Page 3 of 4

PostPosted: April 15th, 2009, 1:27 am
by sara farr
"...Internet service providers... are moving to curb the growth of traffic on their networks, or at least make the subscribers who download the most pay more."

BTW, I ALREADY PAY more for my connection. I have been opting to pay for a fast connection since it became available. And the cost of keeping people connected at faster rates is going DOWN, not up. I use the internet for business and for keeping up with my industry -- game development, and online education. Putting CAPS on internet use will stunt growth and innovation within the technology... and make prices go UP not down.

Due to high demands, the "...costs of network equipment and connecting to the wider Internet are falling".

ALSO... Am I crazy, or is the idea of CAPS somehow opening the door to things like PRIVACY INFRINGEMENT (like, how are they going to monitor what I download?).

This whole thing stinks. I'd switch if I could.

ALSO-ALSO... what ever happened to FREEDOM OF MEDIA? and the ability to share information across a network for free?? As Network TV dies out, I think about an old SCI-FI book (can't remember which one) that talks about how commercial TV goes away when someone invents a device to block commercials. I also think about what it will mean for the world to share information through a non-commercial network.

PostPosted: April 15th, 2009, 5:20 am
by TexasImprovMassacre
Justin D. wrote:
TexasImprovMassacre wrote:Oh no, but how will the cable companies make money? Customers should all just eat a big shitty cap sandwich and deal with it because the poor cable company needs to make more money?


Yeah, sure, I guess that's what I said. What?


I apologize if I misinterpreted you. Your rationalization made it sound like the move is justifiable. As though the fact that the cable companies are doing this out of a need to increase profits justifies what I consider to be a shitty business decision that screws over the customer by making them pay more for the same level of service. If they want to do something to make more money, that's fair enough...but I don't think that they shouldn't expect customers to just deal with this decision. I think its a terrible policy. In the post i was responding to you said you thought it was a good business decision. That's what my response was directed at.

PostPosted: April 15th, 2009, 7:36 am
by Brian Boyko
There's been some pseudo-organization through Twitter. I think most of us are going to cancel our service on "Time Warner Cancellation Day" of July 15th - that gives people time to find new providers, gives Time Warner time to back down - and for people like me - gives time for some of us to move.

Honestly guys, I've written about 6 articles on this for www.networkperformancedaily.com - please, please check them out, I think I cover pretty much all the angles.

PostPosted: April 15th, 2009, 8:38 am
by Matt
sara_anm8r wrote:As Network TV dies out, I think about an old SCI-FI book (can't remember which one) that talks about how commercial TV goes away when someone invents a device to block commercials.


This was mentioned in Contact, with Hadden making his $$ selling them.

PostPosted: April 16th, 2009, 1:28 pm
by Brian Boyko
http://bit.ly/PFIoa - Time Warner ending data cap trials in all market, according to Chuck Schumer.

Looks like we may have won...

PostPosted: April 16th, 2009, 1:39 pm
by Aden
I'm glad we switched anyway. Our TW service was always terrible. We've only been with Grande for a week and already we're wondering why we didn't switch sooner.

PostPosted: April 16th, 2009, 4:09 pm
by mpbrockman
Yup, definitely dead:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-200 ... 14029.html

Yay for consumer protest.

PostPosted: April 16th, 2009, 5:12 pm
by acrouch
So this is what we get off our asses for? Better than nothing, I guess.

PostPosted: April 16th, 2009, 5:17 pm
by kbadr
People get off their asses for more important things, but they're social change-type ideas, that don't involve profit. And they involve government, which is inherently slow.

PostPosted: April 17th, 2009, 12:45 am
by Brian Boyko
kbadr wrote:People get off their asses for more important things, but they're social change-type ideas, that don't involve profit. And they involve government, which is inherently slow.


Now, hold on.

This isn't entirely fair.

There have been TONS more opposition to the Bush Administration's depravity and more activism as well, but there's two things clouding your judgement.

1) We never got a lot of coverage of the protests. It's particuarly jarring now to see how much coverage the "tea parties" get when anti-war protests dwarfed them by a couple of zeroes. But it's true - media did everything it could to keep protestors marginalized.

2) Bush - or at least, those in his office - knew that they would face stiff opposition from the informed, and decided to go ahead anyway, knowing that they were completely insulated from any sort of public opinion whatsoever. In short, Bush knew he had the game rigged and he governed that way.

Time Warner didn't know that people wouldn't roll over for the bandwidth caps, possibly based on their experiences in Beaumont, and when they hit an organized, informed public, they realized, unlike the Bush administration, that they were vulnerable.

The reason that public protest has been so ineffective in this country is because there really is no real way to throw the bastards out or hold them to task. It's why I'm so gung-ho on my New Zealand project - because they've got a system that DOES hold politicians to task.

PostPosted: April 17th, 2009, 2:43 am
by acrouch
Too bad the US government is a monopoly. How come we can't get a subscription to Canada or Grande in Austin?

PostPosted: April 17th, 2009, 3:38 am
by mpbrockman
Brian Boyko wrote:
kbadr wrote:People get off their asses for more important things, but they're social change-type ideas, that don't involve profit. And they involve government, which is inherently slow.


Now, hold on.

This isn't entirely fair...

...2) Bush - or at least, those in his office - knew that they would face stiff opposition from the informed, and decided to go ahead anyway, knowing that they were completely insulated from any sort of public opinion whatsoever. In short, Bush knew he had the game rigged and he governed that way....


And this is why a slow government - hobbled by checks and balances, red tape and even bureaucracy is a good thing.

I sometimes wonder why people think otherwise. Bush ran his administration with little transparency or regard for due process. Imagine, if you will, a system free of such hindrances - passing new laws daily, new bureaus and ministries and directorates popping up overnight, the wheel of government turning recklessly along with disregard for, well, us.

The libertarian in me longs for a smaller, more efficient government, but given the behemoth we're saddled with I'd rather it move slowly & thoughtfully (excepting natural disasters a la Katrina) than with blinding speed.

PostPosted: April 17th, 2009, 8:05 am
by Brian Boyko
mpbrockman wrote:And this is why a slow government - hobbled by checks and balances, red tape and even bureaucracy is a good thing.

I sometimes wonder why people think otherwise. Bush ran his administration with little transparency or regard for due process. Imagine, if you will, a system free of such hindrances - passing new laws daily, new bureaus and ministries and directorates popping up overnight, the wheel of government turning recklessly along with disregard for, well, us.


Actually, during the Bush Administration, with the interpretation of a "Unitary Executive" and with Congress rubber stamping everything, that's a pretty good description.

One of the reasons I fight for the New Zealand system is that it actually brought more checks and balances to that country. In fact, one of their prime ministers wrote a book before the change called "Unbridled Power" - after the change, he renamed it to "Bridled Power."

PostPosted: April 21st, 2009, 4:51 pm
by York99
acrouch wrote:Too bad the US government is a monopoly. How come we can't get a subscription to Canada or Grande in Austin?


In that respect, all governments are monopolies.

But speaking of, there are 4 different cable systems in Austin, at least various parts. That's better than New Orleans where there's 1 and Los Angeles where there were maybe 2 (at least when I was there).

PostPosted: April 21st, 2009, 5:02 pm
by York99
mpbrockman wrote:The libertarian in me longs for a smaller, more efficient government, but given the behemoth we're saddled with I'd rather it move slowly & thoughtfully (excepting natural disasters a la Katrina) than with blinding speed.


A friend of mine gave me something interesting to think about a while ago. He offered the idea that the slow pace of our government was a tremendous benefit. The fact that things CAN'T change too quickly means that, among other things, we're not making giant moves on whims. It's frustrating most of the time, but it's worth it when you really consider the alternative.

The same friend also suggested that, as messed up as our government is in so many many many ways, it's still the best thing out there. Just check out footage of British Parliament and you see how crazy that is... and they're supposed to be our civilization superiors. The best part about thinking about it like that is that it gives hope for how much better the system could be with some tweeks.

There's still some evolving left to do!

Sorry to go WAY off topic here.