[Editor’s Note: The fast-changing news on the Time Warner metered usage plan and its temporary demise did not allow sufficient time to present a full history of media coverage of this issue across all of the affected areas. For historical documentation, and in case of any potential resumption of this type of plan, I feel it is important to have this material archived here for future reference. Some of the information in this news report may no longer be applicable.]

“Sorry to burst people’s bubble.”

Five words I’ll bet Time Warner’s Regional Communications Vice President Jim Gordon wished he could take back.  Before the eventual “shelving” of the rationing plan (temporarily in our view), you could really begin to sense the growing frustration from the company about the fact they had created a public relations nightmare for themselves with a tiering system that no customer clamored for, and most adamantly opposed.  But those five words, which seemed to dismiss concerns of customers, was actually a major turning point in this battle.  That evening’s news report on Rochester’s most popular newscast caused a mad dash as constituents called and e-mailed the area’s congressional delegation, as well as state and local officials, complaining about the “dismissive attitude” many came away with from Time Warner.  It also brought an avalanche of e-mails here from customers claiming that was the last straw and they were switching providers.

The anchor found the use of the gas gauge concept interesting.  So do we.  It’s a great reminder of what people in this country went through last year when insufficient competition and the quest for extreme profits sent pricing into the stratosphere.  The OPEC of the Internet is an apt term to describe operators trying to meter their way to even fatter profits.

Rachel Barnhart did a fine job here, presenting very detailed information about the Time Warner proposal, especially about the speeds on lower tiers.  There wasn’t much from the other side in this report, but it didn’t stand alone.  The station also did a package on the response of the deaf community to the cap proposal.  WHAM also was the only station in town that put up an extended interview with Jim Gordon, with more Q&A.  Barnhart has a unique perspective on this issue, having dropped her own Road Runner service (for unrelated reasons) in favor of a local cellular carrier’s data service.  She wrote about her experience in her blog.

Not rated. This was not aired. It’s an extended interview for the web. It does offer some excellent insight into the talking points and philosophy the company was using locally to push this plan on consumers. “Why Rochester… the great news is” turned out not to be the sort of framing most people here were impressed with. The speed issue for lower usage customers is not that important. It is for the “power users” who are punitively capped at ludicrously low proposed tiers. The answers don’t get any better beyond that, especially the nonsense about companies “failing” when not preparing for the future.  This from a company with a broadband product that is highly profitable, added 11% more customers in 2008 and decreased investment in its network infrastructure by the same percentage to serve those customers.  You can rebut them yourself in the comments section. The plan that Rochester overwhelmingly thought was right for us is the one we have right now.