Why don't they just go ahead and charge $50000 per byte as well as $1000000 per connection so that NO one can afford it, and it sends us all into the stone age again.
I mean that is what all the cable companies want, is to squeeze every drop out of the consumer, stifle innovation and new services and the government would stand by and allow them to.
I am so angry that the FCC doesn't curb this free for all, do as you want attitude by all this service providers. What are our taxes going for? Just to raped twice, once by the service providers and then by the FCC as well for not doing anything about it.
I am sick and tired of the slow and painful cranking up of costs and overage charges. Just hit me with your outrageous fees and get it over with, so that I can cancel my service and get used to not having it, and be satisfied again with dial-up or nothing at all. | |
| | |
Charge10
@comcast.net
| Re: TWC Possible Business Model idea If they make it so you have normal pricing and another option then it might work. Why not have flat pricing and then have another option like
10Mb / 100 gig - $10
or
10Mb / Normal service - $40
Such things might actually lead to consumer satisfaction. We know we cannot have the consumer actually benefiting along with the company. The thing that is surprising is that everyone is talking all about caps now it seems that no one is even trying to getting faster speeds at cheaper prices. All this attention has focused on caps and how much of a cap. If anything we should be looking at Lafayette price models and trying to duplicate them. | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | Re: ISP Oligopolies should be regulated! Oligopolies, huh? How about quadopolies, or Pentopolies... should we keep regulating all "opolies?"
Why not regulate the priorities in people's lives too.. wait, we're starting to do that now with the revolution we call "socialism".. | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| translation Britt told attendees that tiers sold based on speed has become "deeply embedded in the marketplace to the point where it has become somewhat meaningless."
...translation...
We didn't realize that we should've just stopped upgrades at around 3Mbps.
Why did they (or ANY ISP) ever bother going with faster and faster speeds in the first place? I'd rather have a steady 3Mbps than "metered" pricing on something faster. What the frak is the point if it can't be used?
And as far as video is concerned, um, too late. Even a 1.5Mbps connection can handle some basic video.
Here's a clue, and it's free: It's everybody's internet. Not yours, not mine. It's everybody's. Don't mess with something that is apparently working pretty well for most people.
If there are some "bad apples" there are better ways to deal with them instead of screwing with everyone. If you want to offer a "basic" service for those who don't use the 'net much, just freaking do that already and stop lying about how bills "could" be lower for some people...
Do something intelligent instead of having more meetings to discuss more meetings to discuss more ways to screw people over while keeping your 5th house, 8th boat, and 30th car all lubed up and shiny.
Aren't most cable networks already:
1) built - and upgraded to fiber to the node
2) paid for - even most of the upgrades...
3) pretty profitable
So, even if all those aren't 100%, chances are that they're close. Bandwidth costs should also be pretty stable, if not dropping, even factoring in delivery to the premises. All things considered, if they really want to go there, an "average" residential connection should be just fine with getting several hundreds of gigabytes a month, without costing the ISP anything insane. The 250GB number is somewhat close to fair.
That's roughly 8.3GB/day in 30 days. Not a bad start.
Still, at 8.3GB/day, that equates to using your, let's say 10Mbps line for about ....2 hours.... unless my math is broken.
Although I personally don't burn through that much bandwidth, it'd still be very nice to know that it's easily possible without fearing some insane bill with "overage" charges...
Tiers are still based on speed because (most) people want something they can understand, not some hypothetically more profitable hodge-podge mess of gotchas.
One ought to be able to feel comfortable with using their connection at full blast for more than 2 hours if so desired, daily...
This is where I go back to my main point - if they can't handle that, why the frak did they upgrade to faster speeds? What is the point of having faster connections if you can't use it as often or as much?
It's a very simple question. I'd love to hear a very simple answer from them - namely:
"nevermind, we suck. here's a 'don't give a frak' tier for $15/mo. our 'joe internet' plan for $40/mo. and our 'I am the internet' plan for $100. thanks. goodnight." | |
| | | | |
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: translation Agreed. If TWC would simply match the 250 Gb plan that Comcast is using (who is also way ahead of TWC in rolling out DOCSIS 3.0, Powerboost, and higher speeds in general) I don't think we would have all this backlash.
40 Gb is way too little, and even 100 Gb as the "premium plan" is simply a joke.
We have seen so many topics on the issue, and TWC has pretty much burned themselves with the way they handled things, and are now going to lose customers over it if they try again with a cap that is anything less then 100 Gb.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
| 
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY | They are trying to put polish on bovine fecal matter. It just doesn't hold ANY shine.
Whatever they do as far as caps, there WILL be backlash from consumers.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." | |
|
Anon 51
@rr.com
| Caps Time Warners business model is built on a 28% rate of profit across the board. This is after all expenses have been paid....
This allows them to pay a profit to the shareholders, and bonuses to the Corp Executives.
As an employee, we did NOT get a pay raise this year, but all the Execs did.
That is the reason for the new business models. | |
| | | |
|
|
).
ISP Oligopolies should be regulated!
Consumers will never get fair pricing until the ISP Oligopolies are regulated. TW does not care what customers think because in many parts of their market where they are not part of an Oligopoly, they are a Monopoly. What TW means by educating customers is deceiving customers into believing they will save on broadband access under the new pricing scheme. Then comes the surprise when the customer get their first bill and finds all of the undisclosed charges.