Time Warner tests Internet usage-based billing

[Luis_A51]

Originally Posted by xtop

that's ok. fios gets more widespread all the time. the 700mhz auction is next year. say bye bye cable

hopefully google can get an infrustructure up real fast after winning the auction

thats assuming google wins it. and I would think it would take quite some time for them to roll it all out if they did.

Also its important to note that wile TW said the average person wouldnt notice the difference, they didnt say they would notice any savings either

[blu-backer]

Too much pr0n being downloaded by TWC customers.

[Amel]

I dont think I will get into HD downloading ever.

Seriously, I like to have the packaging and CD, its something I can keep close and it can't just dissapear like that.

[Maxell]

HD Downloading is far far far from being close to early adoption mainstream. Despite what hdDuders and blu-ray skeptics think.
And then there will still be more problems like storage, portability, and DRM.

[Deacon220]

I've brought this up several times and not many seem to pick this up. ISP's sell their customers small peices of their bandwidth. They do this because of multiplexing and on the assumption your not really going to use all your bandwidth. They over sell their actual bandwidth many times over. You put enough people using their bandwidth to the maximum pulling across movies all at the same time and it's going for first SLOW DOWN and then their going to raise peoples rates to reflect actual usage rather than assumed usage. You can count on it.

[Sonar5]

yeah I tried explaining that Infrastructure is not there for downloads mainly because cable/etc... companies are not going to let the Micro$hafts of the world piggyback off their lines without that cost being passed to the consumer.

Of course the AMir fanboys would hear nothing of it, but that is hwta happens when you try to have alogical conversation about idiotic downloads and the fud boys like amir and his little clan of inept followers bow at his feet instead of following logic.

15 Years, maybe..... NOW... No Way....

[seto]

TWB's approach to resolve their bandwidth issue is purely marco-economics. In reality, they would end up shrinking their customer base. It's great for people with minimum usage but for those who use a lot of bandwidth they would seek service elsewhere.

TWB should be expanding and improving infrastructure, instead. Old coax either needs to be converted to fiber optics or double-bonded copper for higher throughput. ISP's need to stop trying to multiplex and share bandwidth with other businesses.

That and backbone organizations need to stop their petty wars to bring more speed efficient services instead of trying to squeeze each other out of the market.

[Banjo]

This is nothing new. They have been doing this for years, but now it's just that the plans are now offering more options than before and now more public too as well.

Nearly all providers already cap the bandwidth usages between 50 to 75GB on standard broadband connections.

[xtop]

Originally Posted by Luis_A51

thats assuming google wins it. and I would think it would take quite some time for them to roll it all out if they did.

Also its important to note that wile TW said the average person wouldnt notice the difference, they didnt say they would notice any savings either

they're already testing products. and id hope with all the talk google is doing..and what complete sense it makes for them..that they would win the auction. I don't think we need to worry about somebody else winning.

but to whoever said they're for this..you're crazy. it'll only take one time of you going over to think what a stupid idea this is.

and to the person that works for tw..this isn't a new idea..and they're not the first company to come up with this. I don't think it'll happen across the country..or soon..but without any competition..it'll happen

[atomik kinder]

I remember reading a story in our local news about a guy who was charged extra for "unlimited" internet usage from the cable company. Seems he was downloading too much. Hmm. Do you internet service providers are going to let you download file after file for movies and not charge you extra? Maybe not if the files stay small, but nothing like a whole BDs worth of information.

[ckenisell]

See, that's the thing. Don't call it "unlimited access" if you're going to charge more for high usage. Sounds like Netflix dialing down high volume users. I won't use Netflix ever again.

[Banjo]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

See, that's the thing. Don't call it "unlimited access" if you're going to charge more for high usage. Sounds like Netflix dialing down high volume users. I won't use Netflix ever again.

That's a marketing trick they use. You do get unlimited access to the internet, however the bandwidth usage is not unlimited at the price they charge for.

Advertising. There's so much to it.

I know, it's not right. :-/

[invictus]

People who say its great for those who don't download much are forgetting that TWC is still going to charge you a flat monthly rate. Can you see them letting go of the $45 dollars a month they get from everyone now? I see this as an addon to what you pay. You get a number of gigs per month and they charge you for overages.

Never has any media company ever reduced prices. Never.

[DetroitSportsFan]

This would be fine, just as soon as cable companies stop charging us for channels we never watch (which for me is over half of them).

[Deacon220]

No it's not new in 2003 when I was still on Comcast Cable Internet I got a letter from them stating that I was using too much bandwidth and if I continued I would have to purchase a commercial account. They all monitor usage because their whole concept only works because not many people really use but a small portion of the amount they are alloted in ther contract. Let a lot of people start pushing the limits and their only option will be to raise everyones rates. If ISP's have to purchase equipment to handle increased usage what makes anyone think those costs won't be passed on the the end user?

[seto]

Originally Posted by Deacon220

No it's not new in 2003 when I was still on Comcast Cable Internet I got a letter from them stating that I was using too much bandwidth and if I continued I would have to purchase a commercial account. They all monitor usage because their whole concept only works because not many people really use but a small portion of the amount they are alloted in ther contract. Let a lot of people start pushing the limits and their only option will be to raise everyones rates. If ISP's have to purchase equipment to handle increased usage what makes anyone think those costs won't be passed on the the end user?

Comcast has been cited time and time again to be unfair to their users. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has reported them time and time again for tampering with their services to their clients and using unfair practices such as throttling down account speeds because they are using services like torrent.

What Comcast wants to do is reserve certain bandwidth on their current existing infrastructure for future services they want to bring like VoIP and On-Demand and squeeze out competitors that are piggy-backing their infrastructure. They also put the squeeze on their customers.

[seto]

Wireless Internet Service Providers is nothing new. WISPs have been around for ages but none of them really catch on except in-the-middle-of-nowhere places where big cable's don't want to waste their time and energy stretching their infrastructure there. Placing a lot of repeaters and signal amplifiers to the middle-of-nowhere and the revenue they would generate doesn't justify the cost for these companies.

Honestly, we are never going to see the speeds and integrity on wireless services like we do wired services. There is just too many elements impeding wireless signals (rebar, concrete, metallic structures, thick glass, mountains, valleys, etceteras). The only place where a wireless signal could perform on par with a wired signal is in an isolated vacuum or if you output the signal at very high levels ("cancerous" high).