Time Warner to test metered Web use

Time Warner Cable is testing a new pricing structure where heavy broadband users will be charged based on how much data they transfer, a company spokesman said Wednesday.

A trial for the new pricing scheme is expected to begin in Beaumont, Texas, later this year. Time Warner is testing the new pricing model to see if it can curb usage of peer-to-peer applications on its network, said Alex Dudley, a spokesman for the company.

Peer-to-peer protocols allow users to access content that is distributed throughout the network on other computers running the same application. It's commonly used to transfer music and video files, as well as other large data files.

Service providers, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner, have been complaining recently that peer-to-peer traffic eats up valuable bandwidth. AT&T argues that much of this traffic is used to distribute illegal content, and the company is testing filtering technology to block it.

Comcast has taken a different approach. It has used traffic shaping to slow down some kinds of peer-to-peer traffic. These moves have prompted outcries from consumer groups, and the Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating whether Comcast has violated any of its policies or principles.

Meanwhile, Time Warner thinks that metering bandwidth usage will help solve the problem.

"The idea is to create a more consistent, enhanced experience for our customers," Dudley said. "We can't allow a small percentage of customers to use an inordinate amount of the network to the detriment of the majority of customers."

My first impression of this new model is that Time Warner is treading on some dangerous territory. What is ironic to me is that the company will probably scare off the very high-end customers it wants to attract.

Think about this. Today Time Warner offers a fixed priced for data service. The fastest speed service available is for 10 Mbps downloads and 512 kbps uploads for $44.95 a month. Someone who is willing to spend $45 a month for 10 Mbps of bandwidth is probably the same person who uses peer-to-peer applications. Your basic run-of-the-mill users are probably subscribing to the cheaper 1.5 Mbps/256 kbps service for $29.95

I can almost guarantee you that the $44.95 customers are also savvy enough to know that they are going to lose in the metered-Web model. And they will likely just switch to a competitor, such as Verizon Communications, which offers 15 Mbps downloads and 2 Mbps uploads on its Fios fiber service for $53 a month. Of course, the problem for most consumers is that Fios isn't available everywhere.

[R. U. Sirius]

TWC and AT&T

Anyone bothered by the fact that net neutrality seems to be vanishing quicker than the Dodo? Is anyone bothered that AT&T wants to inspect all our packets? Is anyone bothered by the NYTimes story today that some government dude is saying we need to allow him the right to monitor everything we do on the net? What has happened to the idea of freedom?

This all goes well beyond tiered services. I for one do not want the Internet to look or feel like cable TV with a big brother back end. But it sure seems like that's where it's going.

[fred dunn]

Your are right...

It's like the Soviet Union used to be. The U.S.A. has become what they used to fight against.

[ColdFireDragon]

I take a bit offense to your article.

You state

"Someone who is willing to spend $45 a month for 10 Mbps of
bandwidth is probably the same person who uses peer-to-peer
applications."

I spend that for an 8Mb connection where I live. I do not use
peer to peer but I play online games and I want low latency and
my patches and maps to download in an instant. Or if I want to
watch some online videos I want them to load fast. I hate
waiting.

But I don't use P2P. I don't have a use for it, I do not pirate
anything and IMHO that is about the only reason to use P2P.

[FrankTurd]

^Good Point :)

This person makes a good point. I believe that there's a rush to judgment by many people to assume that just because someone (a customer) wants a ton of bandwidth, they are automatically pirating (IP theft) or using P2P in some nefarious way.

I think that should be correct in the original article.

[Maggie Reardon]

P2P doesn't equal bad

Not all P2P traffic is pirated content. I use Skype, that's P2P and that's a legitimate service/application. The point I was trying to make is that people who are willing to pay more money for a broadband connection are typically more savvy Internet users who do way more than just check email and surf the Web. And I think as more data is exchanged on the network, there will be more legitimate uses for P2P. And I bet users, like you, will probably use these applications before someone like my dad who is just now migrating from dial-up to a 1.5 Mbps DSL connection. Also, you are a highly valuable customer to your broadband provider. You are probably paying double what someone like my dad is willing to pay. Cable has always gone after high usage customers by promoting faster services. So my point here is that TW's metering might have a negative effect on their business by driving high value customers, who are willing to pay more for a faster Internet connection, to a competitor.

I hope this clarifies my point.
Thanks,
Maggie

[shoffmueller]

Key word: Probably

The author's statement is probably correct - he's speaking probabilities, and the probablility that high-bandwidth users are P2P users is pretty high. Nevertheless, the issue they're trying to solve is a minority of the people using the majority of the capacity, regardless of what they're doing with the bandwidth.

[Gasaraki]

Speed != latency

The difference between 10Mb and 8 Mb / sec is nothing in games. If a game needs a 8Mb connection for it to have good performance then there is some major problem with it. In games you need a low latency.

A good example of this is satellite connections, high speed but high latency, bad for gaming.

I just want the high speed to download stuff. Just admit it. ;)

[NickAllain]

Get A Clue

I'm sorry for being so harsh but you're EXACTLY the kind of person that would use P2P and not even know it. Not only does latency have nothing to do with a 1.5Mb connection vs an 8Mb connection, but increasingly GAMES are using P2P to transfer patches and updates. Here's one popular one you might have heard of: World Of Warcraft.

So before opening you're big mouth to complain about being offended, please do some research. It's bad enough we have to deal with people like you on CNN and CNBC and FOX pretending to be offended by things you think are politically incorrect - don't start doing it to online tech stories.

[chuck_whealton]

Re: I take a bit of offense to your article

ColdFireDragon wrote:

> But I don't use P2P. I don't have a use
> for it, I do not pirate anything and IMHO
> that is about the only reason to use P2P.

Actually, more and more legitimate software is becoming available via P2P. I don't like using it either, simply because of it's reputation.

However, I did use it a couple of months ago to get a copy of NeoOffice (an OpenOffice.org port for OS/X) for my Macintosh.

I would tend to agree with you, though. Just because somebody is willing to shell out the additional dollars for bandwidth doesn't automagically make them a P2P user or pirate. There are plenty of good reasons outside of P2P to need/want higher bandwidth.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com

[JadedGamer]

P2P = distributed computing

Peer to peer file transfer distributes the load of transfer across multiple sources. This is very efficient compared to single-source protocols (FTP, HTTP) when multiple users request the same content, because one server does not become an overloaded bottleneck. (Though there are load balancing techniques for those as well, there is no "discovery" at the client side, just a different "bottleneck" server-side.)

After all, single-source protocols can just as easily be used to send "pirated" content. There is no inherent requirement in P2P that it needs to be used to "pirate" stuff, just sensationalist headlines claiming so.

[CmdrRickHunter]

Dont bash the right idea

This is the correct solution, don't bash it.
1) Hosting has been doing it for years.... in fact, for almost the entire history of hosting. Why? because you pay for what you use
2) There is no alternative. As we've seen, filtering and traffic shaping just angers customers. The ISPs wont let you have something for nothing, its a given
3) Its financially infesable to provide 10mb connections always on, at residential prices. If you want that, you get your own fractional T1... Your bandwidth is, you guessed it, your bandwidth. For those of us not paying $200+ for internet, a compromise has to occur. For the longest time, ISPs attracted customers with ever increasing max bandwidths on the assumption that no user could maintain downloads across it for any decent period of time. With P2P, we broke that assumption, so the ISPs have to go back to actually charging for what we use, instead of hopped up numbers
4) I guarentee you that these new 10mb connections with metering come with "X free GB of transfer." The only people affected are going to be those who were actually using more than could be afforded
5) With customers traffic shaping their own traffic, and having to pay for bandwidth, the P2P networks will mediate themselves, and YOU get more of the bandwidth they took up.

I've been begging for the ISPs to go to metered net usage for months... ever since I heard of net neutrality. God forbid a ISP customer actually have to pay for what internet they actually use, instead of some bundled number based on "average use" estimates.

[Renegade Knight]

It's already metered

10mb connections can only transmit 10mb of data at a time and that caps uses at a set rate.

The real problem is that they don't like that form of metering. Now they want to sell you the 10mb connection but only give you the data you could have gone from a 5mb connection.

Why not just sell me the 5mb connection so I don't get a suprise when my iphone was especailly busy that month?

[Ushiikun]

I'll say it again

Maybe if they worked to find a way to stop spam\malware\viruses from moving through their network, they wouldn't have the problem of their network being maxxed out. And didn't we used to have metered internet back in the dialup days when you paid $50 a month for 30 hours of connection time?

I also have to agree with an above poster. Many of the people I know who pay for the higher rates are hosting their own webpages, mailservers and playing online games. If they had metered internet connections, services like Xbox Live, iTunes, Netflix, etc which allow for legal contect download would flop overnight, because not only are you paying for the file, your are then going to get charged, because HD movies are fairly large, for moving all that data through the pipes.

[Renegade Knight]

Always On

Always On is the new standard. Back then you may have got 30 hours but you dialed in and could track your 'time' time bieng how things were metered.

If it's data things change. It's hard to track data. My computer has a multitude of programs that want to hog my bandwith and "phone home". Vista Updates alone eat up a lot of my bandwidth.

SP1 will be a big one.

[sismoc]

This Will Soon Become A Pricing Scheme Like Cell Phone Service

I can see it now...

"What plan do you want sir?"

Plan?? Please explain

"Well, we have the 250 MB plan for $29.95."
"And we have the 500 MB plan for $44.95."
"And we have the 1000 MB plan for $69.95."
"And all the plans include 100 MB free on nights and weekends"

???? How do I know what plan to buy?

"Well, if you go over your plan, we will just charge you by the byte for any overage."

$$$$$$$$$$$ Ching!!! $$$$$$$$$ Ching!!!!!!

[Renegade Knight]

Phones used to be hard wired.

One line = One connection. When the phone system went digital that limitation went away. There are still limits but not like the days of old.

Now cell phone companies are coming out with unlimited plan. The simple fact is your phone can only use so much data and that's it's built in cap. They can allow 'unlimted use' and charge you a set fee. I'm seeing this with local cell companies.

[catbutt5]

Profit from illicit activities?

If Time Warner knows people are transferring pirated materials,
then they should terminate the offending accounts per their
terms of service agreement.
All they're doing with this move is attempting to profit from
those same criminal activities.

How can anyone use more bandwidth than they are already
paying for?
If I've paid for a $45 a month account with 10Mbps of bandwidth
and I use all 10Mbps of it 24 hours a day 365 days a year, I'm
entirely within my rights.
If downloading 10Mbps all day every day causes performance
problems for other users, that proves the ISP has severely
oversold their available bandwidth and they're trying to shift the
blame.
With recently legitimized movie download services supposedly
the wave of the future, overselling network capacity like they
have been isn't going to work.

[zincmann]

UNACCEPTABLE! I should be able to use my $44.95/mo service how I want...no

questions asked. As long as I am not doing anything that is deemed illegal, sharing government secrets or what not, what I do is protected under some umbrella of privacy and I should not be punished. Too bad Time Warner that your networks are slowed down, not my problem that you need to keep your price where it is to stay competitive, thats life. If you try to do this, I will just switch back to DSL, TRUST ME in our market t here are MANY options and I hope you read this. Your treading on thin ice if you do that, MAYBE you should start changing your cable to metered also, if I watch more I should be charged more, some people are watching TV Constantly, charge them more, I hardly watch TV on your Cable service charge me less. Oh wait, you wouldnt make money now would you??

[noyfb2]

Conflict of interest. The real target are online video viewing.

Yeah it's easier to defend their decision by some fake argument about P2P. That can be dealt with by other methods. The real target seems to be the growing possibility that more people will start to get their video content though online video
services like Apple TV and Netflix video.

During the next session of congress and with a new administration they should take a look at net neutrality and realize why it is important because cable companies and phone companies will do their best to stop progress. A broadband provider should just provide the service and shut F up, if they claim unlimited service. IF they want to offer a metered service for people that use most of the bandwidth then they should have to reward the people who don't use their service at all, since they aren't footing the bill anymore for high bandwidth users. Also the word 'Unlimited' has to be restricted to true unlimited service providers.
Time Warner customers who don't like what TW is doing need to hit them were it hurts the most. Cancel your entire service, including video, with them and get satellite and another broadband option.

[Morale Officer]

Sounds like they are unable to handle the load

I think this sounds like they are unable to handle the load. I also doubt they will lower the price for the casual users. I have a vonage phone and I am sure they will charge me extra and try to force me to use their digital phone for a lot more. They are also slowwwwwww to bump up to faster speeds for the average user. I loved disconnecting my phone from the phone company when I had the alternative of going to VOIP and getting rid of the meter for local an long distance. TWC's just as bad if they are going to start the meter. They need a good competitor to keep them humble and customer oriented and not customer hostile.

[Willie Winkie]

You'll never stop online piracy

The isp's are just playing flunky for the content providers. They want to put the internet genie back in the bottle. Well they can kiss my pirate a**! That's not possible. And yes; I download TONS of content via BitTorrent. In December alone I pushed 1/2 a terabyte over my connection. I pay a handsome fee for the privileged.

[WJeansonne]

It's obvious: The free ride is over.

Broadband providers should simply take on a surcharge for anyone using P2P technology on their networks and leave the rest of us alone.

[CmdrRickHunter]

Why?

Why charge P2Pers? Besides the obvious question of how to pick up P2P (the software is constantly evolving because of behaviors like this)

Or perhaps a better question is why do you not get charged? The real story is that bandwidth costs money AND bandwidth usage costs money. You've just been only seeing the former because that hides their profit margins and lets them charge more.

The time has come to actually pay for what you use. Your peak bandwidth (the huge inflated 10mb/s numbers) is cheap for the company... just some initial hardware. Your bandwidth usage costs them money (they have to maintain connections to support the average bandwidth).

[wind3d]

$44.95 is not free sweetheart

That'd be against the law. And uhh, that's essentially what it is they're doing, just in a legal, round-about way. Charging people extra for using more bandwidth. Statistically, probably 95% of the people that use more bandwidth are also using p2p applications.

[nachurboy]

Hah!

P2P is just a means of transferring files. What you really want is to ban piracy, not P2P technology. P2P has legitimate uses as well as illicit uses, but the same can be said for FTP, Web, heck, anything connected to the Internet! Why not block all of those too!

[Pete Bardo]

This isn't a new idea!

Back in the beginning of dial-up internet, service providers did charge based on the amount of data exchanged. When new providers charged a fixed rate, or even nothing (remember when Net Zero was free?), the providers charging based on bandwidth usage had to change their pricing models to match.

What make TW think anyone would agree to go that far backwards?

And speaking of P2P, while WoW may not be P2P, the program updates certainly are. Gamers probably use more bandwidth than downloaders. And not all downloads are illegal.

TW needs to rethink this whole idea, then put it back in the trash can where they found it.

[Renegade Knight]

Pipeline

A data pipeline can only handle so much data. That is metered band width. You can only download a limited amount of data. The limit is set by the size of the pipe.

The new spin is to give you a pipe that can pass through more data transfer than you have bought. Now you can get a nice suprise. Sorry but you'r new 30megabitper second connection only lets you get 1.5 megabits per second of data. Please send more money!

[gric111]

Sales Plummet as time warner switches to metered internet

hah, using a model like this is awful instead of trying to improve technology to keep up with usage trends they complain that people are simply utilizing their internet to its fullest. PEOPLE PAY FOR A SERVICE SO THEY CAN USE IT. the only places these kinds of systems are typically used is in small rural areas in places like australia where access and lines run are very limited and usually expensive. and not to mention the internet usage is offset by the vast amount of people not utilizing their internet for anything more then checking email and browsing the internet(which a large quantity of people do)

whats next more bringing the internet caps into play?> so we can transfer as fast as we want but only 50gig a month. ITS GARBAGE PLEASE DIE TIME WARNER good thing i have fios and comcast in my area

[davtx]

Very well said!!!

Dump Time Warner and their metering. Get wireless cards and get on internet anytime, anywhere.

[gefitz]

Here's an idea for cable companies in gen...

Instead of continually angering your customer base, how about spending some of your gigantic profits on additional infrastructure? For what their customers pay, which is generally much more than for other broadband options, it should be expected. But instead, the companies have chosen to attempt to bleed their customer base for everything they can get.

Any company that has, for the past several years, KNOWN that demand for higher bandwidth than they can handle is only going to rise....and HASN'T added to their capacity...deserves to eat whatever they get.

[CmdrRickHunter]

Reality Check

check my post on T1s. Its not the telcos who are surprised by bandwidth usages, its you. They know how much bandwidth really costs... and they will sell it to you for several hundred dollars a month.

So technically, those who are uninformed are eating what they get.

If you need an analogy: apartments offer cheap rent by getting multiple people to use the same area. Lets say your appartment puts $2 of your rent towards a pool and chairs. They run on the assumption that the entire complex will not all hold pool parties at the same time. It would be financially unfesable to do so. You're complaining now because EVERYONE wants to use the pool for their party, 24/7.

[CmdrRickHunter]

Truly Amazing

Its amazing how many people seem to feel that their "10mb/s" is real. You only get 10mb/s up to the first switch of the telco. From there, you share a pipe with everyone in the area (this is true of DSL, cable, and fiber, just a question of where the merge happens). That big pipe everyone uses costs the telco a lot. For the longest time they have oversold this pipe, for a good reason. I don't know ANYONE in this talkback section who is willing to pay for 10mb/s!

If you don't believe me, go look up the prices on T1s. A T1 is 1.5mb/s guaranteed bandwidth all the time. note that thats almost 1/10th of these "high speed cable" peak rates. Do you really expect them to give you 10 T1's worth of bandwidth for $50/month?

Or I can save you the effort of searching. Googling T1 puts the pricerange for 1.5mb/s in the range of $700/month. Why is it so expensive? Because that 1.5mb/s actually means something... if you buy a T1 line, you are never put on an oversold pipe (or if they do, its hardly oversold), so there's never a reason to charge for the bandwidth you didn't use.

So by all means, go get your 10mb/s guarenteed bandwidth (the site I found offered that 10mb/s as a fraction of a DS3, at $3,700/month). In the mean time, I'll happily pay seperatly for peak bandwidth and average bandwidth at far lower prices.

[sevort]

If it's advertised at 10mb/s...

...it has to be 10 mb/s, period. Otherwise, I want my money back.

[wind3d]

You're wrong!

You are so misinformed. You think telcos are selling T1's for 400-650 a month because they know how much bandwidth costs? First off, a lot more than bandwidth comes along with a T1. Dedicated 24/7 technical support, a very extensive SLA (service level agreement) and guaranteed uptime. Not to mention symmetrical speeds.
Second off, what train did you get off? Telcos are in it for the money, and so are cable companies. It's all about the bucks, why do you fail to see that?
Not to mention, I work a shift that requires me to do all of my online activities in the wee early hours of the morning. Those activities take up a good deal of bandwidth. But who am I affecting at such an early time? Everyone's asleep. So why should I have to pay extra for what I signed up for?
Also, Time Warner could upgrade their networks and not retain as much profit in the short term, but in the long term prosper. They could stop OVERSELLING their service. Timewarner is selling service they CAN'T provide, and realizing now that 1: We can make a profit off of this illicit activity, and 2: Oh heck, what do we do now that we've taken in more customers more than we're able to provide to, based off of our service packages? See the real picture. Something tells me you work for, or represent this company, as anyone who is a true consumer and not in the 50% tax bracket could see this is simply ludacris. USA is also so far behind in bandwidth terms. Other countries have access 10 times greater than ours and most of the time isn't metered. So I ask you...they did it, why can't we? I work hard for my money. I don't take kindly to greed from billion dollar companies trying to rob me of my dollar.

[fred dunn]

So "what's too much" for Time-Warner....

Before they start kicking in the extra MB/month fees? They need to clarify this or I am going somewhere else. I have been a Time Warner customer for a long time. I don't run P2P but I do have video calls with my son maybe weekly or every two weeks. I also download ISO files, is that going to be too much?

They need to clarify their stance before this blows up in their fat greedy faces.

[bwvla]

Agreed, what is "too much?"

It seems convenient this hasn't been adequately quantified. An how much per mb after. If its like the per minute charge after you've gone over your cell limit, thats likely highway robbery.

[jackvolsfan1]

linux distro

What about those of us who download Linux distros? I either download them at night or on the weekend. Will this be a prohibited (cost wise) to doing this?

[jgeee805]

If my provider decides to do this

I will just cancel my service. Just looking at the speed versus price available in Japan already makes me unhappy with my service:

http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0711/

Japan is tops in speed, and has an average monthly cost of just $34.21

We Americans are getting burned, most of us just don't know it.

[Randall Lind]

They need to invest and shovels to bury cable lines

I lose cable all the time because the idiots run cable above ground that get cut all the time in my apartment complex instead of burring it the correct way.

We got channels changes, star over tv show tech, etyc etc but they can't afford to invest in making cable more reliable.

[Luna M]

what about IPTV?

And what about us IPTV users? Are we supposed to pay extra bandwidth fees IN ADDITION to what we already pay for IPTV services? Pssh...

[davtx]

Time Warner is an Internet Thug

What? $29.95 for 1.5Mbps download? They were charging me $44.95 for 1.5Mbps for almost two years until I discontinued service three months ago. All that time, I was only using it for checking email and reading news. When I closed the account they called and offered 5Mbps for $24.95 or something like that. Now I use wireless card instead, and I can get on the internet no matter where I am. Goodbye forever Time Warner.