backtop


Print 126 comment(s) - last by oe2k.. on Jan 21 at 6:13 AM

Time Warner Cables hopes to weed out excess usage with new billing system

When it comes to high-speed Internet, most people take for granted that their flat monthly fee will provide all the bandwidth needed for endless downloading.

Time Warner Cable (TWC), on the other hand, doesn't quite see things that way. Just as Best Buy labeled its bargain-minded customers as "Devil Customers," TWC has its own subset of customers that take the "all you can eat" approach to Internet access.

In order to discourage bandwidth gorging, TWC will trial a new billing system patterned after regular household utilities that we all have become familiar with. Like gas, water and electric bills, TWC will charge customers based on their usage instead of a flat fee.

The move should help TWC weed out the five percent of its customers which it says horde over fifty percent of total network bandwidth.

TWC warns that the network congestions problems will only get worse as more media content is made available online. People today are taking advantage of their high-speed Internet connections to download movies and television shows -- and we can't forget users who often frequent P2P and torrent sites to share/download content.

"Largely, people won't notice the difference," said a spokesman for TWC. "We don't want customers to feel they're getting less for more."

TWC will first roll out a trial of the new billing system in Beaumont, Texas later this year. If the tests are successful, TWC may apply the new billing scheme to all of its 7.4 million residential subscribers around the country.

Time Warner Cable isn't the first company that has attempted to curtail a small minority of its customers from hogging network bandwidth using P2P services like BitTorrent. Comcast chose the unsavory route of throttling bandwidth for greedy customers using P2P software. Unfortunately, Comcast's actions also hampered legitimate users of software like Lotus Notes.

Comcast's actions resulted in class-action lawsuit from customers and an official investigation by the FCC.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Digital Downloads
By deeznuts on 1/17/2008 4:15:17 PM , Rating: 5
And people want to claim that Digital Downloads of movies are the future and physical media will be obsolete? As I've said repeatedly, not if the ISP's have a say in it. With the net neutrality controversy, throttling by Comcast and now this, it's apparent the ISP's are going to change broadband as we know it.




RE: Digital Downloads
By PB PM on 1/17/2008 4:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
Thats what it sounds like doesn't it. I can understand the logic behind it, if the statistics are right (5% using 50% of the bandwidth).

If you use more, you pay more kind of makes sense does it not? If John who uses Bit torrent to download games, movies and music is downloading several dozen gigs of files in a month he pays more than Grandpa Phil who maybe downloads 10megs a month.


RE: Digital Downloads
By jackedupandgoodtogo on 1/17/2008 4:32:58 PM , Rating: 5
If the intent of this pay-per-use scheme is to get rid of the 5%, why not just get rid of them? Terminate their contract, or just don't allow them to renew. Sounds to me, it's simply TW's way of collecting more money without really freeing up the supposed bandwidth issue.

Also, if 5% of their customers use 50% of the total bandwidth, how is it that TW is able to raise the standard download speeds to 8 MBps? Seems to me, if they're bandwidth bound, they couldn't raise their limit. And when does this 50% usage occur? During the day when no one is home? During the evening when everyone's home? During the night when everyone's asleep?


RE: Digital Downloads
By PB PM on 1/17/2008 4:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
Good point about the time of usage. If someone is downloading tones of files, but not slowing down other users connections, then what is the big deal? Then again, what are ISP charging its customers for? Usage or access? My guess is a combination of both, more so towards usage would be my guess though.


RE: Digital Downloads
By jackedupandgoodtogo on 1/17/2008 7:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
It has to be for both. If the ISP's pay monthly fees for access, and they're capped at a maximum, their monthly fees should also be capped, which is why they can charge a flat fee. If they hit the max bandwidth, everyone would see their throughput drop. But I think they pay less when less bandwidth is used. So that flat fee suddenly has a larger margin (same income, less expense). I may be wrong about the ISP's cost to get on the Internet, but that's why they want people to not use the bandwidth outside of the ISP's network. More in-house traffic, no big deal. More outside traffic, more fees, less margins.


RE: Digital Downloads
By qwertyz on 1/17/2008 7:31:42 PM , Rating: 1
This is just unreal, so the more bandwidth u need the less they give it to u and the hard they try to make it not work.

The world is just going mad and fucking crazy.

So the days of 56k modems and 4 KB/s speeds seem to return more quickly than u have ever think.


RE: Digital Downloads
By eye smite on 1/17/2008 8:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing I'll say on this is I have friends in Australia who were billed this way by different isp's there. After getting and losing more customers than you can shake a stick at and the constant complaints and most people going back to dial up, they went to the same billing method we have here now of a flat fee per month and this was 3-4 yrs ago. So the disreputable comcast and narrow visioned TWC will have to learn the hard way it seems.


RE: Digital Downloads
By Frallan on 1/18/2008 7:04:00 AM , Rating: 3
Yupp this isn't a new model was tested in Sweden as well - lets just say that the companies soon realised that if they wanted to stay in business they would have to scrap that model.

Just 1 competitor that gives flat fee is all it takes and you loose a big part of your customers. And it is not only the filesharers that change - basically everyone likes the security of knowing how big the bill will be next month.

/F


RE: Digital Downloads
By jajig on 1/18/2008 12:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
That depends entirely on your plan and ISP. eg you can get 200MB, 400MB or 25GB data plans and be charged $0.15 per MB over that limit, or you can buy 12GB and be shaped to dial-up speed once you go over. Uploads and downloads are counted towards your limit.

http://my.bigpond.com/internetplans/broadband/cabl...

You have a choice of a flat fee or a fee with pay as you go.


RE: Digital Downloads
By roadrun777 on 1/19/2008 12:11:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think they are getting it though. I currently pay for movie downloads, and music downloads, and I also support linux distrobutions with peer2peer (sharing my bandwidth to help a cause). I also share my bandwidth and processor power for folding and other distributed projects.

So what does this do? It makes me pay for something I have already paid for.
It's just a sad way for them to "terrorize" you into paying more for a piece of crap out dated system.
Just look at the networks in any country besides here, and you will see that they have speeds of 1mbit-100mbit for home subscribers, and not only that, when is FIOS going to happen? My god, the price is going to go up to 300$ a month with a plan like that. Instead of offering more bandwidth and upgrading, they are slowing it all down, trying to say that every packet or blip of information should be taxed, tripled charged, and billed to the limit.
They are trying to kill the internet.
Can you imagine if every road you drove over was a toll road? And if you decided to drive faster than everyone else to get to work early, you would have to pay triple the price?
People forget that these speeds are IMAGINARY, they equipment goes much faster than they let on.
It's just a way to milk more money, by creating imaginary tiers and having retarded marketing execs come onto public sites and say stupid shite like "well grandpa john only downloads 10 megs a day, why should he have to pay more?". That is f*n stupid. The comapanys will make grandpa john pay as much as they can without getting a riot, they just want an excuse to make even more money off all the media.

So think of it as a media tax on you. They want a peice of all that revenue they are (and will) make off of movies and music online.

The morons try to make you believe that the only people that this will effect is pirates who supposedly "download way too much" cough cough.. This is a blatant lie designed to make you think you are safe. You can bet they only see dollar signs in the actions, and it's about cashing in on media sales and advertising.


RE: Digital Downloads
By dreddly on 1/18/2008 1:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and the other thing they seem to forget is that people with high-bandwidth usage tend to be the more computer-savvy that also influence a lot of the decisions of other users around them.

Everytime an ISP in Canada tries to do this, I end up encouraging a group of other users to not sign up with that provider. The high bandwidth users tend to influence the decisions of other users, and so even if we trust their 5% numbers, the heavy users put up a stink (in blogs and forums) and discourage others.


RE: Digital Downloads
By frobizzle on 1/18/2008 1:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your overall point, realistically, it won't make a difference.
quote:
After getting and losing more customers than you can shake a stick at and the constant complaints

First, unfortunate as it is, most markets have very few options. There is simply not enough competition and hence there are few alternatives. When the choice is TWC's Draconian billing rates or 56k dial-up, most people will just suck it in and pay.

Second, TWC couldn't give a rat's ass about customers whining. When Road Runner was first offered in my area, there was a 10 mbit/sec. cap. A few years later, they lowered the cap to 2 mbit/sec., trying to do it under the radar scope. To me and others, the change was immediately obvious. Three were many complaints but TWC simply ignored them. It was only when the telco started offering an alternative with DSL and competition to Road Runner that TWC finally sat up and took notice. Not so remarkably, when DSL got faster, Road Runner soon followed. It got up to the point where now, they are both about 7 mbit/sec., each loudly claiming that they are the fastest.


RE: Digital Downloads
By enlil242 on 1/17/2008 9:09:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you use more, you pay more kind of makes sense does it not?


Don't we pay more now? I'd venture a guess, that most "high capacity" users, such as myself, (Xbox Live, MP Gaming, etc) already pay more for the premiunm broadband services from our ISPs (6MB dsl, 8mb cable) as opposed to the lower bandwidth plans (1.5mb dsl, 4mb cable).

To me the pricing scheme should change as well. If they are going to charge me for usage (for which I'll be paying way more than my mom for instance), then charge one nominal fee for the higher tier plan, get rid of the lower tier plan and charge away for usage... That's fair to me...


RE: Digital Downloads
By bhieb on 1/18/2008 10:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly I don't really mind the cost per meg scheme. In fact when I am on a "break" for a month or so and not gaming at all, I would actually save over my monthly bill. However if you are charging me for usage, then don't cap my speed at all. To use the electricity example if you are charging me per kw/hr then I should be able to pull as many amps as your infrastructure will allow (in this case limited by my transformer, for the ISP's by their switches, router and total bandwidth).


RE: Digital Downloads
By rcc on 1/18/2008 1:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
Nice idea, but you can't do this with power either. If you pull enough to limit other users on your substation, or enough to trip the breakers at that station, you'll hear about it.... loudly.

Unless, of course, you contract with the electric company for said service.


RE: Digital Downloads
By bhieb on 1/18/2008 1:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
That is true everything has a limit even with electric there are demand fees for high usage customers.


RE: Digital Downloads
By roadrun777 on 1/19/2008 12:19:30 PM , Rating: 2
You don't mind the cost per meg scheme? You must have rolls of logs made out of cash you throw on the fire to keep warm then.

I already pay per month prices to downloads a certain amount of mp3 media, and a certain amount of movies, plus I already pay my ISP. So under this scheme, what happens when my 30$ a month I am paying to stream movies exceeds my bandwidth? Then I pay triple exponentially?
Horrible idea.
HORRIBLE IDEA.
You need to be slapped.


RE: Digital Downloads
By artemicion on 1/18/2008 1:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
IMO, they should make a less extreme move by charging by bandwidth during peak hours and allowing unlimited bandwidth during non-peak hours, much the way cellphone plans work. I'm under the assumption that the bandwidth problem is caused by a small percentage of users (bittorrent, etc.) and only during certain hours of the day (might be wrong about this).

I'd also like to point out that resistance to change to the status quo of unlimited bandwidth seems to be largely derived from customers outraged at the possibility of being charged more, rather than any principled perspective of the economics of ISPs. Just be f-ing true to yourself and admit that your real argument is "I want to pay as little as possible, and I want to download as much as I want." Of f-ing course that's what consumers want.


RE: Digital Downloads
By roadrun777 on 1/19/2008 12:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
rather than any principled perspective of the economics of ISPs. Just be f-ing true to yourself and admit that your real argument is "I want to pay as little as possible, and I want to download as much as I want." Of f-ing course that's what consumers want.


True to yourself? How much did they pay you to write that crap?
As I said before, companies are charging per meg to use their services!!! I pay 60$ per month to my ISP, I pay 30$ a month for up to 20gig of streamed movies, another 10$ a month for music and radio streams, I also purchase E-books and Audio books, which take up bandwidth. Can you get a f*n clue? I think being charged for imaginary traffic is an invention of retards. I have a home network and I copy huge amounts of data back and forth to my computers, it makes no difference to me, as the equipment doesn't require quarters every few packets, they require electricity and that is it! I already pay for my electricity so why the hell should you tell me that every electrical pulse that is sent that contains information should be charged 4 times over. Once for the electricity, once for the privilege, and once for the content, then pay more on top of that if I exceed an imaginary privilege line?
Oh and I also pay for 10$ per month for e-faxing, which is more bandwidth, and I also pay 10$ per month for electronic voice mail that converts everything to wav files and sends them to my email account (which is again more bandwidth).


RE: Digital Downloads
By Christopher1 on 1/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Digital Downloads
By mdogs444 on 1/17/2008 4:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really, Time-Warner is being a whiny baby about the people who are 'bandwidth gorging'. The people who use more than 500GB of bandwidth a month, like I do on an occasional basis, are a SMALL fraction of a percentage of the people who are using their services.... not even really enough to impinge on the downloading of other people on their service.

So let me get this right....

You believe that everyone should pay the same low price, regardless of how much of the service they use, and that a tiered "pay for what you use" service is bad.

I find it quite ironic, and hypocritical, when I compare it to your view class warfare & taxes. You've stated in the past that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage of taxes because they have enough money to afford it, and that the low income people shouldn't pay anything because they cannot afford.

You can say that this is just to punish you for using alot of bandwidth and to price gouge you (which is the same as taxing high income an even higher percentage), but perhaps I can say that this is to benefit the low bandwidth users by charging less (which is the same as not taxing the low income).

How is this different this time? Oh i know....because this time, it will actually effect how much money comes out of your pocket! Maybe you ought to think about that next time you say you want to tax people a higher percentage because they make more than you.


RE: Digital Downloads
By Polynikes on 1/17/2008 7:39:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the same low price

Low? $40 a month ain't cheap if you're not using a lot of bandwidth.


RE: Digital Downloads
By jeff834 on 1/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Digital Downloads
By murphyslabrat on 1/18/2008 3:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
I actually had to kick my kitten out of the house for a few months. Now he's back, and is a profitable member of our household.


RE: Digital Downloads
By Christopher1 on 1/18/2008 10:53:37 PM , Rating: 1
$50 dollars is not a low price, compared to the Unlimited Internet deals in places like Japan.

They have unlimited internet that is nearly 20 times faster than our cable internet, and they are paying less than we do for that than we pay for cable internet.

Secondly, when something is advertised as unlimited, I expect to be able to use AS MUCH OF THE SERVICE AS I LIKE! I have NEVER had a complaint from Comcast even once except a phonecall from some lower-level peon who was getting on my case about downloading a lot 5 years ago. When I pointed out to him that their service was unlimited, he hung up the phone and never called back again, though that might have been because he was fired after I contacted Comcast and reported his phonecall and it wasn't authorized by them (assuming the latter here).

Thirdly, yes, I do believe that everyone should pay the same 'low' price for internet service regardless of how much of the service they use, if something is billed as unlimited internet.
If you don't want to allow that, you are FINE to bill your service as not being 'unlimited' and putting a gigabyte limit on it.... just don't blame me when your business drops off substantially because customers are getting tired of having to count every single mega or giga-byte of traffic they are using.

Fourthly, I couldn't care LESS if more money came out of my pocket for internet service...... as long as the service was still unlimited, I would be willing to pay up to $70 dollars a month for internet service.... any higher than that however, and I would tell any provider to stick their service and simply stay off the internet and NO ONE would get my money.

Fifthly, I do want to tax people who make more at a much higher rate than myself because THEY CAN AFFORD IT, and they have a responsibility to help keep society up if they are not going to allow high minimum wages.
If they would switch to a high minimum wage of about $12-20 dollars, then I would keep them at the same level of taxation as myself..... but let's face facts: most rich people today got rich off breaking the backs of the poor and insider trading their way to success.

Even my one friend, who is worth nearly $10 million dollars now, said that he was SHOCKED at how many people and businesses freely admit that they insider traded or hired people at below minimum wage.


RE: Digital Downloads
By mdogs444 on 1/17/2008 5:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The people who use more than 500GB of bandwidth a month, like I do on an occasional basis, are a SMALL fraction of a percentage of the people who are using their services.... not even really enough to impinge on the downloading of other people on their service.

And just to further my point...

Your example of being using a lot of bandwidth are a small percentage of the total bandwidth users. Just like how the total amount of federal taxes are paid by the small minority of americans. And those who pay the most, receive the least "value" for their dollar.

Go figure, another hypocritical statement because it all depends on how it effects YOU, right?


RE: Digital Downloads
By imaheadcase on 1/17/2008 10:32:55 PM , Rating: 1
What the ISP's are NOT telling you is that "small percentage" actually increases every year.

Face it people, pay-by-the-byte internet will not work for future internet applications. I can easily download 500gigs a month..even 1tb.

Its not uncommon to download a typical 10-20gig 1080p movie now on internet. You think "oh sure if you pirate", but face it..its not always going to be pirating, same movie i download now in a few years will actually be standard STREAMING movies.


RE: Digital Downloads
By Christopher1 on 1/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Digital Downloads
By FITCamaro on 1/17/2008 5:27:00 PM , Rating: 5
Well I'm all in favor of them throttling your internet connection or just cutting it off entirely. Those who believe having sex with children is ok shouldn't be allowed to live much less use the net.


RE: Digital Downloads
By creathir on 1/17/2008 7:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
Just an FYI on those who are rating down FIT, Christopher1 has expressed beliefs in allowing children to have sex with adults.

FIT is not just slamming this guy, just pointing out some of his previous beliefs.

- Creathir


RE: Digital Downloads
By anotherdude on 1/17/2008 7:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Can we get the whole story? Sounds like an interesting read.


RE: Digital Downloads
By kyp275 on 1/17/2008 7:54:16 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Digital Downloads
By ToeCutter on 1/17/2008 11:22:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
yup, that's him.

That is some twisted shit.

Freaks me out a bit; I wonder how many other whack jobs I've replied to on this forum?

Thanks for the tip


RE: Digital Downloads
By Frallan on 1/18/2008 7:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well I would like some more confirmation on identities and beliefs b4 I say anything except that what was written in there was sick. However witch hunts and mobs are pretty bad as well (and they always seem to hang more innocent then guilty ppl)


RE: Digital Downloads
By Vinnybcfc on 1/18/2008 12:17:17 PM , Rating: 2
Heres one post on dailytech from him:

(2nd paragraph last sentence)
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=5851&...

That took about 2 mins to find on his account

Lots of similar posts on his account


RE: Digital Downloads
By roadrun777 on 1/19/2008 12:44:20 PM , Rating: 1
Omg, you all are a bunch of tards...
<stewie voice>
Oh goodie! Let's burn people in ovens because they have a different view point other than our own!

You all are just trolls and flame bait artists. You can't win an argument so you jump into belief systems. Attack! Attack!
I hate ignorant tards who put everyone in life into little neatly organized boxes like a lab monkey with a geometric shape test kit.


RE: Digital Downloads
By FITCamaro on 1/17/2008 11:24:12 PM , Rating: 2
More like incredibly sick and twisted.

I still do not understand why DT has not banned his account given some of his views and comments supporting them. You might not agree with me on my political views, but I also don't believe in having sex with 6 year olds.

I just hope he one day gets caught by the authorities and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Me personally, I'd have him executed. Only way to get rid of these sickos once and for all is to get them out of the gene pool.


RE: Digital Downloads
By Vinnybcfc on 1/18/2008 12:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah why havent DT done anything?

If they need evidence it is quite easy to find on his account


RE: Digital Downloads
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/18/2008 2:01:09 PM , Rating: 3
Because Dailytech is a forum that believes people have the right to freedom of speech. Whether or not the community agrees with him is beside the point and just like he gets to argue his points, we get to argue ours. Now don't get me wrong, I am in now way, shape or form agreeing with this scum, but he does have the right to post.

Would be a little interesting to see his ass out on the street though, I might just become a lot of liberal with my fists.


RE: Digital Downloads
By Christopher1 on 1/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Digital Downloads
By roadrun777 on 1/19/2008 12:48:38 PM , Rating: 1
Hitler? Is that you?


RE: Digital Downloads
By Vinnybcfc on 1/18/2008 12:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
Heres another one of Christopher1's posts:

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=9384&...


RE: Digital Downloads
By XPguy on 1/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Digital Downloads
By jackedupandgoodtogo on 1/17/2008 5:26:12 PM , Rating: 1
Why? Did that person just suck up that bandwidth downloading a movie and now it's gone forever? Are you no longer able to use your full bandwidth because someone is downloading a movie? What's the logic in saying they should pay more, just because they decided to delete the file 24 hours later? And are you suggesting Apple shutdown iTunes just because it's using up bandwidth providing this service to someone who wants to use it? In that same line of thinking, shouldn't we just charge you more for downloading Windows updates, which can run in the gigabytes in a month sometimes, just because you want to update your system?

Come on. Think! How is charging a guy who downloads a movie more going to help you at all? You're not going to see more bandwidth, and you're not going to pay less. You'll still get your 8 Mbps download speed and you're still going to pay $45/month, with or without that movie downloader guy/gal.


RE: Digital Downloads
By saiga6360 on 1/17/2008 8:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
The part of me that is somewhat of a conspiracy nutjob sees this as one TW decision furthering its Blu-Ray exclusivity decision. I think it makes sense for them to make it cost-prohibitive to use digital HD downloads/streaming from legal internet services. Yep, it is crazy but stranger things have happened.

It would be nice if TW can prove their claims for justifying this move but it is probably not going to happen or even matter. I would probably be a proponent of this move if it means the money will be spent improving the infrastructure but that's wishful thinking. In the end, it is my money and it will be my decision. It is unfortunate that many of use do not have other options, like those folks at Beaumont, Texas I would assume.


RE: Digital Downloads
By jconan on 1/17/2008 10:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
IMHO TWC should provide options for fees similar to telephone companies that provide a flat fee and cost per transaction fee with lower monthly service fee. Then that would be fair. But a single type of pricing scheme isn't fair because it is still relatively expensive compared to DSL.


RE: Digital Downloads
By marvdmartian on 1/18/2008 9:53:38 AM , Rating: 3
I have two problems with this whole idea.

First, I have yet to see what sort of bandwidth limit they're planning on imposing. Getting upset about it before you know what you're getting upset about is simply a waste of time, imho.
If TWC wants to set a limit on their unlimited internet, then they do so with the knowledge that they might lose some customers. Frankly, I doubt if they care, if the only customers they lose are their high bandwidth users. It's a win/win situation for them, isn't it? They drop their bandwidth bill, or they get more money from the bandwidth hogs that are using most of it.
Honestly, I doubt if they'll care about losing some customers in that instance.

Second, personally, I think this is a bunch of hogwash. While 5% of their customers might be using 50% of their bandwidth (or so they claim), then why not, at the same time that you plan on higher billing for high bandwidth customers, do they not offer LOWER BILLING FOR THEIR LOW BANDWIDTH CUSTOMERS???
I mean, it's only fair, isn't it? If person A uses up 50% of the bandwidth, and TWC thinks they should pay higher fees for that usage, then it's only right that person B, who only uses 2% of the bandwidth, should pay a significantly LOWER monthly fee.
Thus is the problem I have with their plan, since I know they have no intention of doing what I just outlined. They cry "NO FAIR!!" to high bandwidth customers, yet they give no break to low bandwidth customers......and those are the very people that should be rewarded by TWC.

Otherwise, we could simply make the argument that (truthfully) the 95% low bandwidth customers that TWC has more than make up for the 5% high users......and that this is nothing more than a scam by Time Warner.

Aside from all that, personally speaking as a TWC cable modem customer, I feel that my local company better look at improving their service quality a LOT more, before they look at upping my bill any more. I don't know about other areas, but until I see premium service, I'd better not see a premium billing going on here!!


RE: Digital Downloads
By bhieb on 1/18/2008 12:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
do they not offer LOWER BILLING FOR THEIR LOW BANDWIDTH CUSTOMERS???


Ok so what do you think a cost per usage plan would do. The whole point is the more you use the more pay, and by it's very nature the less you use the less you pay. I don't know what system you would put into place that would save low bandwidth users money, other than a pay per usage plan.

Again I am all for it as long as the price does not exceed what the 95% are paying now, AND as long as there is no speed cap (1.5mb or 5mb). If I can get the fasted speed possible on a pay per use basis, and still pay the same on average months, less on slow months, and more on busy months then I am all for it.

Of course that is not how TW will sturcture it, but using their "electric" company analogy that is how it needs to be. After all I can pull as many amps as possible from the grid, and they charge me the same per kw/h regardless of whether I am pulling the full transformer load of 400 amps or just running the lights at just a few amps. But even then the analogy falls apart, because very large users of electircity are charged a costp per kw/h and a flat "demand" charge just to have the rights to use that much, regardless of how much they actually use.

In the end they will do what any company does, and structure it to put the most $$ in the bank that the market will allow. Welcome to capitalism!


RE: Digital Downloads
By roadrun777 on 1/19/2008 12:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
OMG! Another marketing exec paid to post.

This is moronic, firstly, because an internet router is not like a car, it doesn't wear out if it's used too much. The whole idea of limitation is smoke and mirrors, the limitation is only set in place to make more money. You are arguing from the point of view that we all just need to accept it and not fight paying for imaginary ideas.

What if I divided up your house and made a new law that says your kitchen zone is not a toll area, every minute you spend in the kitchen will cost you 5$. Then, you get online and tell everyone how you think its only fair, because you don't eat that much and only fat people spend a lot of time in the kitchen. I think somewhere down the line your IQ points must have slipped out of your colon, because it seems like you've already accepted an imaginary method of control.


RE: Digital Downloads
By roadrun777 on 1/19/2008 1:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
That should read "your kitchen zone is a toll area"


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki