Time Warner Cable is lying through it's teeth about the reasoning for imposing caps on their internet

[Hacp]

They are mad that people switch to highspeed internet+netflix+broadcast so they try to overcharge.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
I still think its more about protecting their revenue from television. My cable bill has gone up nearly $40 in the last 5 years and I still get the same shit quality video service with no new channels. Now they want to rape me with my internet prices as well.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

There are valid arguments on both sides of this... but statements like that... :laugh:

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Admit it, you're full of shit. Say they spent ONE BILLION DOLLARS on backbone equipment, and for the sake of your pathetic argument, it ALL came out of the broadband money. They're still making $3 bn profit, that's hardly hurting, and they're capping people because Hulu/Netflix/Bittorrent are making the traditional TV model outdated.

So according to you revenue minus costs = profit? You can't be serious. TWC runs the normal 8-10% profit margin. According to you and the idiots at dslreports they made 9B profit on 17B revenue.

These numbers are HIGHLY suspect and don't seem to indicate overall costs or everything.

DURRRR, they're not going to include SGA's into the analysis of how profitable each segment is doing. They're not going to take the janitor or CEO's pay from their headquarters and distribute it among tv/voice/internet/whatever.

On page 98, SGA went up 8%.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Admit it, you're full of shit. Say they spent ONE BILLION DOLLARS on backbone equipment, and for the sake of your pathetic argument, it ALL came out of the broadband money. They're still making $3 bn profit, that's hardly hurting, and they're capping people because Hulu/Netflix/Bittorrent are making the traditional TV model outdated.

So according to you revenue minus costs = profit? You can't be serious. TWC runs the normal 8-10% profit margin. According to you and the idiots at dslreports they made 9B profit on 17B revenue.

These numbers are HIGHLY suspect and don't seem to indicate overall costs or everything.

DURRRR, they're not going to include SGA's into the analysis of how profitable each segment is doing. They're not going to take the janitor or CEO's pay from their headquarters and distribute it among tv/voice/internet/whatever.

On page 98, SGA went up 8%.

Err, what? SGA's went down 18% (page 99)

Selling, general and administrative (a) (303 ) (369 ) (18 %)

But anyway, whether SGA's went up or down has no bearing on the fact that their cable internet costs have gone down while their revenue and subscriptions have gone up, nullifying their bs about people sucking up all the bandwidth and increasing their costs.

 

[SagaLore]

Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

I hope your internet gets capped a 10 per month 😀

 

[Evadman]

Businesses should make money. But that looks like TW is just raping their customers. There needs to be way more competition in the broadband market. Japan can do it for ~$40 a month with no cap at faster speeds than nearly anyone in the US can get at a residence. We are doing something wrong.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Admit it, you're full of shit. Say they spent ONE BILLION DOLLARS on backbone equipment, and for the sake of your pathetic argument, it ALL came out of the broadband money. They're still making $3 bn profit, that's hardly hurting, and they're capping people because Hulu/Netflix/Bittorrent are making the traditional TV model outdated.

So according to you revenue minus costs = profit? You can't be serious. TWC runs the normal 8-10% profit margin. According to you and the idiots at dslreports they made 9B profit on 17B revenue.

These numbers are HIGHLY suspect and don't seem to indicate overall costs or everything.

DURRRR, they're not going to include SGA's into the analysis of how profitable each segment is doing. They're not going to take the janitor or CEO's pay from their headquarters and distribute it among tv/voice/internet/whatever.

On page 98, SGA went up 8%.

Err, what? SGA's went down 18% (page 99)

Selling, general and administrative (a) (303 ) (369 ) (18 %)

But anyway, whether SGA's went up or down has no bearing on the fact that their cable internet costs have gone down while their revenue and subscriptions have gone up, nullifying their bs about people sucking up all the bandwidth and increasing their costs.

That SGA number is for corporate.

Page 98 equals documents Page 91.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

most "companies" don't have a monopoly that prevents people from going with a competitor.

 

[child of wonder]

Originally posted by: Evadman
Businesses should make money. But that looks like TW is just raping their customers. There needs to be way more competition in the broadband market. Japan can do it for ~$40 a month with no cap at faster speeds than nearly anyone in the US can get at a residence. We are doing something wrong.

We need more competition.

Most markets have the following choices: Cable internet, DSL, or dial up.

There should be multiple cable internet providers.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ric1287

What about IPTV? I'd be willing to bet $1k that if/when these greedy bastards come out with IPTV, this "bandwidth crisis" will magically disappear.

Using caching, content control protocols and multicast you can deploy your own ONnet IPvideo delivery service without placing a significant burden on capacity. You point is moo, it's a moo point.

ehh, doubt it. If every subscriber they had was switched over to IPTV: watching live tv, streaming movies/shows (which is what they are bitching about now), etc...that would be no biggie? Does not compute.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Admit it, you're full of shit. Say they spent ONE BILLION DOLLARS on backbone equipment, and for the sake of your pathetic argument, it ALL came out of the broadband money. They're still making $3 bn profit, that's hardly hurting, and they're capping people because Hulu/Netflix/Bittorrent are making the traditional TV model outdated.

So according to you revenue minus costs = profit? You can't be serious. TWC runs the normal 8-10% profit margin. According to you and the idiots at dslreports they made 9B profit on 17B revenue.

These numbers are HIGHLY suspect and don't seem to indicate overall costs or everything.

DURRRR, they're not going to include SGA's into the analysis of how profitable each segment is doing. They're not going to take the janitor or CEO's pay from their headquarters and distribute it among tv/voice/internet/whatever.

On page 98, SGA went up 8%.

Err, what? SGA's went down 18% (page 99)

Selling, general and administrative (a) (303 ) (369 ) (18 %)

But anyway, whether SGA's went up or down has no bearing on the fact that their cable internet costs have gone down while their revenue and subscriptions have gone up, nullifying their bs about people sucking up all the bandwidth and increasing their costs.

That SGA number is for corporate.

Page 98 equals documents Page 91.

Ah ok, i see it... anyway, like i said, it has no bearing on how profitable their individual operations are. They grew more profitable while still having all-you-can-eat internet

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

I would agree with you if they didn't have a near monopoly everywhere.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

I would agree with you if they didn't have a near monopoly everywhere.

And technically speaking, why are they being evil douchebags while even a terrible company like comcast has a more reasonable cap of 250 GB? Verizon doesn't have a cap either.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

I would agree with you if they didn't have a near monopoly everywhere.

And technically speaking, why are they being evil douchebags while even a terrible company like comcast has a more reasonable cap of 250 GB? Verizon doesn't have a cap either.

Thank God for Verizon. I have FiOS here, 20/5, no cap, $57.99/mo. Bright House (TWC) won't pull any stupid cap shit when they actually have competition. In areas not served by FiOS, you can still get Verizon DSL (or AT&T DSL, depending on where in Tampa). I feel sorry for everyone stuck in a TWC monopoly that basically has to deal with their cap.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

I would agree with you if they didn't have a near monopoly everywhere.

And technically speaking, why are they being evil douchebags while even a terrible company like comcast has a more reasonable cap of 250 GB? Verizon doesn't have a cap either.

Thank God for Verizon. I have FiOS here, 20/5, no cap, $57.99/mo. Bright House (TWC) won't pull any stupid cap shit when they actually have competition. In areas not served by FiOS, you can still get Verizon DSL (or AT&T DSL, depending on where in Tampa). I feel sorry for everyone stuck in a TWC monopoly that basically has to deal with their cap.

Apparently AT&T is rolling out metered bandwidth as well.

 

[her209]

An article from 2007: link

?Cable can go deploy DOCSIS 3.0 for a couple billion dollars. It?s the kind of money we can find in Bill Gates' sofa cushions,? Craddock quipped. ?We could blanket the entire U.S. footprint in a matter of years because it?s an incremental upgrade.?

DOCSIS 3.0 equipment will be roughly the same cost per port as 2.0 headend gear, while also providing ?a tremendous amount of capability and flexibility you couldn?t get before,? Craddock said.

 

[isekii]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

I would agree with you if they didn't have a near monopoly everywhere.

And technically speaking, why are they being evil douchebags while even a terrible company like comcast has a more reasonable cap of 250 GB? Verizon doesn't have a cap either.

Thank God for Verizon. I have FiOS here, 20/5, no cap, $57.99/mo. Bright House (TWC) won't pull any stupid cap shit when they actually have competition. In areas not served by FiOS, you can still get Verizon DSL (or AT&T DSL, depending on where in Tampa). I feel sorry for everyone stuck in a TWC monopoly that basically has to deal with their cap.

Apparently AT&T is rolling out metered bandwidth as well.

Great, I hope they go out of business.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

I would agree with you if they didn't have a near monopoly everywhere.

I would venture to guess that most places that TW/RR delivers service, DSL is also available.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Err, what? SGA's went down 18% (page 99)

Selling, general and administrative (a) (303 ) (369 ) (18 %)

But anyway, whether SGA's went up or down has no bearing on the fact that their cable internet costs have gone down while their revenue and subscriptions have gone up, nullifying their bs about people sucking up all the bandwidth and increasing their costs.

QFT

Regardless of the morality of TWC wanting to increase profits, it can't be denied that their PR is lying to its customers.

I don't consume products from companies which I know have lied to my face.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: isekii

Originally posted by: Special K

Apparently AT&T is rolling out metered bandwidth as well.

Great, I hope they go out of business.

From what I can gather AT&T's caps range from 20-150GB (service speeds 768kbps to 6Mbps).

At least those are slightly reasonable.

 

[Freejack2]

I'd like to say when they implement this that I'd just go with Verizon DSL, but what will probably happen is Verizon will follow suit and put a cap on too.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://blog.wired.com/business...04/consumer-group.html
same info
profits ++
costs --
their cries about needing caps about as false as it gets. never mind the bandwidth us customers are offered in the first place is 3rd rate compared to other countries. these guys have some balls to offer 3rd rate service then try to cap even that.
chart
http://blog.wired.com/.shared/...t_broadbandstats_2.gif

 

[heymrdj]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Wah wah wah.

The company wants to increase profits and reduce costs. That's because its a... company. That is what companies do.

So much entitlement in this generation. 😕

I would agree with you if they didn't have a near monopoly everywhere.

I would venture to guess that most places that TW/RR delivers service, DSL is also available.

Why is this always assumed?

My area: AT&T DSL 3mbit/768kb at basically 1/2 speed because of our distance (old copper lines). Or 23.8kb dialup

My Uncles town: Windstream DSL or dialup

My college town: Comcast cable in North area, Bellsouth/AT&T DSL in South area with 20% of the town having access to both. North of town is strictly cable. South is strictly DSL.

My girlfriends town: DSL only

My girlfriends old town: DSL only, though higher quality than where she is now.


The choices are not abundant.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://blog.wired.com/business...04/consumer-group.html
same info
profits ++
costs --
their cries about needing caps about as false as it gets. never mind the bandwidth us customers are offered in the first place is 3rd rate compared to other countries. these guys have some balls to offer 3rd rate service then try to cap even that.

3rd rate? What makes it 3rd rate? The speed itself?