AnimeSuki.com Forum

AnimeSuki Forum (http://forums.animesuki.com/index.php)
-   General Chat (http://forums.animesuki.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Time Warner to charge customers by bandwidth used (http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=79995)

guest 2009-04-02 17:20

Time Warner to charge customers by bandwidth used
 
I guess we all expect this to happen sooner or later.

Time Warner Cable: Use More, Pay More – Accept It

Time Warner is going to test this new business model of internet in some area around US. They will be charging their customers by how much they download. I certainly hope that other internet providers are not going to follow.

Why can't they just upgrade their device or something? To save money, their new model is to cut down their customers!? This just doesn't make sense. I can't see their customers being overjoyed about this. If customers are not happy, that is bad business.

Alchemist007 2009-04-02 17:23

Yay for Verizon, more incentive for customers to switch. Verizon needs to expand more though.

chikorita157 2009-04-02 17:56

I know that AT&T also doing the same exact thing if you go over your bandwidth cap, you get slapped with overage. Charging for bandwidth is a bad idea because people won't be able to use the internet without worrying about how much bandwidth he/she uses. Especially today with legitimate streaming video services like Netflix, Hulu, and downloadable movies you can buy like on iTunes will consume alot of bandwidth in no time.

US Government should consider passing net neutrality now so it will stop the bandwidth caps and traffic shaping nonsense.

Edit: I use Verizon Online DSL.

lsley 2009-04-02 18:31

Haha, lol.
For quite some time this system has been the standart in germany. But since they realized it sucks it has been abolished :p (dunno, maybe there are still some of this sort around, but not that I'd know)
But for UMTS and stuff it's still like this.

holyalexander 2009-04-02 18:49

this definitely wont work... yay for verizon..

Circular Logic 2009-04-02 18:51

I don't know, it makes good business sense, especially if normal/light users will be paying less...

The majority of their residential consumer base probably only use the internet for an hour max a day, and only to check their emails - I could see them being rather supportive of heavy-load users subsidising their usage ;)

Of course, it sucks for you lot. :p

Aoie_Emesai 2009-04-02 20:35

I got comcast, those f**g**s better not follow Time Warner model of business ^^

SeedFreedom 2009-04-02 20:41

Nothing really new for me. The ISP i use already has a system close to that. I get charged my fix amount (80 gigs) and then an extra 2 dollars for every gig over until i reach 20 dollars.

Aoie_Emesai 2009-04-02 20:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom (Post 2315919)
Nothing really new for me. The ISP i use already has a system close to that. I get charged my fix amount (80 gigs) and then an extra 2 dollars for every gig over until i reach 20 dollars.

What happens after you pass 100gb?

chikorita157 2009-04-02 20:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circular Logic (Post 2315732)
I don't know, it makes good business sense, especially if normal/light users will be paying less...

The majority of their residential consumer base probably only use the internet for an hour max a day, and only to check their emails - I could see them being rather supportive of heavy-load users subsidising their usage ;)

Of course, it sucks for you lot. :p

My data plan on my iPhone have a bandwidth cap too, up to 6GB of bandwidth, but I barely use 1GB of transfer on my AT&T data plan. Most mobile broadband companies such as Verizon Wireless and AT&T for example impose these limits and overage costs alot more than what Time Warner is doing, but then again, you wouldn't be downloading anything on mobile broadband unless it's your only connection.

If you thought Time Warner is worse, satellite internet caps are even worse. HughesNet known for their small bandwidth caps have a cap of 200mb per day (I bet you can use up 200mb easily in one day).

Green² 2009-04-02 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Circular Logic (Post 2315732)
I don't know, it makes good business sense, especially if normal/light users will be paying less...

The majority of their residential consumer base probably only use the internet for an hour max a day, and only to check their emails - I could see them being rather supportive of heavy-load users subsidising their usage ;)

Of course, it sucks for you lot. :p

And then little old grandma is left wondering why she got a $500 bill for the month. Broadband killed off the dialer malware worries... ...or so we thought.

CybEssen 2009-04-03 01:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai (Post 2315911)
I got comcast, those f**g**s better not follow Time Warner model of business ^^

Pretty sure Comcast is already doing that, except they're a lot more "generous" with a 250GB cap. I recall there was a shitstorm when it became public.

Time Warner is testing puny 5GB, 10GB, 20GB, 40GB "caps." Makes Comcast look like a 5 star.. lol.

SeedFreedom 2009-04-03 08:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai (Post 2315924)
What happens after you pass 100gb?

Its free after i hit the 100 g mark. They do advertise unlimited service so they cant cut us off.

chikorita157 2009-04-03 08:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by CybEssen (Post 2316564)
Pretty sure Comcast is already doing that, except they're a lot more "generous" with a 250GB cap. I recall there was a shitstorm when it became public.

Time Warner is testing puny 5GB, 10GB, 20GB, 40GB "caps." Makes Comcast look like a 5 star.. lol.

Most people rarely will ever use over 250GB unless you bittorrent alot of big files, do 24/7 video streaming, etc.

But, you can use over 40GB easily... For me, I use over 90GB per month on my DSL connection.

AT&T is doing similar things like Time Warner is doing and charging $1 dollar per gb after going over your caps, which depends on what speed tier you on... It seems that Time Warner and AT&T want to drive it's customers away.

Nosauz 2009-04-03 20:06

Really all this is is time warner not wanting to upgrade their fiber optics. They want to maximize their current lines to accomodate more customers with out really upgrading to fit usage needs. Again this business model doesn't work, especially with American consumerism, just chalk this up to Time Warner getting close to biting the bucket. At least for the majority of Americans speeds are never what their advertised but service is guaranteed, and really since they can't even give the speeds at which they claim their service offers and pretty much regions are monopolized by cable companies all this will do will to alienate customers and turn more people to dsl/fios(when the damn thing actually comes to their region)

chikorita157 2009-04-03 20:47

I guess the Internet seems to not respond positively to Time Warner's announcement.

Quote:

Internet Responds Badly To Time Warner Cable Metered Plan
Company taking a beating from users, press, social networking users...
01:22PM Friday Apr 03 2009 by Karl Bode

The other day, Time Warner Cable used Business Week to announce that they were going to be expanding their metered billing trial -- which we first reported back in January of '08 -- into four additional markets. The trial imposes caps as low as 5GB on Time Warner Cable's existing tiers of service, charging users an additional $1 per each gigabyte consumed. In the report, company CEO Glenn Britt claimed flat-rate pricing was not "viable," an argument they have no data to support, and one which we've repeatedly refuted.

"We've shared our analysis of our data. We're not going to share raw data...just not going to happen.
-Time Warner Cable, on proving, via hard data, their claim that flat-rate pricing is not a viable business model
While the original metered billing announcment was met with scattered grumbling among the technorati, user reaction to the expansion announcement was broad, swift and brutal.

A number of user-created websites quickly popped up urging customers to contact Time Warner Cable in protest. Users of news aggregation systems like Redditt and Digg screamed bloody murder. Website commentary wasn't much kinder, most sites classifying the move as unnecessary, anti-competitive, and a threat to content innovation.

Meanwhile, Time Warner Cable public relations employees on social networking website Twitter (like spokesman Alex Dudley and PR coordinator Mariam Asmar) have been bombarded with complaints. Armed with only talking points about how charging users more money for less service is an act of philanthropy and fairness -- last we checked they weren't faring particularly well.

Still, these front-line warriors deserve credit for very politely taking the brunt of the backlash directly on the chin, while the executives who thought the idea up spent the week wining and dining one another at industry trade shows like CTIA in Las Vegas or The Cable Show in Washington, DC.

While many American consumers may not know what a gigabyte is, they apparently understand enough to be skeptical when an already very profitable company starts complaining about not having the necessary resources to afford (relatively) inexpensive upgrades. They also understand that being charged a dollar per gigabyte for bandwidth the carrier pays pennies for is directly tied to the desire to protect TV revenues from Internet video.

The company continues to request your input, which can be (politely) delivered by contacting your local Time Warner Cable office, or by e-mailing the carrier at realideas@twcable.com.
Source: DSL Reports

mg1942 2009-04-03 20:49

The new policy is totally UNamerican!

Nosauz 2009-04-03 21:00

just like the UN heyO,

but really as I said before they(time warner) like many cable/dsl companies are just trying to milk their lines without upgrading. This is the reason why telecoms and others won't touch federal money because their afraid of having to expand the quality of their service. This in itself screams to the gamers all around that Onlive is too early for its time, because bandwith throttling will be the end of most streaming sites that depend on traffic their free services draw in.

Vexx 2009-04-04 00:44

The *concept* of paying by the gigabyte of transfer doesn't bother me... the heaviest users pay to help maintain the network. Remove the caps, provide a way to self-monitor transfer, and go for it.

Unfortunately, these corporate dweebs play games with "tiered" service, with throttling, with deep packet inspection, and other bits of nonsense.

I'd be fine with paying $/GB ... but leave my damned packets alone and shut the hell up about what ports and protocols I may use.

Aoie_Emesai 2009-04-04 01:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikorita157 (Post 2317055)
Most people rarely will ever use over 250GB unless you bittorrent alot of big files, do 24/7 video streaming, etc.

But, you can use over 40GB easily... For me, I use over 90GB per month on my DSL connection.

AT&T is doing similar things like Time Warner is doing and charging $1 dollar per gb after going over your caps, which depends on what speed tier you on... It seems that Time Warner and AT&T want to drive it's customers away.

Hum... I hit 297gb last month, and I don't even know why. On average there are 2 person using the bandwidth and for February, it was 97gb. I'm rather surprised we used almost 3 times as much, hum...

And I barely download much at all.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.