Print 68 comment(s) - last by theslug.. on May 22 at 10:53 AM

Customers in Beaumont, Texas still get metered price gouging

Time Warner Cable has been under harsh criticism from consumers and politicians alike to stop their proposed tired internet pricing trials. The trials were to be started in Rochester, N.Y., Greensboro, N.C., Austin, Texas, and San Antonio, Texas. The trials would have seen users currently paying about $40 for unlimited bandwidth forced to pay $150 per month for the same service.

Time Warner has now announced that it is not going to be adding the new areas to its metered pricing trial. However, customers in Beaumont, Texas who are already paying for metered access will continue to do so.

Time Warner CEO Glenn Britt said in a statement, "It is clear from the public response over the last two weeks that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about our plans to roll out additional tests on consumption-based billing."

Much of the consumer protest surrounding the metered trials was in the Rochester, N.Y. area reports the AP. In that area, U.S. Rep. Eric Massa had said he was preparing legislation that would ban metered billing of internet access.

Timothy Karr from Free Press said, "We're glad to see Time Warner Cable's price-gouging scheme collapse in the face of consumer opposition. Let this be a lesson to other Internet service providers looking to head down a similar path."

Under the Time Warner metered plan, consumers would have paid at least an extra $1 per gigabyte over the miniscule monthly allotments provided. Streaming video would have been the hardest hit internet service under the tiered pricing plan. One gigabyte of data equals about three hours of streaming video.

Karr added, "Consumers are not going to stand idly by as companies try to squeeze their use of the internet."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: And...
By waffle911 on 4/17/2009 11:38:04 AM , Rating: -1
That is pure right-wing bull. The risk here is NOT editorial discretion. This IS the risk of censorship. If it means limiting access to freely available information, IT IS CENSORSHIP. Editorial discretion DOES NOT ENTAIL blocking sources of information IT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR; THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. The author there is actually surprised that conservative groups are actually supporting net neutrality because it benefits them, just because it 'unfairly benefits leftist views by not censoring them.' He makes the comparison to the New York Times choosing not to run an ad about the KKK. That is editorial discretion because they would be responsible for directly profiting from the placement of an advertisement for something that people would find offensive. But here's the catch: THE INTERNET IS NOT A PRIVATE PUBLICATION OR PRIVATE BROADCAST COMPANY. By restricting traffic to certain sites, telecom operators are effectively censoring in the same manner as China's government blocks websites that offer opposing views to those of China's leaders. So why should we allow telecom operators to discourage traffic to sites that oppose the views of the telecom industry's leaders?

RE: And...
By Motoman on 4/17/2009 12:18:10 PM , Rating: 1

Not meaning to feed the trolls, but just exactly how did you correlate a download cap with denying access to specific websites?

I think you may have your tinfoil hat on a little too tight. And by the way, wearing tinfoil (or aluminum foil) on your head actually would assist any EM radiation in getting to your brain - not shield you from it. Just so you know.

RE: And...
By waffle911 on 4/17/2009 12:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, this was supposed to be in response to one of the posts below, the one linking to PFF.

RE: And...
By invidious on 4/17/2009 12:22:36 PM , Rating: 1
What exactly is right wing about exploiting your monopoly to price gauge your consumers? That sounds like "pure left-wing bull" to me.

If anything this is a liberal business model, a conservative business model would encourage long term growth, not pissing off consumers with short term pillaging. But of course that would require you to understand the difference between conservative/republican and between right wing politics/right wing economics which I do not expect is the case from your rant.

I am not even going to address your misguided views about censorship and how you think it has anything to do with some kind of right to cheap internet.

RE: And...
By smokediety on 4/17/2009 1:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
by your logic (specifically referring to "exploiting your monopoly to price gouge your customers....if anything this is a liberal business model, a conservative business model would encourage long term growth"), left-wing stooges run/ran the following entities:
Lehman Bros.
Washington Mutual
the multitude of other banks currently living off tax dollars

you see, THESE people all got rich off the gouging of customers and stupid practices, not "long term growth". GM and Chryseler, and to a lesser extent, Ford, all operated under the "cars are the monopoly on localized travel, and will never be defeated"...well, cars still are, but now your monopolied-minds are swiss cheesed with consumer backlash and government controls. congrats, liberals, you drove the big three nearly into the ground.

banks...i wont bother, because i'm done eating and its time to go ahead and work again.

RE: And...
By Ananke on 4/17/2009 1:08:37 PM , Rating: 3
Man, you don't have idea about economic ideologies. The American ISP market is extremly capitalistic, i.e. right wing. There is NO federal regulations, except radio frequencies. Municipal authorities give rights to particular ISP to build infrastructure in their territories, and municipalities grant the ISP local monopoly. The situation is the WIld Wild West, and the American consumers will be screwed for decades more, unless the federal government doesn't get involved and brake this monopoly practice, which eventually is left-wing policy :). So, you asking the Feds to grant free market is socialism, like in Europe.

RE: And...
By jconan on 4/18/2009 7:17:23 AM , Rating: 2
yeah that's if consumers agree with tier pricing. wonder what would happen if everyone in beaumont and other areas of proposed tiered internet billing canceled their twc internet contract. then again in someplaces cable is the only available high speed connection. pretty soon if no one speaks up the internet pricing is goin to go the same route as canada, europe, and elsewhere. gone are the unlimited internet bandwidth and potential cloud computing services.

it's about time some people stand up for their unlimited bandwidth that never really existed because of poor network infrastructure and territorial telecomm/network services.

RE: And...
By FITCamaro on 4/20/2009 9:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
Wow.....just wow.

Violation of the first amendment? I find it funny how liberals always scream this but then push for things like the fairness doctrine. Please tell me how bandwidth caps would violate your rights to say whatever you want? It might stop others from reading it if they didn't want to exceed their bandwidth cap, but it doesn't stop you from saying it.

And yes, the internet is a private thing. To access it you have to go through servers which are owned by private corporations which operate to make a profit.

As much as I am against bandwidth caps (or at least unreasonable ones), access to the internet is not a god given right. No one is violating your rights by refusing to give you access to it.

RE: And...
By RandallMoore on 4/20/2009 12:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
And yes, the internet is a private thing. To access it you have to go through servers which are owned by private corporations which operate to make a profit. As much as I am against bandwidth caps (or at least unreasonable ones), access to the internet is not a god given right. No one is violating your rights by refusing to give you access to it.

I agree completely. That concept is getting harder and harder for people to understand these days. Most people are fighting the wrong cause. They should be fighting the geographical monopolies that cause companies to be uncompetitive and greedy.

This reminds me of the people that scream about the patriot act. They NEVER consider the fact that when a phone call leaves your house, it is no longer PRIVATE because it is on a PUBLIC network. Should their be understood privacy? Of course! But there is not a guarantee and there never should be. That's the risk you take.

PEOPLE: Start fighting the right battle.

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesFree Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Top 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki