Austin Internet Question, RE: TW is capping internet bandwidth in Austin.

[Sky]

Locally COMCAST provides free internet to the schools and public library.

We get 8 connections free, but we've got a couple dozen computers for the public.

[Salamok]

Locally COMCAST provides free internet to the schools and public library.

We get 8 connections free, but we've got a couple dozen computers for the public.

So I take it there is something in that agreement that prevents you from interpreting "8 connections free" as 1 connection shared among 4 library pc's while also serving as a wifi hot spot?  Or better yet find a cheap way to load balance the 8 connections into a single resource?

[Sky]

I can't really get into specifics, sorry.

[CharlieMopps]

That's hilarious. They're just flat out lying in that press release. They are talking about capacity and Throughput as if they were the same thing. But they're not. The problems they have with capacity have nothing to do with you downloading at 1MB/Sec at 3am as you pull down a torrent.

When it's time to vote on American idol and 3/4 of their customer base all hit the same website at 8:05pm, THAT'S when they have their capacity issues. People downloading large files over long periods of time are not the problem. This is just a way for them to squeeze money out of people.

[naum]

Another angle to this - public libraries. This issue has finally got some time with the administration, and it's not looking good. We simply can't afford anything more right now, and we definitely can't afford to pay on a sliding scale, we need fixed costs. So this might fuck internet access for the underpriveleged of entire communities across the country, just as it's needed the most. We've seen internet demand skyrocket (though we've been saturated at peak times for years since we can't afford enough computers to meet demand), and laptop users are nearing the demand of our own computers, as people shut off cable at home and come here to use it.

As is, the cost of broadband internet is prohibitive for many who don't live online like some of us do. Granted, we can have the argument that they still pony up for cable TV (though I know many that forgo that leisure expenditure also.

So libraries and coffee shops (free if many local spots here, your city/town may not be blessed, but even Starbucks and others is free to those with mobile plans) get frequented (or any place that offers free wifi).

It seems that these acts will shoehorn customers into all-in-one plans (TV, phone, net bundled together) — and 2 out of 3 in that group really should be regulated as a utility. I work with a church and already I hear a lot of feedback (especially from elder citizens) about how everything is moving online and how they feel handicapped as many only experience net access at work and are endowed with older (and worm riddled Windows boxes to boot!) machines.

[Sky]

The movement of stuff online is a whole 'nother topic. Frequently patrons come in with no idea at all how to use a pc, and they've got to apply for a job online or download something to send it back, really eats into our CS time, and we're short staffed thanks to every fucking level of government slashing our budget during the busiest time we've ever seen. It's fun, but another topic.

[shiznitz]

It should be illegal to charge me $150 for unlimited internet when I already get it for $60. I really don't understand how this isn't price fixing.

Anyway, yea, the unlimited plan is $150 a month. A depression is a great time to introduce this.

You are a bandwidth hog. You should pay more. Why is this so shocking? I understand why you are upset but I think you need to revisit your rationale.  People pay extra to go to less crowded health clubs. People pay extra to get exclusive access to a golf course. Paying a premium for "extra" is quite normal. I have a hard time believeing that your quality of life will be materially impacted by a 40GB limit. Your habits, maybe, but not your QoL.

[ahoythematey]

Go back and read the rest of the thread before making another reply.  The outrage isn't merely about the cap...

[Lum]

He's said before he doesn't mind paying a premium. I don't either. What's insulting is where the pricing obviously is punitive, out of line with the market and into the realm of price gouging.

Hell, the rates TWC announced don't even make any kind of internally consistent sense. It's cheaper to take the 5GB plan and 5GB in overage charges than to take the 10GB plan. It's as if they want to chase off anyone who actually knows anything about Internet access or basic math from their service. Given this response from a TWC rep, that may in fact be the case:

“I called and canceled on Friday.  The woman at Time Warner said, “Honey, are you reading those blogger people?  All they do is write in their basement and eat Cheetos and they don’t know anything. I work for the company and I am telling you we are not going to charge you more, we are just testing this to see whether people like to pay less for their Internet. This is going to save your money!”

Yeah. Fuck you, Time Warner. (munches cheetos)

[Sky]

Oh, they apparently have kool-aid, too!

[Lum]

Also, the US Congressman from Rochester NY (another TWC cap testbed) is introducing legislation to stop broadband caps in areas where internet providers have a monopoly (such as... Rochester NY).

http://massa.house.gov/?sectionid=24&sectiontree=23,24&itemid=208

TWC's response is since Corning Glass is in his district, he's shilling for Verizon because FiOS uses glass fiber.  

[shiznitz]

Go back and read the rest of the thread before making another reply.  The outrage isn't merely about the cap...

I read the whole thing. I agree that a price change from 60 to 150/month is > the marginal cost of even the greediest bandwidth hog. Still, if schild cannot afford that, his life won't end on 40GB.  His outrage does not match the situation.  The hail story on the other hand...

[Salamok]

If anything TWC used to justify their argument was actually true they would have to implement these rules everywhere in order to make money.  The fact that they are profitable and only implementing in markets where they have a monopoly pretty much proves that it is a shameless money grab.

edit - Being a bandwidth hog is just TWC's scapegoat argument and the misdirection here is that bandwidth hog is somehow cutting into TWC's profitability.  When in truth the single biggest way they might impact said profitability is by not needing/wanting cable TV.

[Segoris]

<bunch of bullshit snipped>

   * To accommodate lighter Internet users and those who need a lower priced option, we are introducing a 1 GB per month tier offering speeds of 768 KB/128 KB for $15 per month. Overage charges will be $2 per GB per month. Our usage data show that about 30% of our customers use less than 1 GB per month.

    * We are increasing the bandwidth tier sizes included in all existing packages in the trial markets to 10, 20, 40 and 60 GB for Road Runner Lite, Basic, Standard and Turbo packages, respectively. Package prices will remain the same. Overage charges will be $1 per GB per month.

    * We will introduce a 100 GB Road Runner Turbo package for $75 per month (offering speeds of 10 MB/1 MB). Overage charges will be $1 per GB per month.

    * Overage charges will be capped at $75 per month. That means that for $150 per month customers could have virtually unlimited usage at Turbo speeds.

     * Once we implement this trial, we will not immediately start billing customers for overage. Rather, we will first provide two months of usage data. Then we will provide a one-month grace period in which overages will be noted on customers’ bills, but they will not be charged. So, customers will have an opportunity to assess their usage and right-size their service packages before usage charges are applied.

     * Trials will begin in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in August. We will apply what we learn from these two markets when we launch trials in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, in October, but we will guarantee at least the same level of usage capacity in these trials.


    * As we launch DOCSIS 3.0 in the trial markets, we plan to offer a 50/5 MB speed tier for $99 per month.

Did I miss a clause somewhere, or is it cheaper to just get the cheapest $15/mo plan and just go over as much as you'd like while capping your payment per month to $90? That announcement just said overage charges are capped at $75/mo and did not limit that cap to the highest of plans, it's just a general cap. Even looking at their website I can't find anything. Normally I'd assume it's in there, but with how, obviously, well thought out they are pricing their tiers I'm not thinking that is an automatically safe assumption. Would be great if those chimps at TWC can't even get price gouging right.

If they did include a clause of that sort, and I'm not seeing it, then disregard this. If not, enjoy unlimited usage at $90/mo and hold them to this if they continue to suck at math and price gouging/fixing

[Trippy]

768 Kbps is far too slow for those that need "unlimited" bandwidth. That's ~80 KBps which if maxed out 24/7 only comes out to ~200 GB a month. At 10 Mbps you can download that much (assuming maxed out again) in less than 3 days.

[schild]

If I was capped at 768k, I would just tether to the 3G network.

[MahrinSkel]

If I was capped at 768k, I would just tether to the 3G network.

3G providers don't advertise it, but you're effectively capped at 5GB on them (they'll degrade your connection to less than that of a dialup modem if you go over).

--Dave

[Salamok]

NY wins, good for them but it doesn't specifically say that TWC is dropping the plan for caps in Austin as well.

[Lum]

According to Schumer's office, TWC is indeed dropping the "test plan" in all markets, not just Rochester. Press releases from both Schumer and Time Warner expected shortly.

[Salamok]

TWC Announcement, canceling trials... for now.  Cue the TWC advertising campaign and special interest $$.

[Sky]

Yes, my take on it is that they're going back into their lair to plot a proper marketing campaign.

[schild]

Yesterday I ripped into a woman from TWC and her manager so fucking hard that I thought there would be tears.

There may have been involvement of phrases like "I hope bandwidth caps take away your ability to have children, etc."

It was horrible. I imagine other people said worse and it just wasn't worth the headache for them to continue the bullshit charade.

[stray]

Switching to ATT very soon here.

[schild]

Switching to ATT very soon here.

Is there a reason?

[Stormwaltz]

Story on Ars Technica.

[schild]

Thank god there was a congressman in NY that cared since Texas is too busy seceding.

[stray]

Switching to ATT very soon here.

Is there a reason?

At the moment, cheaper, and without the headaches. Probably getting a new phone anyways. Also, dropping TW cable. Just gonna give them the thumbs down entirely.

[Sky]

The owner of the local TWC franchise lives a couple houses away. I've not used this information for nefarious purposes yet. Also, I think his wife is a house slave.

Next month I do the dance where I threaten to drop TWC, my yearly deal is almost up and I'm not paying full package price for that shit (even if they have been adding HD faster than ever).

[Cheddar]

Yesterday I ripped into a woman from TWC and her manager so fucking hard that I thought there would be tears.

There may have been involvement of phrases like "I hope bandwidth caps take away your ability to have children, etc."

It was horrible. I imagine other people said worse and it just wasn't worth the headache for them to continue the bullshit charade.

... 

[ahoythematey]

It may seem harsh, but I really have not met a group of people that could possibly be more intentionally dishonest, rude, and unhelpful than the majority of Time-Warner employees that I've had to deal with over the years.  I completely understand where schild is coming from and would probably approve of all of them being forced to look for new jobs in this economic climate.  Fuck them and their families.

[schild]

Yesterday I ripped into a woman from TWC and her manager so fucking hard that I thought there would be tears.

There may have been involvement of phrases like "I hope bandwidth caps take away your ability to have children, etc."

It was horrible. I imagine other people said worse and it just wasn't worth the headache for them to continue the bullshit charade.

... 

You obviously don't use the internet 1/100th as much as I do or else bandwidth caps would make you get outright stabby.

[Trippy]

My guess is Cheddar has FiOS at his place, for free.

[stray]

I actually don't deal with TW much, but fuck em anyways. About the furthest I get is basic tech support dudes and they're unhelpful.... But that's to be expected from all tech support everywhere. Even if I was in the same exact position working tech support, I'd consider myself unhelpful. 

You start fucking with me about money though and I'm gone.

[Cheddar]

Still working on getting firm information on Austin FiOS.  I am beginning to wonder if TW has some kind of strangle hold with that city; next step will be to get ahold of the head of engineering down there!   

[ahoythematey]

Would it help speed things along if Verizon knew we desperately want to switch over not just because it is a superior service, but also because of spite?