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.
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.
-
2 Posted by taficke on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:54PM EDT Report Abuse
This is a horrible idea. I coudln't stand TW before and still cant after this.
-
3 Posted by rogueist on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:49PM EDT Report Abuse
Ah, the ignorance continues as people believe that P2P people "kill" their service... In the meantime, the cable companies drum up a new draft of what to do for ordinary folk out there and say "yeah, lets drill em so they bleed hard" - only they also know that average folk will pay 2x to 3x what they do now based on their new plan because average folk have ZERO idea about how much bandwidth they ACTUALLY use. Years ago, a single webpage was on average only a few K or tens of K in size. Now with "web 2.0" being the mantra, 20mb to 100mb is the "average" page size. Spend a few hours browsing and you have used up MORE than those P2P users you complain about. Many places in Europe have got it the right way. If the users need more bandwidth and it gets blocked, the the way to solve it is to increase the backbone so that even the largest of downloads only takes a few seconds to complete. This way the traffic lanes always remain clear. One day someone in the US will hopefully get this idea too and the US will be catapulted into the modern age, instead of living in the stone age equivalent of modern technology, where our bandwidth is LESS than that of 3rd world developing nations!
-
4 Posted by fox95630 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:02PM EDT Report Abuse
rogueist, you present a valid point, however your claim that web 2.0 sites generate 20mb page downloads is a little off. Disregarding the fact that a "true" Web 2.0 application has a very small page load and focuses on continuous communication with the server, even a poorly designed application would be hard pressed to reach a 1 or 2mb size, much less 20 or even 100mb. The fact of the matter is that the bandwidth from a local network to an ISP is a finite quantity that can be overwhelmed by large downloads such as P2P traffic. Webpage loads are very small and fast by comparison.
-
5 Posted by hingarfi on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:19PM EDT Report Abuse
Rogueist said: 'Now with "web 2.0" being the mantra, 20mb to 100mb is the "average" page size.' I do not believe the average web page is 20-100 MB. My max download speed is 3Mbits/sec (approx 370 KBytes /sec). Most of my pages load in 1-2 seconds.
-
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.
-
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...
1 Posted by fox95630 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:02PM EDT Report Abuse
It sure sounds like we need more details before we can decide if this is a good deal or not. I live in an apartment complex that provides free broadband through a residential network. P2P users kill the network every once in a while and it makes it nearly impossible to even load web pages.