Comments on: Time Warner Rochester Ups the Ante Against Frontier – ‘We’ll Pay Your Early Disconnect Penalty’

By: BrionS

BrionS — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:50:10 +0000

Because quite frankly it would be the straw the breaks the proverbial camel’s back. I don’t have a lot of time or money to put into an endeavor like this, but caps would fundamentally impact my life and my routine (I am *very* dependent on Internet access to pay bills, keep in touch with family and friends, and generally unwind).

If I were retired and/or had a lot of time and money for this, then yes I’d probably start it right away. Necessity is the mother of invention as it’s said (can I fit any more cliches into this?).

But perhaps if we could get a manageable working group of people all interested in getting this project underway and we could figure out a way to finance it (particularly the investment capital is problematic), then I’d be all for that.

By: preventCAPS

preventCAPS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:47:29 +0000

Why do the caps have to hurt your bottom line before you support something wonderful like this? Isn’t the whole idea of caps/anti-net-neutrality enough motivation?

By: Andrew Madigan

Andrew Madigan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:41:56 +0000

I recently switched to DSL. I have been having some troubles with the lines (I previously had no phone service, the line was actually bad!), but aside from that, this has been my experience:

* I was paying $50/month to TW (I don’t have cable TV, and I had standard RR), I’m paying frontier $41.36
* The extra fees on both seem comparable, though they should really advertise that it’s $40, not $35. TW includes the modem charge in their advertised price (though it is separate on the bill).
* I have a 3MB down/400KB up connection. Compared to my TW connection, torrenting and streaming Hulu and Netflix are more stable. I leave this to the fact that I don’t have local congestion getting to the cable node.
* The tech support people and the field people are both very knowledgeable and willing to work with a technically proficient customer that has very specific requirements for his connection.

Yes, I’m in a contract, for about $15 or so more per month (plus activation and installation fees), I could be contract free.

For most people, speed and price are the big issues. The price is lower than what I was paying. The connection is far more responsive. In fact, heavy download applications have been running *faster* on this connection. Again, you have to remember that RR does not have a stable fast speed. This is worsened by their “TurboBoost”.

I’m not a Frontier shill, and your experience may vary, but so far DSL has been working better for me than RR.

By: BrionS

BrionS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:40:10 +0000

If TWC institutes caps that imact my bottom line (i.e. it costs me more for the same or lower level of service) then I will seriously consider working with who I have to go strongly push for a private/public municipal broadband partnership. I say private/public in order to get around the opposition to a public option “run by the government”. I think it would be very cool to start a non-profit broadband service working in partnership with the city of Rochester to compete with Time Warner at cost.

The startup capital would need to be raised without the use of tax dollars, but if Wilson, NC and Monticello, MN can do it, so can we!

By: Mazakman

Mazakman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:02:00 +0000

That will be fine Uncle Ken. If I was in an agreement right now with Frontier and wanted to get out…I would jump at this offer. As I have documented elsewhere… Frontier cannot compete with RR in this area if you compare the fees and taxes associated with their services. If RR caps, then guess what… we still may choose them as our provider and bite the bullet. If and when that happens, I shall compare the relative offerings and cost of each and then decide who to go with.

By: Phillip Dampier

Phillip Dampier — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:16:49 +0000

It depends on the service area, Andrew. Many TWC service areas do have “price protection agreements” with early termination fees. Rochester is not one of them, except if you do take advantage of this particular offer, do not remain a customer in good standing for one year, the credit you initially received will be charged back to your account. Frankly, it would be the leftover Frontier penalty you’d be stuck back with in this case.

By: Uncle Ken

Uncle Ken — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:51:00 +0000

Mazakman: Yes they are the better option right now so I saved your
comment in a text file and in fun if they do cap im going to ask you
about how you feel then.

By: MMiller

MMiller — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:56:52 +0000

Yes they do! If you are in a contract that states you have a termination fee for cancelling, then there is a termination fee. I was very specific when I cancelled my TW service and asked if I was under any contract with them, the customer service person had to look it up to make sure.

By: Mazakman

Mazakman — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:15:25 +0000

Well I think that this is a very fair offer. The bottom line is that TW has the best internet service in town and easier to understand bills ! LOL.

By: Andrew Madigan

Andrew Madigan — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:28:19 +0000

> This would be a better deal if the one year commitment was “12 months, or the remaining number of months left on your Frontier contract, whichever is less.”

Well, of course then you could be switching to them with only a month left on your contract. Then you end up paying 1 month of TW’s fee instead of $200 to Frontier. I can see someone doing that if they were moving. It’s primarily a gimmick, with enough protection that they won’t lose money on it. I can’t see someone switching to TW just for this though, they probably want to boost their subscription numbers temporarily.