Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck

Time Warner to Charge Extra for Over-Quota Bandwidth 933

duckygator writes: "I just came across this article on NetworkWorld discussing Time Warner's announcement that they will begin charging users a fee for exceeding a monthly download limit. The actual limits and associated fees aren't discussed. Guess I knew this would be coming sooner or later ... Now I guess I'll just have to guess where the threshold will be. Anything more than email? Active gamer? Graphic artist?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Time Warner to Charge Extra for Over-Quota Bandwidth

Comments Filter:
  • by Ali Jenab ( 565034 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @10:45PM (#3307379)
    I used to work for a large internet provider [verio.net] (which shall remain nameless) who had contracts with several small cable franchises for end-user internet services. As a network engineer I was responsible for planning and supervising the rollout of metered cable modem service in one mid-sized city, as a pilot program. Needless to say, things didn't work as well as we had hoped. Here are some of the problems we ran into:
    • Fraud. Several prolific warez kiddies figured out how to change their MAC address to bill their service to their neighbors or even to our own router (!). We're still not sure exactly how that happened. Sure, we cut them off and connected their modems to a high voltage source as punishment (our contract allowed it), but how many more are there who we didn't catch?
    • Billing issues. People who obviously ran up a very high bandwidth bill would call us and complain when they got their statements, asking us to lower their bills. Our position was that it wasn't our responsibility that they couldn't figure out how to close Napster or stop downloading porn. When they paid with credit card we would sometimes lose the dispute, but things were okay when they paid with cash or check.
    • Expectation of quality. As you know, a cable modem is a shared medium and cable companies are not at fault for your neighbors' downloading habits. However, it was considered a potential legal liability to be providing a service of varying quality.
    For these reasons and many others, metered cable modem service just won't work.

    /ali

  • by coupland ( 160334 ) <dchaseNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Monday April 08, 2002 @10:49PM (#3307406) Journal

    > I'll just have to guess where the threshold will be. Anything more than email? Active gamer?

    Please spare us the drama. I've done benchmarks and an active gamer who performs regular web surfing and casual file downloads does not approach the quota limits. Quotas are designed to thwart the WaReZ PuPp13z of DC, Kazaa, and WinMX fame who are not only throttling the backbone, they're the reason your cable modem drops carrier every Saturday morning. Cry "wolf!" all you want, I signed up for internet access with a quota and I can't wait until my ISP starts to impose it on me and (more importantly) my k1dd13 neighbours. Spare us the social diatribe...

  • Cable modem vs. DSL (Score:3, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @10:59PM (#3307467) Homepage
    What this reflects, I suspect, is a desire to hang too many cable modems on one segment. It's so easy to hang lots of modems on one segment, and expensive to provide a wideband link from the segment concentrator back to the head end. Segment concentrators have to go on telephone poles, which is not a great environment for electronics.

    In the DSL world, you normally have a existing dedicated pair back to the central office, and bandwith from the CO usually isn't the limiting factor. And all the equipment is either at the customer or in the central office.

  • by Slash Veteran ( 561542 ) <slashvet@hotmail.com> on Monday April 08, 2002 @11:18PM (#3307592)
    Outright flamebait.

    They offer a service. They advertise that service. Some people extraordinarily abuse that service.

    They CAN handle more users, it's just that these bandwidth pigs cost more than anyone else. It's called ROI. Look into it.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday April 08, 2002 @11:40PM (#3307720)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by ocbwilg ( 259828 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @12:08AM (#3307846)
    That said, isn't Time Warner one of the companies that wants to sell us all this new-fangled digital multi-media content? They'll have to analyze their pricing structure in that context. If it costs more to acquire a movie-on-demand via their link than it does to rent it at Blockbuster, they're on-demand service aint going to go far...

    Excellent point. Add to that the fact that the courts have made them open up their networks to competitors. If someone is faced with high bills from TW/Roadrunner, switch to Earthlink. They're not gonna raise your rates and bend you over like that (at least not for a little while longer). Maybe it will buy you enough time to get DSL installed.
  • by gehrehmee ( 16338 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @12:18AM (#3307895) Homepage
    That includes updates to ALOT of software. Scientific applications, a few office suites, several databases, countless server suites, databases, games, desktop environments. You won't find that much on any Win98 CD.

    Consider just the updates to critical packages of this "certain very popular Linux distro", and I'm sure you'll come up with different numbers.
  • A Technical Solution (Score:5, Informative)

    by slyfox ( 100931 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @12:44AM (#3307992)
    Instead of offering xxx kbits/second and charging more per bit after a certain usage threshold, the ISPs should sell a broadband connection with a "peak" and "sustained" rating (e.g., 512kb peak and 56kb sustained.) A users would receive bursts of 512kb throughput, but after an hour or two straight at full throttle the ISP's router would slowly limit throughput to the sustained rate.

    One simple and well-known algorithm to implement this solution is a token-bucket. (More information from Cisco's web site) [cisco.com] The basic idea is that you have a bucket that collects token at some rate. This rate corresponds to the peak rate of transfer. The bucket also has a maximum capacity which corresponds to the size of the 'burst' you'll allow. When a packet arrives and the bucket is non-empty, the packet is forwarded and one token is removed from the bucket. When the bucket is empty the packet is queued or dropped.

    Going back to the above example, consider a token-bucket where tokens arrive at 56kb/second, and the bucket can hold (60*60*512) kbits of tokens. This bucket would allow full peak allows full use for a hour or two, at which time the bucket would be close to empty and packets could only be sent the sustained rate.

    This kind of setup would not effect most users at all, but would limit the worst offenders to 1/10th or 1/100th the bandwith usage.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @12:46AM (#3308000)
    [flame] Yeah how nice for you, but the horrific cost of tel$tra's so-called broadband (3GB is fark all data) along with the crap 50% uptime of the network means that only lusers like you will use it to check email and surf teh interweb. Its not worth it, you should stick with dial up if thats all your doing. What amazes me is you are getting milked for your cash by tel$tra AND YOURE DEFENDING THEM?!?!?!? sounds like you are justifying your bad decision to join them. [/flame]
  • Re:Dumb question (Score:3, Informative)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @01:21AM (#3308128) Homepage Journal
    Well back when I was doing provisioning for MCI, we charged $1600 a month plus local loop charges for a T1 (1.5 megabits per second) or $23,000 a month for a T3 (45 megabits per second.) That works great when you're shoehorning 56k dialup users onto the line at $20 a month, doesn't work quite so great when you're shoehorning 3 megabit per second cable customers onto the line.

    I haven't priced things recently but I suspect that despite the lines from my house to my ISP getting MUCH faster at the same price, the lines from my ISP to the backbone still cost about the same.

    Why does it cost so much on the backbone? Well they've laid thousands of miles of wire that they need to maintain and still make a profit, and those border routers and hardware for same don't come cheap. Not to mention a NOC, salaries for the guys who make sure the network stays running... it adds up.

    Now the immediate response to this is "Add more backbone" but that's what companies were doing during the tech boom a couple of years ago. Now all that excess capacity sits unused and unprofitable. I don't think anyone will be adding more capacity to the network anytime soon.

  • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @02:52AM (#3308395)
    Sorry, but they advertised the service as faster than DSL and about the same price. Toss in quick installation and you've got yourself a customer base. Now you've got people *gasp* using the bandwidth they're paying for. It doesn't matter if you never turn your PC on or if you never shut Grokster down, you have the right to what you paid for. If their business model wasn't profitable to begin with, then they are being the disingenuous jerks that conned you into connecting into their cable network when you could be on a DSL connection instead.

    This is another example of short-sighted business plans, a desperate grass at building a customer base, and then selling-short until most of the competition in the area gets finacially hurt.

    Why people feel that the grokster 24/7 kid should be punished is beyond me. They sold him the service now they must deal with it. Conversely, if heavy users are going to be punished then give breaks to lightweight users. Of course that means the same pricing plan as DSL, which is who they're fighting and distancing themselves from. Sorry, but this is more corporate bullying than anything else.
  • by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) <jmorris&beau,org> on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @02:54AM (#3308404)
    > Honestly... I wouldn't like this either, but
    > remember when DSL companies (and cable) were
    > dropping left and right?

    The DSL companies dropped like flies when Rep Tauzin (R-LA) introduced a bill to essentially repeal the Communications Act of 96 and restore the Baby Bells to their 'rightful' place as monopolies over the local loop. Fear of that bill passing dried up the venture capital to the DSL providers at a time they were building out like mad and were short on cash, since when it passes CLECs disappear, leaving all of the DSL providers who aren't regional Bells screwed. That shit running downhill screwed the telco equipment makers like Nortel & Lucent, and pretty much lead to the dot.bomb meltdown. Put the blame where it belongs, Billy "Bell Boy" Tauzin. He is a Rep from my home state of Louisiana, but not my district so I can't vote against him. :(
  • by Bios_Hakr ( 68586 ) <xptical@g3.14mail.com minus pi> on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @03:13AM (#3308447)
    On the other hand, most broadband users wouldn't know a megabit of downstream traffic if it bit them in the ass

    Just because a user doesn't know that they can monitor their bandwidth doesn't give them an excuse.

    In Win2k or better, you can just look at the properties for your network interface and see how much traffic has been passed. I am also 90% sure that there are countless freeware tools that do the same. In fact, the provider probably has a web page where a user can track their usage.

    The bigger issue here is trying to get users into the habit of watching their usage. If you leave a room, you turn off the light. Do you know what a "kilowatt-hour" feels like?

  • Belgium, Europe (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @03:31AM (#3308474)
    Well, here the bandwith for the bradband has been limited since it came out. As a matter of fact, you have 3-4 choices, these prices are average:

    500MB/Month at like 25/Month
    10GB/Month at 40/Month
    20GB/Month at 65/Month
    Unlimited at 90/Month

    Each additional MB is invoiced at 0,05 ....

    Maybe this is what will happen in the states too??

    Good luck!

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...