Web Usage-Based Billing On Its Way (Just to protect Cable TV's Big Business)

[DamianTV]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/02/1332253/web-usage-based-billing-on-its-way


"The days of watching movies on the cheap via the Web may soon be over. Time Warner Cable and U.S. pay-TV companies are on the verge of instituting new fees on Web-access customers who use the most data. ... U.S. providers have weighed usage-based plans for years as a way to squeeze more profit from Web access, and to counter slowing growth and rising program costs in the TV business. While customer complaints hampered earlier attempts, pay-TV companies are testing usage caps and price structures that point to the advent of permanent fees. ... Cable's best option is to find ways to profit from the online shift, said [analyst Craig Moffett]. If the companies were to lose all of their video customers, the revenue decline would be more than offset by lower programming fees and set-top box spending. 'In the end, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the cable industry,' Moffett said."

[AGRP]

Someone will find a way around this in 3...2...1...

[brandon]

I think that makes the most sense. We had usage based billing in the 90s (time based, not data) and as costs went down for ISPs market forces moved payment plans to flat rate. Now with broadband being widespread and digital media so prevalent costs are going back up and it makes sense to pass those costs onto the people that use the most.

[Kludge]

Someone will find a way around this in 3...2...1...
This'd be a rare case I don't think there'll be a way found around. It'd be like trying to cheat your water company by trying to find a way to make it seem like you're using less water. AFAIK - not possible... unless you bribe the meter maid, but even that isn't possible with ISPs.

I kinda like this trend, though. Makes a stronger case for local ISPs and Community Intranet. Nowadays, you generally get maybe two broadband companies servicing your area if you're lucky.

[smartguy911]

This makes sense. I don't even watch tv anymore. I think they will aim for 5 GB limit on current plan which is not bad for most users.

[DamianTV]

I think that makes the most sense. We had usage based billing in the 90s (time based, not data) and as costs went down for ISPs market forces moved payment plans to flat rate. Now with broadband being widespread and digital media so prevalent costs are going back up and it makes sense to pass those costs onto the people that use the most.

The available bandwidth has also increased quite significantly. What is happening is Cable Providers can also operate as ISP's (Internet Service) and dont like the idea of people not watching MSM. They dont want people getting their news off the internet. They want Eyebrows Brian Williams to tell you like they want him to tell you like it is.

The whole thing is nothing more than another failed attempt at Censorship, by limiting the costs of who can speak "freely". Free always has a price attached.

[Kludge]

I think that makes the most sense. We had usage based billing in the 90s (time based, not data) and as costs went down for ISPs market forces moved payment plans to flat rate. Now with broadband being widespread and digital media so prevalent costs are going back up and it makes sense to pass those costs onto the people that use the most.
Also worth noting that if they limit bandwidth, there'll be less congestion, which may lead to ISPs upgrading everyone's allotted bandwidth at no additional charge. It'd also reduce the problem of peak congestion. During night, many ISPs with too many customers for their infrastructure end up being unable to deliver the speeds they advertise. One way to ensure QoS is to have strict limits on how much bandwidth a person can use (and give preferential treatment to customers paying a premium, or customers who're real-time services like VOIP). This is what they already do. The other route to go is to limit total bandwidth by time, then let the consumer decide how much bandwidth they should use at any given time.

[Liberty74]

I have been predicting this for years. The phone companies did it.

Now it's only a matter of time before the internet companies do it too. :mad:

This will suck for those that download music/movies, stream Netflix, or watch a lot a free TV shows and YouTube videos. <----- ME!

[Xenophage]

This could be good for some users, not so good for other users. I think we'll see some options. Comcast might go one way, Verizon another.

[evilfunnystuff]

Comcast residential has had a cap for quite some time.

I quit over it and went to Verizon dsl for a year or 2. Then, a year or 2 ago I found out there was no cap on their buissness class service. I got the base level service and I pay about 10 bux over the residential rate.

Hopefully, as Kludge theorized this might stimulate competition.

[DamianTV]

http://www.hideyourride.com/gop/netad.jpg

Is this really what people want?

[squarepusher]

http://www.hideyourride.com/gop/netad.jpg

Is this really what people want?
looks about right

[Anti Federalist]

Yes.

People like being duped, hustled, swindled, restricted and controlled.

Why are you even questioning this?

Reported.


http://www.hideyourride.com/gop/netad.jpg

Is this really what people want?

[seraphson]

Also worth noting that if they limit bandwidth, there'll be less congestion, which may lead to ISPs upgrading everyone's allotted bandwidth at no additional charge. It'd also reduce the problem of peak congestion. During night, many ISPs with too many customers for their infrastructure end up being unable to deliver the speeds they advertise. One way to ensure QoS is to have strict limits on how much bandwidth a person can use (and give preferential treatment to customers paying a premium, or customers who're real-time services like VOIP). This is what they already do. The other route to go is to limit total bandwidth by time, then let the consumer decide how much bandwidth they should use at any given time.

For the money they charge for the sub-prime service they provide it's already a little ridiculous. In fact we're only the 12th highest rated average Internet speed out there (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/fastest-internet-countries-akamai_n_1051651.html#s438364&title=1__South). You'd think the (b)millions of dollars of money that goes into "infrastructure" we'd have some pretty damn quick Internet. Speaking of which isn't our electrical grid pretty shitty overall too?

[cindy25]

just 1 program a day , i.e. Freedom Watch, is 350MB/day; 7GB a month.

15 min youtube is 100 mb.

if there are draconian limits no one will upload, and if no one uploads anything the net would be useless.

if you can easily download 500MB an hour, and speeds going up all the time, a 5GB limit would be charging you an entire month for 10 hours.

[silverhandorder]

Makes sense for those that don't stream. Pay for shit you watch.

[Kludge]

For the money they charge for the sub-prime service they provide it's already a little ridiculous. In fact we're only the 12th highest rated average Internet speed out there (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/fastest-internet-countries-akamai_n_1051651.html#s438364&title=1__South). You'd think the (b)millions of dollars of money that goes into "infrastructure" we'd have some pretty damn quick Internet. Speaking of which isn't our electrical grid pretty shitty overall too?
The US is much, much, much less population-dense than SK, and I think that's probably the biggest factor to consider. Practically everyone in the US can buy access to the Internet, save maybe a tenth of a percent of people, but because the US is so relatively rural and suburban, many people can't access anything faster than DSL. Plenty of folks are still on dial-up, too, but not because they don't have access to something better -- they just don't have use for the speed, so they'll take 1/100 the bandwidth for 1/3 the price. Internet service in the US is practically regarded as a necessity, and so many homes have it. In other countries, it may be something typically only used in business, where higher-throughput "business" packages are paid for.

I talked to my Verizon-employed former neighbor about when I should be expecting FiOS. He said laying down new fiber lines isn't necessarily cost-prohibitive in suburbs, but there are still tens of thousands of suburbs or cities more dense than our area they're still putting lines down in, so until that's done, there won't be lines put down in our relatively sparse area as the profits'd be lesser for the investment.

[satchelmcqueen]

if it goes higher than what im paying now, ill just stop using it all together

[Salvial]

We've had limits here for a while. Small companies refuse, to stay competitive, then the big guys Rogers/Bell try to pass legislation making unlimited access illegal. Total bullshit. I have a 100gb cap, and I got a bunch of discounts cause I threatened to go with the little guys (who still have to use the big guy's infrastructure, so it kinda still blows).

Let's build a freenet! haha.

[Elfshadow]

another reason for
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2011/11/23/wary-of-sopa-reddit-users-aim-to-build-a-new-censorship-free-internet/


The internet is not like water or electicity. They do not run out of the internet if one person is using more then another. The idea that someone should be charged more for using 100gb then someone that uses 5gb is stupid because the problems are not caused by that but by the fact that they are using false advertising in their speed claims. They offer you a 10MB down and 2MB up but don't tell you that if all your neighboors are using it at the same time your connection is going to crawl.

[Revolution9]

This makes sense. I don't even watch tv anymore. I think they will aim for 5 GB limit on current plan which is not bad for most users.

Kills me as a dev. I upload two beta movies for client approval and I am already over the limit. I also develop for Apple and just one XCode and SDK download with the latest beta OS version puts me near the 5GB limit. In short I can work for two days and then I pay for every drop from the spigot. NFW!

Rev9

[Kludge]

The internet is not like water or electicity. They do not run out of the internet if one person is using more then another. The idea that someone should be charged more for using 100gb then someone that uses 5gb is stupid because the problems are not caused by that but by the fact that they are using false advertising in their speed claims. They offer you a 10MB down and 2MB up but don't tell you that if all your neighboors are using it at the same time your connection is going to crawl.
It'd be the same case if all your neighbors turned their water on at the same time (water pressure would decrease), or used massive amounts of electricity at once (brown-outs). The ISPs predict how much bandwidth will be consumed, and over-shoot. That investment in infrastructure is the resource they pay for (instead of water or coal). They can't "run out" of Internet, but it still costs a lot of money to make the Internet available at higher speeds.

Worth noting I read an interesting study today. The top 1% of bandwidth-users account for 20% of bandwidth usage. However, during peak hours, that top 1% accounts for less than 15%, because "normal" users are accessing the Internet more often during... well... "normal" times (from when most people get out of work to when most people go to sleep). They tried to make the point that because the top 1% of consumers consume 5% less of total bandwidth consumed during peak hours, that top 1% of consumers shouldn't be punished for consuming more data than others, but there's a pretty obvious flaw in their thinking -- the top 1% are still consuming just under 15% of total bandwidth. When the ISPs go to improve their infrastructure to fix their peak congestion problem, they have to account for that 1% of users consuming 15x more than average users.

[Danke]

Does this mean I'll have to start paying for porn again?

[devil21]

I can't even get Time Warner Cable to run reliably enough that I can finish an online Madden 2012 game without being booted off their network for timeouts, and my monthly bill is already $150-something. Now they want to charge me for usage? Yeah good luck with that. My business will go elsewhere as someone will offer an alternative. Until I see my own EXISTING service running reliably, for the cost, there's no way in hell I'll pay for the access and then pay again based on how much data I use. Im the last friggin house on my segment so my usage is always last priority anyway.

[kuckfeynes]

This would be a rude awakening for a lot of people... Of 5 networks in my condo, one is open, one is WEP, and one is named Penguins. The password is Pittsburgh.

[LibForestPaul]

Its seems there is much delusional thinking in this thread that cable is somehow free market and unregulated. And that this pricing change "fixing" is somehow a free market response.

[Gravik]

Well, if this does happen, don't expect free wi-fi hotspots anymore.

[MikeStanart]

Does this mean I'll have to start paying for porn again?

I'm truly shocked that you *ever* paid for it. :D

[Anti Federalist]

I'm truly shocked that you *ever* paid for it. :D

He pays for something.

Not sure it's pr0n though...

[mrsat_98]

FWIW in two to three years satellites will launch with a terrabit of bandwidth creating a glut of bandwidth.

[Restore America Now]

They have tried this before in certain "test areas" of the country and it failed miserably and caused an uproar. Expect massive backlash from customers if they actually try this shit.

[Schifference]

Maybe enough liberty minded private citizens can get together and form a private company. This company puts together a system to deliver services to its members for the cost of membership and expenses. A non profit entity that is a private company run for the members by the members. Get enough members to make a one time donation and they become premium lifetime members.

[Inny Binny]

There'd be nothing wrong with this if it were a low flat rate just a shade over marginal cost. However these plans tend to be rather exorbitant.