Home » Issues » Currently Reading:

BREAKING NEWS: Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) Condemns Time Warner Internet Cap; Will Take Lead Role in Opposition

Phillip Dampier April 7, 2009 Issues 106 Comments

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.)

Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.)

[Update: 12:45pm (Wednesday): I have been in touch with Jared Smith, Congressman Massa’s communications director and provided him some pointers and direction with the legislation Rep. Massa is drafting.  I also alerted him to the potential Federal Trade Commission issue involving Time Warner claiming they will also force Earthlink to impose usage caps.  We will now be able to stay in touch back and forth and hopefully make sure our issues are addressed in the forthcoming bill.  I also heard from our reader Ben, who reports from his conversation with Rep. Massa’s office that with public funding of broadband initiatives now one of the hallmarks of the Obama Administration, the public absolutely deserves leverage and far more control over this issue than the top-down “we propose and you accept and like it” approach Time Warner is using.  He is confident the legislation can be passed, particularly because of the timeliness of the issue coinciding with President Obama’s own interests in improving broadband infrastructure.  “Improving” does not mean rationing your access and throwing enormous overage fees on people, unless you are the one cashing the checks.  I think it will also be time to revisit the issue of public/municipal broadband projects.  There was little incentive to provide them in a fair and equitable marketplace, but it’s patently obvious that isn’t going to be the case much longer if caps are forthcoming.]

[Update 10:35am (Wednesday) : While we are still waiting for a copy of the bill, just a note to alert people to the fact his protest has made the news in most of the cities where this usage cap is being introduced, which is nice to see, especially as other cities begin pressuring their own congressional delegation to step up and get involved.  I am still compiling contacts.]

[Update 4:00pm:  I have just learned that Rep. Massa is drafting legislation to prohibit/ban this kind of capping.  I do not yet have any details about the bill’s language, or the legislative approach he is taking.  When I have a copy of the bill, I will be bringing it up here.]

Rep. Eric Massa (D-New York) today announced his opposition to Time Warner’s broadband Internet cap, calling it monopolistic and outrageous.

Massa said he will be taking a lead in Congress to oppose Time Warner’s move to impose limits on customers at a time when access to information is driving our economic recovery.  He accused the company of “stagnating 21st century technology needed to rebuild America.”

“Internet access is as essential to our economy as water is to our survival,” said Congressman Eric Massa. “With limited choices in broadband providers, and virtual monopolies in many market areas, I view this as nothing more than a large corporation making a move to force customers into paying more money. I firmly oppose capping internet usage and I will be taking a leadership role in stopping this outrageous, job killing initiative.”

Massa predicted that cell-phone style pricing of broadband would lead to a steep decline in Internet usage or else middle income families would see outrageous Internet bills.  He also expressed concern about sweeping First Amendment issues that are at stake from the artificial limiting of access to what has become an essential communications tool used by most Americans.

Massa represents New York’s 29th District which extends from the southern tier into the southern suburbs of Rochester.

Contact Rep. Eric Massa:

Washington DC Office
1208 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3161
Fax: (202) 226-6599

Corning District Office
89 W. Market Street
Corning, NY 14830
Phone: (607) 654-7566
Fax: (607) 654-7568

Olean Office
317 North Union Street
Olean, NY 14760

Phone: (716) 372-2090
Fax: (716) 372-2869

Pittsford District Office
1 Grove St
Suite 101
Pittsford, NY 14534
Phone: (585) 218-0040
Fax: (585) 218-0053

Contact Eric Massa by e-mail

[Editor’s Note: Please be sure to thank Congressman Massa for taking a lead on this issue and for being among the first federal officials that has responded positively to our campaign!  We are making a difference, so also applaud yourselves for getting involved and fighting back!]

Currently there are 106 comments on this Article:

  1. Craig says:

    WOOT! he is my congresman and i just emailed him to thank him, i will call his office later to drive the point home.

    Everyone email your elected officials apparently its working, I want to see all the congressman/woman in the affected areas up here.

  2. John says:

    Hooray! Someone with some amount of political sway is planning on doing something.

    We all need to let him know that we’re behind him!

  3. Terry says:

    I sent him a thank you email even though he does not directly represent me.

  4. Nice! I live in the city of Rochester, but my office is in Pittsford. I called both his D.C. and Pittsford offices, and am going to e-mail him right away.


  5. Meghan says:

    Finally, some hope! I emailed him a thank you. He’s got my vote next time around, thats for sure.

  6. Brian D'Angelo says:

    Awesome, I will be sure to email a thank you. Hopefully other elected officials will get involved. Any word of a response from our NY Senators?

  7. Sunshine1970 says:

    I may be in Texas, but I sent him a message of thanks too. I’m hoping that by getting a US Representative involved in this it’ll bring it into the light of the MSM

  8. Elliot says:

    Great news!

    I live in the city of Rochester, and I’m encouraging Louise Slaughter to follow suit: http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=506&Itemid=150

    For others in the area, contact your own representatives!


    • Terry says:

      I emailed Louise Slaughter about this from your link. I encourage others to do so as well.

      • BrionS says:

        I’ve already emailed her. She’s always been very good at responding to my letters and emails even if it takes a few weeks.

  9. Andrew Soroka says:

    Eric Massa is the man!!!! I went on his website and thanked him.

    This is Rochester, we are not going to sit by and do nothing!!!!

    I already cancelled my service and went to Earthlink, if they implement caps then it is on to Frontier!!!

    • Jeffrey_Bays says:

      Please explain how you did it. Was there an interruption in service? When I talked with Earthlink today, they told me i had to cancel with TW then call them. They also wanted to schedule an install date. I thought that you just called them up with your modem ID and they would activate it remotely?

  10. Diane says:

    I just hope he has the backing and the backbone to actually stop this!

  11. John says:

    I applaud Eric Massa helping on this issue.

    I too called Time Warner and canceled my Road Runner service and moved over to earthlink, if they are forced into Tiered service and I will move to Frontier for my Internet service.

    I called Louise Slaughter as well.

    When I was on the phone with both I mentioned what we NEED, as well as the rest of the country is the restoration of the Federal Net Neutrality law, or even a State Net Neutrality.

    Net Neutrality restricts any broadband company from imposing terms of service that would hamper any other company from offering a competing service like Vonage competes with Time Warner’s Digital Phone, as well as Netflix competes with Time Warners PPV/VOD services.

    With the proposed imposed caps it basically restricts TW Broadband subscribers from being able to pick a competing service without paying a Corporate Tax or fee for using a competitors service.


  12. Dan says:

    Just thought I should share this tidbit. Wish i had recorded the conversation. I called TW to ask about the new plan, and basically give them a piece of my mind. First off, I found it interesting that with no reported outages, the wait time was 20 minutes. Hmm, people with concerns maybe? So, I get a very nice lady, mind you I have always been happy with customer service reps there, but wow, they have been briefed heavy as of late. I was told that none of the hype in the media was substantiated, and as of yesterday, yes Monday, “there are no plans in place at this time to start any rationing of broadband in Rochester.” As you can imagine, i laughed at her. A lot. Now yes, she was very nice, but I could here the exact same conversations going on in the background, and when she asked my about what sources I had for this information, I mentioned one of the TW reps that was on the news. To which I was told that the information was taken out of context. At this point, i politely told her that for now, I was a happy customer, but by the end of the year I would be “getting my services from a more customer oriented company.”

    All I am saying is, with all the media coverage, customer outcry, you would think that someone would at least have the balls to be honest with the customers on the phone. I do not blame the reps, it’s a job, they want to keep their jobs. I can not fault them, it’s the higher ups that decided hiding this is a better plan that need a good kick in the head.

    • DOWN_with_TWC! says:

      I got the same run around when I called. “We have no plans to place an internet cap on out broadband services, what we are doing this summer is simply collecting data.”

      Like you said, its the CS job to deny it but with all the media coverage, and TWC reps being quoted you would think they would acknowledge it.

      • Sunshine1970 says:


        I called TWC in Austin today and they confirmed there WILL be metering starting in September. My rep was also very nice, tried to talk it up, but she could tell I wasn’t buying it, and I didn’t get the sense she really believed it was a good idea, but she’s stuck trying to sell it.

        • Josh Beck says:

          Me too,
          I called TWC to file an official complaint and the rep also sounded non-committal. The guy was clearly sticking to the company line, but I could tell he didn’t like the script.

    • phil says:

      Did she really say “rationing?” 🙂

      That is one of the talking points I generally use exclusively when I call it “rationing,” because with caps like these, that is what they are effectively doing. I know it also drives them crazier than when we refer to usage caps, so I encourage people to call it rationing wherever possible.

      As for the “Baffle Me with BS” responses from customer service, it sounds like someone sent down a memo with their own talking points. Frontier issues them regularly, especially last summer when we were on their case, often to directly try and refute reports from this website.

      Your response to their claims there are no plans in place to actually do this is to say, “tell that to the good people of Beaumont, Texas.”

      And all of the “hype in the media” was actually simply quoting what company officials said themselves, and continue to say to this very day!

      But you are right, people should be nice and polite with the CSRs. State your views and that you are leaving if/when/because of the cap announcement, but remember these people didn’t decide to do this and it’s not their fault. Someone reported a few of these people had “death threats” and that is completely unacceptable if it is actually happening. Your most powerful weapon is to CANCEL SERVICE. That is what they understand. All of the other stuff is just incidental.

  13. DOWN_with_TWC! says:

    Thats great news! Thank you Eric Massa!!

  14. Phil, you should publish the names and numbers of the other Rochester-area Members of Congress and Senators. Louise Slaughter represents the city, Chris Lee has part of the Western suburbs and Dan Maffei has part of the Eastern suburbs.

    I know that people tire of writing their Congressman and getting nothing out of it, but we’ve got a unique situation in Rochester. Three of the four Representatives, and Senator Gillibrand, are first-termers, and all of them could face a stiff challenge in the next election. Broadband pricing is a good non-partisan, popular issue they could get behind.

    Here’s a site that helps you find your elected reps: http://congress.org

    Note, it’s nice to send a thank-you to a Congressman who doesn’t represent you but does a good thing, but they pay a lot more attention to their constituents.

  15. Christine says:

    Emailed Louise Slaughter. /crosses fingers.

  16. Destroy Time Warner Cable says:

    When do we expect to have a copy of the bill? I want to forward it to the Austin newspaper.

    • phil says:

      His office may have something later today coming my way, but it’s already 4:30pm here so I would not be surprised if it is delayed a day or so. It will be an interesting challenge to write something that targets this, and I’m not sure of what angle he’s going for yet. We’ll have plenty of chances to see about asking any changes in language, and then when it’s ready to go, we’re going to start the lobbying effort.

      Folks should remember to check out the Take Action! link at the top of the site every day as I start filling in the links. You can see my list of priorities laid out, which will explain the direction I will continue to try and keep us pointed towards.

  17. Uncle Ken says:

    Craig: you the man!! with connections!! Keep those links coming to Phil

  18. Diane says:

    I have emailed both Eric Massa and Lousie Slaughter as well as posted this information and breaking news to My Facebook Group and Cause.

  19. Uncle Ken says:

    MR. Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY)
    Thank you for your input in the TW cap. A man with vision that knows it will only hurt NY at a time when all of us are hurting. Diane you are a strong person and I commend you also. Ken

  20. Uncle Ken says:

    I am coming up with a letter for both Mr. Eric Massa and Miss Lousie Slaughter thanking them for their concern in this matter. Both are VERY powerful members of our government. Both care about their people. They got my vote without a second thought and 2010 is coming up soon. It is a very good thing when the people you vote in actually care what those voters think. I can’t say enough.

  21. Michael says:

    Don’t forget to tell your congressman to support Rep Eric Massa. Find your congressman here:


    Here is what I sent:

    Please support Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY)in his bid to end ISPs from capping customer bandwidth usage. Cable company ISPs have begun capping bandwidth usage not because of inherent issues with delivering the bandwidth, but because they wish to abuse their monopoly of high speed interne access while protecting their cable television business operations (by restricting video streaming via the internet). Delivering video via the internet provides value to your constituents and moves us closer to a world where little plastic discs do not need to be produced and shipped across the country and world to deliver video to the home. Please do not allow the cable ISPs to destroy this useful and growing part of the economy. Support Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) in his efforts to end this practice.


  22. jlegan says:

    I have already emailed Eric Massa applauding his stance and included my communications with TW on the subject for his review.

    Thank you Congressman Massa.

  23. Ally says:

    I think it’s great and we should take every step possible to stop Time Warner from doing this. However, I think in order to preserve our options there must be legislation to bring in other providers such as Verizon, Comcast, etc. We Rochesterians have two choices when it comes to high speed internet that is not enough.

  24. Danny Gibas says:

    I have emailed but Massa and Slaughter, I will be calling their offices in the morning to reinforce my position on this.

    This is good news!

  25. Niccolo says:

    I’ve read a few things about people cutting their service. Don’t cut your service yet. Wait for the opportune moment. Maintain your service through the summer. Wait for Time Warner to implement their fees. Then, after your get your first bill, cancel the service.

    Remember, Time Warner is “testing” this concept with a pilot program in Rochester and other cities. If you walk away too early, your “vote” will not be associated with the change in service, and will have no bearing on the pilot results.

    • Jeffrey_Bays says:

      How can they even call it a test. It would be like saying that testing drugs on pigs is the same as testing on humans. Test this in a market with competition. What do you think their data will say?

      At the end of the test, those that remained were happy with their service. One couple even saved $10 a month. Of the remaining, 86% did not see a rise in their bill. Those that did, only saw $19 increase. The first month, of the remaining 100 customers, we raked in $266 less the $5 from that one couple. That’s a net of $261, monthly base revenue of revenue of $4975 and add on overage fees of $265 for a total of $5241. Now that we shit all over this market, we regretfully have to tell you that we can not operate a state of the art broadband internet system for that amount. We will now be forced to increase the rates of all remaining customers.

  26. B for Bandwidth says:

    While I am very pleased to see Eric Massa getting involved it is also possible that government legislation has made this Time Warner stranglehold on the cable lines possible. From what I understand it is not unheard of that cities will allow one and only one company exclusive access to handle something like cable infrastructure. I am not saying this is the case in Rochetser but the fact that we only have one option merits further investigation. I am not sure how one would go about investigating this, but if anyone has info please pass it along.

    I would love to see Eric take this all the way and make sure that if only one company is allowed to control the infrastructure that one of two things happen:

    1. Other companies are allowed to build their own cable infrastructure.

    2. The existing infrastructure is opened up.

    The internet is so vital to all our our lives we can’t allow any interests to block our access, if other companies want to compete we better make sure they are able to do so.

    I do applaud the efforts of Eric, its always encouraging to see a politician who recognizes the importance of technology.

    • Jeffrey_Bays says:

      Simple. Deregulate it. It may not save people money, but they already deregulated electricity and phones. There is no reason so say that the cable in the ground really belongs to one company. The amount of money paid in taxes over the years to the government really makes it the governments.

  27. waldo06 says:

    WONDERFUL!! We need more of our congress to step into this argument! TIME WARNER Is trying to FORCE all of it’s competitors out of business by making access to their services too expensive. Forcing all of us to go back to low quality, expensive, cable.

    It would be the same thing if Mcdonalds owned All the main streets, and there were $5 toll gates to the entrances to any burger kings, Sonics, Arbys or Wendys.


  28. Kris says:

    It’s about time a public figure took an opposing stance on this issue. Everyone should contact their local congressman about this issue. I contacted Chris Lee, let’s hope he will be opposed to TW’s metering system too.

  29. Spcwright says:


  30. slayerboy says:

    This is not the answer. Government needs to stay out of this. While I applaud the congressman for doing this, it’s not necessary. More laws and regulations lead to shady business becoming even more shady.

  31. vcheng says:

    I have set up a meeting in Mr. Massa’s local office for this afternoon and will see what I can do to help him support proper legislation covering this issue.

  32. toggz says:

    In Iceland all ISP have a 40GB download cap on foreign traffic. I wish we had politicians that stood up for our rights and not only their own asses.

  33. John says:


    Government is the answer. Up until a few years ago we were all protected by the Net Neutrality law. This legislation protected all broadband subscribers and the bandwidth they paid for.

    Broadband providers would not have been able to dice up your bandwidth, and or meter it, and or regulate which services you might wish to use with that bandwidth.

    If I want to use a VOIP service under the new tiered service I will be forced to use Time Warners VOIP service instead of a competitor (Vonage) even though I would be using the same amount of Bandwidth. Why will I be forced to use Time Warner’s product, the answer is quite simple using Vonage, each call will cost against my Tiered Cap. If I subscribe to Time Warner’s Digital Phone any and all IP Bits will not count against the tiered cap. This same argument works across the board with regard to any and all other services, like If I wish to use with my broadband connection like Netflix streaming movies to me. Time Warner also competes with that service as well via their PPV/VOD service.

    It is no coincidence that Time Warner is using their collective Monopoly and market share to artificially manipulate their subscribers into kicking any competition to the curb.

    Again this would have been illegal under the Net Neutrality law. Cable and the rest of the broadband industry lobbied very hard to get the Federal government to not reauthorize the statue. Their arguments were hollow and vague, stating its renewal would have been anti-consumer amongst other things. Personally, I can’t see how this new “Bit grab” is pro-consumer in anyway. This “Bit grab” is really a profit grab pure and simple.


  34. Jeffrey_Bays says:

    I called this morning and switched to Earthlink. When I told the rep my reason for moving was to stop paying time warner and that I preferred to give my money to another company. She then informed me that the media was wrong. They would not be capping my service, rather I would only have to choose a plan in the summer. (I really don’t think that the rep’s even understand what is going on) I had to politely cut her off and explain that in one day, I used 14 gigs. They then informed me that if I decide to come back to RR, I would not be eligible for my current discount of 29.95 (which ends in September) and that my promotional Earthlink price of 29.95 is only good for 6 months (which ends in October).

    The whole process was verry easy. You just call TW, talk with a RR Rep, they transfer you to Earthlink, then they transfer you to TW billing. They will tell you that the media is wrong. All you have to do is put up with their BS for a minute or two.

    • phil says:

      The media is wrong because it takes the words Time Warner executives actually say and reprint them. 🙂

      I love the comments I am hearing about the CSRs at Time Warner calling the media “overhyped,” “inaccurate,” “scare tactics,” and “misunderstanding.” But when their own explanations about the cap, that it’s an “experiment for new customers only,” “is just a test and you won’t be billed for it,” and “will not affect you,” fly in the face of reality, here is what you do.

      “OK, if you are willing to put it in writing and send me a letter saying I will at no time be subject to any broadband usage meters, caps, rationing, or limits as long as I am a Time Warner customer, I will consider keeping my account.”

      If they aren’t willing to put that in writing, just remember that song…

      “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies….”

  35. PL says:

    Net Neutrality has never been a law, so we were never protected by it. Originally, Net Neutrality was intended to prevent companies like TW (actually, it started with SBC) from charging you more to visit certain sites, but it has since morphed to mean all kinds of things to many different people, including banning throttling and preventing things like QOS and packet shaping to ensure you get usable VOIP or low latency for online gaming while other people are saturating the pipe with large data transfers that don’t care about the latency.

    The danger with asking the government to intervene is the law of unintended consequences. This bill should be targeted at just this one issue, because the more things they try to fix at once, the more unintended consequences they are going to create. Those unintended consequences may find us wishing that the government did nothing.

    Anyway, I firmly believe the ultimate solution to this problem (and the whole data coming down a line on your street industry) is to set up independent (can’t be a service provider) regulated bodies that own and maintain the infrastructure while completely deregulating the service side of the equation, allowing anyone to offer service over those lines. You can choose from hundreds of ISPs, telephone and cable providers all competing for your dollars versus the regional duopoly that exists in most places now.

    I’ve been a happy RR customer since it became available in my area almost a decade ago, but if they implement these caps, I’m gone and so is my cable money.

  36. Terry says:

    I have not seen one news report on this announcement yet on 8, 10, 13 or 31’s new programs. I also have not seen anything on the D&C website or in their printed newspaper. I won’t bother looking at R-News, for obvious reasons. Why would TW’s own news agency report a negative in their view?

    Perhaps I’ve missed coverage, but as of yet I’ve seen nothing. More people should be talking about this. I’ve alerted all my friends that weren’t already aware.

  37. vcheng says:

    I have emailed 13WHAM news about this yesterday. Please email Rachel Barnhart at the following address with your comments as she may do a story if enough people email her:

    [email protected]

    • phil says:

      I saw Rachel’s blog last night. She seems to go out of her way to avoid connecting this to TW’s cap plan, but a cancellation is a cancellation.

      Rachel seems to be using AT&T for her Internet access, probably on their 3G network. Based on what she wrote, she’s a casual net user, which is fine with AT&T. But when you read the fine print, things start getting interesting!

      Prohibited and Permissible Uses: Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Intranet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, landlines or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) “auto-responders,” “cancel-bots,” or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) “spam” or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T’s wireless services or other parties’ Internet-based resources, including “denial of service” (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T’s wireless network or another entity’s network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer’s connection would otherwise be idle or any “keep alive” functions, unless they adhere to AT&T’s data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans(unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/PDA-to computer accessories, Bluetooth® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows.

      Blah.. blah.. blah.. You can download legal songs, but “web broadcasting” is out.

      And although AT&T’s website touts “unlimited access” all over the place for their deluxe plan, the fine print says you can be in violation of that plan if you exceed 5GB per month:

      DataConnect plans may ONLY be used with AT&T certified LaptopConnect (PC Data) Cards and other devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). On the 5GB DataConnect Plan, once you exceed your 5GB allowance you will be automatically charged $0.00048 per Kb for any data used. On the 200MB Data Connect Plan, once you exceed your 200MB allowance, you will be automatically charged $10 for an additional 100MB. Unused data from either your initial allowance or any overage allowance (e.g., the 100MB) will not be carried over to the next billing period; all data allowances must be used in the billing period in which the allowance is provided. On other plans with a monthly megabyte or gigabyte allowance, once you exceed your allowance you will be automatically charged overage as specified in the applicable rate plan information. We may, at our discretion, suspend your account if we believe your data usage is excessive, unusual or is better suited to another rate plan. If you are on a data plan that does not include a monthly megabyte/gigabyte allowance and additional data usage rates, you agree that AT&T has the right to impose additional charges if you use more than 5 GB in a month; provided that, prior to the imposition of any additional charges, AT&T shall provide you with notice and you shall have the right to terminate your Service.

      So much for “unlimited.” Now who, other than people with no lives like myself, read that level of fine print? There are people on wireless plans who accidentally got themselves enormous bills for tens of thousands of dollars because they accidentally ended up in a “roaming” area where the costs are much, much higher. Or discovered their account was terminated for “excessive use.” The marketing-speak on the website is often belied by the fine print in the contract.

  38. Gregory says:

    I’m a TWC customer and I am in favor of the cap. Customers who oppose it are reacting emotionally and not with their heads. Much of the bandwidth is used by very few of the customers, slowing the network for everyone. “Pay for whatever you take or use” is market tested and time honored and a very fair way to hold everyone accountable to their actions. “Eat all you want” just drives the prices up for everyone to underwrite the selfish few.

    If TWC loses this ability to control and price their own services, the fallout will be a slower network for all (but created by a few bandwidth hogs), and ever climbing prices (which we can do very little about) to support the inequitable load on infrastructure. Keep the cap and make us all simply pay for what we use, instead of making all of us underwrite a few selfish individuals. It works our more equitably for everyone this way.

    • vcheng says:

      You are entitled to your opinion of course.

      However, the rest of the world is poised to pass us by with the speed and availability and affordability of their internet services.

      Not catching up will hamper our ability to keep our technological edge.

      I think it is you who is not looking at the wider picture.

    • Tung says:

      All you are being in favor of is supporting a company investing in charging the customer rather then improving their product. If there are users going over, or a large amount of users going over 40GB then the answer is not to hinder them, but to develop a product to meet their needs to keep them as customers and build a stronger customer base.

      TW would not be implementing this unless it was a number of people going over 40 GB, to throttle them down, and get more money from the market. I believe offering super tier for speed was a good plan. Slower non users on a slower network and people who want faster network on a more expensive plan. That makes sense, people who need info quick should get it. Its like television channels, we pay for the number of channels, HD services, DVR, and people are ok with that. We don’t pay for the amount we use the TV, thats silly. The internet is even more important to not be capped as its not only a media outlet, but also a business outlet, commercial outlet, and social outlet.

    • Christine says:

      “Bandwidth hogs” are a myth. It’s made up from Time Warner, and you’re buying it hook, line, and sucker.

      There is a large deaf population living in Rochester. They require use of cap-free internet, yet in your opinion, and Time Warner’s opinion, they would be “bandwidth hogs.”

      Are you okay with ads, pop-ups, or a virus sucking away your bandwidth? Even if you’re on the lowest-tier plan, you’d go over. Download NetMeter to check your current use, Gregory. The results may surprise you. And then compare your records of it to what Time Warner rolls out when you’re dealing with their “gas gauge.” I have it, and I’m holding out to see what Time Warner comes up with to compare against my own records.

      Not everyone you’d consider “few selfish individuals” are gamers, NetFlix movie watchers, etc., no matter that Time Warner would have you think. There are people who run their businesses with their residential accounts, there are people I work with who upload data to a main server, for their jobs, in case you’re wondering. I work for a non-profit company in this area, and so do these people. I also volunteer for a non-profit organization.

      Point is, Time Warner is screwing with all these people, their jobs, the things important to them. It’s not all about the gamers (although I do that too) and the net-entertainment. And next thing you know, you’ll be getting the shaft as well. Good luck to you, Sir.

      • Gregory says:

        Perhaps you believe “paying as you go and for what you take” is unfair. I do not. In my view it is hard to imagine a more just system. Bandwidth is like any other quantifiable resource, Christine, it is not unlimited and and will be subject to similar influences and constraints in the marketplace just like gasoline, food, clothing, you name it. “Requiring” a cableco to provide limitless services as an all you can eat buffet is a one way trip to higher and higher cost for EVERYONE, NOT just those who are the top tier users. Home business ( I run one, by the way) should not only be subject to caps and pay-per-gig after that but charged a different and higher rate for network access in the first place. It’s a BUSINESS. Businesses have always paid higher rates for similar services, and should.

        The last thing we need are Grandparents checking email for pics of the grandkids paying higher bills and underwriting business and other users in a different universe of bandwidth quantity. I’m not making a judgment on what the bandwidth is being used for but rather and simply charging proportionately for its use. Meter it and use as much as you want, like water, like gasoline, like electricity. That seems fair to me.

        As for the deaf or any other physically challenged American, society has long had a history of sharing and underwriting those expenses by society as a whlole–think handicapped parking or ADA fees, for instance–and that approach may well be used here, too. Take all you like, Christine. Just pay for everything you take over a level playing field for all.

        • Diane says:


          I hope you subscribe to Time Warner Business Class and NOT just residential to run your business or you are just a part of the problem?

          • Gregory says:

            I do, Diane. We don’t use a lot of bandwidth here but I made clear to the TimeWarner rep of our intended business use at the time we signed up. I cannot think of one compelling reason why the GrandMom’s and GrandDad’s of America should be underwriting video, P2P, online gaming, etc, movie downloads. Let the users pay for their use. Otherwise, we should all pay a monthly flat rate for gasoline, or for electricity and just use all we want. I can imagine how well THAT would work out. 🙂

            • CableGuy says:

              Being a GrandMother or GrandFather does not mean you deserve to a lower rate than anyone else. Please, take your class warfare somewhere else.

              Pay-as-you-go is fine, if it follows the electricity model, with a hookup charge and a usage charge, so long as the hookup charge is based on “cost”, and the usage charge is linear or with quantity discounts, not a punitive, inverted rate scale as proposed. Show that it saves money for the entire user base, instead of increasing profits and creating new scapegoats.

              Many cable internet providers enjoy a total monopoly in their service area, or a duopoly at best, and thus, may be subject to regulation if they are found to gouge the consumer. If there are 4-5 sellers of internet access in the area, pricing usually take of it self.

              • Gregory says:

                Grandparent status isn’t the point, CableGuy, and I suspect you know that. If you use a lower rate of service then it DOES mean you deserve a lower rate of cost, commensurate with the use. This has nothing to do with class warfare.

                Tell you what. Skip the cap entirely. The meter comes on when you are online and turns off when you sign off. Simple, perfect one-to-one correspondence of taking and paying. Wanna keep your bill down? “Turns the lights off when you leave the room.” I’d vote for that today.

        • Craig says:

          Bandwidth amount is worlds apart from food/water/clothing.

          Cable’s physical plant has been in the ground for years; even hybrid fiber-coax systems have been widely deployed for some time. Internet access simply runs across the existing network, and one of cable’s big advantages over DSL is that speeds can be upgraded cheaply by swapping in new DOCSIS headend gear, with DOCSIS 3.0 the current standard. Compared to what Verizon is doing with fiber and AT&T with its quasi-fiber U-Verse, cable Internet is a bargain

          But Time Warner’s low caps make it hard to believe that this is all about infrastructure costs. Internet backbone bandwidth is cheap or free (and plummeting in cost each year), DOCSIS upgrades are a bargain, and competitors in the same business can offer multiple times higher than TWC’s maximums.

          Internet bandwidth is not like that at all. Initial infrastructure costs notwithstanding, the cost of moving a terabyte of data is approximately the same as the cost of moving a gigabyte. Adding lines to increase capacity costs money, but within the limits of the available bandwidth, the wires have to still be maintained and equipment periodically replaced whether you transfer a terabyte or a byte.

          Also, all of the things you mention can be conserved and used later. By not using water, you are increasing the levels in the aquifer (to a point) that can be used later when you have a dry spell. By not using electricity, you are causing generators to be taken offline, saving fuel that can be used to produce power later. By not using as much gas, you are leaving gas in an oil field that can be retrieved later or stored in tanks for future consumption. Internet bandwidth, however, cannot be conserved. Once a second has passed, the gigabit you could have transferred in that time was either transferred or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t, you can’t transfer two gigabits in the next second to make up for it.

          The marginal cost of providing Internet bandwidth is zero, so the marginal cost to customers should also be zero. Customers should pay for the infrastructure costs amortized over the life of the hardware plus some percentage for profits. Any other scheme is a scam.

          • Craig says:

            oh sweet merciful god, please ignore the “Internet bandwidth is not like that at all.” in the 3rd paragraph i got ahead of myself

          • Gregory says:

            “The marginal cost of providing Internet bandwidth is zero, so the marginal cost to customers should also be zero. ”

            Gee Craig, I charge as much as I can get regardless of the cost of production. That’s how good business is done. I certainly wouldn’t want YOU as a business partner. lol

            • Craig says:

              And I would not want you near any networking equipment I guess we are even

            • Craig says:

              It would have been nice that after i completely destroy your original argument for being against bandwidth caps you would concede the point and take it like a gentlemen instead of you deflect your lack of knowledge about how the internet works by making it seem like I could care at all about your business

              • Craig says:

                *For bandwidth caps not against *

                heh I apologize about the reply s its been a long day, maybe we could get an edit button.

    • Craig says:


      I completely disagree with you in every possible way. Markets in regions with no competition are hardly ever fair, and monopolies even less so, what incentive do they have to upgrade if they are the only choice? Why can other companies offer uncapped bandwidth while time warner feels that they cant?

      Time Warner already has the ability to throttle back bandwidth on high volume users, not that i think 40GB users are selfish they are merely using what they pay for if you start using 300-400G then that’s a bit much but I could care less what others do. Everyone has the same ability to download what they want how they want and we all pay the same price, seems fair to me. Some people use less then I do that’s fine you can already downgrade your service and pay less be on a cheaper line you have that option.

      However do not blame people using the internet more then you are as a scapegoat, poor service is time warners fault and no one else s.

    • Diane says:

      Let us see just how in favor of the cap you are when you go over your limit and are charged a dollar for every gig you go over! You Cannot Control unwanted ads, commercials attached to webpages, hackers, bots or anything else that decides to start pinging away at your little blinking data light!
      How many of you “lite” internet users actaully know how much bandwidth you are taking up?
      You are a bandwidth HOG when you do your Windows Updates and Security Patches and I bet you didn’t even know it!
      I suppose you believe that our Deaf Community using VOIP or our American Soldier’s Serving Over Sea’s that may use a Web Cam to talk to their loved ones back home are “selfish individuals?”

    • Aaron says:

      The only reason this bill is being passed is so Time Warner can avoid the 100’s of millions of $’s it would require to actually upgrade it’s broadband network to actually make it FASTER. This is basically they trying to create a stop gap measure to extend the life of their aging monopolized networks across America.

      This is also their attempt to stop people from dropping their TV service and getting their television fix online through sites like Hulu and movies through services like Netflix.

      While your comments make sense for my grandmother who only visits CNN.com and checks her e-mail, the rest of the world is using the Internet for much more than casual < 5GB/month browsing. I transfer over 10GB of data a month JUST for my online jobs. I also share the connection with a roommate who uses just as much bandwidth as me. I use internet radio, streaming websites, Netflix and other movie services to download high definition movies. I PAY for these services, and also PAY Time Warner over $120/mo already for access to the internet and TV. How is paying even MORE in any way right? Time Warner and EarthLink are the only broadband providers in the Rochester area other than Frontier (who charges even more for less speed). They are a MONOPOLY up here. They are going to FORCE EarthLink to implement the same caps, and force middle class households to pay tons more for the same internet access they have been receiving for years. How is this fair?

      If TW really wants to make it “fair” for everyone, then have an Unlimited plan that costs a little bit more, and then offer capped plans for people who actually DO use much less than everyone else. But don’t force hard working people who pay good $ like me into paying HUGE sums for access to the internet to do the things they do, and use the services they already pay for. For you to state that capped plans are fair and good for everyone is just short sighted and completely outrageous, and shows your general lack of knowledge about the internet, the future of technology, and how much bandwidth today’s applications actually use.

    • Andy says:

      I have no problems with TWC imposing a cap like Gregory states. I will just hop on the unsecured home users wireless or use the free wireless at local establishments and let them pay for it. I’d rather pay $2.35 for a cup of coffee at P***** Bread and sit there while I download 3 GB of data, then have to pay TWC. There will be mis-use gone rampant if there is a cap.

  39. Craig Wood says:

    Contacted both Massa’s office, and my rep out in California’s office (McKeon). Hopefully anti-competitive practices like caps on this critical utility can be thwarted one way or another.

  40. George Stone says:

    what we need is some sort of petition online. Perhaps if this goes through and everyone jumps ship to DSL they may learn from the mistake at hand.
    I give enough money to Time warner. As long as there is no real cable company in the area to compete they will continue to reach in our pockets.

    Time Warner…SHAME ON YOU!

  41. vcheng says:

    I have just comeback from Mr. Massa’s office.

    I can tell you that he is very interested in and motivated about this issue, and assured me that he is and will be doing everything possible to help stop this plan.

    I believe his exact words were “Ain’t gonna happen!”.

    Please convey your opinions to your own congressperson so that Mr. Massa can find more support amongst his colleagues in the House to enable easier passage of legislation that will put an end to internet metering plans once and for all.

  42. atom says:

    Well, who didn’t see this coming?

    It sounds good and if Time Warner won’t listen to their customers, then I guess it’s better than nothing. But if you look at our current situation (economically speaking) I’d say government involvement is the beginning of the end.

    I have to admit, when I first saw this post, I was pretty stoked. I thought the same thing that most people did: “Finally, we have some ‘real’ support!”

    But then I got to thinking (oops!): I’d love to think that Eric Massa (and every other politician who is looking to get re-elected-which would be….uh…all of them) is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, but I have a really hard time believing that. Then again, I’m a cynical guy ;).

    But there’s hope: The system is working. TWC is trying to pull some BS and we, the people, are doing something about it. Go team customer!

    However, the government is not your parents. That being said, I think that it’s time for the American public to stop treating them like a rich kid treats his dad. We shouldn’t suckle at the teet of some corporation, and we certainly shouldn’t do the same for an institution with even less competition. We’re adults. Let’s start acting like it.

    The only thing more scary to me than bandwidth caps is a precedent that makes us feel alright about the government messing around with something as powerful as the Internet.

    • grant says:

      I think I agree with atom.

      I’m not sure that having the government intervene is the right step. Its a bit of a slippery slope to tell any business what they can and can’t charge.

      TW is obviously making a play for money. And we should not stand for it. I’m not sure that they are acting illegally, however. The real culprit here is Frontier. If they hadn’t all but implemented their own cap, and if they offered any competition, we might not be in this mess. Their impotence in the market, made us a target.

      There is an arguement that TWC is leveraging a “virtual monopoly”, but I really wish that FIOS were an otpion or that Frontier was at least strong enough to keep them honest.

      I’m still hopeful that there will be enough backlash to shut this down without government help.

  43. Danny Gibas says:

    I called his Pittsford office today. They were delighted to have the positive support. I strongly recommend calling, it only takes a moment and it hold more water than an email.

  44. phil says:

    A few points before I get out of the house for a few hours:

    1) I am working on the edit button. More than one person has requested it. I am not a tech wizard – I can’t even figure out how to add my avatar here yet.

    2) Let’s avoid personal attacks on one another. I respect people with opposing positions on this issue and see it as an opportunity for dialogue and debate in a respectful way. Let’s not waste energy fighting each other when there is work to be done.

    Thanks everyone!

  45. Matt G says:

    atleast your ISP doesnt lie to you like charter communications… they claim they know nothing of the project, even though the CEO has already officially released the cap sizes… and even corporate office is lieing for these POS. So as it goes, they will again try to make a move on us, and we will, once again, explode…

  46. Magmar says:

    I can’t tell you how grateful I am to see someone in congress actually ‘get’ this issue.

    Time Warners policies are outright dangerous, and stand to cripple our development if many other companies adopt the same policy. Emerging digital distribution markets for movies and other media will be kneecapped as people will be biting their nails and trying to pinch and save their bandwidth.

    One of the real problems with companies like TW is that they’re sitting fat and lazy on local monopolies and see this as a shot at milking the customer for more cash for less service. Look abroad and you’ll see the win/win situation for customers when there’s real competition. Better service, lower cost.

  47. Magman9087 says:

    How come no one mentions P2P and the other sharing rip-offs that hog the internet bandwidth all the time. That is the real reason they are trying to do this. I would rather see them penalize and ban the idiot P2P people forever.

    • Craig says:


      Yes the p2p users do use bandwidth, but as I have stated before this is not about bandwidth hogs or some imaginary bandwidth shortage. This is about TWC trying to rip off their customers that have no where else to go. I could sit on with a bittorrent running all day and i bet you couldn’t even tell.

      • Anony says:

        Actually they can tell. There is an amazing about of info that gets logged on your usage.

        Take if from a cable tech rep.

  48. Anony says:

    Not that Im a fan of these. In fact I hope they dont get capped. But I want to know.. Where were you people when ATT and Comcast did this Long time ago????

    So you dont give a flying flip when its other people. But when it affects you, then theres a prob??

    • Mazakman says:

      Unfair. We are not served by ATT or Comcast in the Rochester, NY area. This site was started by Phil in response to a threat from Frontier last year to impose a 5 GB a month cap on their local subscribers and now Phil has been busting his ass over the past week or so to bring us all up to date on the proposed caps that TW wants to place on not only us in this fair city, but also in two other cities . Please look into the history of this website.

      WE ( us people ) are not happy about caps at all.

    • Wes S says:


      Much like Mazakman, I find your comment to be unfair. Most of us (like the majority of the country now) were unware of ATT and Comcast’s caps. However, with the creation of this website, we are all dedicated to stopping caps anywhere. If for some reason Time Warner dropped the cap idea in Rochester, I would like to think that many of us Rochester supporters of the site, would continue to fight for the cause for any other city Time Warner did not remove (or decided to enstate) the cap for.

    • If you wade back through my articles, you will find I have written on the Comcast cap, that at first light seems generous, but actually only right now. A year or two from now, Comcast’s cap may likely become a real problem.

      This site opposes all usage caps. It is not an answer to coping with broadband growth, it’s just a band-aid.

      This site got off the ground last summer, and I’m one guy Anony. I support other blogs and sites protesting usage caps and am glad others are speaking on these issues too. And AT&T’s cap gets called out here as well. Most people don’t go back in the archives of articles I have written here on these issues, but they are still here for people to read.

      Remember too that we are in a race to the bottom. If TW does a 40GB cap, nothing prevents Comcast from lowering theirs to 40GB as well. Across every capped city, regardless of provider, we’re in this together. If you want to volunteer to help pen articles on caps in other cities, please use the Contact form and volunteer. Thanks.

    • Craig Wood says:

      Clearly I only care about my self interest, being from California and all.

      Oh, wait.

  49. Gregory says:

    Caps are a government acknowledged way to gather control over a domain once rich in promise and now rife with fraud and hacking and an unprecedented digital theft that accounts for (in many studies) over half the traffic. Theft. Half the traffic. Because government trusted in the public. Why should the infrastructure be enhanced to accommodate this? It won’t be.

    If people realize accountability is a valid part of our collective online experience and crime subsides to acceptable rates, the traffic would fall back to legal activity, then build as new legal features roll out and the caps could go away. Instead the public will squander this wonderful network to a virtual police state because none of this will stop until government and industry controls the tools necessary to do it. And they will. They always have. And industry will get rich on this sort of public anarchy, with government support because pirates won’t stop. You may not speed in your car but your tax money goes to containing it. You may not shop lift either, but you pay for the protections in your purchase. So get ready.

    H. L. Mencken once observed “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”’

    Brace yourself.

  50. Terry says:

    I just sent this to all three Assembly Reps for my zip code. I trie dto use the web form to also contact my 2 NY Senate Reps, but the both had errors. If the Federal Gov’t can get involved the State can too.

    Good Evening to Each of You,

    There is a growing anger with Time Warner and it’s planned capping of internet bandwidth usage and associated billing. You may have heard about it already. Please look into this issue. I am confident you will find it’s bad for consumers and bad for NY. A good starting point to learn of the level of outrage is stopthecap.com. Please look into this vital and wide reaching issue. Thank you.

    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

  51. ralfvin says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Warner_Cable edited with links to:

    # April 7, 2009 – US Congressman Eric Massa, NY (D) calls on Time Warner to eliminate Broadband Internet Cap. [2]

    # Stop the Cap [3]

  52. Scott Spencer says:

    Finally! Someone who has some balls to fight the damn Time Warner capping bullshit! Give them hell Massa!

    If this cap goes into affect, you will see a ton of people canceling their Time Warner and going with Verizon (which yes has a cap but is much higher) or saying the hell with Internet all together and then watching the companies hang themselves with their own ties.

    Personally, I’d like to line up all of the idiots who think this capping of the Internet is a good idea (the phone and cable companies, not users) and say ok, then let me take away EVERYTHING you own that is NOT needed (cars, high salary, big houses) and see them live in an apartment, making just over minimum wage, paying on a car, and hoping to GOD that you still have a job in the next week. There are a lot of people out there that turn to the Internet for help and also to watch some TV and to listen to streaming music. Its the only way to calm down and try to relax so that they don’t go out and go postal on someone.

  53. Mike says:

    In my opinion CAPS should be decleared illegal because the architecture of the internet does not permit a customer to determine how much data will be downloaded when they access a webpage and whether or not the website will link them to another website downloading advertising thereby adding additional bytes of data to the download. Furthermore one’s computer or computers, applications or update programs, will generate usage without the customers ability to know how many bytes of data have been downloaded. Basically customers are being charged for usage without being provided with a means for determining the amount of usage that will be created when accessing the internet.

  54. DOWN_with_TWC! says:

    Mike, some very good points. Also with the number of wireless home networks on the rise “stealing” bandwidth is also an issue. For example where I live I can see 4 home wireless networks and 3 of the 4 are not password protected. So if we assume one family only uses there internet for e-mail and the occasional web browsing and signs up for a lower tier but since there wireless network isn’t protected and someone starts “stealing” there bandwidth before you know that person’s up to the $75 over the cap mark without even knowing. Bottom line: ITS A BAD IDEA!

  55. Gregory says:

    It’s a fine idea. It will reduce illegal P2P, protect rights holders, hold people more accountable to their online choices and generate revenue for the TWC shareholders, drive local competition to bring prices down all the while reducing network congestion and speeding things up quite a bit for everyone. And wireless will become like a privately held handgun, (locked) password protected or the owner held accountable for its use. This is not brain surgery people. This is the future. We thought clean water should be free forever, too. We pay for that on a meter, too. There is nothing wrong with holding the user accountable to what they use. That’s called “perfectly fair”.

    • P2P is not “illegal” and there are many completely legitimate P2P applications. Regardless of that, P2P’s glory days are already past us and people move on to other things. Even TW doesn’t pull out the old torrent chestnut anymore.

      Rights holders through usage capping? That’s like saying painting your house protects against gun violence. If TW is taking on policing traffic on its network, there are worse things than someone downloading a CD.

      TWC shareholders are already concerned about this crazy cap scheme. Financial analysts covering this industry have already expressed their doubts about all of this, and say it could cause a stampede of customers out the door into the hands of competitors. Revenue was up for broadband by 11% last year because of new customer adds and bandwidth costs declining for them. Now watch what happens when customers leave.

      BTW, at least here in Rochester, with all of the network “hogs” already on the network, I’ve never encountered any significant slowdown unless there was a problem way down the line on the backbone somewhere outside of TW. No network congestion problems here now.

      The water analysis, along with the buffet stuff, is not an apt comparison. The telephone and cellular one is better, because both are transporting bits of digital data up and down data networks. And telephone calling plans are more often unlimited than ever before, and now unlimited cell phone plans are also becoming available and affordable. TW sells their own “unlimited” digital phone service.

      Why is one going up and the other going down? Greed untempered by competition, which is limited in the markets where TW is trying their experiment.

      And if you favored a true pay for what you use metered system, you should also be opposed to TW’s plans because they impose extra penalties on customers favoring the very plan you seem to advocate.

      The lowest tier of service gives you 1GB. It’s the classic metered plan. You only pay for exactly what you use. But TW discourages people from choosing this formula by vastly reducing speeds AND imposing a 100% extra penalty on each additional GB – $2.00 each, which represents nearly a 2000% markup.

      The last thing they want is people on this, or any other true metered billing system. To use their own logic, that most people would never have their bills increased even under the older 10GB – $39.99 plan, they would be LOSING money on a truly metered marketplace, even at their insane pricing. Here’s how:

      Consumer uses 10GB on originally proposed TW $39 plan: Pay $39
      Consumer uses 10GB on newer plans (20 or [email protected]$39): Pay $39
      Consumer uses 10GB on truly all-metered $2/GB plan: Pay $33!
      ($15 monthly access + 9GB overage ($18) = $33

      They think they are sly, but oh so am I! It’s all in the $2/GB formula… makes it untenable and expensive for people who want to do EXACTLY what you advocate – pay for exactly what you use, because their speeds are also drastically limited – a penalty for trying to get the cheaper price. Why do you think they priced it at $2/GB?

      Welcome to the fight.

    • Craig says:

      Your view of the future will only result in less internet content, no digital distribution, no more advances in the telecommunication sector etc etc. Whos going to want to view content on the internet when it is going to cost them more money? This is not brain surgery Gregory, bandwidth is cheap thats a fact you can argue till your blue in the face but your still wrong. Cost of TWC to due upgrades and maintenance went down 12% from last year. Water as I have pointed out to you in previous post is not the same as bandwidth. Users pay for “access” to the internet and the speed and nothing more because it cost TWC nothing extra to provide them with the extra hours they use their service.

      -Capped bandwidth is not going to “magically” improve your bit rate
      – This network congestion Ted Stevens series of tube stuff is so outdated
      -Perfectly Fair = Flat Rate

    • DOWN_with_TWC! says:

      Gregory you could not be more wrong on some of your points. First of all not all P2P is illegal as Phil stated. I download patches to video games via P2P because I get a faster download speed than some of the free file hosting sites. Secondly I live in a very RIT populated, as well as a very family orientated area where Road Runner is the only source of broadband internet and I have never experienced slowdowns or service problems. I’m going to go out on a limb and say you have some association with TWC or have a billion dollars and this simply won’t effect you financially.

  56. Josh Beck says:

    1.) It’s “perfectly fair” when the market is competitive and the company attempting to impose a pricing scheme doesn’t have monopoly status.

    2.) Bandwidth use and water use have very little in common.
    They share some basic superficial qualities. By and large, the comparison
    doesn’t work.

    3.) If Time Warner were putting these caps in place to hold users accountable for usage based on the fact they don’t have proper infrastructure, which is the argument they are making, that could also deemed “perfectly fair” on the part of the company.

    However, this move is about protecting media interests. Companies like Netflix and Hulu directly compete with services like On Demand and premium cable. By imposing this cap, Time Warner is effectively taxing the competition and driving customers to their own media.

    It’s the internet. Not ‘Time-Warner’-net.

    Josh Beck

  57. Tony Cord says:

    Time to contact my own representatives I think…

  58. Steve T says:

    Kudo to Congressman Massa for his stand on bandwidth caps!

  59. Madeleine says:

    This piece of writing will help the internet people for creating
    new blog or even a weblog from start to end.

Search This Site:


Recent Comments:

  • John: This new channel by Comcast is a joke. I want a reduction in my billing fees....
  • IraMad: Sorry, but PAYPAL won’t do Didley for you! Read these postings! Everyone who disputed the LIVEWAVE transaction, says PAYPAL sides with the company, n...
  • IraMad: Are you a company troll? Live wave CANNOT work. Long wire antennas work with short-wave, BUT with an electronic tuner! LW claims to use the ground w...
  • Julie Wiley: They emailed me an address to return them to, so I Googled the address and it was the physical address of a post office. I'm not that stupid. So I r...
  • paul: Hi guys, this worked perfectly....you made my day! I had called the retention department a year ago and they gave me $60 off per month...pretty good d...
  • Phillip Dampier: Can you scan or photo a copy of the letter and I'll blot out the personal info. Would like to investigate. [email protected]
  • Paul Houle: Recently I got a letter from Frontier that disclosed that my internet speeds were not up to the advertised rates. Seems like they had a dispute with ...
  • BM: So this law was passed without any notification to the citizens or their consent.. People need to fight these 5G towers, they are very dangerous! Peop...
  • Deborah Kohler: My spectrum bill just went up over $30 for the month. Spectrum states it was due to being on a promotional offer for the first year. My daughter and I...
  • Matt M: The million dollar question is this: Who, where or what does a NYS homeowner without broadband contact to get service? I am now the only house on my...
  • L. Nova: So FCC and the Trumpsters panic because SF tries to actually foster competition? Of course, we know that competition is only good if it doesn't inconv...
  • Anthony: Phillip Dampier: What if I cancel the service, and then a week later request the service again?, that will give me the initial benefits? or should I u...

Your Account: