Time Warner's use-based pricing model to fuel the net neutrality issue

by Jason Harris Jan 18th 2008

Net Neutrality is a subject that has impassioned internet enthusiasts and techies alike. However trying to get the broader public to take notice of the issue has been challenging. A few net neutrality bills have been brought up, but quickly fizzled out in Congress. Perhaps the fine Senators don't really understand the "Tubes". Or is it they and the public have had no real reason to care so far?

This week, Time Warner gave us a reason to care. It has come to light that Time Warner will start billing internet customers based on usage, rather than a flat-fee as they've been doing for years. That is, rather than expanding the network to accommodate and enhance customer experience, Time Warner will start charging new customers more.

To take this line of thinking further, how about this scenario: if your parents or grandparents only use the Internet a couple of times a week to check photos of their little grandchildren and to check their email - will they be able to pay less? We highly doubt it. The monopolistic ISP's have have only one intent in mind - bilking us for all the cash they possibly can.

We hope the net neutrality flames is fanned by this move before it's too late. It's time to start talking, blogging, and contacting your legistlator to tell him or her your viewpoint on this issue.

[via Freedom to Tinker]

Tags: comcast, net neutrality, NetNeutrality, time warner, TimeWarner

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Peter said 1:51PM on 1-18-2008

I have long thought that metered billing was going to be the end result of all this. In reality, why shouldn't someone who downloads movies all day long pay more than someone who checks their email 3 times a week.
The whole net neutrality was always about trying to get someone (other than the ISPs) to pony up for the infrastructure needed to bring large bandwidth to everyone.

Jonathan Wienclaw said 2:01PM on 1-18-2008

Well, good bye Time Warner.

William Beem said 2:10PM on 1-18-2008

Net Neutrality has to do with content, not bandwidth. You're confusing issues here. Besides, why would anyone be SHOCKED that a for-profit corporation is looking for a way to enhance its profits? That's the American way.

You've also tilted some facts. The plan does not call for them to raise the rates of any existing customers. It's a different pricing structure for NEW customers.

Time Warner claims that heavy download usage b 5% of its customer base accounts for 50% of its bandwidth usage. What would you do?

Jason Harris said 2:16PM on 1-18-2008

Good Point, William. I changed the post so existing customers are not affected, just new ones. However, I bet they end up jacking the monthly rates on new customers, in time.

I would dispute their 5% claim. I call shenanigans.

I also corrected two spelling mistakes. :)

Robert Barrett said 8:04PM on 1-18-2008

You dispute the 5%, really? How many people who check their email equal one 700mb torrent? I have no problem with that statistic.

Also, I object to your guessing on their pricing structure. Hows about you see what their pricing structure is, before giving out about it? If they charge the occasional users less, and the heavy users more (of course me included), this would represent a good deal for my parents and grandmother.

Obviously we all want the ISPs to spend more upgrading their network, but they are entitled to charge more to those using more of their services.

TurboFool said 3:44AM on 1-19-2008

I'm definitely upset by this, but I'll give them time to prove the structure before I get too upset. If they end up charging a base price that's drastically lower than current rates (say, $9.95 per month) for people who stay under a certain rate, that'll be a drastic improvement for a lot of people, while if they charge in tiers ($10 increments for going over certain set amounts) with a maximum monthly fee (without bandwidth-capping) that's close to what some of us pay (I pay $50 a month for 10/1 speeds after a combo-service discount of $5), then it might actually not work out that much worse. Granted, if they did this they're far more likely to place such a capped fee well above the current rates, since that would be the whole point of this model, but I can dream.

Either way, let's wait for the final answer before we assume anything. Yes, it smells evil to me, but let's wait to see if they float in water before crying witch.

Techflock said 2:44AM on 1-20-2008

Gosh, I thought only we had such stupid things only in India!

Featured Time Waster

Civiballs is a beautiful, soothing physics puzzle Time Waster

I have an absolute weakness for physics games, and while Civiballs isn't the strongest physics-based game, what it lacks in the physics department it makes up for a few times over in style and fun.

In Civiballs, you are presented with a few colored balls, and your goal is to get those balls into the same-colored urn on the level. The "civi" part of Civiballs is that there are 3 sets of levels to play, each representing a different civilization. While the civilization doesn't affect gameplay, the artwork for each level is beautifully themed to it's appropriate era.

To play the game, you are given only one tool - a sword with which to cut the chains that are holding the balls. The puzzle part of the game is in figuring out what order, and with what timing to cut each chain. Do it right, and all the right balls end up in the right urns, with no stray balls entering an urn (a no-no). Do it wrong, and you get to start over again.

Civiballs is not terribly deep on gameplay; the entire game can be completed in about 15 minutes. But if you enjoy this type of game, it will be a very enjoyable 15 minutes.

View more Time Wasters