The technology used by Time-Warner is easy (and cheap) to upgrade. Most of Time-Warner's cost is "sunk cost" of a fiber network that's been in place for at least a decade. Also, Time-Warner's own analysis (in Beaumont, Texas) shows that most users don't exceed their caps today.
It's clear that Time-Warner's real reason for a cap has nothing to do with usage or cost. The goal is to protect their cable TV business from Internet encroachment tomorrow, and to chisel heavy users of their service in cities where they have a virtual monopoly.
The article also points out that Time-Warner and AT&T, the other provider in Beaumont, are not competing to the benefit of consumers. AT&T has already decided to cap usage in that market. Expect the same collusion from Frontier and Time-Warner in the Rochester market.
Beaumont is a few miles up the coast from Ron Paul's district in Texas. He has a good word to describe what Time-Warner is trying to pull: "corporatism".
]]>The technology used by Time-Warner is easy (and cheap) to upgrade. Most of Time-Warner's cost is "sunk cost" of a fiber network that's been in place for at least a decade. Also, Time-Warner's own analysis (in Beaumont, Texas) shows that most users don't exceed their caps today.
It's clear that Time-Warner's real reason for a cap has nothing to do with usage or cost. The goal is to protect their cable TV business from Internet encroachment tomorrow, and to chisel heavy users of their service in cities where they have a virtual monopoly.
The article also points out that Time-Warner and AT&T, the other provider in Beaumont, are not competing to the benefit of consumers. AT&T has already decided to cap usage in that market. Expect the same collusion from Frontier and Time-Warner in the Rochester market.
Beaumont is a few miles up the coast from Ron Paul's district in Texas. He has a good word to describe what Time-Warner is trying to pull: "corporatism".
]]>