Bandwidth Metering: The End of the World As We Know It
By Susie Madrak Tuesday May 12, 2009 5:30pmWhen they announced yesterday that the Department of Justice was beefing up the antitrust division, the first likely target I thought of was cable TV. How about it, guys? We can't take much more of these monopolies' skyrocketing prices:
Last month, the nation's No.2 cable company Time Warner Cable announced plans to test a new billing system known as "metering" that charges Internet customers depending on how much they download. Customers who exceed their limit--say, by viewing online videos--would face steep penalties on top of their subscription rate.
Time Warner Cable's usage penalty would take the unlimited service we enjoy today (albeit slow compared to other nations), and make Internet more like cell phones, where you get overcharged by companies making record profits. It is the latest version of the Net Neutrality debate: should the companies that deliver Internet be allowed to block it, slow it down, or in this case, overcharge for it?
Here's why this issue threatens the Internet as you know it: Cable companies Time Warner and Comcast, and phone giants AT&T and Verizon sell the vast majority of high-speed Internet service in the United States. Phone and cable companies like these have no other competition in 97% of US markets, thanks to corrupt policies passed by the Bush Administration at the companies' behest.
These duopolies are betting on the future of their "triple-play" phone-Internet-TV service, so that you'll pay them more than $100 per month and they can keep earning record profits. They know that if you start downloading video from online innovators like Hulu.com and Roku.com, eventually you won't need their expensive, advertising-ridden television service. If you decide to use online phone providers like Skype, you won't need their expensive phone service. The answer? Jack up the cost of Internet, and once again eliminate the competition. This is exhibit A for when we need government to establish and enforce consumer protections; the same brand of policies we needed to prevent the financial meltdown and protect New Orleans.
Fortunately, Time Warner Cable's pricing scam was met by fierce opposition from consumers, public interest groups and members of Congress. Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) spoke out against the scheme, and Time Warner Cable scuttled the plan in four of the five test cities. Beaumont, Texas, was the city left as the lone petri dish, and Congressman Massa has promised legislation to curb the price-gouging. Yesterday, Rep. Massa told the Philadelphia Inquirer he is looking for a Republican co-sponsor for the bill: "This is bigger than a college kid surfing the Internet. Anything that limits access to the basic Internet is a threat to the economy."
Time Warner Cable is regrouping, and says it is planning a "customer education process" to teach the public that high prices and Internet caps are good for us. And while the company tries to get its messaging right, other phone and cable companies are dipping a toe in the metering pool. AT&T is already testing a billing scheme that caps Internet use, and other Internet service providers are preparing to do the same.
There are a host of other reasons why we should be worried about Internet service providers' march toward overcharging for high usage: First is journalism. We continue to learn about Madonna's adoption problems and Ms. California's old photos, but if you want substance in your news, you'll have to look beyond corporate media's steady stream of sensationalism, celebrity gossip and product placement. We need fast, neutral, affordable Internet that can deliver video, audio and other multimedia to enable efficient production and distribution of journalism and other educational content.
Another is access. Today, some 40 percent of American homes do not have high-speed Internet, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And high-speed Internet access in the US is already far more costly and slower than in 21 other developed countries. Time Warner's pricing plans would put the Internet even further out of reach for tens of millions of Americans.
Time Warner Cable and other Internet providers say they need to penalize users to slow down an impending "Internet brownout"--a day when we run out of bandwidth. That bandwidth doomsday, however, isn't about to happen anytime soon. Even one of Time Warner Cable's own executives offers evidence that bandwidth scarcity is a ruse: "Cable is like the Federal Reserve of bandwidth...we can practically print the stuff!" said Mike LaJoie, the company's chief technology officer. LaJoie has also said that supplying consumers with more bandwidth is "basically free" for his company.
Login or Register to post comments.
That puts a ton of power into the upper class people because in this day and age information is power.
such actions is an advantage to competition who will immediately advertise they don't meter. Say good bye to that practice or say good bye to business. Free markets work.
that was my kneejerk response as well. But it gets more complex when you realize that neither the wires nor the broadcast spectrums exist in a free market. We have subsidized the allocation of both into very few hands, and subsequently access can be controlled with a minimum of collusion and precious little effort.
The phone and data lines here in SF are all owned by AT&T. They then lease these lines to whomever they choose. "Free" market.
Obamafever82:
The phone & data lines owned by AT&T are not the 'internet'. With out the Internet Backbone, which is mostly owned by the US government, the ISPs (Internet Service Provider) would have nothing to sell.
Something needs to be done so that the natural monopolies that are the bottle neck in the access to the internet don't become the bottle neck on information. If we don't then the monopolies will be on the way to control us.
The internet backbone is no longer owned by the US Government. And the portion which, at one time, was owned by the US government was sold (at then market prices) to the likes of AT&T, MCI, Sprint, UUNET.
The internet's development was certainly underwritten with government subsidy and oversight, but that was 40 years ago.
The government (National Science Foundation took the arpanet over in the 70's) got out of the internet development business in 1985 or so.
The internet has been a cooperative private enterprise for over 20 years now.
And I've been making a living since the 80's helping to build it and operate it.
Free markets work? Really, how do you figure that? Sure they work for Corporate America, and Wall Street. However for the rest of us they don't. Free markets, and capitalism has caused the conditions that we are living in right here in America. They have brought about growing poverty, unaffordable housing, and health care, decline in wages, and the off shoring of jobs. Corporate America, and Wall Street have proven time, and time again that they only care about their personal consolidation of wealth. The exploitation of working Americans, and consumers by Corporate America, and Wall Street has to stop. So go ahead and try to tell working Americans that capitalism, and free markets work, when we can't afford housing, or health care. Don't be surprised when we laugh in your face.
Well said. Free markets are just a pleasant way to say that we're all getting screwed.
Bclinton for this with the Telecom Bill...Need to call Congress and the DOJ to re-regulate these high profit jerks!
Most of the people hav to have HDTV or Cable because of this--which was another end run against the middle class!
1.800.828.0498 or 1866.220.0044!
As long as business has to pay bribes/licenses there will be no free market. What you've described is the result of an unfree market.
Evidently, you haven't paid attention to the distribution of cable services. There is no "competition" in this market, anymore than there is competition for city water delivery or home telephone service.
Cable companies are awarded long-term delivery "franchises" by public governing bodies for the areas to be served. The awarding of these contracts is not determined by competition for delivery of service but by willingness to pay what the governing bodies are asking. Delivery of internet services is additional to the delivery of television services and internet is not the primary service delivered -- it's an "add-on."
As a practical matter, there is almost never a serious competitive challenge among cable companies for a market. They are firmly entrenched in existing markets and their profit growth plans are centered around additional users and additionals fees for service. Hence, the current kerfluffle.
mp
Yes free markets, that was what the Ma-Bell breakup was about and the good deregulation that took place opening the door for LEC's to be able to offer PIC services. Companies such as ATT, MCI, Sprint, core backbones all enjoy low utilization. Bandwidth has only gotten cheaper and cheaper. If you don't like cable, move to DSL, you won't be sharing bandwidth with your neighbors or be fighting for the wire (contention resolution).
How do I know it's a non-issue? Simple I have worked in IT for 20 years, two of my positions at two different Telco's, MCI and Sprint's broadband divisions. I have bought corporate bandwidth many, many, times and the prices only have gone down since the 1990's. My residential bandwidth has only only increased in Mbps and I have paid less and less. You guys are worrying about nothing.
Don't forget that some of this nonsense comes from the RIAA and MPAA to prevent "illegal downloading of music and tv shows". Oh and France just passed some more draconian IP laws too.
Doomsday scenarios have been floating around since the days of slow modems (I can't even remember the speed of my first) and dialup. My brother-in-law ranted regularly against anything but brief business notes lest gridlock overwhelm the net. He lives only a few miles from MIT. LOL
Time Warner, Comcast and Verizon are part of the reason democratic socialism in the Scandinavian model will one prevail one day. Unbridled greed is about to force change in healthcare. It will also in communications and transportation.
They make it look like they want profits, but what they want it to limit access to the information that took their greedy republican party out of total power. They hate that Obama won using the internet and they want to stop it. The good thing for us is that Obama understands the internet in a way other leaders clearly don't. The bad news is that we don't know if he will take enough of an interest to stop these loop holes from taking place. I urge everyone to go to the www.whitehouse.gov and post their concerns and maybe we can get his attention!
We need to tell Crime/Warner and PMSBC to keep their grubby little hands off our internet!
Who effing owns Twitter? CNN have a majority share?
I remember this song, I think, from the late 60's, and I think this is a cover of the original. Am I right, or am I nuts?
I think you're thinking of Barry McGuire's Eve of Destruction.
It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine) ?
Redstate gathering Atlanta http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/05/12/the-...
Because nothing says party broadening like conservatives gathering in the capital of the deep south! Hahahaha.
When TWC announced that it was introducing, effectively raising the price of unlimited internet service over 200% but only markets where they had no competition, it sounded to me like a scream to the Anti-Trust division to come look at what the hell they were up to.
I cannot believe the Obama administration are going to allow this , under Bush and the Repugs it would probably be just A OK but I don't think it'll fly now under this administration and the Dems . In any case it's the balls out unrestrained greed factor again which seems to have become a virtue , these F'ers and the share holders just cannot get enough .
These idiots cut my bandwidth by half and tried to charge me the same price. Hello FIOS... (I got a better deal as well). Vote with your wallet and call your Congress people. Did not the tax payers build the internet through military spending? Kick these free loaders to the curb.
Internet in the US SUCKS compared to Canada and they want to charge *more* for it???
Good God y'all, when are we going to say "ENOUGH" to corporate greed?
Here's the way things should start going down:
The United States, under Barack Obama and the Democratic Party should have a group pow-wow and decide that the fate of the Earth is in their collective hands.
They have this major spiritual "kumbaya" moment...followed by a political "group hug" then they vow to change their ways.
Everything from now on will be for the masses of the population. What is in their best interest? What is in the best interest of all future generations? How can we create a political "mea culpa" with the rest of the world to let them know we want to wipe the slate clean and HELP lead the way into the next thousand years.
There's an evolutionary leap in consciousness happening and we want to lead the way.
This will be about MANAGING the planet with the planet's evolutionary future as the prime motivation for living.
Personal greed will become a thing of the past. We will find our happiness with a "one for all and all for one" mentality. Everyone will get top medical care from cradle to grave. Everyone will have a top education so long as they are willing to put in the effort to make a "C" or better until they achieve their goals. All jobs will be "productive"....NOT "destructive".
All food efforts will be geared toward saving our health/lives and the planet. Which means Monsanto will be not only toast, but will probably be indicted for endangering the future of the planet and all of humanity. Vegetarianism will become the norm, as the production of animals for food will be doomed as horrible for fresh water consumption, global warming, human cancer induction and generally bad for our human karma.
A global effort will be made to create the wisest energy resources that are non-polluting. All we do will become completely altruistic as we realize the awesome spiritual responsibility we have to all future generations.
And the United States will take it's brightest techno wizards and will figure out how to deliver the fastest, least expensive and most private Internet action on the planet. Other nations will naturally want to duplicate our efforts.
Nations will naturally begin to replicate SYSTEMS THAT SERVE HUMANITY AND NOT THE FEW WEALTHY CORPORATE MOGULS.
This is the way things MUST EVOLVE or we are ALL F'd.
And the foundation of all we do politically in this country must be based on THE TRUTH and NOT POLITICS. Those days must die forever.
The people of the world MUST know the truth about our collective history. About all the political assassinations that have occurred in the past, about 9/11, about the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, about OBL, about torture, about who knew what and when he/she knew it.
We all know this.
We must demand it.
Now.
sign up with the Zeitgeist Movement - those are some folks who've been working on doing this for quite some time....
I'm begging EVERYONE to DEMAND what we all know is the RIGHT way to go for the future of the planet and humanity.
It's not about me or you. It's about US. ALL of us. Now.
Canada? Maybe Japan, but not Canada.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/06/ne...
"Yesterday, Rep. Massa told the Philadelphia Inquirer he is looking for a Republican co-sponsor for the bill: 'This is bigger than a college kid surfing the Internet. Anything that limits access to the basic Internet is a threat to the economy.'"
It's more than a threat to the economy. It's a threat to our freedom of speech and ultimately to our democracy. Josh Silver in this piece points to the plethora of garbage spewed by corporate media. When you add to that, the thousand points of virulent right-wing talk radio, basically you've got our 'main stream media' covered. It's not a pretty or friendly picture -- at least for progressives.
Before the Internet, progressives had no voice. There were the time-honored weeklies that went out but in no way could this compete with the mighty Wurlitzer arrayed against us.
Putting caps on bandwidth use isn't simply the sign of domination by corporate monopolies, it's a direct throttle to our ability as progressives to get the word out and organize.
Seems all the internet providers now have television bundled with internet. They don't want to cannibalize television with IPTV.
This concerns me with news. The broadcast model depended on FCC regulated restraint of competition to drive up prices so that only moneyed (read corporate) interests have a voice. I think that may be their intentions here, but it depends on how much the cap is. Frontiernet recently backed down from their 5GB/month cap. Time Warner's cap is also meager, but Comcast's cap is at 250GB/month. That'll only block hi-def entertainment somewhat. You can get standard-def news with that kind of cap. For news, I'm not going to watch a hi-def liar over a standard-def newscast that wants to tell me the truth, and doesn't want to leave out material details, like the corporate media currently does with the costs of using different health care approaches. Specifically, it seems they're omitting coverage of the lowest cost approach, for *some* reason.
I think the real issue with ending net neutrality will happen when websites like this one has to pay the internet providers, otherwise they won't carry the traffic, regardless of how much bandwidth the end user consumes. That is the only way to reinstate the monopoly that corporations had on controlling the news. I think $1/kB will shut this site down, but GE could afford it. They know that in order to control what you think and say (and vote), they have to control what you see and hear. That's the kind of stuff I'm watching out for, the imposition of the same model that broadcast television uses.
After all, he's the inventor of the Internet >> you'd think he'd want to speak up and protect all of the users of his invention from price gouging and un-neutralness.!
dont worry ill be here to keep you informed!
hope you're being sarcastic...
EDIT : Sadly I know people in life who believed that very crap till I showed them the actual quote and stuff...ugh..
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Picture a huge long water pipe capable of delivering 1,000,000 gallons per hour.
Now picture every few feet tapping a small pipe into the big pipe. This small pipe can deliver 1 gallon per hour. That would be your bandwith one gallon per hour.
You tap a million little pipes into the big one and the 1,000,000 of bandwith from the big pipe is used up. In other words your provider is out of bandwith. What happens now if you replace all those tiny pipes with thinner ones that can only deliver 1/2 a gallon of water per hour, or in other words half the bandwith you would normally get. They would then be able to deliver that 1,000,000 of bandwith to twice as many customers, but the customer only gets half the speed! And most likely at the same or higher monthly fee!
Its all about the money. They would prefer to keep adding and splitting little pipes to sell you less for more, than build a new Large pipe to provide 2,000,000 gallons. They prefer to pocket ALL the profits rather than re-invest some into improving their infrastructure. That is why we continue to literally "lag" behind other countries when it comes to internet service.
The really sad part is that new innovative high speed services that could be available to us are being denied due to this stingy way of these large companies managing the technology.
They basically repackage the same product, invent a fancy new word for it like "3G Internet" and find the sucker to buy it at the higher price.
Oh, by the way... the same thing is being done with your High Definition TV. They are using JPEG compression to reduce the quality. This lets more channels fit in the same "pipe". So your HD is not really HD anymore, it is slightly less quality and will get even worse as they add more channels without upgrading the "pipes".
So you basically bought that HD Television and it is not giving you its maximum picture quality.
Think about Time Warner enacting this bandwidth metering and a Time Warner Internet user that might not necessarily be tech-savvy and have people leeching off their un-encrypted Wireless signal. Take one of those leeches with a P2P program that runs non-stop and that poor, ignorant user is going to see one hell of a bill. From working at an IT Call Center, I can say that would be one bad day for the customer and the Customer Service rep at Time Warner, let alone the entire company. Bandwidth metering at this point would be a PR nightmare for ISP's.
The way I think that should work is a circuit breaker approach - once the limit is reached, the service doesn't work until the next billing period, or only works at dial-up speeds. Maybe that could come in as consumer protection legislation. I don't like open-ended billing arrangements.
http://www.fon.com/en/
It's a commercialized internet sharing service, where people can turn their own internet connection into an access point for other FON users.
Time Warner can do the test case on their cable market and see how the folks who watch the most teevee feel about paying more for the privilege. I'm sure they'd get some really good data from that. Maybe it can be tested on the analog superhighways too -- those old fashioned asphalt and concrete things. Let's see how the ones who drive the most like paying additional surcharges. Same for garbage collection. If metering is such a good idea, then they should advocate for its logical extensions, as it should work wonders in all of those areas. If Time Warner is serious about this, they should have their top peoples pushing this concept in the most appropriate venues for reasonable, intelligent discussion of serious issues. Maybe they can put a guest on Glenn Beck's show...
I wonder how much this comment would cost me if there was a snark meter?
The world is already wired to compete with the cable and phone companies that hold monopolies in their respective markets.
It's IP (internet) over POWER LINES.
I don't know where the technology is now, but every home on the grid could receive very high speed internet with the correct modem and no further wiring. Early reports were very promising!
Any one have any news on how far that technology is presently?
or as they say nowadays...Internet 2.0.
What makes IPv6 so special is it has the inherent recording capability desired by phone companies wishing to charge by the cell/byte/octet/packet/frame or whatever they wish to meter. It is essentially a a call-detail-record of the IP packet. Your phone generates a call-detail-record, which contains basic info like date/time, to/from, numbers dialed, duration. From that info, you can deduce name, city, state, etc.
IPv6 has been an insidious disease of modern IP networks since its inception. It won't go away because the phone companies want you to pay to implement it so they can charge you for all your data consumption. It also allows for nice, confirmable documentation of your browsing habits.
IPv6 was designed by the IETF, not some corporate conglomeration. It is necessary because IPv4 cannot support the expanded growth of the Internet.
Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6
If you really believe all your bunk, then you need to run up to your local grocery store and stock up on Reynolds Wrap.
http://www.chycho.com/?q=Internet
The attack on the Internet is three-pronged, it involves bandwidth throttling by ISP’s, Internet censorship by governments, and the oligarchy trying to prevent Network Neutrality.
What does this have to do with bandwidth metering?
If so, he's watching your place under the bridge?
I just want to point out that cable and internet service is a case in which competition cannot act as a braking on pricing. The model is the same as that of healthcare. The sprouting of for-profit hospitals and specialty services such as trauma centers and heart centers is a major reason for the spiking of costs for delivery of service. The reason is that all these organizations have to pay for the equipment and personnel required to deliver these services.
The same paradigm holds for delivery of cable TV and associated services such as internet connections. Nobody can afford to cruise around town throwing up an entire new set of wires to deliver these services. Passing on the costs of this new infrastructure would destroy any competitive advantage in pricing.
Even if franchising was eliminated tomorrow nationwide, there would be no drop in pricing as a result of competition. Look at the "competition" between cable and satellite. When you compare equivalent services, the pricing is the same for both services. All you get is some dollars-off "introductory" offer and then after 6 months or a year, you're right back where you were with the other service.
mp
People with wireless modems will be pirating other people's signals and (mild) chaos will ensue.
Dumb idea.
Time-Warner announced a trial of tiered pricing here in Austin a couple of months ago. A few weeks passed, and Time-Warner announced the planned trial had been shelved. Too much heat.
There are two things Americans will not give up without a fight: guns and the Internet.
BTW, whatever happened to all the "dark fiber" that was bruited about back during the NASDAQ bust? Isn't there still a s-load of unused capacity?
Bye Bye. It is unstoppable. You may think you have the white house , congress , and senate now, but you don't.
The same people, still have the same money and same businesses, same influences, same same same same.
The prominent politicians don't care, as long as they get their message out to us, they don't give a rats ass about anyone elses message or freedom, except for their donors the big corporations, and the war wing of our government.
Patriot Act? Iraq war? Afghanistan?
(still living in PA, still have the hate from the local republicans embedded in my mind and soul)
I don't think Comcast likes C&L, BTW, my downloads used to be up at 1.2 megs, then down to 350 kbs, now down to 76 kbs.
(this could be C&L not Comcast) -- Inflation starts.
They are stripping us down, the internet is a national security threat, we threaten the status quo.
I'm curious as to how this sort of regulation would impact online games like World of Warcraft. With as many players as this game has, I wonder if it would help or hinder the game itself.
As much money as Blizzard tends to make, if this hinders the amount of time people can play their game, I bet they'll be bankrolling the opposition.
They had me researching the largest cable provider in each city with a subscribership greater than 20,000. I noticed quickly into my research that each city only had one major provider, with essentially no competition. The boss of the company explained to me that you need a charter to use the city's telephone poles and most cities are only allowed to give one or two charters at most by law. Thus you have a de facto monopoly. It's kind of a joke.
Not to be a shill for any cable or phone company, but Hulu is a waste of my time. It is not high definition, and I want high definition for that 50" plasma HDTV that I spent $1500 on two years ago. I watch PBS, which is not on Hulu. However, I can always use a regular antenna to get PBS, NBC, ABC, or CBS (screw Fox) off the air for free. A majority of the prime time programming on the off the air networks is in HDTV.
I also like live sporting events; can I get that via Hulu? No.
Skype is a waste. For $45 a month, I get unlimited calling across the continental USA. My parents can gab my ear off for hours on end, and it does not cost me any more than $45 a month. That is on a reliable land line that one of those cable/phone companies offers in their "triple play" packages.
I use the Internet for other things, such as working remotely from home. I really despise it when some putz has to stream gigabytes of video content when his lazy self could have just erected an outside antenna to watch TV.
However, I do agree that cable companies and their telephone brethren are evil jerks who overcharge. Give the consumers the ability to pick their TV stations ala carte, and maybe we will not drop your service. Do we seriously need all those extra crap channels that we do not want? Instead of offering us more channels we do not want, offer us less and cut the price of the service. If not, I see a nice big external antenna in my near future.
TV ala carte.
The problem is, when it comes right down to it... not many of us watch that many different channels. I have just eight plus the networks that I would watch.
First, some type of metered billing for BW, in the near future, is almost guaranteed. This is simply the nature of non-competitive system in which providers need to squeeze more profit out of existing services.
The central problem -- which was very briefly ameliorated by the 1996 telecom act -- revolves around last mile transport. Without open access to the last mile copper, coax, or fiber there can be no service provider competition. Without service provider competition monopolies, or duopolies, will have control of consumer Internet services. Under the simplest rules of economics, monopolies (or duopolies) cause consumer prices to rise while service and innovation are curtailed. The only real solution to this problem is to unbundle transport from services. Under regulation, it could be mandated that transports systems (eg. copper, fiber coax) be operated as separate entities from those which supply service (eq. Internet access. television). Transport providers would be mandated to sell access to all competitors in the open market.
Net neutrality only becomes an issue when competition is lacking. The overall problems with any net neutrality legislation are enormous. This regulation would have to be written and enforced in such a way to allow network operators to maintain the health and proper management of their networks while servicing their customer's concerns. Under much of the proposed legislation, I have seen, Spam filtering or blocking, technically, becomes illegal. There is a fine line which must be walked within neutrality legislation which inevitably create more problems then would be solved by allowing more competition.
While newer forms of transport may be in the offing, none of them will be ready for mass deployment anytime soon. BPL (broadband over powerline)requires significant re-working of the distribution system -- including complete re-wiring of most sub-stations. WiMax has yet to be successfully deployed in a large scale due to the general problems associated with low power Rf. Other wireless technologies could present options; however, the spectrum auctions held by the FCC simply yielded an extension of the existing monopolies into the wireless spectrum; thus, it seems unlikely that we will see any major innovation in that area.
Finally, IPv6 is not a 'plot' to tap your Internet connection. This is actually easier under IPv4 than it is under IPv6. Last week ARIN and IANA announces that we are less than 2 years away from IPv4 address depletion. While IPv6 is very problematic and has some flaws, it is not a conspiracy. It is simply an attempt to solve the size limitations and some of the foibles present in IPv4.
out in the streets protesting well that works too.
Bandwidth is not a commodity like gold or oil. We don't mine bandwidth from the earth. When you have a network in place, with all the proper hardware, bandwidth is there when you flip the switch to on.
These companies took federal money to build their networks, and now they want to charge us for a fake commodity? Fuck them! We must not let this happen!
If they're having problems with their networks after hooking everyone up, it just means they need more/better hardware. It should not mean metered internet access.
"customer education process" = ASTROTURFIN' CAMPAIGN!! TWI and other pro-metered billing ISPs will band together in few months, launch a website under the guise of a grassroots pro-consumer movement, and they'll be at it again. The truth though is that scores of journalists have been peppering the CEO of TWI and other pro-metered billing ISPs for some serious hardcore documented evidence with cold numbers to justify metered billing, and none of them have complied.
They can't justify metered billing nor their usage caps, especially in markets where when Verizon FIOS is competing with them or will soon compete with them by offering blistering speeds with no threat of usage caps or metered billing yet. So the whole usage caps and metered billing is nothing more than a bogus scam on the part of TWI and other pro-usage cap cable based ISPs to get unwitting customers to foot the bill for deploying DOCSIS 3 (which is the only way they can offer the 50meg speeds and above to compete with Verizon FIOS) and pad their numbers for their failing TV and HD services (Hulu's streaming content has 'em runnin' scared). In fact, most cable companies have removed up to 10 channels from normal non-digital expanded basic and grandfathered them into the digital tier -- Comcast and Charter did this with such channels as G4, and Gameshow Network. People are already paying more for less.
They were going to charge customers $1-$2 per gigabyte over the usage cap, and anybody that has bought a new hard drive or RAM for their computers in recent months/years knows that anything above 15-20 cents a gigabyte is a blatant ripoff. A 1 terrabyte harddrive runs about 7 to 10 cents per gigabyte, totaling out to less than $100 and grabbing 4GB or 6GB of RAM runs close to the same price, so bandwidth can't be that expensive.
Login or Register to post comments.