UPDATE!! on Time Warner Internet - Pisses off congress

[landryscorner]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/theyre-gone-after-outcry-time-warner-uncaps-the-tubes.ars


Thats right those wacky New Yorkers did us all a favor, now lets hope this bill passes and teaches TW and other companies (AT&T, Comcast) a lesson...don't mess with the consumer. It's about time these companies learned who pays the bills.

[ShiningStar]

This is what Congress wants, people crying to them to do something.

[Hoofbite]

This is what Congress wants, people crying to them to do something.

What makes you say that?

[masomenos]

What makes you say that?

Because it's people relying on the government to fix a problem instead of the people taking matters into their own hands. That's my guess.

[landryscorner]

actually it was "the people" that made TW reverse there actions, they got flooded with thousands of emails and phone calls about the bandwidth caps, congress just wants to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[SkinsFan28]

Seems like, leaving government out of it (as if that would ever happen), this is capitalism at its best. The company knows there is a huge demand, and wants to meet it while making a profit. the consumers wants to pay as little as possible while getting as much as possible. This dynamic is pretty darn old. I guess the only added change is the American consumer's sense of entitlement.

[Temo]

Seems like, leaving government out of it (as if that would ever happen), this is capitalism at its best. The company knows there is a huge demand, and wants to meet it while making a profit. the consumers wants to pay as little as possible while getting as much as possible. This dynamic is pretty darn old. I guess the only added change is the American consumer's sense of entitlement.

Well there's also Monopoly issues to think about, which help "break" capitalism as much anything.

[Rogah]

Seems like, leaving government out of it (as if that would ever happen), this is capitalism at its best. The company knows there is a huge demand, and wants to meet it while making a profit. the consumers wants to pay as little as possible while getting as much as possible. This dynamic is pretty darn old. I guess the only added change is the American consumer's sense of entitlement.Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I don't. "Capitalism at its best" means you have multiple producers competing in a free market atmosphere, but that isn't really the case when we are talking about most utilities.

It just isn't feasible or practical for every house to be wired for cable or internet from their choice of 8 different providers and many citizens have few (if any) options. So IMHO, that gives the government a valid interest to regulate prices to a reasonable extent.

[ShiningStar]

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I don't. "Capitalism at its best" means you have multiple producers competing in a free market atmosphere, but that isn't really the case when we are talking about most utilities.

It just isn't feasible or practical for every house to be wired for cable or internet from their choice of 8 different providers and many citizens have few (if any) options. So IMHO, that gives the government a valid interest to regulate prices to a reasonable extent.


Ill be more irked when i see the Cable Czar position being born.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Ill be more irked when i see the Cable Czar position being born.

Would that fall under the rule of the head of the FCC?

[WarC]

Earlier this week I heard an economist say, "A free market is ******* expensive."

Why? Because, lacking regulation or competition, a business entity can charge about as much as it wants and can support itself on for any given service or product.

This is especially true in the "black" markets, which are the most deregulated of all markets, due to the nature of the "underworld"...Cocaine, for instance, which is sold on average at something like 17,000 times the cost of production per gram.

Stuff like this is why I believe things like utilities, energy, education, healthcare, internet access, are all things which ought to be regulated by the government or have price controls put into place.

[ShiningStar]

Would that fall under the rule of the head of the FCC?


NO, just like Border Czar, would probably run independent.

[SkinsFan28]

Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I don't. "Capitalism at its best" means you have multiple producers competing in a free market atmosphere, but that isn't really the case when we are talking about most utilities.

It just isn't feasible or practical for every house to be wired for cable or internet from their choice of 8 different providers and many citizens have few (if any) options. So IMHO, that gives the government a valid interest to regulate prices to a reasonable extent.
I guess I just don't see it. Maybe because in my area there are multiple choices and right now Comcast is getting whooped by Verizon FIOS. And the reason TW couldn't introduce these caps is because of competition, if they tried to, their customers were gonna change providers. And there are a ton of smaller providers in the game if you don't want a national one.

[Jarv]

I guess I just don't see it. Maybe because in my area there are multiple choices and right now Comcast is getting whooped by Verizon FIOS. And the reason TW couldn't introduce these caps is because of competition, if they tried to, their customers were gonna change providers. And there are a ton of smaller providers in the game if you don't want a national one.

I think it really depends on your area. I have cablevision and could go to ATT DSL, but my neighbors down the street can't get ATT DSL because they are to far from the local loop...Giving them just 1 choice.

My parents in the Adirondacks can't get cable or DSL (Verizon has fibre laid down for FIOS, but only business can have access?).

So in those cases a monopoly really does come into play.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I think it really depends on your area. I have cablevision and could go to ATT DSL, but my neighbors down the street can't get ATT DSL because they are to far from the local loop...Giving them just 1 choice.

My parents in the Adirondacks can't get cable or DSL (Verizon has fibre laid down for FIOS, but only business can have access?).

So in those cases a monopoly really does come into play.

Why can they not get direct tv internet? I can understand cable because they don't run everywhere but I thought you could get direct TV about anywhere.

[SkinsFan28]

I live between Balt and Washington, so we have all the providers plus. I admit to an inside the beltway thought process, because I really believe there are options for high speed internet nearly everywhere, just varying prices.

[Jarv]

Why can they not get direct tv internet? I can understand cable because they don't run everywhere but I thought you could get direct TV about anywhere.

The neighbors tried DirectTV, just for TV like 6 years ago. The stand of 150 pines facing the southwest made that a failed experiment.

So, figured if TV didn't work neither would internet. Believe I'm a wire junky so just having dial-up there is a late 80's internet experience.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The neighbors tried DirectTV, just for TV like 6 years ago. The stand of 150 pines facing the southwest made that a failed experiment.

So, figured if TV didn't work neither would internet. Believe I'm a wire junky so just having dial-up there is a late 80's internet experience.

Oh...yes the dish line has to be clear...that makes sense now.:cool: