I have been getting news tips {thanks Carsten, J, and others) about newspapers in Texas reporting that the Texas Internet Rationing Plan from Time Warner has been “postponed” until October, and this represents some sort of consumer victory.

Hardly.

First, this is not exactly breaking news.  Landel Hobbs, Time Warner’s COO, already made mention the cap plan would begin implementation in Austin and San Antonio in October, presumably with a trial period.  It sounds like Mr. Hobbs, bless his heart, already knew about the “consumer victory” that comes “as a result of complaints” before the Time Warner folks on the ground down in Texas knew, because they only started speaking about it this week.

Trials will begin in Rochester, N.Y., and Greensboro, N.C., in August. We will apply what we learn from these two markets when we launch trials in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, in October, but we will guarantee at least the same level of usage capacity in these trials.

Now, actual billing starts in January, up until they change their minds again.

A trial program intended to charge varying rates depending on usage was slated to begin this summer. The decision to delay the meter program was prompted mostly by customer reaction, said Gavino Ramos, Time Warner’s vice president of communication for South Texas.

“What happened as we’re continuing to listen was we worked in some of the comments and ideas that got sent to us,” Ramos said. “We came to the realization, let’s do this in October.”

Meanwhile, Rochester is the big “lucky winner,” joining Greensboro in starting the Internet Rationing Plan in August.  I suppose it was inevitable our two cities come closer together, considering a whole lot of people exiting Rochester end up moving to North Carolina.  Sooner is better in cities with fewer competitive choices anyway.

If Time Warner was truly responsive to its customers, it would drop this Titanic-like disaster of a rationing plan today.

There is no consumer victory here, and this company is still not listening.  Instead, by putting off the abuse for a few months, they hope you will fall complacent and not continue to engage in a united effort to resist unwarranted capping of your Internet access.  The first step of coping with an abusive relationship with your Internet provider is recognizing you are in one.  Being told you are not going to get hit with punitive caps today, but in a few months, doesn’t change that.  Don’t be a victim.

"This is not a rate increase."

When you say something on those series of tubes we call the Internet, sometimes it’s awfully hard to get those statements back, thanks to the magic of Google caching.  Carrie, one of our great readers from Texas, clued us in on a tweet from Omar Gallaga at the Austin American Statesman, who noted a copy of a Google cached Time Warner corporate website page that said more than was perhaps intended.

It appears one section was cut out in the final release, but with the miracle of Google caching, it all comes back to life.  More and more, this reminds me of the bizarro world thinking Frontier was doing last summer, until they got smart.  Maybe it’s something going around.

Answers to Your Questions

Will my bill go up?

This is not a rate increase. Rather, it gives each level of Road Runner service a generous amount to use each month but, if of someone goes over the monthly usage allocation, they have to pay a slight fee. That’s the only way your bill would change.

How will this impact my Price Lock Guarantee?

The plan will not impact your Price Lock Guarantee price, but it could mean a small incremental fee that will vary by month depending on how much you exceed the megabit usage that goes with your level of Road Runner service.

How can I know if the plan is fair?

Time Warner Cable simply wants to make sure only those who use large amounts of data either upgrade to a level better for them or pay for incremental amounts they choose to have each month. This ensures others don’t have to pay for or subsidize those heavier users.

Why do I have to pay more for Road Runner?

You won’t be paying more if you are like the average user. These new fees will only be charged to the small group of heavy users that the rest of RR customers are effectively subsidizing.

Well, well, well.  I can see why the language was pulled here.  It’s utter fiction. “A slight fee” amounts up to $75 in overages each month, the bandwidth they are providing is generous if you were accessing the Internet from Zimbabwe, and from Time Warner’s own statements to the SEC, nobody is subsidizing anything – profits are up in the broadband division, as bandwidth costs decline.

But the most important part of this is the bit about throwing Price Lock Guarantee customers under the bus. Price lock contracts are available in some markets, mostly in Texas.  They are not part of service in Rochester. A “small incremental fee?”  Like the “slight fee” of up to $75 a month in overages?  Because these statements are no longer part of the “official release,” we’re not about to say this is what is coming, but it does shine light on the kind of thinking that seems to be at work here.  Doesn’t a Price Lock Guarantee mean… you know, a guaranteed price lock — your rate stays the same.   Why anyone would even draft something saying otherwise is beyond me.

The smartest thing Time Warner could do is pull this entire disaster altogether, and get back in the business of providing affordable Internet access to customers without gotchas, caps, and overage fees.

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), took additional steps to educate and inform his supporters this morning in an e-mail message designed to bring additional attention to the Time Warner usage capping issue, and to encourage people to stay aware of ongoing developments.

Rep. Massa has taken a lead on this issue, in response to large numbers of complaints from constituents in his western New York district who would be seriously affected by Time Warner’s usage caps and price hikes.  Many within his district live in rural areas outside of metropolitan Rochester, and do not have access to DSL or wi-fi alternatives, leaving Time Warner broadband with de facto monopoly status.  The congressman expressed dissatisfaction with the “concessions” offered by Time Warner last week in response to customer complaints, noting that customers who wish to retain their current level of broadband service are being asked to pay three times more for the same product.

Hello,

First off, I want to reassure you that this is not a fundraising email.  Instead I want to take a minute to update you on the issues surrounding my opposition to Time Warner Cable’s new plan to restructure how they charge internet customers.  Their new fee structure would be based on how much customers download from the internet, and would result in huge fee increases for many local customers.   Time Warner is rolling this new plan out in several test markets around the country, including right here in the 29th Congressional District, where they have a near-monopoly on internet access.

I stand firmly opposed to this unfair and disproportionate fee increase, and will be moving swiftly to enact legislation designed prevent this ill-conceived plan.  The Massa Broadband Fairness act will prohibit this unfair tiered price structure from internet providers.  At a time when information is vitally important to our global economy, Time Warner Cable wants to charge more for access to information on the internet.  This is a guaranteed mechanism to kill jobs and stifle the economic recovery that we so desperately need.  While I believe in a business’s right to maximize their profit potential, I believe that safeguards need to be put in place when a business has a monopoly on a specific region.  I will fight these unnecessary burdens being place on my constituents, and work to keep access to information available to all.  I believe that this will help create a more vibrant and diverse business community, and will ensure that our schools and colleges continue to lead the nation.

Thank you for all that you do.

Warmest Regards,

Eric Massa

Eric Massa
Commander US Navy (ret.)

Those interested in contacting Congressman Massa’s office to thank him for his efforts are encouraged to call one of the district offices:

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

Joe "Pags" Pagliarulo (WOAI-San Antonio) Takes Calls from Angry San Antonio Residents About Time Warner Usage Caps

Conservative talker Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo doesn’t sound too convinced by Time Warner’s explanation of why they need to slap usage caps on their customers in San Antonio. StoptheCap! reader Josh was kind enough to send us the audio. Pags doesn’t like it, and he tells San Antonio listeners Time Warner is already making plenty of money at the existing flat rate.  He also tells listeners that several Beaumont subscribers ended up with Internet bills from Time Warner amounting to “hundreds of dollars” a month.

Joe has been online since the days of Prodigy, so he’s well aware of what sounds like fact and what sounds like fiction.

So much for the “potential savings” Time Warner keeps telling people could be just around the corner.  No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, it looks like nobody in the real world is convinced by Time Warner’s Money Party.

Audio Clip: WOAI-AM San Antonio, Texas (17 minutes)
You must remain on this page to hear the clip.

Michelle wrote StoptheCap! to remind us that we’ve all been here before.  The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle takes us back:

About 75 of Rochester’s leading businessmen, merchants and bankers gathered at the mayor’s office on Oct. 28, 1886.

They were not happy. Not one bit.

The Bell telephone company had announced a rate increase. And many of the businessmen felt betrayed.

As F.J. Amsden put it, “the business men of Rochester had been encouraged to use the telephone so that it had become almost a necessity in the conduct of business. They (telephone company) have appropriated our streets and the roofs of our buildings (to string their telephone lines), and now when the system has become of general use they demand an entire change and the adoption of the toll system.”

To be sure, the rate change was substantial. Instead of paying a flat fee, as in the past, customers would pay according to actual usage. Those within a half mile of the downtown telephone exchange would pay $50 per year for 500 calls, and six cents for each call beyond that. Customers more than a half-mile from the exchange would pay an extra $20 per mile.

To angry customers, this was not only “unjust,” it was “extortionate.”

Hmmm… sounds sort of familiar, doesn’t it?  So what did people do?

J.H. Stedman, one of the angry businessmen who met in the mayor’s office that October day, urged telephone customers to unite and “refuse to use a phone.” And that’s just what they did. They went on strike.

“On November 20, 1886, they united in an action that is unparalleled in telephone history. At noon that day every subscriber removed his telephone receiver, with the understanding that it would not be replaced until the company came to terms,” according to The Great Contrivance.

The strike went on and on as customers simply canceled service, and in some cases formed their own cooperatives to provide alternative service in different areas.  Bell finally threw in the towel 18 months later and restored flat rate service to customers.

Rochester never entirely trusted Bell again, and by 1899, Rochester Telephone Company, an independent provider, was granted a license to serve the area and compete against Bell.  They promised and delivered flat rate service to customers, and maintained a reputation of excellence for decades, with one of the nation’s largest local calling areas at a cost of less than half charged by Bell in nearby Buffalo and Syracuse.

Bell eventually threw in the towel as more and more customers chose Rochester Telephone for their respect for customers and their delivery of an essential service at a fair and reasonable price.  Bell exited Rochester several years later altogether.

A lesson a certain cable company needs to remember, because consumer empowerment to cancel service is something not limited to Rochester.