Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner to Charge Extra for Over-Quota Bandwidth
duckygator writes: "I just came across this article on NetworkWorld discussing Time Warner's announcement that they will begin charging users a fee for exceeding a monthly download limit. The actual limits and associated fees aren't discussed. Guess I knew this would be coming sooner or later ... Now I guess I'll just have to guess where the threshold will be. Anything more than email? Active gamer? Graphic artist?"
In my area, a cable modem costs $40 on top of cable, but a very nice DSL feed with 5 static IP's is only $65. This is only a 25 dollar difference monthly. If the differences closes up any, I'll simply switch. 5 static IP addresses are in and of themselves worth quite a bit to me. TW only offers static IP's with their business class service, which, IIRC, is $150 monthly.
C//
As long as the threshold is at a reasonable point, I can't say I'd complain about it. It's only fair that those who use the most should pay the most, rather than having those who use the least subsidize the hogs.
:-) As it is, the guys who use their connections for low-traffic everyday uses like checking e-mail and websurfing are paying the same rate I do, and that just isn't fair to them.
And I say this as one of the hogs who'd have to pay more if I were on that cable system. I regularly transfer about 1.2 GB *a day* so, yes, I should have to pay more than the relatively small sum I pay per month now.
The problem would be setting a reasonable scale of bandwidth and rates, and I somehow doubt the limits are going to be very reasonable...
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Why not? If I follow the terms of the terms of service, I see it as the providers problem, not mine
I paid for the service - essentially you're telling me if I go to McDonalds and eat all of the food I ordered, I have bad manners. I draw the line at breaking the terms of service - I see it as a contract for the service rendered. "Back in the old days", the internet was an academic resource. Now it's a commercial resource. It costs money. For money, I get a service. If I don't use that service, it's my perogative. If I use the service as much as I possibly can, it's my perogative. It might be their network, but for the time I "rent it" for $40/month, I'll do the hell I want with it.
Now we'll see what people see as the real value of mp3s. Is it still a good idea to download it if the download is going to cost you 10c/meg? We'll find out shortly.
I already live in the world of the monthly free traffic quota. Here in New Zealand, I have a 2meg down/256k up cable connection, with 1Gb of (international) traffic free for ~US$40.
Traffic charges are tiered with national traffic (NZ) is at US$.008/meg and international traffic is at US$.08c/meg. So, downloading that image of Serious Sam SE will set you back US$52. All of a sudden, it makes sense to go out and buy the thing for ~US$40.
I can't see this as anything other than a positive development.
Before anyone starts, think about what this will do for the packaged linux software business. It might actually be cheaper to go out and buy the CD than download the ISO from Red Hat. All of a sudden RH turns a sale with a cost to them into a sale with profit! That _has_ to be a good thing.
Jason PollockYou know, if there was any REAL competition in broadband, I'd say that this is good, because it'd sink AOLTimeWarner, as all their subscribers flee to alternative providers.
But, since getting broadband internet is a lot like getting cable television, I think that the consumer is going to get screwed big time by this.
Seriously, has deregulation ever benefited consumers? I can't think of a time off the top of my head when it has. It seems to me that it always benefits big business at the consumer's expense, and this is yet another example of the consumer getting screwed by a deregulated conglomerate.
No less attractive, just offline with CDRs or DVD-RAM or online with ad hoc wireless networks that will displace the corporate mavens if this becomes widespread. Just like the death of Napster spawned Gnutella, the death of the flat-rate Internet will spawn loosely confederated wireless networks. If the governments and corporate whores think they have a problem controlling the flow of information now, they ain't see nuthin' yet.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
I understand the net access limiting in college dorms - most people in college don't give a shit about bandwidth, so they just let kazaa/morpheus run unrestricted all they want - it isn't their money. They just end up fucking the people who really need the bandwidth. These people NEED bandwidth limits.
However, excedding bandwidth limits on a cable modem is not supposed to happen. That's what the 12k/sec cap on uploads is there for, right? If they want to charge me for the extra bandwidth i use, why not allow me to take all my alloted bandwidth in one lump sum? If i upload the latest release of my Linux distro once a month, i'll be using, say, 600 megs of "bandwidth" that month. What difference does it make to them if i spend 10 hours uploading it, or 2 minutes? I still use the same ammount, and still have to pay extra when i go over.
I don't think its fair that they implement upload caps to limit our bandwidth usage, and then say how much we can use what little sending speed we have. Of cours, this is corporate America, and nothing is fair from the consumer's point of view.
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
I think that's the main problem. I wouldn't mind paying for what I consume if I had some reason to believe it was fair.
The problem is, they may be charging $44/month for some guy who only consumes 1MB or 2MB per month. The percentage of people consuming much less than 200MB is certainly very high. That's a "free ride" for Time Warner.
The other end of the spectrum is the bandwidth hogs. They consume the bandwidth that they've supposedly paid for. Is that really a "free ride?" They contracted a cable modem and they're using it. On a more macro scale, they're compensating for the large majority that don't use a fraction of what they're entitled to.
So I think it's fair to pay for the bandwidth you use as long as those that don't use it get an equivalent discount in the other direction. You can't have it both ways.
That said, isn't Time Warner one of the companies that wants to sell us all this new-fangled digital multi-media content? They'll have to analyze their pricing structure in that context. If it costs more to acquire a movie-on-demand via their link than it does to rent it at Blockbuster, they're on-demand service aint going to go far...
I run a rather unpopular website with some pictures of my coral reef tank. Sadly, Time Warner doesn't want me to run a server because of the traffic it could consume.
Now that they have a per for traffic model, can I run my server?
That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
P2P piracy? Someone please just come to my house and shoot me...
I can't imagine how low we've all come since just 2 years ago.
In another 2 years will there even be an internet left? The day I see a 10 10 220 plan for paying for internet time...I'm just gonna pull the trigger.
Everything that's happening is the THE EXACT AND DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what was supposed to happen!
We were all expecting BETTER service, FASTER service, MORE applications, MORE companies, MORE global communication. And just look at what's been happening!
Then this asshole posts that P2P is just about 14 year old kids trading warez and pr0n!?!!? Are brainwashed chimps like this guy all we've got left in the geek community?
P2P is a godsend!
BUT WE'LL NEVER GET A CHANCE TO IMPLEMENT IT IF CONNECTING TO THE NET COSTS 10 CENTS A MINUTE!
Mail? Dude, personal mail is pretty low volume, even mail for you and all your friends is pretty low volume. I don't think running your own mailserver is an unreasonable activity.
I agree, this, on the face of it, is a good thing. If your usage causes increased costs, you should pay more.
Though, the real cost is provisioning for peak usage. Having enough bandwidth to keep users happy at 6-12 pm (time varies in different environments, but this pretty much covers it for residential usage) is what drives the costs up as they need to engineer and provision for that load. The rest of the day it is (for the most part) "free".
What I think they should be doing is only metering during those peak periods and leaving it status quo the rest of the day. They would find users would start those ISO, Warez, etc. downloads before they go to bed, or setting up a cron job for 3am or whatever, turn off their P2P server during the billable time, etc.
I think this would solve the problem they are trying to solve and more accurately pass on costs. The phone company has been doing this forever, it only makes sense.
The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
Let me say that I work for a DSL company. The comparison that is always made is the one of the normal connection being the equivalent of a t-1 line. However what most people don't understand is that dsl and cable traffic is mostly burst traffic. Meaning that there are relatively quick spikes. The norm at least in my area is that you can fit 125+ users on a t-1 line all at a full 512/512 symetric. If one person is cranking away all the time, there is bandwidth to spare, however if you have three people cranking then there is a problem. You simply take care of those users, or you upgrade the line to the backbone. My dsl company is a sister company with a phone company, so for us it's no big deal to just drop a DS3 in from the hut to our main offices.
:-)
Even the smaller dsl companies have deals setup to get better pricing for bigger pipes, because remember they can get a burstable DS3, so you have 3 people cranking all the time, so what you other 120 odd users aren't.
Now, I'm all for charging those trouble users, but I think the cable companies are just simply over selling their lines and taking steps to punish everyone. We get away with 125+ users per t-1, but that's because we've looked at it, and it works. Keeps everyone happy.
The cable companys on the other hand are just over selling their cable lines, and it's hard to just up and rollout more cable lines. So for now it's mostly the cable companies fault, and I think they are just looking to further pad their wallets by punishing everyone.
Mod this as you will, I'm not so sure anyone will even see it.
I read thru all the post and it amazes me that nobody (Maybe I missed it) has picked up on the fact its Time Warner. This is as much an attempt to protect their Music and Film biz as its a "cost of bandwidth" issue. We are just about now getting to the point where its somewhat practical to download DivX movies in addition to Mp3 music. If they can cap the bandwidth at this point they have bought themselves a few years to try and figure out how to avoid movies going the route of music.
Help fight continental drift.
You'd be surprised at how much you've been ripping your provider off all these years.
I have to disagree. I haven't worked in the NOC of an ISP in years, but this is much is still true. If you own the network, you don't have to pay to use it. Also true, if you own a big enough network, other peer networks allow you to connect to them at what amounts to a reciprocal cost. (I connect to UUNet, and they connect to me. In that way we usually use the same amount of each others network, and thus we charge each other the same price for connection < the charge is a formality >)
All ISP's have to build staff, support, maintenance, and growth cost into their billing. And so while those are huge expenses, if the company is loosing money on those services it's because they made a choice to do so.
There is no additional cost to the provider if i download 1Meg/Month vs. 100Meg/Month, because they own the network. Now someone who downloads 1Mbps vs. 100Mbps is a real issue. While the company owns the network, the network is still a finite resource. There are only so many Mbps at any given second. And if you are using 80% of the company's bandwidth, then you cost them more, because all of the other customers share only 20% and then leave the service because they are unsatisfied with the speed. So in that you drive away customers by hogging the bandwidth, you cost the company more money.
That being said, let's say "47&7" company owns a network big enough to let each of their customers have 50kbps simultaneously. If I keep my 50kbps open at 100% 24/7/52, then I cost the company nothing. I am only allowed to use what I am allotted and I am not using someone else's bandwidth. There is an algorithm out there that says that between X o'clock and Y o'clock z number of people is using the network. So then if they calculate the number of people that use the network, and the average amount of time that they spend, you can lock in a bandwidth number that doesn't infringe on you bandwidth limit.
Now, The problem with what they are doing is they are going to charge you guys for using what they have already allotted me. I keep my bandwidth open as much as mechanically possible, but people like me are part of the fore mentioned algorithm. I'm way ahead of the yahoo games playing mom, or the porn-browsing dad. But I'm not new to the game. ISP have been dealing with the likes of me for years. I don't have a problem paying more than the average Joe. I would gladly pay $10/Mth more to keep my bandwidth open, but It's not fair to those who have "excessive" downloads 1 or 2 times a month.
Corporate greed it still nothing more than greed. And when you say that I have no idea how I'm stealing from my ISP, you're wrong... I do have an idea, no I have the answer. And the answer is, under the user agreement that I signed, and under the limits that they set on my connection, I'm not stealing at all, but rather, I'm taking full advantage of the service that I pay for.
</soapbox>
the real cost is provisioning for peak usage. ... What I think they should be doing is only metering during those peak periods and leaving it status quo the rest of the day.
Charging for bandwidth usage is garbage, based on models of consumable resources rather than shared instintaneous resources. Bandwidth disappears when not used. You can't save it up during low usage periods to provide extra during high usage periods.
- If they charge you when you're NOT competing with other users, they pulled money from you when the difference between you having used the bandwidth and having NOT used the bandwidth made no difference to their costs and to their other customers' experiences.
- If they charge you when you ARE competing, they're charging you when you're no more of a problem then any one of the other customers you're allegedly causing a problem for. If they charge you more then those other customers because you used bandwidth when nobody else wanted it, they're just ripping you off.
The proper thing for them to do is:
- Divide the bandwidth evenly between everybody who wants to use it on an instintaneous basis.
- Add more bandwidth if things are too slow during the peaks.
- Charge all the users for their share of the cost of the provisioned bandwidth (times a profit multiplier).
No matter how hard you suck on the pipe, you can't consume any more bandwidth than they chose to give you at any instant. No matter how many packets you blow into the pipe, it won't pass any more packets on than they chose to let it pass. If you blow in more than that it will drop them - and TCP will automatically drop rate and retransmit until you're using the available bandwidth and still getting through. If you can take an "unfair share", it's THEIR fault for using routers that can't divide the bandwidth fairly, not your fault for trying to use what's available.
And if their business model assumed broadband users wouldn't actually use the bandwidth, that's also THEIR fault, not yours.
Bandwidth usage pricing is not a way to be fair. It's a way to gouge the customers with an unpredictable price hike.
Can you imagine the consternation when an email virus, moustrap animated advertisement package, or distributed DOS client gets loaded on a bunch of their customers and runs their bills up to astronomical levels? Or when users bills skyrocket because the ISP didn't filter out spam?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Capped bandwidth reduces the cost of the service to ordinary users by not making the rest of us pay for what is probably P2P piracy.
Which could possibly be the big reason behind this.
It's also going to kill net radio services like shoutcast.
Another thought: It's going to make people (well, me at least) even more resentful of advertising.
I have to pay for (1) simple access, then I have to pay for (2) metered usage, then I have to be bombarded with (3) advertisements to see anything of value -- which I am paying to (4) download, and I have to (5) register with the content provider to get the content and advertisements.
I've got an internal network for testing and development. But I've been spoiled by the net. Maybe I'll just switch back dial up, and use lynx to read slashdot, google groups, search.cpan.org and java.sun.com. And pine (though Evolution is pretty nice) to read email. Maybe I'll resubscribe to a print newspaper and a weekly news magazine for news again.
I'll miss having so much technical information immediately at my disposal, but I've paid for all these technical reference books on my bookshelf. And many of them come with a digital version of themselves. Maybe it's time to use them as a first resource instead of google groups.
Yet another thought: I've been lazy wasting all this "precious" bandwidth by continually accessing content that doesn't change regularly. I'll start using local copies.
I'll have to look inito creating a caching server.
I'll certainly get some junkbuster software running now.
If they want us to *really* pay attention to bandwidth, it will kill a lot of the internet. Animation Express will die. That stuff is interesting, but I'm not going to pay to see it. Even stuff like Yahoo! Games (which I haven't played in while) won't last.
Think about it. A lot of the Internet is entertainment. What sorts of entertainment are people willing to *pay* for? Movies, Music, Pr0n... what else? This is all high-bandwidth, and outside of mp3, the online quality sucks.
Dancing Hamsters? 3 minutes Flash cartoons? Are you kidding?
Quickly changing information is useful to have. Weather, stocks, news. Which can all be distilled down to text and tranferred efficiently.
Technical documation, I can have a local copy of.
This is why I cancelled cable. If they started making you pay for each tv show you watched, how much of it is really worth watching? Not a whole hell of a lot, that's for sure.
So, for me, the internet boils down to two things: one-to-one communication (email and instant messaging) and e-commerce. I shop online to save trips to the store.
Here's a good question. If you had to pay for metered access, can you name any reason at that you ever, ever go to these web sites:
Burger King
7-Eleven
insert usless site here.
Lastly, one of the beautiful things about the Net was the smaller niche and fringe communities that conform without being bound by geographical boundaries. With metered access, those communities will have one more barrier. If you have to pay for acesss, people will more likely stick with the "tried and true" sites, rather that sifting through the mountains of crap to find the gems. This will undoubtedly result result in more concentration of users, content and money around the Big 10 Media Corporations. Which will incredibly boring.
Maybe this internet thing was a fad after all.
Don't mind me. I'm just bitter.
Software Wars
There is a difference:
What happens if you get infected by a trojan/virus?
It's unlikely someone can sneak into your house and use your electricity. It is perfectly possible someone uses your internet connection.
Also, if I decide to 'ping bomb' your box, should you be required to pay?
You can't have electricty forced down your wires if you haven't turned on the lights, you can have bits forced into your PC if you haven't powered up IE.
Thoughts, thoughts...
*r
--- My dad's political betting