Time Warner trial - charging based on bandwidth usage Options

[Spectatrix]

Time Warner sucks (so does Beaumont). I'll stick with my Grande Communications service. "8 Mbps" (really 12+, based on the speed tests I've taken) for $40/mo. Booya.

Now, one cable company is starting to push back at excessive bandwidth usage caused mainly by video downloading. After an internal memo was leaked, Time Warner Cable confirmed it's planning a trial in Beaumont, Tex., in which it will charge Internet subscribers based on usage.

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstock...ernet-fees.aspx

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jan 18 2008, 04:08 PM

[impala454]

Hah I was just about to post this... Sucks to be them.

[Spectatrix]

It's only for new customers, though, so existing ones are screwed. Yet.

[kcroxyoursox]

So it's allocation for Internet? I'm down for that. Those who use more should pay more, just like electricity, water, and other public works.

But I think there should be a price cap or things could get sour quickly.

[FORSAKENR320]

So it's allocation for Internet? I'm down for that. Those who use more should pay more, just like electricity, water, and other public works.

But I think there should be a price cap or things could get sour quickly.

reminds me too much of a cell phone bill, which frankly, i hate

[Epic]

if you pay for unlimited, you should get unlimited.

it would be like sprint calling me and saying "you send over 3,000 txts every month, so even though you pay for unlimited txts, we're going to need more money"

[James]

if you pay for unlimited, you should get unlimited.

it would be like sprint calling me and saying "you send over 3,000 txts every month, so even though you pay for unlimited txts, we're going to need more money"

They do that according to some of my students :shrug:

[pysex]

So it's allocation for Internet? I'm down for that. Those who use more should pay more, just like electricity, water, and other public works.

But I think there should be a price cap or things could get sour quickly.

no


allocation for internet is bad....

why? because it will lead to allocation for how much television you watch...

the internet isn't a limited resource...so why are we charging for usage....

if you don't use the internet that often and don't want to pay the 44+ dollars it takes for broadband then don't pipe that much crap to your computer....get netzero

and to say that someone who downloads a video is causing others to suffer is total fucking moronic profiteering bullshit

[pysex]

Time Warner sucks (so does Beaumont). I'll stick with my Grande Communications service. "8 Mbps" (really 12+, based on the speed tests I've taken) for $40/mo. Booya.
http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstock...ernet-fees.aspx

who the fuck determines what excessive bandwidth usage is...

i would like to kill that guy

[impala454]

if you pay for unlimited, you should get unlimited.

it would be like sprint calling me and saying "you send over 3,000 txts every month, so even though you pay for unlimited txts, we're going to need more money"

You don't pay for unlimited right now though. Most ISPs have a cap of around 50GB. It's just that no one usually goes over the cap, or if they do its not by much and they don't care. Once people start streaming HD movies that will change. One or two Blu-ray/HD-DVD movies would be enough to cap 50GB. I still think paying per usage would suck though.

[kcroxyoursox]

if you don't use the internet that often and don't want to pay the 44+ dollars it takes for broadband then don't pipe that much crap to your computer....get netzero

I still want the same speed for those things that I do, though.

That would be like telling me to use my kitchen sink to bathe instead of my shower. Either way, I'm using the same amount of water. It's just coming out a hell of a lot slower...

[impala454]

That would be like telling me to use my kitchen sink to bathe instead of my shower. Either way, I'm using the same amount of water. It's just coming out a hell of a lot slower...

I don't think you realize, you wouldn't pay any less. Companies don't implement things like this so that the typical customer pays less because they use less. They just use it as an excuse to make those who use more pay more.

The truth here is, the "5Mbps" they say you're getting is BS. You don't have a true 5Mbps, because it's shared across multiple customers. If everyone called up their 5Mbps at once, it would bring these ISPs to their knees. Now they see people actually beginning to use their bandwidth, and they're afraid this is exactly what is going to happen, so they come out with the typical response, charge the customer more and hope they don't use it (kinda like oil is going). This is also reminiscent of New Yorks disgusting $8/day fee to use the roads or whatever that was.

[Divergent Realit...]

there will be no drop in fees for the 'light' user.

there will still be the 40-whatever access fee, then you will pay based on how much bandwith you use.

sucks for lots of people that just do a lot on the computer.

a stupid action rather than improving their ability to deal with more users wanting more bandwith.

it will be like old aol - pay by the minute.

after a while someone with enough capital will say fuck that, and start an unlimited usage provider.

and the pendulum will swing back.