Time Warner to test Internet billing based on usage
#1
Account Closed






Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,812




http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080117/...er_internet_dc
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Time Warner Cable Inc said on Wednesday it is planning a trial to bill high-speed Internet subscribers based on their amount of usage rather than a flat fee, the standard industry practice.
The second largest U.S. cable operator said it will test consumption-based billing with subscribers in Beaumont, Texas later this year as a part of a strategy to help reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO, NO, NO I don't want this idea to take hold here in the states. I like being able to be online all day if I want to be for the flat monthly fee.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Time Warner Cable Inc said on Wednesday it is planning a trial to bill high-speed Internet subscribers based on their amount of usage rather than a flat fee, the standard industry practice.
The second largest U.S. cable operator said it will test consumption-based billing with subscribers in Beaumont, Texas later this year as a part of a strategy to help reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO, NO, NO I don't want this idea to take hold here in the states. I like being able to be online all day if I want to be for the flat monthly fee.

#2

Being online all day does not necessarily use much bandwidth. Streaming media and P2P file transfers are the killers. No big surprise, therefore, Time Warner is trying it out.

#3

Hell's bells. One of FatBrit's conspiracy theories I'll actually buy into. Sounds about right to me.

#4

Yeah. That plan blows chunks! I am a Time Warner customer so we'll see how I make out on the bill. I love the fact that I'm not being charged per unit of data transfer but I'm not keen on this idea. TW needs to look at upgrading their infrastructure and not gouging me.

#6

It's based on the amount of data that you download and/or upload. So those that are running home-based web servers or media servers (ie. streaming audio website, kinda like putting your music collection online for access anywhere in the world) will be impacted the most. Also those that use P2P. It's not based on how long you stay on.

#7

I think fatbrit was implying that they'll cut down on P2P pirating of their movies and TV shows by charging for bandwidth. Two birds. One stone.

#8

Fatbrit was implying that. Much of the traffic will indeed be Time-Warner owned stuff since their library is huge. Personally I doubt it will cut anything down. But that's not the way these people's minds work. They have yet to accept that their old delivery model is no defunct, and they will happily spend and lose millions trying to convince themselves otherwise.

#9

Fatbrit was implying that. Much of the traffic will indeed be Time-Warner owned stuff since their library is huge. Personally I doubt it will cut anything down. But that's not the way these people's minds work. They have yet to accept that their old delivery model is no defunct, and they will happily spend and lose millions trying to convince themselves otherwise.


#11

Fatbrit was implying that. Much of the traffic will indeed be Time-Warner owned stuff since their library is huge. Personally I doubt it will cut anything down. But that's not the way these people's minds work. They have yet to accept that their old delivery model is no defunct, and they will happily spend and lose millions trying to convince themselves otherwise.
And sometimes Random Sources have been known to be right!!

#12

this would suck for me... I work from home a lot and that involves a fairly heavy data stream 2 way from work to home ... usually 2 of them in fact (2 pc's)...
glad I'm not with them anymore.
glad I'm not with them anymore.

#13







Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,717


They are not interested in reducing congestion, they are interested in increasing revenue.
If the real problem was to "reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users" as claimed, then they could simply cap usage.
Greedy [email protected] are wanting a bigger piece of the pie from the digital video downloads (legal ones, and otherwise).
If the real problem was to "reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users" as claimed, then they could simply cap usage.
Greedy [email protected] are wanting a bigger piece of the pie from the digital video downloads (legal ones, and otherwise).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080117/...er_internet_dc
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Time Warner Cable Inc said on Wednesday it is planning a trial to bill high-speed Internet subscribers based on their amount of usage rather than a flat fee, the standard industry practice.
The second largest U.S. cable operator said it will test consumption-based billing with subscribers in Beaumont, Texas later this year as a part of a strategy to help reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO, NO, NO I don't want this idea to take hold here in the states. I like being able to be online all day if I want to be for the flat monthly fee.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Time Warner Cable Inc said on Wednesday it is planning a trial to bill high-speed Internet subscribers based on their amount of usage rather than a flat fee, the standard industry practice.
The second largest U.S. cable operator said it will test consumption-based billing with subscribers in Beaumont, Texas later this year as a part of a strategy to help reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO, NO, NO I don't want this idea to take hold here in the states. I like being able to be online all day if I want to be for the flat monthly fee.

#14

They are not interested in reducing congestion, they are interested in increasing revenue.
If the real problem was to "reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users" as claimed, then they could simply cap usage.
Greedy [email protected] are wanting a bigger piece of the pie from the digital video downloads (legal ones, and otherwise).
If the real problem was to "reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users" as claimed, then they could simply cap usage.
Greedy [email protected] are wanting a bigger piece of the pie from the digital video downloads (legal ones, and otherwise).

#15







Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,717


Some companies are already blocking P2P, and even Lotus Notes 
I can see a day when you have to pay to add services, extra if you want to download music, more again if you want video (but free if your buying the music and video from the ISP's partner site) etc. Company A's download service is always slow with your ISP, but oddly their partners site works perfectly.
Net neutrality is being eroded. How long before ISP's with agenda's start traffic shaping or modifying our web experience - visit a democrat site and its nice and fast, a republican site and it times-out or is very slow.
Too far of a leap to make? Well, yeah, probably is to be honest.

I can see a day when you have to pay to add services, extra if you want to download music, more again if you want video (but free if your buying the music and video from the ISP's partner site) etc. Company A's download service is always slow with your ISP, but oddly their partners site works perfectly.
Net neutrality is being eroded. How long before ISP's with agenda's start traffic shaping or modifying our web experience - visit a democrat site and its nice and fast, a republican site and it times-out or is very slow.
Too far of a leap to make? Well, yeah, probably is to be honest.
You know it reminds me of the proposal to charge companies for high priority of delivery. They basically would charge a company a premium for delivering their packets 'faster' over regular traffic to make their sites quicker. That was when the Senator, I forgot his name, talked about the 'internets' being a series of tubes. Har har. Mind you it's a different issue but it feels just as shady as this current offering.
