Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

clonolu — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:12:07 -0000

Price difference related to downloaded GBs = people trying to reduce downloaded data.

There are two ways customers can do that:
1. They will cut off stuff they don't want to see when using internet = blocking ads = less money in the business, lower motivation for dot.coms to invest, slower development of the internet etc.

2. They will reduce stuff they want - downloading movies, listening to radio streams, generally being on-line at all = less money in the business, lower motivation for dot.coms to invest, slower development of the internet at all.

Both of them mean lower usability and utility of internet, lower motivation to use it for ISPs customers, less money for ISPs.

Why would ISP want to apply strategy lowering it own revenue?

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

Sobchak — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:33:46 -0000

I agree totally Phil, and that's probably part of what some of the suits are struggling with... defining what a 'big downloader' is. That's a moving target in several different ways.

So perhaps coming up with a different way of measuring that might be helpful.

Then again, as bandwidth and processor technology continues to improve and dovetail, pushing data should theoretically become more cost effective allowing a thicker margin for providers.

But it's hard to argue against the idea that soon, we'll all be what was considered a 'heavy downloader' in the past. Even using the term 'DOWNLOADING' seems archaic to me at this point.

Actually, even the distinction between 'offline' and 'online' media consumption is getting blurry.

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

Mark Evans — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:02:22 -0000

This isn't an extraordinary move. In Canada, Rogers has bandwidth caps that kick in if you're a major downloader. For the vast majority of people, they rarely come anywhere close to the cap even if they are an enthusiastic user of online videos, P2P, etc. In Britain, BT offers tiered broadband services (bronze, silver, gold) based on your usage. When you order the service, they pick your usage profile and then pick the appropriate tier.

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

James Thomas — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:49:50 -0000

It's entirely amazing that cable internet and television has only gotten more expensive in the last 10 years. Why does sweden have 5 times the in-home speed that americans do? Do they pay as much as we do?

And the bullshit part of all of this is that there is no alternative!

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

bonakdar — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:38:55 -0000

As a Time Warner user for over a year now, forced after they bought my ISP out, I can say it has been a terrible experience. I used to use Dial-up in 1996 and it wasnt this bad. Different people use the internet for different things, gamers vs. shoppers vs. media sharers... Time warner has been the worst experience in 12 years and they have a great strategy of getting worse while retaining customers. Is this fair? I could see why, it might be, but to the extent I imagine TW will take it? I doubt it.

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

Independent — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:20:48 -0000

The reason its not fair is because I seriously doubt that they would be offering refunds to people who don't use much bandwith.

Do I get a free month if I go out of town? Not likely.

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

Peter Schott — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:19:51 -0000

While I'm not completely crazy about the idea, I know that I'm not even close to the top 10% of downloaders. We watch some streaming media, but we aren't into bittorrent for movies and tons of binaries. My biggest concern is that these limits will be arbitrary or really, really low before you've "downloaded too much". Need two different Linux DVDs one month? Sorry - that put you over the limit and you're in the next bracket.

Still, is it fair? Definitely. Would I like it if I were a heavy downloader? Probably not, but it would cause me to re-think what I'm downloading and whether it's worth it or not. :-)

-Pete

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

Cheap Berlin — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:05:41 -0000

Yes, it seems fair. Your grandmother only requires the basic subscription to send an e-mail while you are downloading 4 seasons of The Wire during the night.

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

phil — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:03:55 -0000

I'm not sure if I agree with the above comments. Rich media is going to be downloaded more and more over the coming years. How long will it be before all ad's are video ad's? where most people turn on their computer log into their social network (probably some kind of aggregator) watch numerous video's form their friends, and then jump on the cam to talk with family? It will not be long before everyone from a teenager to their grandparent's is going to be a "big downloader".

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

Sobchak — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:55:54 -0000

I'm so conflicted.

But I have to say, the idea of charging a slightly higher rate overall and then giving consumers who pull off less, a smaller monthly fee could be a nice customer service/marketing angle.

As long as the standard rate wasn't too crazy.

Flat rates are getting 'abused' more and more so it's gonna be inevitable that the pipe hogs are going to have to pay more...

*oink*

Re: Time Warner Cable: Heavy Downloaders Should Pay Us More Money

revbean — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:48:09 -0000

Do I like the idea of paying higher monthly fees? Of course not. Is it fair? Entirely.

Unlimited usage flat rates came into being for internet access when it became clear that very few end users were pushing the set limits. A flat rate was a good marketing strategy that ultimately didn't cost ISPs anything. And even saved them from the complications of implementing/billing a tiered or per-usage rate. As the feasibility and ease of downloading large files (primarily video) has increased, more and more end users are consuming higher bandwidth, and the flat rates begin to make less sense.

It's actually a little amazing to think that ISP flat rates have lasted for 10+ years.