Time Warner confirms bandwidth cap test

we will tax Time Warner's profits at 90%. Then they can worry about product and not profit.

Improve the infrastructure, dumb asses. (Oh gee, 5% of all drivers use 50% of the roads. That makes for traffic. We don't need better roads, let's just make them drive less.)

Also - Im sure all of the online delivery "stores" are loving this (iTunes, NetFlix, etc.) -- "Rent online for only 3.99, and an extra fee that your ISP will add for the extra bandwidth it will take."

Doofuses.

ISPs got the idea from the food industry. The food industry found years ago that while we notice price hikes like a sign on the Vegas strip, we don't seem to notice when they reduce the amount of product in the package instead. . . The ISPs are banking on the fact that many people won't notice the bandwidth cap and won't care when we jump up and down about.

its convenient too that this comes at a time when other services might be cutting into their revenue for pay-per-view movies!

Yes, taxing the company's profits and using government regulation to make sure you get maximum bandwidth is the PERFECT way to get what you want!

That's one of the worse ideas i've heard to date.

Taking huge chunks out of a company's profits is a guaranteed way stifle any creative work or drive for growth and improvement. Putting controls of these resources is also a guranteed way to make sure employees do just enough to get by and keep their current salary, with reprecussions to decisions falling on the beuracracy instead of the company's hierarchy.

The real way to look for improved network speeds is for the market to demand it. When one company makes the investment to improve bandwidth speeds, others have to follow or else they'll loose customers. When more efficient technologies and delivery systems for carrying broadband to your home/business, providers will JUMP on faster speeds once one takes the plunge.

Don't worry, faster is inevitable. You can either be patient and wait, or advocate, or research. Big government is not the answer here, but true progress in the provider BUSINESS.

*sigh* ...libs...

It's almost certainly an attempt to protect their PPV revenue streams more so than anything else. I would argue that "on demand" channels on a digital cable network are just another form of network traffic, just like my web browsing. Therefore, if they are going to limit bandwidth, it should apply to that as well. Otherwise they could use the same strategy for other things by calling it "interactive TV" and claim it's exempt from the net neutrality regulations. Capping the bandwidth is a pretty reliable with to eliminate the competition for their own movie services.

Exact point - FOIS - Making Comcast announce look we have new cable modems out next year that offer 120MBs speed...would they have said that if Verizon hadn't started installing fiber into comcast's customers homes...NO...Wasn't any government agency forcing Comcast to do that. And you have to be sooo out of your mind to think anytime any regulation causing a business to spend more money isn't passed onto the end user/customer....Please GROW UP.

but business always seems to ask for it. Government regulation is the customers way of saying that we don't like what business is doing and the fact is that without regulation business just flips us off. Nobody sets out to regulate business just for the sake of regulation. Maybe if business didn't treat its customers as chattel... . . . . . . . . . . *sigh* ...neocons... waiting for the market does NOT cure everything ... regulation certainly doesn't either ... BUT, every day I wait for the almighty market is every day I pay more and get less.

If you don't like what you get from what's available now, and you don't want to wait, it's like i said before- advocate, research, or develop. OR don't get ANY service, but tell prospective companies what WOULD get your business. The more people you get demanding (and I say demand in the sense that X-company won't get your business until those things are present. it doesn't work when you keep paying them anyway) the more likely you'll see improvements.

If you're smart enough, you can start up your own company, or develop cost-productive methods for infrastructure improvement that you can patent and sell.

I can understand laziness in this instance. But I can't stand lazy whiners who cry to momma that they don't like their lot in life; not only because it annoys, but it's putting YOURSELF down. If changing the status quo is that important, there's pretty much always a way to do so within your grasp. In this instance, if you know enough about the internet to care, you have the tools to at least attempt one of these options.

As to that "neoliberal" comment, I take offense sir! ;-) If you're going to classify me, call me a full-blooded, founding-fathers conservative. Perhaps instead of using these forums to b**ch, we could use it to throw ideas around on HOW to get what we want.

First, I wonder how many people this BTW, this is how most of the world gets internet. There is a reason they laugh at you because you have to pay the phone company when someone calls you on your cell phone.