Time Warner Launches Pay-Per-GB Internet Experiment
Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:11PM EST
See Comments (18)
Everything old is new again. Back in the early dialup days of AOL and Compuserve, we paid by the minute for our access to the internet, just like we paid for long distance. Then with the dawn of broadband came the big idea of the late-'90s: All you can eat in a month for a single price. Pay more and the data just comes faster.
But then, according to the cable companies, people started abusing the system. But rather than let people know that "unlimited" didn't really mean every bit of data you could suck down in a month, the providers just started cutting people off for overuse of bandwidth. The search for a new way to charge for internet service began, quietly.
Today we're seeing the first step toward such a new pricing system, as Time Warner is launching an experiment later this year to charge customers based on usage. It takes us back toward the per-minute pricing era by billing you based on how many gigabytes of data you suck down in a month. The idea: All those P2P and Torrent addicts pay their fair share, while the occasional chat room participant and TMZ reader gets a tiny bill.
I guess I'm OK with that. The company says that five percent of its users account for 50 percent of its bandwidth use. Sure, they ought to pay more... but how much? TW hasn't said what the pricing will be, what the download limits are, or even when the trial will begin. About all we know: It will happen in Beaumont, Texas, of all places, and will only affect new customers. I guess we'll have to wait and see how well it is received.
Top 5 Posts
More About Wi-Fi & Networking
Comments on Time Warner Launches Pay-Per-GB Internet Experiment
Post a Comment
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
-
7 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
You guys have it wrong- Rogueist is right- most people do not have any idea how much bandwidth they use. Services such Windows Updates,toolbars, messenger services, and hundreds of others rely on Internet connections that will cost customers money. The worst part - is that programmers (who many have no idea how to simplify bandwidth usage) will have to redesign apps to not rely on the Internet as much to save customers money (The only benefit to this is that ESPNs website will finally go away). However, many of the current programming techniques today rely on Internet services. Pay per use will also spell the end of VOIP. By the way- if you are not familiar with this topic- Time Warner could care less about P2P people- these users present any easy scapegoat for their intentions- as IPTV (Internet TV) and VOIP become more popular - these guys want a piece of the pie. Thats what this is really about.
-
8 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
plaga_nerezza The cable providers are not the only ones who want to do this. Verizon also wants to do this.
-
9 Posted by onemillionjoes on Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:02AM EST Report Abuse
Everyone that gets time-warner internet service in the "experimental" area needs to cancel service now! Time-Warner is just finding another way to get money from the people of this country! It costs them more money to get new customers than it does to up-charge the ones they already have. They have no way to get more money except to fool existing customers into thinking that they want to save them money. Look into Time-Warner/AOL and their investors/affiliates. Then come back here and tell me they care about saving you money. This is our only way to fight against huge mega-corporations in this country! Please do what you can by canceling and moving to a new provider. Show them we cannot be pushed around and that we call the shots! The government pushed you guys around once already by taking your land and taxing the highway you already purchased just to pay for a new one that will destroy your land! FIGHT BACK!!
-
10 Posted by plaga_nerezza on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:14PM EDT Report Abuse
plaga_nerezza The cable providers are not the only ones who want to do this. Verizon also wants to do this. Cell providers have the exact same problem as comcast/Time Warner. I am referring to the Bells. Verizon and others do charge a bit rate even on there "unlimited" data service plans. The issue is traditional telco's will never do this and therefore take market share. I want U-verse. It isn't offered in my area. A traditional "phone" line has significant benefits compared to cable in data growth capacity and infrastructure. Call comcast/time warner and tell them you want a dedicated 1.544 t1 to your house. They cannot do it. Now call At&t or Broadwing/Level 3. Ask for a dedicated t1. If that doesn't make it abundantly clear I don't know what will. Instead of doing stupid gimicks these cable operators better wakeup and realize they are going to need a TON more bandwidth capacity to deal with true HD content and not this waterdowned HD content they claim they will be pushing out to consumers. Anyways...
-
11 Posted by agustin2489 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse
I'd have to agree and disagree with rogueist. I certainly believe ISPs should try to upgrade their backbone services. It only makes sense but then again, being a semi-monopoly makes you less adept to changing your services. It's the "minimizing cost" aspect. On the other hand, I believe that ISPs have the right to charge by the GB. However, I believe there should be a nominal amount of transfer before you start paying up. Much like you domain hosting can work.
-
12 Posted by maleman14001 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:04PM EDT Report Abuse
If it involves Time-Warner then you know the consumer is going to get screwed but good. What about the folks that turn the computer on then come back to it later? I'm sure once T-W gets away with the new scheme they'll hammer anyone with the PC just being left on.
-
13 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
plaga_nerezza - your assumption is that the high throughput people are the ones killing shared bandwidth technologies. I agree they are problems. In addition, you feel that dedicated circuits provide 1.544 mbps access to the Internet. The problem is that you are confusing Internet access with what traditional T1s were used for. In laymans terms, ISPs have a highway that connects to the Internet - Point of Presense (POP). This POP can be a number of technologies (always high speed of course). This POP is shared between all users (regardless of connection to the house) of an ISP connecting to the Internet. This is where the problem really lies. Cable providers are the first to feel this crunch since they provide the fastest Internet access to consumers. A T1 pales in speed to cable access. The problem is that the aggregate use of all cable users across the POP is causing a problem for cable operators. They feel this problem will always be inherent so the best solution is micromanage bandwitdh and charging consumers per bit. This also could be rectified by increasing the bandwdith of the POP but then the Internet itself may not be able to handle this. When t1s were used for WAN circuits between locations there was no POP aggregation problem since the link only provided access to a remote location. However, if every household in America signed up for a T1 for Internet access - my guess is that the telco POP would be overwhelmed also. So where does that leave us? Some point out that the only way to fix this problem is scrap the Internet and start over. New wiring, new protocols, new access technology. Or we could incrementally upgrade various different elements. However, no matter what the plan is-the bandwidth problem will always somehow exist. New applications, new content, new everything. As consumers we should become more aware of the bandwidth that we use. Furthermore- programmers, content developers, and ISPs should embrace this problem and try to fix it together. The Internet may not be ready for IPTV. Or if it is- then we should stop the ISPs from lying to us. Because voice, data, and video can all be carried over one wire and one technology- providers such as Comcast feel that 50 bucks a month is not enough. They want more of the pie. And until they are completely regulated- this will be a problem.
-
14 Posted by muscogeekid on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:30PM EDT Report Abuse
I'm curious; how has Europe achieved such larger bandwidths with the same technology we use in the U.S.? I assume we're talking about fiber optic lines and gigabit switches, which we also have, right? Or maybe I'm not up to speed on the best networking technology. What's holding us back?
-
15 Posted by muscogeekid on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:30PM EDT Report Abuse
I'm curious; how has Europe achieved such larger bandwidths with the same technology we use in the U.S.? I assume we're talking about fiber optic lines and gigabit switches, which we also have, right? Or maybe I'm not up to speed on the best networking technology. What's holding us back?
-
16 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
muscogeekid- its nots just about technology- its the amount of technology. Switches have to "create the switched circuit" the more ports on the switch - the faster the switch has to perform. The more switches the better. America has a tremendous amount of users. We need many switches and fast switches to keep up with the traffic. Also remember they are other technology issues that have to be dealt with such as routers, the IP protocol, wiring, security, and other facets ISPs deal with.
-
17 Posted by greybeardassassin on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:13PM EDT Report Abuse
This is absolutely a horrible idea; I don't run P2P programs often, but how can I realistically keep track and/or estimate how much bandwidth I will use in a month, much less months in the future...Stupid, stupid, stupid...
-
18 Posted by kupriaa1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:54PM EDT Report Abuse
Im sure Comcast will provide you the tools just like you can check how many minutes you have used per month with your cell phone. The real problem is can you tell what websites or services are killing your rates? Also what if your computers checks updates on a regular basis- this will now cost you money- and you say - its just Microsoft- not true almost all new software today has a built in updating package that checks for updates online. Enjoy.
Sponsored Links
My Tech
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
Also on Yahoo! Tech
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 Posted by plaga_nerezza on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:14PM EDT Report Abuse
This is a problem only for Cable internet operators. Whose architecture and structure is fundamentally flawed on the entire "shared" bandwidth of a location idea. Telcommunications Networks built off of fiber based phone networks offer a significant technological advantage over cable operators ability to expand and increase total available bandwidth in areas on there network. Telco's can run an additional fiber line to there hub as needed. Cable operators network structure doesn't allow for that sort of efficient growth. Want a T3 line in an office? ATT will pull the fiber at no cost to your location. Ask comcast for that kind of bandwidth. That proves there problem and why they are hitting network traffic limitations. Great advertising and teaser rates. Terrible actual service and actual rates compared to DSL or traditional Telco's. I am 100% positive AT&T would not "have" to try this, unlike Time Warner or Comcast.