Rochester is really getting screwed over. Verizon has no presence in that city, so Fios is not an option. The only other choice is Frontier for VERY low end DSL, I believe. Really no other choice there.

Sounds great for me since I don't want it to spread over to where I live, but could they prevent TW from capping bandwidth?

Excellent! Let's hope representatives in other affected areas will do the same!

"driving our economic recovery"
"rebuild America"
"job killing"
Spoken like a true politician. Don't get me wrong, though, I like it. Lots of folks probably don't know or care what "metered broadband" is, so he's putting it into language that people can understand, and therefore get behind.

OMG i love this guy!!!! that's what we need! i was thinking of using Netflix as a way to give pressure to TWC, since i use a lot of instant play movies which would no doubt kill my bank account if TWC went through with this.
Thank you Eric Massa!!

I fail to see how capped internet service is "job killing". I don't understand why people feel that they have a right to unlimited data usage on their internet service. I think it's completely fair to charge for what you use, as long as the terms are clearly stated. Further, why is this guy only going after metered internet? Cellular phone service is metered, why not go after that? Insist that all the cell providers only offer unlimited service.

It is interesting that they are following the opposite model of cellphones.

Though with cellphones, there are a number of companies to choose from. With broadband, most areas have to choose between the monopolistic cable company or the monopolistic phone company (in my case, Comcast or AT&T respectively).

I probably fall in the higher bandwidth range since I have pandora playing constantly, exclusively watch tv via HULU or Netflix, and do a lot of online gaming. It would really suck to have been saving money on cable only to end up spending the difference for my broadband bill.

@techstar25: I thought the same thing when I read it. He had a nice use of political key words.

@Yankees368: My Dad switched from TWC to Frontier for internet years ago. I don't know if TWC has improved their network since then, but it actually improved his internet speed since the Time Warner network was seriously overloaded. He had actually beta-tested RoadRunner starting in '98, but it just went downhill from there.

I'm glad our representative is doing something about this. I know I have voiced my displeasure. 40GB is a laugh. Using Netflix, Xbox Live i easily touch 50 to 60GB a month.

I enjoy his passion to help these people out. I too think that 40 gigs is almost unusable for most tech savy people these days, though I dont know if he should be putting all ISPs in the same basket. I am on comcast and I think that 250 gigs is whole reasonable for a high usage household much less the average one. Either way, I support him sticking it to TWC, go get em!

@Esquire99: Because TW is changing from it's current unmetered setup to a metered setup and only in select cities.

This would be the same as your cell provider "testing" a new service where your unlimited texting package is now limited to 1500 a month and pay per text in excess

@Esquire99: Yes, but cellphones plans were never all unlimited. Broadband has always been unlimited data usage since its conception. It costs a lot more money to transmit data wirelessly than it does through wires in the ground.

@Esquire99: While I agree that metered cell phone use is a crock, the point here is that metered usage of cell phones has always been the norm. All-you-can-eat broadband has also always been the norm. The companies are now trying to limit what was previously free, and raising prices, which is exactly what a monopoly does, and they're getting called out for it.

Paying for what you use *is* reasonable. What's not reasonable is that these companies are trying to both protect a failing business model and increase their profits (because 1 GB doesn't cost them near what they charge) without increasing the value of the service they offer. And that's just wrong.

He complains about the "virtual monopoly", but has he made any effort before this to bring a viable competetor into the area? Wouldn't that also bring jobs? Seems like he's unfairly demonizing TimeWarner (in this case) for a business environment that's not their fault.

@Esquire99: The difference is that with Cell providers you have competition. I too, am not opposed to paying for what you use, but when TWC controls the market, there is no option to look for an alternate.

The reason that its job killing is because of the low low caps they want to institute. Basic tier is 6 GB. If I sit down and stream one Netflix movie on my Tivo I've shot my usage. A couple of movies and check my email and I'm up to "serious broadband Hog" in their eyes.

You think that's not going to hurt Hulu, Netflix, Apple, Microsoft etc? It's a power grab and greed at its finest. It'll strangle online content delivery.

And it'll be coming to your house soon.

And regarding your Cell phone analogy-what if you made one phone call and you shot through your plan's minutes and then were charged for overage...

www.stopthecap.com

There is one simple fact. No matter how much I don't like the idea of paying more for broadband access, ISP's can not provide unlimited bandwidth for the ever increasing number of subscribers.

Before it was easy to provide an more bandwidth with fewer subscribers. Now subscribership is increasing and with the demand for online video going up, this is going to add more pressure to the net. Without charging those customers who are using more bandwidth, the quality of everyone's access will suffer. I think the legislation is a bad idea.

Wow nice. I've never seen a government representative that actually seems to understand the issues at hand. This isn't just about a company making a few bucks...this is a company that can literally cripple our economy as more and more businesses move to the internet. It's like if you had a 1 way street, and these ISP's were setting up toll booths at the start of the street, and throughout the street, you had Netflix, Itunes, Amazon, etc. People would like to shop, watch movies, listen to music, but ISP's control how much they can download, and what prices to pay, and a majority of markets are monopolies, meaning they can charge $50 a month for 2mbs with a 5 gig cap if they want (which is pathetic).

This practice has been in effect in Canada for years; now you finally know how we feel. There is an incredible monopoly on service up here.

If you want cable internet service, you get Rogers - and if you want ADSL / fibre service, you go with Bell (or a Bell wholesaler, because they own all of the lines).

Even with our DSL service going through a Bell wholesaler, while our ISP doesn't throttle us during peak times or impose a bandwidth cap, Bell could modify that at any moment.

I'm going to a townhall meeting he's holding tomorrow in the area, to support his stance.

I think he's right on the money. If you have tried to apply for a retail job or any position through a chain you would know you get directed to their online application site. The internet really does fuel our world. I have heard on this site horror stories about people getting charged outragious amounts of money for data usage and we wouldn't want fear of this happening to cause folks to not do something that they needed to do. I know you can go to the library and use their computers, but there are lines, and if there are new charges implemented who knows if librarys will be able to continue providing a free service like this.

Please don't let this come to my community

Really, the bill should say that the only way metering would be allowed is if there were a certain number of competitors on equal footing. And even then, there should be some limits on the details of metering such as showing the profit-per-gig as it relates to the expenses of expanding to a certain area.

I like the fact that he's focusing on the monopoly aspect. Time Warner Cable and many cable companies elsewhere, are monopolies, and unfairly exploit that privilege.

True utility companies are granted monopoly status, and in return must get regulatory approval to change their terms of service. Cable companies typically secure defacto monopolies through exclusive franchise agreements granted by local authorities who should be securing better terms for their constituents rather than giving away the farm.

In my opinion, no cable company should be given an exclusive service area, ever. The problem with cable companies and their monopolistic service has persisted for decades now.

@Esquire99: Cellular phones can be used anywhere. Landlines (local), cable, satellite... all these are unlimited services. Cable internet is based from the home and falls in with these guys. If you open the door to metered bandwidth..........

Let me put it this way -- would you be happy if TW told you suddenly, you can only watch XX amount of TV a week and will charge you for overuse?

The other difference is MANY people can forgoe tv. But internet has become more necessity than luxury with time.

I'm avidly against metered internet; however, the REAL issue is the EXTREMELY low caps and the fact that it will only help TW.

The customer-base that isn't using much GB of data is just surfing the web. When just doing some internet surfing, the difference between 2mbps and 7mbps is not really noticible. So NO ONE wins except TW.

I'm not totally opposed to caps, but these are unreasonable, just a blatant money grab. I wonder if TW came in with these lowball numbers anticipating blowback, planning all along to move to 100g or something, but looking like they conceded because of how they played it. I have basic tier, and 100g sounds fair to me for $22/month.

@Yankees368:

I live in Rochester. Frontier has several options for DSL speed. I've tested my DSL speed against a friend who lives a few blocks away on Road Runner, and their about the same.

I suspect Frontier is going to see a big boom in business over this.

I strongly encourage people to write Congressman Massa to voice your support for his efforts. Also write your local representatives telling them to support Congressman Massa in his efforts. It's the best way to make sure TW gets a strong and clear message they can't ignore!

@Esquire99: Do you download software? Play video games? Use iTunes? Watch YouTube/Hulu? Metered broadband makes all these activities more expensive. You'll stop doing them, and the people providing these services will be out of work. You're fine with that?

People who are saying that metering is reasonable (and paying for bandwidth is fine), but TWC pays their upstream provider ~6 cents per gigabyte (possibly less). With the packages they want to charge anywhere from $6/gig to about $1.35/gig, with any overage billed at $1/gig. I know cell phone companies screw you too, but not like this. I mean this is orders of magnitude type price gouging, and the fact that TWC is only doing it in cities without competition (Buffalo and parts of Syracuse both have FIOS) really makes it clear that they are trying to screw over people who have no other choice.

Check out this ars technica article from today with a breakdown of the price gouging.
[arstechnica.com]

@Yankees368: Greensboro, NC is mad over the changed to metering, so they're finally going to allow other vendors in to offer users a choice.

I believe the official comment from TW in response to Greensboro's opening of the market: "We're taking this very seriously."

Let's just hope that the companies that want unlimited broadband (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) have more pull than the cable companies. Individually they don't but collectively they probably do.

@razremytuxbuddy: I'm ok with them having an exclusive contract since they are shouldering the cost of installing the lines. However, these contracts are too long to start out with, and keep getting extended.

@Esquire99:

It's "job killing" in that:

1. Any new internet venture that has a really good idea may find it hard to garner funding because internet bandwidth restrictions, thus stopping the creation of new businesses.

2. Old businesses like Hulu.com, and downlaoding services like Steam, Direct2Drive, FileFront, etc. may have to lay off employees because their services are particularly high bandwidth services.

3. Mainstay internet businesses would suffer from a decrease in traffic as now that internet usage is limited people will not be venturing to too many websites outside their "musts".

Metered service is VERY bad news for America. Maybe not for other countries, but as we have been born and bred with unlimited data, taking that away could send a shock through the entire system that not only stifles new ventures and ideas but also new jobs.

I'm glad somebody in Congress has a backbone enough to stand up to big ISPs and their virtual monopolies.

I don't mind the general concept of metered internet usage. People who only use a tiny bit of bandwidth can, theoretically, pay a tiny subscription fee (say, $10/month) while the more heavy duty users pay more. This could lead easier network management as users manage their own usage and naturally cut back on unnecessary traffic.

However, the cost structure has to be reasonable (maybe 3 residential tiers, exceed the usage on one tier and you're bumped up to the next tier, pro-rated, for the rest of the month), based on what the average user would use if the usage was not metered, and would need good monitoring capabilities.

@Esquire99: I'm in Rochester, and I'm okay with metered internet. But lets be fair. I pay around the price of their new 100 gb plan for my phone, internet, and television with sports channels. To make me pay that, plus phone and TV, plus overage (A streamed movie is around 7-9Gbs, it won't take me any time to hit the cap) is crazy. Reasonable tiers with reasonable prices.

If you watch You-Tube movies, or torrent some files (legit or not), or listen to internet radio, you are bound to go over too.

Last night at an Austin Townhall meeting, one speaker had done some pretty indepth research and was posing the idea that once TWC does this they're going to then go to Google, Youtube, Hulu etc and demand huge fees to allow their "customers" to be able to use their sites without being charged. Sounds plausable to me...

@techstar25: BINGO!

@Esquire99: All these people are pretty much wrong.

The problem with metered internet is two-fold:

A) It's not a problem in communities with competition.
B) It's a problem because Time Warner is cutting off the competition and forcing you to use their service. You can't watch Hulu, but you can use their on-demand viewing service.

To be honest, I think TW can do whatever they want as long as these municipalities allow competition to come in.

@dwhuntley: Japan has very high speed cable internet (at least 4x ours), for what comes to about 30 dollars a month. They aren't metered, and you can't say they would use much less than people in the US.
You need to figure that they take our money, some of it should go to getting us bandwidth, and some should go to improving the technology. More subscribers calling for more bandwidth is offset by the payments made by the new subscribers.

@Esquire99: It's job killing because capping internet usage doesn't create jobs but it creates unnecessary overhead in a monopolized market.

This would make life hell for MMO(Rpg) addicts such as myself. I average downloads of 10g+ a week trying out new games, patching said games, checking out trailers, plus the passive bandwith use of Ventrilo (a must-have) and the packets send and received just during gameplay.
If I had a limited useage plan, I'd be screwed.

@Esquire99:

I agree that it's not great, and I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, but I don't see why there's any legal grounds for mandating all-you-can-eat internet.

*Sent, I mean.

@Nathan Yost:

"And regarding your Cell phone analogy-what if you made one phone call and you shot through your plan's minutes and then were charged for overage..."

My first cellphone plan: 20 minutes/month. So I'm very familiar with that concept.

@razremytuxbuddy:

Very very very few contracts are exclusive. Generally only for company-owned developments. What keeps competitors from building is the fact that the economics of being a cable overbuilder are terrible.

ABOUT FUCKING TIME

That is all.

Wow, a politician fighting AGAINST big business and FOR the interest of his consituency?

Attaboy!

@Esquire99:
I agree that the cell phone analogy is a little off, but no one has explained why they feel they have a "right" to unlimited internet service. Business models change, and if TWC doesn't feel that truly unlimited internet is viable anymore, they should be free to change that. If people don't like it, they'll get their internet somewhere else. What I'm reading here is noting but complaints that people don't like the other place they can get their internet (too slow, etc.), so they want the government to tell TWC that they have to provide them with unlimited service so they don't have to switch. The argument that people are simply used to unlimited bandwidth is total BS. Times change, services change, prices change. Arguing that "this is how it's always been" is not terribly persuasive.

I'm well aware of how bandwidth caps will affect peoples usage. I probably use a lot of data on a monthly basis, way more than average. But I don't feel that I have a right to use that much data. As my current plan is, I have truly unlimited, but my provider may decide to change that. Should they do so, I'll either investigate other alternatives or I'll adjust my usage or plan accordingly. What I won't do is expect the government to step in and protect me. Internet service is not a right. It's not a true necessity (there are still books and other ways to get information). If you don't like the terms upon which the service is offered, find another provider. Don't like the TWC is the monopoly in your area? Lobby your local representatives to encourage competition by easing their franchise restrictions.