A layman's guide to bandwidth pricing

By Peter Smith  11 comments

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.

Follow Peter on Google+

Peter Smith writes about personal technology for ITworld.

11 comments

    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Sorry, but having a pay per gb isn't an answer. Greed as overrun America and will do so for some time...capitalism at it's finest.The problem is content. For example I go to weather.com to check my weather forecast. I look at 6x8in section of the site and a move on...what is on the rest of my 22inch widescreen? AD's. Lots of them. I don't want those, but I'll still be paying for them since I am charged for my bandwidth and those ad's sure will add up.Gaming isn't that bad, at least on the PC. Being in a dorm students usually have a 5GB a week limit. so... 20GB a month on average, and they don't hit that cap.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    I don't really think that people are against the tiered billing. I think the issue comes that the proposed tiers are too low. More than likely I'd blow through the 50gb tier with no problem. Just by reading mail, playing games online, watching some video's on youtube. Doesn't seem like much but it racks of the bytes. Maybe if TW were to set better tiers ie a basic bones rate 10gb for $15, 250gb for $50, and anything above that at business class rates. By doing that, they at least set a comfortable buffer for normal users, a basic rate for those that use it sparingly, and address those services(netflix, hulu) etc that just eat up the bandwidth.In the end its really about fairness for both sides. TW or any other broadband company needs to be fair to their customers and not just try and pick our pockets. We're not opposed to a tier method, just the method that was proposed.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    One issue at stake that no one has mentioned is that the current internet is basically ad supported. When you start charging per bit that you download you are charging me to see things that I did not want. You can't charge me for ads. Not to mention that you would also be charging me for updates to my OS that protect you from problems on your network. What about people trying (and not succeeding) to hack my computer? That takes up my bandwidth. Am I going to get a list at the end of the month of all the bits that I downloaded and uploaded and have to call to say well this one isn't mine.You could charge by the bit, but only if there was no unauthorized and unwanted traffic. As this is impossible, then charging by the bit is illogical and wrong.Not to mention that you would be holding the web back from new technologies that I think you want.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Well, if ISP's didn't charge for OS updates wouldn't that defeat net neutrality? All I am saying is there is not a good argument against bandwidth based billing other than it is something different than we have done in the past. If we charge by the bit at the modem level counters on the cmts, its not up to the ISP to monitor your network. That modem is your responsibility and such make sure you can keep it clean.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    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.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    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.

      Add a comment

      Post a comment using one of these accounts
      Or join now
      At least 6 characters

      Note: Comment will appear soon after you have activated your account.
      Obscene/spam comments will be removed and accounts suspended.
      The information you submit is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

      ITworld LIVE

      InternetWhite Papers & Webcasts

      White Paper

      Smarter Commerce is redefining value chain visibility

      Smarter Commerce is redefining the value chain in the age of the customer. It starts with putting the customer at the center of your operations - which of itself is not a new idea - however, truly operationalizing this strategy is not easy.

      White Paper

      IBM Synchronizes its Commerce 2.0 Strategy with 'Smarter Commerce' Initiative

      On March 14, IBM announced "Smarter Commerce", a strategic initiative that addresses the surging market for Commerce 2.0 solutions that take advantage of the convergence of a number of disruptive software and hardware technologies.

      See more White Papers | Webcasts

      Ask a question

      Ask a Question