Time Warner to begin internet billing based on usage in SA (updated title) (San Antonio: flat fee, lease)

[TXtrkgrl]

Hope this hasn't been posted in the other "cable/internet/phone providers" thread. I didn't feel like reading 11 pages.
Anywhoooo...... thought you might be interested. Looks like they will start in Beaumont and see how it goes.
Time Warner to test Internet billing based on usage - Yahoo! News (broken link)

[dangeruscurves]

I knew this would become an issue. I don't do too much downloading, but I don't like the fact they will try to charge by usage. grrr

[Bo]

Well, I don't much like having my VoIP/YouTube bandwidth crunched while a neighbor is downloading or serving up the collected works of George Lucas. Consequently, I would be in favor of this if I was still using T-W. I used to have problems like that a lot in the evenings and on weekends, thanks to neighbors.

Of course a much better solution would be if they would just keep up with the demand and push more bandwidth out there in the first place.

There have also been rumors that big ISPs are going to start blocking file-sharing traffic this year. I'm not sure which solution will be less controversial, but I sure can see which one will be more profitable.

[qdog69A]

I'll leave Time Warner on principal if the try that here...

[traficdogn]

Actually, the problem is that there is too much bandwidth available. As a result they are having difficulty raising prices. So instead of using R&D for more bandwidth, these companies are actually using R&D to find ways to throttle it back.

We could already have giga-bit running to our houses already if they wanted.

Remember the days when you could just drill a hole on the corner of a 512k disk, and get 1.4mb?

[the_dimwit]

I used to work in the internetworking industry (UUNET/WorldCom/MCI) as an internetwork engineer. Cable companies lease high-bandwidth circuits from such providers (think OC-48 and above), so in principle there is a lot of available bandwidth--at least at the backbone level. The problem is theoretical in nature. Allow me to elaborate.

Just like the airlines oversell tickets, so do Internet providers. This is because it is unlikely that all users will be a) online at the same time and b) pulling down as much data as possible while online. The result of this "over-subscription" is not normally felt by the user. However, this theory has been extended to the micro-level with the use and popularity of cable-based Internet service.

Cable modem users attach to the same "trunk line" between the houses. For example, a street with 20 homes will be serviced with two primary trunk lines--one for each side of the street. The trunk lines go to the same junction box, and on to the cable company's demarcation point. When small numbers of people are online, there is minimal latency (delay or lag time) or packet loss (dropped data). However, during peak times, the theory of over-subscription begins to break down. This is a direct result of the bandwidth of the trunk lines (whether between the homes or from the junction box to the demarcation point) begin to max out.

As we have seen in recent years, video over the Internet is on the rise. At this week's Macworld, Steve Jobs unveiled Apple TV Take2, an Internet-based service that allows a user to download streaming movies (rent or purchase) in standard or high definition. To put it mildly, such a service is going to need a lot of bandwidth in order to be successful.

Fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) providers such as Verizon's Fios and AT&T's u-verse are addressing the demand, albeit a bit slowly. Since the customer has no interference from neighbors due to a direct fiber-optic connection to the exchange box, then to the central office, then ultimately to the Internet, the delays and data loss is minimal.

Time Warner is testing the waters of net neutrality here. This is dangerous behavior--a logical next step is for the higher-paying customers to get preference in bandwidth over those who pay less. So, if I pay more than you, my traffic will reach its destination first. It's unfair practice, and there are a lot who would agree with me. Unfortunately, in a capatilist society money wins, even if the customer loses.

I understand the need to keep congestion down. I'd even go for a solution like this if it meant that cable companies would take the money and invest it in more bandwidth in the neighborhoods. Reduce the bottleneck and a lot of the problems go away.

--Dim

[slaleman]

Here's my thing with it...if I can still get my 10Mb download speed and actually pay LESS than I'm paying now, because I'm not downloading games and movies, just music and the occasional podcast, then I'm all for it. If they could actually lower the cost of high speed internet for the majority of their users, it would be great, and make things more competitive.

In actuality, what will likely happen is that TWC (and others) will continue to charge me the same flat fee I'm paying now, then charge me more if I go over a set bandwidth for the month, in the end, screwing me over even more than they already are.

Of course none of their actual plans or fee schedules are laid out in the article.

[the_dimwit]

@slaleman:

I'm in agreement with you re: rate staying the same. What TWC is trying to do is nothing new. In the world of leased lines, corporate or well-heeled customers can choose several different types of circuits for Internet connectivity. TWC is basically going the route of the old-fashioned frame relay circuit.

In a frame relay circuit (and others too), a customer can pay a flat fee for a specified bandwidth amount. However, if the customer goes over that amount (also known as exceeding bandwidth or breaking the "committed information rate"), said customer is charged according to a specific schedule.

In the case of your cable modem connection, if you are allotted 10Mb/sec (that's megabits per second), and you bust that a couple of times per month, the costs could go up quite a bit. It all depends on the fee schedule which, like you said, the article neglects to mention. Until we have that data, the point is really moot.

Like we all know, though, cable companies have a history of setting precedents for routine rate hikes. That's what I'm really afraid of--they decide to drop your connection speed to a point that results in routine bandwidth limit breakage or a higher flat rate for additional bandwidth. It's known as "tiered pricing" in the corporate world...

--Dim

[Bo]

The Express-News had an article about this today (apparently not available yet on mysa.com ), which mentions that the trial of this in Beaumont will eventually make its way here. The manager who oversees the San Antonio office said in the article that 5 percent of T-W's customers here account for more than half of the bandwidth usage. In one case, a T-W customer used enough bandwidth to d/l 1,500 movies in a single month. That's more movies than a person could watch in a month!

[SnappyBob]

Bowie, what section was that article in?