I keep seeing articles about Time Warner beginning to test the implementation of metered internet and figured that maybe it was time to give a call to Time Warner and let them know what I think. It took be about an hour and a half before I was finally able to talk to someone who was able to help me, but I think it was absolutely worth it.
Now, the reason that I am writing this blog post is because I want everyone who enjoys being able to watch their favorite movies and TV shows on line, enjoys the luxury of working from home over a VPN, enjoys learning about some of the most obscure stuff you can find, enjoys downloading software packages, and enjoys doing anything else the internet has to offer to call your ISP and tell them that you will be taking your monthly business elsewhere if you are forced into using metered internet. It doesn't matter if you have no other options in your area, it doesn't matter if you don't live in Beaumont, Texas (where Time Warner is currently testing their metered internet service), and it doesn't matter if you won't be affected by the metering because you would be under the cap anyways (in fact, it is extra important that people in this situation call). Just do it. My actual phone call only took half an hour and that was after they put me through a series of redirects. It's not hard, and it is helping take a small step forward to keep our ISPs from taking a giant step back.
Here is the Time Warner phone number to call:
- 877-317-7766
If you call that number, you are going to have to have an account with Time Warner or RoadRunner, tell them that you are calling because you have a service complaint about metered internet, they should send you to someone in accounts or accounting or something like that. All you have to say there is that you are concerned about the possibility of Time Warner going to a metered internet model. When I called, after I told them why I was concerned the lady asked me a simple question: "If Time Warner forced you to use a metered layout, would you continue using our service?" I gave her a simple answer back... "no." Thats all you need to do. So is it worth it to you?
If you have another service provider and want me to add their number to the above list, please let me know and I will get it up there right away. Likewise, if you know any extensions that go straight to any high ups at these places, let me know and I will add those too.
Thanks for reading. I hope you decide to do the right thing and act.
----- UPDATE -----
Someone on Reddit provided a list of some providers and how to get straight to talking with someone. I have no idea if any of these work, but if your ISP is listed, it might be worth a try.
- America Online F 800‑827‑6364 Press 0 at each prompt, ignoring messages.
- AT&T Worldnet F 800‑400‑1447 Press 0 at each prompt, ignoring messages.
- Bellsouth FastAccess DSL F 888‑321‑2375 Press 1; at prompt press 1; at prompt press 1; at prompt press 1; at prompt press 2, ignoring messages.
- CompuServe F 800‑848‑8990 Press 1211.
- Earthlink F 888‑327‑8454 Press 1; press 0 at each prompt thereafter, ignoring messages.
- Hughesnet F 866‑347‑3292 Press 2. Juno F 888‑839‑5866 Press # at each prompt, ignoring messages.
- MSN F 800‑386‑5550 Say "agent" at each prompt, until offered a representative; say "yes."
- Netscape F 866‑541‑8233 Press 000.
- NetZero F 866‑841‑1442 Press #### at each prompt, ignoring messages.
- People PC F 800‑736‑7537 @ Press 0 at each prompt, ignoring messages.
- SBC DSL support F 877‑722‑3755 Say "sales".
- Sprint Broadband Direct F 888‑996‑0001 Press 00.
- Time Warner Road Runner 877‑318‑8333 Direct to human.
- Verizon DSL F 800‑567‑6789 Say "agent" at each prompt, ignoring messages.
- Verizon FiOS F 888‑553‑1555 At prompt say "operator"; at prompt say "yes"; at prompt say "operator"; at prompt say "yes."
I know some of these ISPs aren't currently thinking about metering, but it might still be worth a call to tell them you don't want to see them rolling it out or letting them know you appreciate the fact that they are not considering it.
18 comments:
Weird.. ALL of Australia's internet plans are metered. Thats how it's been for years & years and it works fine for us. From a business perspective it makes perfect sense as well.
You pay for a big plan you get a huge DL limit, pay for a cheap plan get a small limit. What's the problem?
I understand the charging for high bandwidth during peak times, but would like to see:
1) The charge for only PEAK times not total monthly use, with a way for the user to automatically throutle back his use if needed, rather than paying for excess use.
2) A cable supplied tool to allow me to determine my use and if I am coming close to the extra charge use.
That way NetFlix, etc. can use off peak capacity, and a local disk for providing video to me and still allowing the network to be efficently used.
I believe that when people signed up for UNLIMITED, that meant exactly that, UNLIMITED. How can an ISP change the rules in the middle of the game? Seems lawsuits will be in order.
JT
http://www.ULtimate-Anonymity.com
The problem with metered internet is that we have to settle for the crappy speeds that isps give us. Rather than isps improving their services and allowing for greater bandwidth they are forcing us to suffer. My putting a limit on the internet usage than people will do less downloading and watch less streaming tv and so the internet won't be the same. The beauty of unlimited is that you have the freedom to do what you want not what your isp wants. It's a control thing.
A friend of mine pays $200 AUD/month for something like 50 gigabytes. Cox's biggest plan, 60gb/mo for $50 USD/mo (they don't enforce that) is much cheaper.
I think the problem for a lot of these people is they don't really realize how small that is. They really need to install some usage tracking software and see how much they use, maybe try to go without making big downloads and see how much still gets used merely by ads and casual browsing.
The only reason cable companies want to meter internet, no matter what they say, is so they can quash out any advancement of streaming video online that is the same quality or better then what they are offering.
They should be taken to court over this as most people would consider it anti-competitive.
I have called an pledged my support FOR metered internet. Most of you dont realize how little you actualy use. I bet you all pay for unlimited anything you can get, throwing all that money away. Its not metered internet thats is the problem its the supposed unlimited thats the problem, sets unrealistic expectations!
Clayton: They aren't going to make the plans less expensive for users with the bare minimum usage...
if you don't want to use your cell minutes, etc... call them through the relay service. Add "myiprelay" to your buddies or go to ip.relay.com and dial out from there. MUCH easier
The internet is a flat rate call. I can call anybody in my home town for as long as I want. We have the phone line capabilities. There's no TransAtlantic cable that gets bottlenecked. It's the companies' servers. They also require as much energy as small cities. They need to be cheaper.
I think tightening up on the top 10% of users might be a move that would not affect most customers with the hassle of the plan.
I am disappointed with this control mechanism. It will really put a label and price tag on every single site you visit moreso than the library books interruption. This is 4th amendment material here. I'm serious. We're serious.
I'm planning on shifting off the internet by 2012 and onto a new medium, or cracking it with some tool if there is no privacy and flat rate allowed. This is a connect the dots that can't stand. Generic bandwidth is fine. This is net non-neutrality.
Paying for extra service might be an acceptable and clickable charge for some of the very heaviest users. But it'd have to be controlled in a way like comments are limited on Reddit. If you comment up like 15 times in a row they say "hey woah big feller. Commenting it up there. Give it a rest for a few." Or there'd be a button to click and pay for the higher peak use trend.
This is so easily abusable by companies and the FBI. So long as it's not it can become market competitive. If it is abused by the FBI or companies so help me I'll file against you for fraud and bring the ACLU to shame you.
EOF
Matt:
The problem is that we don't _need_ to pay extra for bandwidth at the moment. It's an artificial implement for the businesses to make more money, not strictly a needed thing to control bandwidth use, and most people agree that it is a step backwards.
@matt The problem is that they are not lowering the cost of previously unlimited Internet. Also we are charged much more in the US for broadband than anywhere else in the world.
How about we all find a tool online and track how much we use for 3 months. Take the average, maybe add a little padding.
I for one think that we have the right to know all of the information we need to make the decision whether it's a good idea or not. Time Warner won't release their data of how much bandwidth people use. Why not? What are they hiding?
It's not fair to force us to do something if they don't let us have all of the information.
More over, if Time Warner sends me a letter saying they are switching over to tiered, I am going to call them up and demand they tell me how much I have used each month over the past 6 monhts.
The reason Time Warner is so concerned over bandwidth is that the bandwidth of digital television content is rising exponentially due to the HD format. To remedy this they were supposed to institute on demand switching for Digital Television. This would only put the channels on the circuit that are being currently used by viewers instead of keeping all channels on the pipe at all times which is todays method. To do this they would have to significantly increase their infrastructure by adding video switching. It is explained here: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/switched-digital-video.htm
The url to the explanation is here: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com
/switched-digital-video.htm
I have said this before, and I am saying it again.
If the ISPs are really serious about customers paying for what they use, then why aren't they refunding any money to the people that only use the high speed connection for email? They shouldn't be charging more for high volume users, they should be charging less for the other 99.5% of the users that barely use their connection.
How can (Comcast for example,) justify charging 45$ a month for someone who only uses it for email? Comcast doesn't offer any form of tiered service for lesser users, but they want to make a higher tier for higher volume users. How is that fair?
They want to charge as much as possible, and not spend any money upgrading their infrastructure. It is a great business plan, and without any real competition, they are getting away with it.
The biggest problem is the need for ISP's to adopt new technologies that can increase the throughput of data without additional cost. Multicast is one such technology that can easily be used to deliver massive amounts of content on existing networks. Pain can create innovation, if they are realy in pain, they should innovate!
Post a Comment