Time Warner Cable backed down from the tiered pricing plan that we've talked about here a few times, but it's safe to say we haven't heard the end of the story yet.
One of the problems we face is public education. To a layman, TWC's claims sounded logical: people who use the internet more should pay more. And that might be true if TWC had a huge tank of bandwidth that they dished out according to demand, but of course that isn't how it works. Their infrastructure cost is based on capacity, not quantity.
So it was heartening to see The New York Times cover this topic, laying out the figures so that any non-technical reader can understand the issue. And hey, there are some nice data points for techies, too. Did you know that, according to Comcast, it costs them just $6.85/home to double the internet capacity of a neighborhood? Or that in Japan, 160 megabit service costs the equivalent of $60/month (for comparison, basic broadband internet service in the US is measured in single digit megabit speeds and generally costs $30-$40/month, depending on provider).
The money paragraph, though, is this one:
If all Time Warner customers decided one day not to check their e-mail or download a single movie, the company’s costs would be no different than on a day when every customer was glued to the screen watching one YouTube video after another.
It's definitely worthwhile reading through the article and passing it along to your less tech savvy friends who might be confused by TWC's spin, because it is very likely that we haven't seen the last of the big ISPs attempting to squeeze more cash out of their customers. An educated public is the best defense against them getting away with it.
Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world
Esther Schindler
If the comments are ugly, the code is ugly
claird
SVG a graphics format for 21st century
pasmith
Take Chrome OS for a test spin
Sandra Henry-Stocker
Solaris Tip: Have Your Files Changed Since Installation?
jfruh
Android fragments vs. the iPhone monolith
mikelgan
What Gizmodo missed about the Pro WX Wireless USB disk drive
Sidekick: The Good News & the Bad News
Either way you look at it Microsoft Data Center management did not follow standards or best practices in this failure. In which case it makes me wonder more about the outsourcing of corporate data much less personal data.
- mburton325
Join the conversation here
Quick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.
Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.
Cable Plant Maintenence
What about plant maintenance? Bandwidth based billing isn't just about the pipe, it is total cost and its increasing daily. Downstream traffic isn't the problem. People checking their email isn't the problem. The problem is people uploading constantly and saturating the network. Ask a RF Network Engineer and see if bandwidth based billing wouldn't improve the overall network.Really?
So, you must be a cable company employee. If another country can give 160Mb service for the same exact price as I get 10Mb service, which typically runs like 2Mb service, then it is not the costs going crazy, it is the company being rediculously wasteful. What is the CEO doing with 14.4 million a year if the company is losing money?Really, Poor management skills and the proliferation of useless employees is the problem, that and laze. What needs to be done is a vast network upgrade, so that it does not stress their system, and induce the need for arduous upkeep. Cables dont break anywear near as fast when not overloaded. Perhaps if they put money back into the system, instead of into their asshole ceo who only cares about his immediate paychecks so he can retire early.
Congratulations on the fail.
Plant maintenance does
Plant maintenance does include cables, but it is RF amps and node congestion that is the $$. When you talk about costs over seas like you did, and in the story like in japan, it is really easy to do plant upgrades when your upgrade is a single building. Not several hundred miles of land. Your first argument is wrong. Next one you made was that there is wasteful spending. Agreed. Vast upgrades come from where?... you realize your internet service is the only profitable service they sell. It goes to cover the other services. And if they put all their money back into the system, how would you keep good employees to design these "advanced networks". I think you should honestly look at this from a side view. Bandwidth based billing will overall provide a better networkMy last question is what scares you? the low cap or the idea of bandwidth based billing?. What if I offered you a gig sym. fiber connection with bandwidth based billing? I have vastly improved these so called "perfect" systems in other countries but charge a different model. Is that still bad? Cmon, a really? and a fail in one argument. But then again, I guess your opposed to the idea of paying for water based on usage or electricity. Silly me and my fail thoughts. usage based services....lol how do they exist.