1 posted on
06/02/2008 5:57:03 PM PDT by
abt87
To: abt87
It won’t be long before Turner starts charging us to visit the FreeRepublic.
2 posted on
06/02/2008 5:59:31 PM PDT by
Brilliant
To: abt87
I just switched to FIOS, doesn’t have the same bandwidth issues.
3 posted on
06/02/2008 6:00:29 PM PDT by
Positive
(Nothing is sadder than to see a beautiful theory murdered by a gang of brutal facts.)
To: abt87
They have internet in Beaumont? If they do I guess that they can get away with charging overtime for using it.
4 posted on
06/02/2008 6:00:46 PM PDT by
FreePaul
To: abt87
I’d be on DSL in a heartbeat if my ISP ever tried this.
5 posted on
06/02/2008 6:00:48 PM PDT by
John Jorsett
(scam never sleeps)
To: abt87
Time Warner doesn’t give you what you’re paying for in the first place. Why should this be a surprise. Worst company in America IMHO.
To: abt87
JFC on a raft... Will somebody think up something NEW? Radius was originally implemented to charge for links. Old unix systems have a link cost built into the netstat and ifconfig function. Calling a long distance # on a land line is more expensive than handing it off to a computer on the border.
And guess what.... At high speeds... doing throttling costs more than it saves, because of retries.
/johnny
7 posted on
06/02/2008 6:03:29 PM PDT by
JRandomFreeper
(Bless us all, each, and every one.)
To: abt87
I try to make a money with photo and video and at max resolutions and file sizes, I burn up a few gigs easily. Add a few more if there are any FTP problems.
9 posted on
06/02/2008 6:03:49 PM PDT by
wally_bert
(Tactical Is Still Missing A Chair!)
To: abt87
I seem to remember that AOL used to charge by the minute when it first came out.
10 posted on
06/02/2008 6:04:47 PM PDT by
Clemenza
(No Comment)
To: abt87
They be just dusting off some old AOL business models.
11 posted on
06/02/2008 6:05:26 PM PDT by
Biblebelter
(If the big blue states got to choose the Republican nominee, I say let them elect him in the fall)
To: abt87
I may not have a problem with this if they gave me a monthly credit for the 100’s of tv stations I never watch.
12 posted on
06/02/2008 6:11:10 PM PDT by
OCC
To: abt87
They want to set limits for their overpriced internet access? Not only no, but **** no.
17 posted on
06/02/2008 6:17:06 PM PDT by
mysterio
To: abt87
I believe this is more of a response to legally downloading movies like Netflix's new service and the crimp it puts in Time Warner's pay per view service. If TW can charge you $4 for an extra 4 GB to watch the movie, they've grossed about the same money as if they've sold you the pay per view, and they don't have to share that $4 with the studios.
21 posted on
06/02/2008 6:27:31 PM PDT by
KarlInOhio
(Pray for Rattendaemmerung: the final mutually destructive battle between Obama and Hillary in Denver)
To: abt87
bttt
33 posted on
06/02/2008 7:24:20 PM PDT by
clyde asbury
(Not all who wander are lost)
To: abt87
Metered bandwidth is OK, but those caps are way too small. Especially for their outrageous prices.
If they’re going to have a 40Gb cap, drop the price to $20/month and assume people will pay the extra $30/month for extra data transfer.
Personally, I’ll stick with DSL, where I get a consistent 6Mb down at any time, day or night and have no caps.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson