Time Warner to introduce 'tiered pricing' for Internet use

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Time Warner Cable plans to test a multitiered price system for high-speed broadband service later this year. New customers in the trial area of Beaumont, Texas, will be charged different rates based on the amount of data consumed in a month, much like a cell-phone plan charges based on minutes used.

Some consumer groups say the proposal could benefit average consumers who use the Web moderately, for such services as e-mail and the occasional YouTube video, rather than frequent network-clogging downloads.

...

Time Warner and other major Internet service providers (ISPs) often blame slowdowns on the 5% of users who consume as much as 50% of network capacity downloading vast numbers of large files, such as movies, videos, and songs. By charging such consumers more, companies could encourage them to curb excess use, or generate enough extra cash to enable their systems to handle higher data demands.

...

Time Warner isn't alone in considering higher fees for big Net users. Comcast (CMCSA), one of the largest residential high-speed ISPs, is evaluating such a system, says Comcast spokeswoman Jennifer Khoury. Cox Communications, which has 3.6 million U.S. subscribers, is also looking into variable pricing, though it doesn't have any immediate plans to adopt such a system, says spokesman David Grabert.

Verizon (VZ), which has been rolling out its own high-speed Internet service across the country, has no plans to adopt a similarly tiered payment plan, says Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe. "I think this is Time Warner's response to the cable companies' problem in a shortage of bandwidth," says Rabe. "We don't think that we are in a position that we need to do that."

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/con...week+exclusives

[Sister Fracas 5]

eeep! with all of the downloading we do....AAAAACK! hope our provider isn't considering it...

Edited January 19, 2008 by Sister Fracas

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

eeep! with all of the downloading we do....AAAAACK!

internet use will eventually have to be priced like any utility... the more you use, the more you pay. fair is fair.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

eeep! with all of the downloading we do....AAAAACK!

internet use will eventually have to be priced like any utility... the more you use, the more you pay. fair is fair.

It's not the same, but if compared to cell phone usage, it make more sense to simply limit the bandwidth during high traffic hours. Hopefully competition or just the threat that those who use a lot of bandwidth could simply set up their own server will cause the internet providers to abandon this idea.

[mawilson 2,133]

eeep! with all of the downloading we do....AAAAACK!

internet use will eventually have to be priced like any utility... the more you use, the more you pay. fair is fair.

No, it won't.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

eeep! with all of the downloading we do....AAAAACK!

internet use will eventually have to be priced like any utility... the more you use, the more you pay. fair is fair.

It's not the same...

How so?

Last year, I worked on a project to bill a business unit for network and server usage. We used various metrics such as cpu cycles used, bandwidth consumed, etc. "Computing as a utility" is catching on as a pricing model in the corporate sector and it works very well. It has resulted in a net decrease in the amount of resources consumed as business units are now "smarter" in how they use the resources they are charged for. There is no reason to believe this model can't translate into the household areas as well.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

eeep! with all of the downloading we do....AAAAACK!

internet use will eventually have to be priced like any utility... the more you use, the more you pay. fair is fair.

It's not the same...

How so?

Last year, I worked on a project to bill a business unit for network and server usage. We used various metrics such as cpu cycles used, bandwidth consumed, etc. "Computing as a utility" is catching on as a pricing model in the corporate sector and it works very well. It has resulted in a net decrease in the amount of resources consumed as business units are now "smarter" in how they use the resources they are charged for. There is no reason to believe this model can't translate into the household areas as well.

What's stopping the average internet user from making and using their own server? For example, my company has less than 40 employees but we have our own server(s). While it may be too much of an investment for the average internet user, those who use a lot of bandwidth could create their own or form collectives that use one server.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What's stopping the average internet user from making and using their own server? For example, my company has less than 40 employees but we have our own server(s). While it may be too much of an investment for the average internet user, those who use a lot of bandwidth could create their own or form collectives that use one server.

Sure. And if they do that, it frees up resources at the ISP so they can more effectively service the 95%+ of users who are 'moderate' users and won't bother to set up their own server.

IOW, the utility model will lead to a more efficient use of resources all around - your example is just one manifestation of that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What's stopping the average internet user from making and using their own server? For example, my company has less than 40 employees but we have our own server(s). While it may be too much of an investment for the average internet user, those who use a lot of bandwidth could create their own or form collectives that use one server.

Sure. And if they do that, it frees up resources at the ISP so they can more effectively service the 95%+ of users who are 'moderate' users and won't bother to set up their own server.

IOW, the utility model will lead to a more efficient use of resources all around - your example is just one manifestation of that.

I see your point. I'd really like to see internet providers become dinosaurs, just like being locked into one cell phone company. I remember the FCC was looking into a proposal to allow cell phone users to reach out across companies, to free up users. More freedom, more choices...that's what I'm all for.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What's stopping the average internet user from making and using their own server? For example, my company has less than 40 employees but we have our own server(s). While it may be too much of an investment for the average internet user, those who use a lot of bandwidth could create their own or form collectives that use one server.

Sure. And if they do that, it frees up resources at the ISP so they can more effectively service the 95%+ of users who are 'moderate' users and won't bother to set up their own server.

IOW, the utility model will lead to a more efficient use of resources all around - your example is just one manifestation of that.

I see your point. I'd really like to see internet providers become dinosaurs, just like being locked into one cell phone company. I remember the FCC was looking into a proposal to allow cell phone users to reach out across companies, to free up users. More freedom, more choices...that's what I'm all for.

You're a sophisticated user, that's why you feel that way. ISPs will exist, in some form or another, because there are a lot of Lusers out there

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What's stopping the average internet user from making and using their own server? For example, my company has less than 40 employees but we have our own server(s). While it may be too much of an investment for the average internet user, those who use a lot of bandwidth could create their own or form collectives that use one server.

Sure. And if they do that, it frees up resources at the ISP so they can more effectively service the 95%+ of users who are 'moderate' users and won't bother to set up their own server.

IOW, the utility model will lead to a more efficient use of resources all around - your example is just one manifestation of that.

I see your point. I'd really like to see internet providers become dinosaurs, just like being locked into one cell phone company. I remember the FCC was looking into a proposal to allow cell phone users to reach out across companies, to free up users. More freedom, more choices...that's what I'm all for.

You're a sophisticated user, that's why you feel that way. ISPs will exist, in some form or another, because there are a lot of Lusers out there

Well, I'm a looser at home...I pay the cable company $30 a month for a slower connection because they charge $50 a month for high speed.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ha, n00b.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ha, n00b.

I'm so low tech, I'm typing on a Dell laptop that I bought over 6 years ago.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ha, n00b.

I'm so low tech, I'm typing on a Dell laptop that I bought over 6 years ago.

Don't feel bad. My desktop upstairs was purchased in early 2003. My cell phone is from the summer of 2001.

[Kazan' Tiger 1]

This will put a huge damper on people that download all their media rather than buy it at the store. iTunes just gets their online movie rentals up and running and ####### like this starts. And the problem will extend beyond that. Even sites like this would slow down. Look at the data going back and force each and every time you read and respond to a new post. This is especially true with all the images in our signatures. People will be turning off all the good stuff to save money.

All it's going to do is make it like it already is in Russia. Only the rich, there, can afford a decent quality internet experience. Joe Lunchbox will have to deal with the slowest connection and all imaging turned off in his browser. I am not for any part of this.