<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:,2008:/1/tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-</id>
  <updated>2008-05-09T18:06:54Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for Bad Idea: Time Warner to Test Per Usage Web Access</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.1</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=5462" title="Bad Idea: Time Warner to Test Per Usage Web Access" />
    <published>2008-01-17T16:42:15Z</published>
    <updated>2008-01-17T16:43:20Z</updated>
    <title>Bad Idea: Time Warner to Test Per Usage Web Access</title>
    <summary>With the rise of online video, broadband providers are starting to feel a strain on their networks. In order to combat network congestion, Time Warner has a solution: charge for Internet access based on usage. But if the growing popularity of online video is the reason for shifting to a per usage billing scheme, it...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Josh Catone</name>
      <uri>http://www.readwriteweb.com/</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="News" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/twc-logo.jpg" width="150" height="36">With the rise of online video, broadband providers are starting to feel a strain on their networks.  In order to combat network congestion, Time Warner has a solution: charge for Internet access based on usage.  But if the growing popularity of online video is the reason for shifting to a per usage billing scheme, it is also precisely the reason why this won't fly with consumers.</p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<p>According to Time Warner, just 5 percent of their customers account for more than half of the total network usage, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN1721882120080117?sp=true">reports Reuters</a>. It is this minority of users who will most distinctly feel a billing policy change.  "Largely, people won't notice the difference," said Alex Dudley, spokesman for Time Warner Cable, the second largest cable provider in the US.</p>

<p>The company is expected to roll out a test of the pricing scheme sometime next quarter for new customers in Beaumont, Texas.</p>

<p>Even if just 5% of users are currently considered high bandwidth consumers, as Time Warner is quick to point out, activities like streaming video are growing in popularity.  Charging per usage -- and effectively penalizing high bandwidth users -- may only serve to stifle the growth of rich media on the web, even as things like the <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/macbook_air_apple_tv_itunes_movie_rentals.php">new Apple TV</a> and the <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/netflix_unlimited_streaming.php">unlimited Netflix streaming plan</a> seek to push these activities into the main stream.</p>

<p>We expect that most users won't be happy with the idea of being charged based on usage.  Even those who might actually save money may initially respond negatively -- psychologically, unlimited use sounds like a better deal than being charged by usage.</p>

<p>Outside of the US, in Europe and in Australia, I have many friends whose broadband plans have usage caps of a few GB of data transfer each month.  They often complain to me about the inconvenience of having to plan and monitor their Internet usage to make sure they have enough data transfer left to do the activities they want to do.  It is unlikely that consumers in the US, who have so long enjoyed unlimited data usage, will be open to a change to per usage billing.</p>

<p>But which is a better option, per usage billing where the more you use, the more you pay, or data throttling, where certain activities are just made automatically slower at the ISP level?  Are there any other solutions that ISPs should be considering to keep network congestion in check and costs down?  Let us know your thoughts on the subject in the comments below.</p>]]>
    </content>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45451</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45451" />
    <title>Comment from Jollyjo on 2008-01-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>Jollyjo</name>
        <uri>http://www.jollyjo.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.jollyjo.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>Broadband is a precious commodity and will become even more so as the demand for online video increases.</p>

<p>I can just imagine the hassle of having to check usage but given existing technology and broadband limitations, this is one inconvenience that we will have to deal with. </p>

<p>Google warned about this about a year ago.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-17T18:01:51Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45455</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45455" />
    <title>Comment from Chris Anderson on 2008-01-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>Chris Anderson</name>
        <uri>http://jchris.mfdz.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://jchris.mfdz.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>I'm all for it, in an ideal world (one where you get what you pay for). If it turns out to be another avenue to rip off consumers, then of course it's horrible. But if I were paying by the GB, I'd be surprised to see Comcast throttling my BitTorrent, and if they did throttle certain type of access, I'd have a much better case against them in court.</p>

<p>The real thing that would make a difference is meaningful competition. If I had a choice of 5 broadband providers, you can be sure they'd be trying to outdo one another for my dollars.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-17T18:31:56Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45456</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45456" />
    <title>Comment from Mike on 2008-01-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>Mike</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>Or, they could actually be innovative and take the measures fully available to them to improve the quality of their service instead of dragging their heals and keeping the U.S. artificially capped in 1990s-level connectivity.</p>

<p>Nothing will happen until the FCC, the FTC, or some ballsy states actually force them out of their anticompetitive and anticonsumer ways.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-17T18:34:36Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45458</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45458" />
    <title>Comment from cross eyed on 2008-01-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>cross eyed</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>I have to agree with them. I have had broad band in the past and happened to be in an area where people severely abused this commodity to the point were you no longer were getting broad band speeds. The network would come to a screeching halt causing network speeds no better than dial up. They need to crack down on the abusers and guarantee minimal speeds. Instead they promote an unattainable maximum connection speed that the majority don't obtain.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-17T18:55:39Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45481</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45481" />
    <title>Comment from Cyb on 2008-01-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>Cyb</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>There are 3 problems with these kind of pricing :</p>

<p>1. Greed -> They will set the caps very low, and then charge insane amounts for overuse. I gigabyte of traffic costs them a maximum of 10 cents. Yet alot of ISPs charge up to 10 $ / gigabyte extra. That is pure profit. There are a few exceptions, by example teksavvy.com charges only 10 $ / month by 100 GB in excess (and their cap is already at 200 GB), but it
2. Pricing update -> don't expect the prices or caps to follow the usage patterns. Once they will be set they will stay for years n years, regardless of the evolution of the usage.<br />
3. Contracts -> Usually people sign long contracts with ISPs, and since it is in every contract that they can change the terms at any time, people will still be stuck with the company, without any other options. Also there is a flagrant lack of competition, that will prevent them to move to another ISP, and that will limit the level of compedition necessary for the caps to evolve.</p>

<p>So overall the consumer loses, the ISP gets alot of profits, usually from their most experienced users.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-18T04:33:15Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45491</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45491" />
    <title>Comment from Ukrainian dude on 2008-01-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Ukrainian dude</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>Come on you guys, network bandwidth is almost like a limited natural resource, and it must be shared fairly. You don't get an unlimited amount of water for a flat price, there is an economy behind its usage. IMHO, it should be the same with traffic.</p>

<p>The way things are right now, even a heavy Internet user can do with something like 20 gigs per month.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-18T09:51:16Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45498</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45498" />
    <title>Comment from Mark Evans on 2008-01-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Mark Evans</name>
        <uri>http://www.markevanstech.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.markevanstech.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>People are missing something by focusing on the wrong issue: AT&T's proposed move is not really about charging people more  if they consume too much bandwidth but getting people to buy higher cost tiers if they want more bandwidth. This is where the broadband is going: tiered services depending on how you use the Internet as opposed to a one-size-fits-all buffet where everyone pays the same prices regardless of how they use the Web. While AT&T is going to take some lumps, it's a smart marketing move that other ISPs will embrace.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-18T12:06:55Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45500</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45500" />
    <title>Comment from Pablo Lambiano on 2008-01-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Pablo Lambiano</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>Pirates.  Cable companies like Cox and Time Warner now are modern day pirates.  It must be nice to have a monopoly; they are the only cable company in the city that I live at.  Hopefully, this will spur the FCC to step in and regulate them.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-18T13:45:05Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45521</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45521" />
    <title>Comment from Nag on 2008-01-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Nag</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>I would welcome the idea of a cap, as one of the posts suggests, people should not be penalized for the abuse of the commodity by others. One idea could be to opt for "roll over" plan, thereby cumulating the unused quota.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-18T20:37:51Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45545</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45545" />
    <title>Comment from Joe S on 2008-01-19</title>
    <author>
        <name>Joe S</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>This is just another plot to screw over the consumer.</p>

<p>These greedy ISPs need to be regulated.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-19T21:17:54Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462-comment:45548</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.readwriteweb.com,2008://1.5462" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/time_warner_per_usage_billing.php#c45548" />
    <title>Comment from Ivan_PSP on 2008-01-19</title>
    <author>
        <name>Ivan_PSP</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>I will soon be canceling my account with Time Warner Cable screw them. Who will stay with them after those rate are apply no one.<br />
www.mininova.org<br />
www.isohunt.com<br />
www.thepiratebay.com<br />
www.torrentz.com<br />
www.torrentportal.com<br />
www.torrentspy.com<br />
</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2008-01-19T23:25:19Z</published>
  </entry>

</feed>