Time Warner testing usage-based billing

[Alex]

Yeah, and that "extra" -- is it actually COSTING them money, or simply eating a little into their profits (I have a hunch it's the latter).

I'm afraid I don't see a difference between the former and the latter.

And I also don't see what "fair" has to do with it. They charge on the model they want to charge. There are alternative methods of accessing the internet. Customers agree to it or they take their business elsewhere.

Makes me think of a comment during an NPR story yesterday on how some hospitals are charging insurance plans more for the same procedures than other hospitals. "Is there a good reason for this or are they just charging what the market will bear?" asked the reporter. To me, the second part is a good reason.

If cable internet were the only way (and since cable company's generally have a regional monopoly) I'd have concerns, but they provide a service and if they want to charge more for people who use it more (regardless of what that actually costs them) then go ahead says I.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

Yeah, and that "extra" -- is it actually COSTING them money, or simply eating a little into their profits (I have a hunch it's the latter).

I know that Alex already responded with the same message, but I wanted to add my opin.

There is little to no difference between the two. TW Cable (as does any other corporation, Partnership, LLC, Proprietorship, etc.) exists to make money. They SHOULD make as much as they reasonably can. They do face the possibility of losing business.

Why is it good for big corporations to make money? Because then the people who work the big corporations get to have jobs. I'm not talking about the big executives; I am talking about the installers, the CS people on the phone (even if you don't like them), the accounting people who you never hear about, the janitor. Everyday people who have husbands and wives and kids.

Why else is it good for corporations to make money? Because then the value of their stock goes up and/or dividends are issued. Anyone who has a retirement fund probably has some of their nest egg building because of the success of the big ugly mean corporations. Not just the fat cats, but the accountants, office assistants, construction workers, etc. of the world.

I could go on, but I think I made the point.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Alex

I'm afraid I don't see a difference between the former and the latter.

Maybe I'm off, but (for arguments sake) say it costs TW $100 minimum to provide a service to their customer, and they charge the customer $150. Now, say the customer goes OVER the bandwidth service so far that it costs $110 for TW. It'd eat into their profit by $10, but they're still making $40.

Now let's say that the customer is total bandwidth hog. The customer goes so far over the minimal service that it costs TW $160 to provide the service. Now, TW is LOSING money every month on that customer. It's costing them $10 a month just to retain the customer. In that case, yeah, I can totally see them wanting to charge more.

Of course, things aren't quite that simple (plus I'm sure some people are using MUCH less bandwidth per month than others, so it'd even out anyway). But it costs them so little that I think scenario 1 is more likely (even though it is balanced out by people that use less bandwidth)

I guess I'm just coming from a place of having had such bad service and care from Time Warner, and have had to deal with their "we don't care we're the phone comp...er... Time Warner" attitude, that my gut instinct says they're trying to pull a fast one on the public. They're trying to say "yeah, we're going to charge you more for the same service, just because we're Time Warner and we want more money out of you. We'll tell you it's because it's costing us money, but really, we'll pass that extra $5 it costs us onto you, which will appear on your bill as $15."

And I also don't see what "fair" has to do with it. They charge on the model they want to charge. There are alternative methods of accessing the internet. Customers agree to it or they take their business elsewhere.

Of course, I personally don't have a choice (on the cable end), but okay :P

And they can charge whatever they want, of course, it's their business. I just find what they are doing is disingenuous and lousy from a customer service perspective. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, I think is the phrase Judge Judy uses