Time Warner -- Usage-based Billing « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

Time Warner -- Usage-based Billing

[21 posts] [12 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 4 years ago by twistofreality
Latest reply from Walker

Tags:

No tags yet. Add them below.

12 Next »

twistofreality
Northwest
Login to Send PM

I can't decide if I think this is cool or scary. I'm sure that I don't use a ton of bandwidth, but I'll definitely be beefing up the security on my wireless router if this comes to Columbus.
Reuters.com wrote
RPT-Time Warner to test Internet billing based on usage
NEW YORK, Jan 16 (Reuters) - Time Warner Cable Inc said on Wednesday it is planning a trial to bill high-speed Internet subscribers based on their amount of usage rather than a flat fee, the standard industry practice.
The second largest U.S. cable operator said it will test consumption-based billing with subscribers in Beaumont, Texas later this year as a part of a strategy to help reduce congestion of its network by a minority of consumers who pay the same monthly fee as light users.
The company believes the billing system will impact only heavy users, who account for around 5 percent of all customers but typically use more than half of the total network bandwidth, according to a company spokesman.
MORE

Posted 4 years ago #
Ndcent
OTE
Login to Send PM

Could they base cable billing on usage too?

Posted 4 years ago #
Matthew
Hilltop
Login to Send PM

I don't see this flying in the 43215 area code simply because Time Warner owns us according to them and everyone else. I've called every company known to man including the mom and pops for cable and they all have the same answer. Wouldn't there be some legal way to battle or regulate this since we have no alternatives?

Posted 4 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

^ For cable, I don't know.
For Internet, though, there are definitely alternatives, and if TWC opens a chink in their armor with a proposal like this, there would be an opening for anyone else capable of handling the load to poach a ton of customers.
I use AT&T DSL. It's not perfect but it's gotten the job done for me.
My real worry is that TWC will prove to be a trendsetter, and that soon everyone else will start metering bandwidth as well.

Posted 4 years ago #
greenhouse1014
Columbus
Login to Send PM

MatthewJR30 wrote I don't see this flying in the 43215 area code simply because Time Warner owns us according to them and everyone else. I've called every company known to man including the mom and pops for cable and they all have the same answer. Wouldn't there be some legal way to battle or regulate this since we have no alternatives?
Didn't they just pass a law barring TWC from monopolizing the city through agreements they set up with citys, developments, etc? You could get WOW here in Columbus. That's who I go through for cable and internet and have never had a problem (outside of some WOW/NFL Network issue). If you go, tell them I referred you so I get $$ of my bill.
OUTSIDE OF THAT... I don't know how I feel about usage based billing because that tells me that they're going to bring your internet usage to the forefront. If they can track my time, they can track my travels through the net. I know thay can do that now anyway, but this brings more attention to that.

Posted 4 years ago #
SteinbergForCongress
Sugar Land, TX (For Now)
Login to Send PM

scary.... I want free internet for all!
Like broadcast TV... let the advertisers pay for it!

Posted 4 years ago #
captain janks
south side 4 life
Login to Send PM

SteinbergForCongress wrote scary.... I want free internet for all!
Like broadcast TV... let the advertisers pay for it!
yeah lets get MORE pop ups :roll:

Posted 4 years ago #
twistofreality
Northwest
Login to Send PM

SteinbergForCongress wrote scary.... I want free internet for all!
Like broadcast TV... let the advertisers pay for it!
There was a big push for this in the late 90s, back when dial-up ruled the internet. NetZero was the forerunner in this effort, and they still exist, albeit as a paid service now. I worked for a small company called StartFree that also offered ad-supported dial-up, and they went under in less than a year, I think.
Unfortunately, ad-supported services aren't always viable, and the ubiquity of the sponsoring ads often makes the experience of using these services a bit displeasing, as well. A more likely course for Internet access would be becoming some kind of subsidized public utility that we pay for variously through monthly usage costs and tax-supported infrastructure. That probably won't happen, though, if telephone service is any indication.
The plus side of all of this is that any telecommunications company recognizes the near-universal desire for affordable internet access bundled with other services. Verizon, for instance, is getting on the media bandwagon with its new FiOS (Fiber Optic) service. Assuming capitalism works like it's supposed to, all of this competition should lead to better pricing for everyone.

Posted 4 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

Actually, I think universal publicly funded WiFi would be a tremendous investment for a city, or at least universal throughout all commercial and mixed-use (part commercial) parcels. Wireless has some serious infrastructure advantages and the technology is maturing rapidly.
However, the private sector is delivering fairly well, so I don't think that there's going to be any impetus towards universal public Internet provision until the private sector makes some kind of huge gaffe that cripples consumer confidence in their market. New wireless Internet products and services are rolling out practically every month these days, however, and if some of them flop, well, so what? That's part of what competition means.

Posted 4 years ago #
osulew
My house...in the middle of my street
Login to Send PM

MatthewJR30 wrote I don't see this flying in the 43215 area code simply because Time Warner owns us according to them and everyone else. I've called every company known to man including the mom and pops for cable and they all have the same answer. Wouldn't there be some legal way to battle or regulate this since we have no alternatives?
I am in 43215 and have WOW Cable.
I do however wish cable channel could be billed on usage. I would sign up only for high speed internet and Bravo. :wink:

Posted 4 years ago #
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM

My bill would be 9,000.00 a month.

Posted 4 years ago #
Matthew
Hilltop
Login to Send PM

I may be wrong about it all being 43215. I live on Oak Street right inside of 71 near Boma and I cannot get cable through anyone except TW. Or at least thats what it was a year ago. I assumed it meant all of the downtown area otherwise why would a section so close to downtown be left out?

Posted 4 years ago #
twistofreality
Northwest
Login to Send PM

Coremodels wrote My bill would be 9,000.00 a month.
Stop downloading the full-length midget-on-donkey porn and just limit yourself to the clips that you're really after. You'd be surprised how much bandwidth extraneous dialog ("Those are some FINE hooves, Dorothy...") can eat up.

Posted 4 years ago #
shroud
Polaris
Login to Send PM

Why not just call it the "torrent tax" and be done with it? This strikes me as a way to try and curb massive filesharing/P2P/Torrent-use, as folks who leave their torrents open & seeding all the time are going to be the main people affected by this...
That, and people hosting high-traffic sites... but I would think most people in that boat would have gone with a real hosting service if their traffic is THAT high.

Posted 4 years ago #
Coremodels
Really close to Explorer's Club.
Login to Send PM

shroud wrote Why not just call it the "torrent tax" and be done with it? This strikes me as a way to try and curb massive filesharing/P2P/Torrent-use, as folks who leave their torrents open & seeding all the time are going to be the main people affected by this...
Yep...it's not only my midget/donkey porn taking all the bandwidth :oops:

Posted 4 years ago #
greenhouse1014
Columbus
Login to Send PM

gramarye wrote Actually, I think universal publicly funded WiFi would be a tremendous investment for a city, or at least universal throughout all commercial and mixed-use (part commercial) parcels. Wireless has some serious infrastructure advantages and the technology is maturing rapidly.
However, the private sector is delivering fairly well, so I don't think that there's going to be any impetus towards universal public Internet provision until the private sector makes some kind of huge gaffe that cripples consumer confidence in their market. New wireless Internet products and services are rolling out practically every month these days, however, and if some of them flop, well, so what? That's part of what competition means.
There's actually legislation floating around the Ohio House right now somewhere that is pushing for free wi-fi in teh state.

Posted 4 years ago #
shroud
Polaris
Login to Send PM

The thought of free WiFi baffles me quite a bit -- I can only assume it's a result of various retail, hotel, and dining establishments offering cheap and/or free WiFi to attract customers, keep them longer, and stay competitive with other businesses doing the same.
Because, really -- WHAT other comparable utility/services are free? Even the WATER company provides a quarterly bill, and that covers a majority of the Earth's surface! Is subsidizing Internet connectivity really the best thing our tax money could be going towards?

Posted 4 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

Because, really -- WHAT other comparable utility/services are free? Even the WATER company provides a quarterly bill, and that covers a majority of the Earth's surface! Is subsidizing Internet connectivity really the best thing our tax money could be going towards?
I don't know about "best"--that's a hard standard to meet. Physical security is the #1 priority of a municipality but that doesn't mean every dime should go to the police, for example. However, I think universal Internet access would actually be fairly cheap in expenditures-per-capita and far more utilitarian than many programs tax dollars go to fund. Wireless would also be scalable and involve minimal installation costs, meaning it could be changed and upgraded with advancing technology more easily than anything that involves digging up landlines.
And the difference between Internet and water or sewer service is that the marginal cost of additional bandwidth is pretty minimal once the hardware is installed. The downside risk of the tragedy of the commons is therefore comparatively small.

Posted 4 years ago #
SteinbergForCongress
Sugar Land, TX (For Now)
Login to Send PM

When thinking about government subsidized wi-fi...
With more digital media and access to information, the high costs of building libraries, the books, the staffing.... perhaps there is a way to find a trade off. Also think of the advantages of Wi-Fi from schools, many of which already have wide bandwidth connections.

Posted 4 years ago #
VictorianGate
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

I wonder how much bandwidth X box live takes up.

Posted 4 years ago #