Comments on: So-Called “Expert Network” Guy Suggests “Do-Gooders” Made Bandwidth Providers Throw Caps On Customers

By: Stop the Cap! » [Updated] Verizon FiOS Winds Down Buildouts – If You Don’t Have It Now, You’re Not Getting It

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:45:22 +0000

[...] 4/1/2010: While working on another story, I was amused to discover we had written about Mr. Greenholtz before, back on April 15th, when he was telling his readers "do-gooders" forced Time Warner Cable to [...]

By: DSL Internet Service | Internet Service

DSL Internet Service | Internet Service — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:05:26 +0000

[...] Stop the Cap! · So-Called “Expert Network” Guy Suggests [...]

By: Matthew

Matthew — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:18:23 +0000

Ok if you want to compare high speed to a utility then they should make it like a utility. Give me a 1Gbps connection, and meter my usage from there. See with the electric company we can turn on every light in the house. We can turn on every facet with water companies. So if you want to compare yourself with a utility then you better provide the same kind of service as a utility. They already have caps in place. The speed of the connection is a cap. This is just adding one cap to another cap.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:43:49 +0000

Good point Michael!

By: Michael C

Michael C — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:23:49 +0000

Oh wait…..at least TWC and the FCC understand the difference between bandwith (speed) and bandwith over time (consumption)! It’s an interesting read….for a legal document that is This is referring to TWC “suggestion” about how the FCC should dole out stimulus money earmarked for broadband.

“Companies were required to submit broadband availability information using the revised Form 477 speed categories on March 16, 2009, and the Commission currently is reviewing that data. Based on the actual data collected with respect to each of the Commission’s specified broadband tiers, TWC submits that the Commission has before it empirical data demonstrating “current generation” and “next generation” broadband speeds for funding purposes.”

…from page 8 of GN Docket No. 09-40 COMMENTS OF TIME WARNER CABLE INC. Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520210258

By: Michael C

Michael C — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:09:36 +0000

Another thing to keep in mind is that, other than a few limited trails in Beaumont and Reno, there hasn’t been a large enough expansion yet to really eat into their bottom lines. Most of this outpouring of outrage has been over something that hasn’t actually happened yet. These companies will only be able to take legal action once TWC, et. al. have made a definitive move into substantial markets with this pricing model. They have to show more than an “experimental” intent

By: T.M.

T.M. — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:08:13 +0000

Hulu, nor any other business, will comment on TWC’s business decisions. I’m sure they feel it’s not their place to pass judgment. Clearly they should be concerned. No doubt. Companies that should immediately be concerned about anti-trust issues, like Vonage for example, should be in a place to make statements about this plan. Hopefully they will soon. I wonder if Vonage customers have contacted their customer service people to express their concerns about this?

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:59:49 +0000

Something is really starting to stink here – not that the stench wasn’t bad enough already. When is the last time you knew of a large company that didn’t come out swinging within days when their business was threatened? It’s been something like two weeks now since TWC announced the expansion and not a word from any of the companies I would think would be very concerned about this cap. I.e. Google, Hulu, Netflix, etc. There was a recent thread concerning the TWC caps in Hulu’s forums and here is what a Hulu rep had to say:

“While we can’t speak to Time Warner’s business decisions, we at Hulu are doing everything we can on our end to reduce the bandwidth usage of our site so that you can connect to Hulu.com cheaply and quickly.”

My only conclusion from this is that these companies aren’t threatened by TWC’s broadband caps. So then the big question becomes WHY? What is it that they must know that we don’t?

By: Earl Cooley III

Earl Cooley III — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:14:18 +0000

That expert’s argument is like saying that due to the complaints of human rights organizations against the practice, the Taliban is requiring that husbands beat their wives with bricks of gold after the fortieth beating in any one month rather than use the traditionally approved cudgels.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:06:04 +0000

I’m amazed at how such an “expert” seems to not understand the fundamental concept of bandwidth. Bandwith is the speed of the connection, not the total number of bits allowed through a connection. He uses the two so interchangeably. TWC has always had tiered bandwith “caps”. These are the RR Lite, Standard RR, and RR Turbo. This hasn’t created any problems…..we’ve been fine with that. But Mr. Greenholtz offers no explaination of why these evidently rare internet bits need to be conserved. Maybe he should try to get them on the endangered species list

The internet is not some finite resource in which we all need to conserve the number of bits we use from the internet “pool”. You just can’t compare it to a natural resource utility like water, gas, or oil. In fact, I postulate the opposite. We shouldn’t be conserving our consumption of knowledge, entertainment and creativity, but rather find all means possible to utilize the internet for just such activities.

If bandwith is a problem then offer tiered speeds, throttle peak-time hogs, and build up your infrastructure, but don’t try to sell us on information tariffs as a solution. That we will NOT stand for!