Time Warner to charge customers by bandwidth used

[Green²]

Monthly Internet Usage Caps

+Are likely to reduce heavy-user bandwidth usage.
+Creates more demand for use of compression technologies.
+Could lead to a desire to create smaller sized programs and other application.
+Likely could reduce piracy of media. (Movies, music, software, etc)


-Hinders competition and other services going through their network. (VOIP, Netflicks, YouTube, Hulu, other streaming media and high bandwidth technologies.)
-Program and other application updates and patches for functionality and security, may be put on hold by the user.
-Non-user controlled applications such as malware, worms, and other viruses that use the network, can run the user closer to the set network monthly usage caps.
-Internet usage time may be reduced by the user in fear of running into the cap near the end of the billing cycle. (Fear of not being able to use the internet near the end of the billing cycle due to not wanting to pay overage charges.)
-Application beta testing could decline if said application is seen to be too taxing on network usage.
-Increase of cost of providing users with the tools and support to monitor their network usage.
-Users of a monthly usage capped network could likely switch over to another non or not as strict monthly usage capped provider if available. (Will create demand for alternate internet providers. If you want to control the market, you do not want this.)
-Legal concerns. (General oversight which may need to be done on the Federal level.)

[Nosauz]

Well considering most isps already throttle connection speeds at peak hours, its mainly one of not meeting demand. This is like charging someone to play on a basketball court that was once 2 dollars to get in but now its 2 a "game" and theres only one court when in fact demand exceeds that and on top of that the court is covered in potholes and the rims are broken AND this is the only basketball court on the eastern seaboard. Bandwidth restrictions will pretty annihilate private isps, or smaller ones because those restricitions are shared by those small isps that lease the lines that time warner has. the Media piracy crap is baloney because there is quite a bit of traffic that is legitimate and still requires heavy bandwidth. Compression technology is ok... but those issues will be addressed not because of bandwidth restrictions but more based on streaming video as that becomes the norm.

This is basically like charging a toll for getting out of your garage, atleast if your selling bandwidth allotments in 5gb increments.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai

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.

Are you sure you're not providing a massive childporn distribution node with a zombied computer?
Semi-serious question because it is actually pretty hard to blow through 300GB in a month unless you're acting as a massive unthrottled seed for lots of torrents or doing large groups of image transfers.
(~10GB/day).

The average user in the US transfers about 10GB/month according to many ISPs. Obviously that will go up as more people discover video streaming of stuff they used to watch on tv. It will be interesting to watch Time-Warner, etc have to reduce price on their GB rates as the average user creeps toward 100GB/month.

[Strahan]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Are you sure you're not providing a massive childporn distribution node with a zombied computer?
Semi-serious question because it is actually pretty hard to blow through 300GB in a month unless you're acting as a massive unthrottled seed for lots of torrents or doing large groups of image transfers.
(~10GB/day).

The average user in the US transfers about 10GB/month according to many ISPs. Obviously that will go up as more people discover video streaming of stuff they used to watch on tv. It will be interesting to watch Time-Warner, etc have to reduce price on their GB rates as the average user creeps toward 100GB/month.

It's not that hard, heh. I found an FTP site once that had 6 TB of files I wanted. Queued the root directory of the site, started the transfer and away it went. It took it a little over two months or so to complete, so my average monthly transfer was about 3,000 GB I also chew through the gigs pretty darned fast thanks to Giganews and their sweet 10 connection fast news services. Looking back at my consumption logs on their site, the biggest was 03/08 - 1144.79 GB in 30 days hehe.

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai

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.

This is the main problem with cable customers and also DSL customers because of other neighbors/strangers may go onto your network wirelessly and take your bandwidth without noticing. This is called Piggybacking and can easily be prevented by setting a WEP/WAP password on your router.

[Nosauz]

well the problem is that as p2p/bittorrent becomes a legimate(it already is) method of distribution and services such as netflix's streaming, hulu, steam, onlive become more and more main stream this bandwidth limitation at this archaic level is clearly not going to work. Also not to mention with cloud computing trying to make a breakthrough when instead of owning hardware users will only need a net connection to access their "pcs" then this stratedgy will be unviable, and right for most americans this is a slap in the face since most cable and telecoms have monoplies on their service coverage areas. Timewarner has already recieved massive backlash and just like how aol died timewarner may bite the dust too, just look basically time warner is taking the aol method of providing access, OVERCHARGE, UNDERPROVIDE, UNDERSERVICE.

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

well the problem is that as p2p/bittorrent becomes a legimate(it already is) method of distribution and services such as netflix's streaming, hulu, steam, onlive become more and more main stream this bandwidth limitation at this archaic level is clearly not going to work. Also not to mention with cloud computing trying to make a breakthrough when instead of owning hardware users will only need a net connection to access their "pcs" then this stratedgy will be unviable, and right for most americans this is a slap in the face since most cable and telecoms have monoplies on their service coverage areas. Timewarner has already recieved massive backlash and just like how aol died timewarner may bite the dust too, just look basically time warner is taking the aol method of providing access, OVERCHARGE, UNDERPROVIDE, UNDERSERVICE.

The problem is that even though Bittorrent/p2p can be used for legitimite uses (such as distributing linux distros, people who share their OWN works like their own musics by bands, etc.), Bittorrent and p2p can still be used for illegal file sharing of software, movies, tv shows, etc (aka piracy) which puts out moral issues.

Yet I stated before, net neutrality, once it ever gets passed (Obama Administration seems to support this alot) will force internet providers to give service in a one tier service (meaning one, flat fee tier, one speed for everyone) and prevent internet providers from tampering traffic such as traffic shaping or restricting access to websites. Currently, net neutrality policy is forced if internet poviders take the simulus money to help expand their broadband networks, but most internet providers are reluctant to do so because when they do, they need to enforce net neutrality which is not in their best interest to do so.

[Nosauz]

Well when you think about recently NIN, a quite mainstream, or at least popular band has started their own bittorrent tracker, to distro their high definition concert feeds to fans, bittorrent is the future, and as more and more companies see the plus side of digital distribution then the more these tiered systems will limit access of the poor and uneducated. Also with the trend of textbooks being moved online and online resources becoming more and more important, its basically restricting information to those that are poor, almost a form of elitism and an unfair advantage to the rich which when it comes to information becomes more and more of a danger to the well being of society.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by chikorita157

The problem is that even though Bittorrent/p2p can be used for legitimite uses (such as distributing linux distros, people who share their OWN works like their own musics by bands, etc.), Bittorrent and p2p can still be used for illegal file sharing of software, movies, tv shows, etc (aka piracy) which puts out moral issues.

Um, they aren't "moral" issues -- they're civil/copyright issues. Try not to fall for the conflation and legal flimflam language the Disney/RIAA/MPAA use to confuse issues of copyright. These entities want to subvert the Internet into a "passive consumer" experience (like cable and television) rather than the "everyone has a connection that goes BOTH ways" it is now. Can't have you creating your own content and competing with the big boys for eyeballs, ya know....

Yet I stated before, net neutrality, once it ever gets passed (Obama Administration seems to support this alot) will force internet providers to give service in a one tier service (meaning one, flat fee tier, one speed for everyone) and prevent internet providers from tampering traffic such as traffic shaping or restricting access to websites. Currently, net neutrality policy is forced if internet poviders take the simulus money to help expand their broadband networks, but most internet providers are reluctant to do so because when they do, they need to enforce net neutrality which is not in their best interest to do so.

It might also mean that corporations that wear too many pants (i.e. content provider and ISP) may choose to get out of the ISP business or spin them off -- which in my view is a good thing. I don't *want* ISPs being content providers. It clouds their judgement.

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Um, they aren't "moral" issues -- they're civil/copyright issues. Try not to fall for the conflation and legal flimflam language the Disney/RIAA/MPAA use to confuse issues of copyright. These entities want to subvert the Internet into a "passive consumer" experience (like cable and television) rather than the "everyone has a connection that goes BOTH ways" it is now. Can't have you creating your own content and competing with the big boys for eyeballs, ya know....

It might also mean that corporations that wear too many pants (i.e. content provider and ISP) may choose to get out of the ISP business or spin them off -- which in my view is a good thing. I don't *want* ISPs being content providers. It clouds their judgement.

I may have worded it wrong, but the thing is that what the MPAA and RIAA may be doing is not right in a sense (actually, I'm against what MPAA and RIAA are doing lately with lawsuits and stuff). Sure, illegal downloading has copyright issues, but isn't lending a DVD/CD to a friend is the exact thing as downloading a movie of bittorrent? Anyways, P2P/Bittorrent and MPAA/RIAA debate isn't the purpose of this thread and should really be saved for another thread.

Either way, I rather have the internet providers provide the internet, not control what content or how much bandwidth someone can use. ISPs in the last few years are becoming control freaks, namely with most Cable ISPs and also AT&T... Rather putting bandwidth caps and slapping overage fees that would make the subscriber outraged, would it be business sense to expand the network or use fiber optics so they can handle more bandwidth. With cable, this has been a problem, no matter if they upgrade their systems because cable internet has always been and will be always be shared.

[Irenicus]

^Unfortunately, ISP's tend to be local monopolies or at least dominant in their local markets. This results in a very bad tendency of not bothering to upgrade (there's no "need") and instead push the problem on to the customers at their will. Unless you're lucky, the customer usually doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. Them luddites don't like Web 2.0's new interactivity swamping their resources, and sadly enough they're the ones owning the lines.

Fail I know, but aside from angry letters and raising awareness hoping for someone else to challenge the market or for the ISP to back down, what can you do*?

*Aside from taking a page out of Ralph Ellison's book and living it "Invisible," that is.

[Sazelyt]

The bandwidth cap may start to make sense, from a business point of view, if those companies exclude their own service from that bandwidth calculation (otherwise, if the other companies are providing more bandwidth (not the right word, but anyways), they will start losing their customers, no one wants this kind of restriction, regardless of how much he/she uses). And they can use this policy to obtain some money from other streaming sites to for instance include within their own service. Because, their customer base will definitely affect the usage rate of those other sites or services, they may make money for each customer to justify the bandwidth usage through those sites.

[Nosauz]

I think my main problem with the Time Warner shift in policy is as Irenicus said, isp/telecom providers basically control a monopoly on the regions they service. There is no viable alternative. I mean satellite is a complete joke, because a) it can't promise the bandwidth hard lines can b) every god damn time it rains, your out of service c) you have to buy and install a clunky dish just to be able to use it. The internet has already changed the world, and web 2.0 has increased bandwidth use at a feverish pace. Time Warner is really trying to capture more control and increase its market share with out changing with the times which just seems asinine. Cloud computing will quickly make this shift in policy a deadly one. If suddenly you can't access your files because your at your bandwidth cap, people will get angry really quick. Plus Time Warner like Comcast have been traffic shaping and throttling overall connections during peak hours which is already underhanded.

[chikorita157]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

^Unfortunately, ISP's tend to be local monopolies or at least dominant in their local markets. This results in a very bad tendency of not bothering to upgrade (there's no "need") and instead push the problem on to the customers at their will. Unless you're lucky, the customer usually doesn't have much of a choice in the matter. Them luddites don't like Web 2.0's new interactivity swamping their resources, and sadly enough they're the ones owning the lines.

Fail I know, but aside from angry letters and raising awareness hoping for someone else to challenge the market or for the ISP to back down, what can you do*?

*Aside from taking a page out of Ralph Ellison's book and living it "Invisible," that is.

Local monopolies are good for the cable companies because they can charge how much they want, but the problem is that they will never will ever upgrade their networks. What will hurt them the most is if a competitor (like Verizon's FIOS or AT&T's U-Verse) comes into the area and start providing the same services, then they going to need to improve their services and they are going to have a lot of customers to jump ship to other services which is what they don't want. That's why cable companies are trying to prevent these services to come into the area so they can preserve these local monopolies and their customers. Competition is always good because it forces companies to innovate and provide better products... Without it, they will never give a better service to their customers.

Just to note, TWC new policy only effects new customers, not existing customers.

[Nosauz]

cable much like hmo's offer very little choice which is never good for the consumer, the only industry where there is adequate competition is probably in the car market where as many other industries are very weak on the competition aspect.

[chikorita157]

Found a new article and now Time Warner COO is now saying that consumers wanted Metered Billing

Time Warner COO: Metered Billing Is What Consumers Want
Which would be a good point, were it actually true...
01:02PM Tuesday Apr 07 2009 by Karl Bode
Time Warner Cable techs and the company's PR folk spent last week being smacked around by the Internet for the company's plan to expand ultra-low caps and metered billing into four additional markets. Back from last week's Cable Show in DC, Time Warner Cable COO Landel Hobbs has now jumped into the debate, offering a public statement. Hobbs defends the plan by citing (so far nonexistent) DOCSIS 3.0 deployment, promising a higher 100GB cap is coming for "heavy users," and by insisting that per-byte billing is what consumers want:
As the amount of usage has dramatically diverged among users, this is becoming inherently unfair and not the way most consumers want to pay for goods they consume.
Of course, consumers made it pretty clear last week across a vast variety of outlets that metered billing for broadband wasn't what they wanted. And if it really was something consumers wanted, Time Warner Cable wouldn't be intentionally avoiding offering such a incredibly desired service in markets where Verizon offers uncapped and faster Verizon FiOS service. If consumers really wanted to pay $1 per gigabyte, Time Warner Cable would be happily testing the metered billing option in New York City, where they'll compete with FiOS.


Hobbs repeats the now-familiar industry meme that the move to metered billing is being done out of some kind of philanthropic desire for fairness -- not because Time Warner Cable wants to protect cable TV revenues from Internet video -- or because charging customers massive overages for bandwidth that costs pennies is hugely profitable. 1000%-1500% overage markups over cost are not only super fair, argues Hobbs, knee-capping American families just as HD Internet video takes off will help increase the use of broadband:
I think that such pricing options are not only fair, but also will actually encourage more use of broadband overall.
Of course $1/GB overages will encourage more use of broadband -- just not theirs.

I think that (metered billing is) not only fair, but also will actually encourage more use of broadband overall.
-Time Warner Cable COO Landel Hobbs

Meanwhile, were the move really about fairness, they wouldn't be punishing their entire customer base for the gluttony of 1% of their customers. Like Comcast, Time Warner Cable could simply impose a very high cap to rein in these customers, or force those heavy users to higher business-class tiers without resorting to charging overage fees.

Were it really about fairness, customers who utilize virtually no network resources would pay virtually no money.

Do you think Time Warner Cable is hard at work on a new, $4.95/month "grandma Xtreme tier" that accurately reflects her occasional e-mail and Weather.com use? Do you think Time Warner Cable really wants a massive swath of their userbase -- many of whom currently pay $45 or more per month just to check e-mail and browse the Internet -- to really be billed accurately for their usage? Of course not.

No, the use of overage fees and metered billing isn't about fairness -- it's about monetizing and/or impeding the Internet video consumption of tomorrow's regular families, while creating a new revenue metric that can be jacked ever skyward to please investors when quarterly profit boosts are needed.

The argument that Time Warner Cable wants to make more money probably would be less insulting if the company simply came out and stated the move is to make more money. The attempt to frame this as an issue of altruism adds a layer of insult to injury for consumers. The already very-profitable company, which last week stated that flat-rate billing was not a "viable" billing model, has yet to offer a shred of hard data to support this conclusion.

Time Warner Cable is still fielding (polite) input via realideas@twcable.com.

Source

[Nosauz]

The reason why time warner is doing this is because of Triple play, time warner doesn't only sell one service they sell 3 services and while one is growing rapidly two are dwindling. With a shift of consumers watching video online many have opted to cancel cable and with skype many have even cancelled telephone services and it just means that time warner is afraid they can't monetize the internet enough. I'll just say this now, those areas under time warners monopoly will see change coming and it will be unpleasant, dont think it will be fair also. You'll be paying 40-45 dollars a month for 10gb of data just you watch.

[Seditary]

Never thought America would degenerate into Australia's terrible internet atmosphere.

[Takeru]

And people wonder why the US is ranked 16th in high-speed internet. -shrug-
As far as I can say, I'm happy with Comcast (25mbps) and have never come near to the 250GB limit. Even with five computers in the house that are doing things all the time.

[0utf0xZer0]

Shaw (cable ISP for Western Canada) has had bandwidth caps for a while. 60GB for $40 and 100GB for $50. Not surprising given that the telecom industry in this country is pretty much an oligopoly. Luckily, Shaw's bandwidth tracking system seems quite poor - it seems particularly bad about tracking downloads off IRC.