Time Warner testing usage-based billing
 

I haven't found details, but Time Warner in Texas is testing a system where they will bill cable internet users for bandwidth usage rather than a flat fee. They claim that it will only affect the top 5% of users and that most people won't notice a difference.

The concept doesn't make me happy. Hell, that's one of the reasons AOL used to suck so much. For 10 years we've gotten pretty used to "If you have access, it's unlimited access." The thought of having to think, "shoot, have I gone over my internet usage allotment" is a sucky thought.

Story

What a boon for the providers of satellite in the area.

Hmm, kinda sucks, but I guess it's only fair, right?

We'd have the lowest bill in town!

Not fair at all. It costs Time Warner next to zero for people that go over TW's imposed limit. This is just a way for TW to eke every last penny out of their customers.

Currently I annoyed with them because I paid a cable bill for two months in full on 12/29. Zero balance on the account. January bill comes, and has an extra charge for a late fee, back-date posted 12/22. How obnoxious is that?!? And yes, there was a late fee on the December bill too. So basically they charged double late fees. But who the hell wants to sit on the phone for an hour with their billing? Might as well pay it.

And don't get me started on how they upgraded our DVR, but made us pay for the cable to connect it to the television.

Or how they told us it was $10 extra a month to send us Hi-Def, but failed to mention that it was an additional $10 to RECEIVE the hi-def signal they were sending.

If our dog-hating landlord didn't also hate satellite dishes, there's no way we'd have Time Warner for anything.

Well, most of the providers have contract clauses stipulating that they have the ability to throttle excessive usage or upgrade account types. There are plenty of stories out there of various providers forcing users to upgrade to business account (which cost a lot more) based on usage volume.

To make it more palatable, though, if I were running things I'd also provide discounts to the bottom end of users too. But its weird how people don't mind this billing model in one area (cell phones) but the screaming is long and loud in this area.

If a small percentage of users are causing network demands to outpace their infrastructure, then it can cost them quite a bit, either in the cost of upgrading the network or in the cost of losing customers due to poor network performance. If, as they are stating, they are trying to curb only the heaviest of users (i.e. which would pretty much be people who have their computers doing nothing but downloading movies all day), it makes perfect sense. I don't necessarily have faith that that's all it will effect, but I can certainly see practical business reasons to do it.

Have you tried? As I posted elsewhere, my most reason CS experience with Time Warner was a 180 degree turnaround from their sh*ttiness of the past.

Yeah, and that "extra" -- is it actually COSTING them money, or simply eating a little into their profits (I have a hunch it's the latter).

And what's to stop them from arbitrarily doing the following:

TW Exec 1: "Well, the top 5% of people on the at-home cable service are eating into our profits by excessive bandwidth."

TW Exec 2: "Oh, so we're going to charge the top 5% some usage charges?"

TW Exec 1: "Um, you must be new here. We're going to charge the top 20% for these "excessive bandwidth" charges, and tell people we're only charging the top 5%, because nobody's really watching us and the people at home won't know either".

TW Exec 2: "Muahahahaha!"

TW Exec 1: "Muahahahaha!"

(Sorry I picture them like the green aliens in the Simpsons).

In all honesty I haven't. The last time I tried to contact them was 2 weeks ago (15 minutes on hold), to ask a question about and then pay the bill to begin with, and THEN they charged me a double late fee. So no, it isn't worth my time.

I'm afraid I don't see a difference between the former and the latter.

And I also don't see what "fair" has to do with it. They charge on the model they want to charge. There are alternative methods of accessing the internet. Customers agree to it or they take their business elsewhere.

Makes me think of a comment during an NPR story yesterday on how some hospitals are charging insurance plans more for the same procedures than other hospitals. "Is there a good reason for this or are they just charging what the market will bear?" asked the reporter. To me, the second part is a good reason.

If cable internet were the only way (and since cable company's generally have a regional monopoly) I'd have concerns, but they provide a service and if they want to charge more for people who use it more (regardless of what that actually costs them) then go ahead says I.

I know that Alex already responded with the same message, but I wanted to add my opin.

There is little to no difference between the two. TW Cable (as does any other corporation, Partnership, LLC, Proprietorship, etc.) exists to make money. They SHOULD make as much as they reasonably can. They do face the possibility of losing business.

Why is it good for big corporations to make money? Because then the people who work the big corporations get to have jobs. I'm not talking about the big executives; I am talking about the installers, the CS people on the phone (even if you don't like them), the accounting people who you never hear about, the janitor. Everyday people who have husbands and wives and kids.

Why else is it good for corporations to make money? Because then the value of their stock goes up and/or dividends are issued. Anyone who has a retirement fund probably has some of their nest egg building because of the success of the big ugly mean corporations. Not just the fat cats, but the accountants, office assistants, construction workers, etc. of the world.

I could go on, but I think I made the point.