Paying per byte; the impact of Time Warner's new pricing

By  

So the very first thing that is going to happen is that everyone is going to get really smart about ad-blocking software. This is going to have a direct impact on the publishers of online content, such as ITWorld. I know, dear reader, that you probably hate ads so see this as a good thing, but the fact is that ads help pay the bills. With more people blocking ads (and for good reason, since now they're paying for the ads to be delivered) online publishers are going to have to scale back or find some other way to make up that lost revenue. A way that doesn't involve pushing more extraneous content to the reader. The only solution that springs to mind for me would be charging to access the content, and no one wants that.

This new pricing also comes at a time when digital distribution of content is starting to go mainstream. iTunes, Apple TV, Steam (that one is for gamers), Hulu, Netflix Watch Now...the list goes on and on. Looking at a mid-tier package at the current Time Warner pricing, $50 gets you 40 gigs of bandwidth, so you're paying $1.25/gig. I just checked the file size for "Marley & Me" in Widescreen from Amazon's Video-on-Demand. The movie costs $14.99 to buy, and is 2.5 gigs in size, so it'll cost $3.13 for the download bandwidth, assuming everything goes as planned. So the price is $18.11, a hefty 'download tax'. Well, $18.11 plus the cost of the bandwidth for navigating through the Amazon pages. What if we get half-way through the download and it hangs. Will Amazon reimburse us for lost bandwidth? Will Time Warner?

And you'd better start making good backups because if one of your drives fail and you need to re-download a large amount of content, it's going to have a very real impact on your wallet.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that putting a concrete cost per gigabyte of bandwidth will have a profound impact on the way we use the web (and how are we going to measure this bandwidth, anyway?). Suddenly every service is going to have to make clear how much bandwidth it uses. Best Buy and Game Stop will be delighted, of course, as digital downloads are going to take a big hit. Cloud Computing is going to become a dirty word; we won't want to pay every time we save to, or load from, the cloud.

Let me remind you of a quote from the first Wired article I linked to:

For 2008, the most recent period available, Time Warner Cable reported that its high-speed data costs actually declined by 12 percent to $146 million. Meanwhile subscribers increased by more than 10 percent to 8.4 million, and high-speed data revenues climbed to more than $4 billion.[Source]

This is not the action of a company struggling; this is an example of corporate greed having a direct impact on the technological progress of our society. Thankfully for now only one company is following this path. Comcast has a bandwidth cap of 250 gigs, which is large enough (for now!) that most users will never hit it. And Verizon's FIOS continues to expand its service, offering an alternative. I fervently hope all impacted Times Warner customers have the opportunity to take their business elsewhere. Because you know that if Time Warner has success with this plan, other providers will surely follow. And when that happens, the web is going to undergo a dramatic change, for the worse.

Join us:
Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

LinkedIn

Google+

Answers - Powered by ITworld

Ask a Question
randomness