Cross-posted with GreensboroMetro...The case with Time-Warner's new predatory pricing scheme with its Road Runner internet service has two issues...one, complaining to the proper individuals themselves...and two, the tepid response by those supposed to represent us.
First, the response, and Roch Smith has been all over this, doing a heck of a job with his citizen journalism. See his two-action plan here and here.
Second, the delayed and albeit-terrible reply by Greensboro City Council. N&R story today explains some of their responses, but it was Smith that broke the story that the city no longer has a franchise control over Time Warner.
It puts Greensboro (and the larger metro area) at a terrible disadvantage economically.
Sue Polinsky had a good point recently...she worked so hard to bring ConvergeSouth to Greensboro all those times, and yet it seems as though only one Greensboro City Council member embraced it.
Sad. The lack of progressiveness of this area is really disheartening.
E.C. :)
Posts
4 comments:
I agree Roch's been all over the story and is certainly advocating hard. I've been in contact with he and other vocal Time Warner customers throughout reporting the story for the News & Record.
But, for the record, my April 5 story on the TWC issue was the first to quote Franchise Administrator John Gribble as saying that the city had no regulatory control over the city, that they don't have a franchise agreement that addressed cable Internet and that there's not much they can do beyond expressing the public's displeasure to the company.
That was the first answer the public heard to the franchise question.
When I got my hands on the last Franchise Agreement, I sent it to Roch and we talked about the franchise process and how it's changed, where it is currently, etc. I wrote my story - including the level of detail that was appropriate to the story and letting the public know about the state of the city's power to regulate TWC through franchise negotiation.
The next day Roch made a great post about the intricacies of the franchise question and where it now stands.
There are certainly instances when newspapers are behind the curve. But I think this particular story is a good example of citizen journalism and newspaper journalism working hand-in-hand to get the most and best info to the public as our respective platforms allow - not a case of newspapers running to catch up.
The big angles of the local story so far - from the announcement of the change to whether the city had any franchise control to finally getting some local politicians to comment on it - have appeared first in my reporting for the N&R.
We're getting to the point technologically where "who was first" matters less and less -- but for newspaper reporters still drawing a paycheck and wanting to demonstrate to their editors that their reporting is worth something, credit for that original reporting is still important.
I agree that the back and forth with Joe has been beneficial to fleshing out the details. I've been glad to help and grateful for his help. In this case I really do not care who gets the credit as long as accurate information gets out there one way or another.
But there is a difference between what Joe reported and what Erik is crediting me with. Joe reported the franchise guy as saying that FCC had authority over broadband that superceeded the city's franchise authority. I reported that the city doesn't even have franchise authority. The important distinction being that the city not only does not have authority, it does not even have leverage.
Roch's right about the difference between how far into it he went and what our story said on Tuesday.
His posts have added a depth to some of this stuff that would be hard to justify in the space we're given to explain all this to readers in a general interest daily newspaper piece.
Or, at the very least, hard to justify to editors as you're trying to get it into a newspaper piece.
I've been enjoying his stuff and he and a number of other bloggers, letter-writers and Time Warner Customers have been helping me throughout the process to decide which parts of this story are most of interest to the people who're reading my stories.
More to come - including something good I've got brewing on it for this weekend.
Is there anything at all us customers can do to stop this? To allow an internet connection, which could possibly be stolen by unsuspecting unauthorized users without knowledge until you get a 150$ bill by road runner sounds absurdly ridiculous. Any internet connection that costs "up to" 150$ for a broadband connection, ESPEICALLY at 1$ per GB, to me is honestly price gouging because there is no alternative other than dialup which generally can not get real work done anymore. I work online, I am a freelance programmer and I can not afford to spend 150$ a month. The economy is already hurting, and by throwing a huge price on such a common service I feel that we customers are being shaken upside down for our lunch money.
Please, tell us customers of this business what we can do to fight this absurd price gouging techniques.
Post a Comment