I live just outside Massa’s district as well, but in NY-24 and while I’m glad I never had to have Kuhl as my representative now I’d rather be able to call Massa my representative.

I think a lot of people feel that way!

The limits were a crock. Bandwith gets cheaper every single day, and the prices they were charging were astronomical compared to cost and non-sensical compared to use. It a company comes out with a reasonable model that scales price to cost with a reasonable markup then people will not be nearly as mad, especially if they provide an easy way to track your bandwith usage before hand so you can see how much you really are using and how much it really is costing.

TWC just wanted to screw its customers even harder in the ass then it already does.

Didn’t Ronnie Raygun promise us deregulations would keep things cheaper?

Huh?

Still waiting…..

Consumption-based billing for Internet usage is the right thing to do. There is no way that someone who uses 10,000 times as much capacity as I do should get the service at the same rate as I pay.

Dead Wrong.

It’s not a resource in short supply. TWC is just trying to jack their profitable monopoly to the next level.

Consumption-based billing for Internet usage is the right thing to do. There is no way that someone who uses 10,000 times as much capacity as I do should get the service at the same rate as I pay

Our corporations have proven that even when they have a sensible argument, it’s a cover to do the wrong thing. Setting a floor for pricing is easy. But based on their past actions, these guys don’t know what a ceiling is.

Consumption-based billing for Internet usage is the right thing to do. There is no way that someone who uses 10,000 times as much capacity as I do should get the service at the same rate as I pay.

Oh bullshit. Capacity is ridiculously cheap and abundant, and it is only growing more cheap and more abundant with every new mile of fiber (itself, cheap and abundant). We already have caps on service based on the size of the pipes we’re hooked up to, and the goal should be to expand that service as quickly and cheaply as possible.

Right now you’re suggesting we give telecomm companies an incentive to provide less access. Make capacity more rare and it becomes more valuable. And then you can bill more. You’re asking to have people punished for efficiency. Data over wire is vastly cheaper and faster than postage, making dl’d movies via Netflix or iTunes both eco-friendly and cost effective. And you’re singling out the furthest outlayers – the guy that DLs 10 gigabytes to your megabyte – as argument to tax everyone in between.

I pay hundreds of dollars a year for unfettered net access. And, when AT&T doesn’t fuck up, I never have much room to complain. Why should I suddenly have to pay more because you download less?

Get some real competition in and let the market sort it out, which would ultimately be unlimited capacity.

It would be one thing if bandwidth pricing was at least comparable to our global counterparts. But to have a monopoly business itching to raise prices when we’re already paying 3x what the French pay and 4x what the Japanese pay? Their tone-deafness is even worse than US car companies—at least US car prices are competitive.

Instead of trying to put the squeeze on customers maybe Time Warner should look in the mirror and ask why the rest of the world is able to deliver a superior product at a drastically lower price.

"Net neutrality" is merely a code word for: "Keep giving me my giant sized free lunch."

Considering that Tedisco’s other plan, to challenge enough votes so that he would be in the lead after the absentee votes had been counted and then blame activist judges for electing Murphy, has now failed miserably,

So now we know GOP power grab plan B: Lawsuits to tie up the election until the next one ad infinitum until something goes the GOP’s way. At which point they will cry for "moving forward" and dismissing any Democratic challenges as "sore losers".

At this point I think only punitive executions (which I selflessly volunteer to perform in return for a living wage) will make these assholes stop this shit.

"but, when you get right down to it: why should a person be allowed to use an unlimited percentage of a shared resource for a fixed price ?"

As you said, this is a monopoly, so in fact the ‘shared resource’ might be far cheaper and more plentiful than the company is giving on.

In fact, we know it’s cheaper since we have the example of other developed countries.

Quota-based internet is standard practice in Australia and NZ, but the infrastructure costs are different—most of that data has to come across the transpacific pipe from the US, at a higher cost than Americans pay. There are soft (and hard) quotas in the UK as well.

Quota-based internet service is the norm in Canada too, but the quota is fairly high. My Vidéotron cable account in Gatineau Québec has a 20GB/mo cap, and Rogers in Ottawa, across the river, caps based on which tier you buy. For the standard tier, I think it is 30/GB a month.

I have my Wi-fi radio on all day and download music and movies via i-Tunes and have never come near the cap.

Chuck Schumer is the 4th or 5th worse person on the planet.

The brother knows how to win elections, though.