What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.536 Comments
- WATYF, on 01/17/2008, -4/+4761990 called... they want their pricing scheme back.
This isn't new (nor is it the dreaded "tiered internet" we're all worried about). I remember back when this was the only way to get the internet (by paying based on usage levels). Back then it wasn't by bandwidth (usually), but by hours. - codyman, on 01/17/2008, -18/+163In a world of streaming video and large downloads, I doubt this would fly... that 5% figure of 5% making 50% of the traffic is b.s. in my opinion.. yes I personally am a heavy downloader however I know young / old people alike that download quite a bit each month (legal stuff mind you - iTunes movies ring a bell?) so I am sure people would be outraged by this
- QuantumBios, on 01/17/2008, -7/+144This idea needs to be axed...permanantly.
- Shambla, on 01/17/2008, -1/+119Mmm...a thousand free hours....
- dogstar0125, on 01/17/2008, -0/+116This will definitely ramp up users objections to banner ads and spam...
- Wosat, on 01/17/2008, -0/+92Charging customers more for downloading more does NOT go against the principle of network neutrality.
This is the problem with debating network neutrality -- even the supporters don't know what it means. - kiiwii, on 01/17/2008, -0/+84Makes me remember the days of AOL free trials based on minutes.
I lost count how many free trials I signed up for to get more free minutes... - hadiz, on 01/17/2008, -6/+79Inaccurate, embellished headline and the article states it's a "trial"
- ThisDateAndTime, on 01/17/2008, -7/+56This is total ***** *****. Greedy ass mother *****. Of course with video download on demand (netflix, apple, amazon) and whoever the ***** else. Now these stupid ***** bitches are finding even more ways to soak up the profit. Greedy ***** ass holes.
This story caught me on a very bad day at the office - anthraxe11, on 01/17/2008, -4/+52I think that the 5% using 50% of bandwidth sounds absolutely reasonable. If you look at the BT community its fairly obvious that some people can be downloading 10s or 100s of GB per month easily, while the vast majority of internet users primarily use their connection for routine tasks such as email, web browsing, and streaming video. Personally I think I would fall into the "5%" and although I really wouldn't like paying extra for using more broadband, it makes sense business-wise.
If this tiered pricing scheme becomes more popular, it will definitely curb users from leaving their favorite BitTorrent utility open for seeding. All in all I personally don't see this ever coming into effect, but it does make sense why they would attempt it. - m4v1s, on 01/17/2008, -0/+48"5 percent of the customer base, can account for up to 50 percent of network capacity."
In other words, that 5 percent is not being charged enough because they choose to use their connection more than the rest of the subscribers. - inactive, on 01/17/2008, -4/+51Well, where they aren't doing too well screwing the public on the over-priced music and video now, they need to try a different approach.
- weirdlookinguy, on 01/17/2008, -3/+49Oh ***** no, please don't let this happen. It will be the end of the internet as we know it. No longer will you be able to torrent ***** and cruise the web just for the hell of it, because you'll know that the more you use it the more you'll pay. They'll start charging exorbitant fees so that they can still make decent $$$ off all the grannys that turn on their PC to check email 3, maybe 4 times a month. That means those of us who pull a lot of bandwith are going to be raped when it comes to pricing. I'm getting worried. The internet is turning into a monitored, filtered, not-unlimited network. Please please please, let's stick with the old model of unfiltered, unmonitored, uncensored unlimited access to the net. I really don't want to tell my children what the internet used to be like 20 years from now.
- Eslamicolt3, on 01/17/2008, -6/+51Not quite. Free market comes into play when Verizon or someone new comes in with unlimited internet when Time Warner starts charging for bandwidth
- gharding, on 01/17/2008, -6/+50I buy it. At one point I was big into HD movies and on a BT tracker that had free leech, I downloaded probably 500gb in the same amount of time my parents downloaded 50mb.
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -3/+44If I pay twice the cost as normal users, I want twice the speed too.
- EXreaction, on 01/17/2008, -1/+42The problem is, I doubt they will be raising speeds or lowering the "normal" users cost.
They'll stick with the same speed limits, charge the same, then just charge more for the heavy downloaders. That's the problem I have with them, if it was cheaper to start and had a faster pipe I would have no problem (unless they start charging me more than $70 a month). - TylerM, on 01/17/2008, -1/+41I have Time Warner in upstate New York, FiOS is not available or any other high speed provider. It's like a monopoly--supply and demand I guess.
Realistically, I think they are going to get a huge outcry from this plan. - thedoover, on 01/17/2008, -0/+40I see a lot of comments about let the free market work, and generally speaking I believe that. However, in may communities there are is an oligarchy in the high speed ISP business. Though the free market might allow for those users that are far higher than average to be charged appropriately, I doubt these providers would actually offer a reduced cost, low-bandwidth option.
Also, I wonder what if any steps they will take to inform users of their total bandwidth. Might they allow users to set up automatic notifications of "overdraft" of bandwidth, or go to a pay-as-you-go scheme?
I'm not advocating any of this, just throwing some thoughts down... - Rooker156, on 01/17/2008, -1/+39Time warner owns AOL right? Sound familiar?
- Christianptriot, on 01/17/2008, -11/+48IF there's a way for corporate America or a global company to make a penny off someone, they'll exploit it to three pennies and try to make you smile while they're at it.
- PxCxG, on 01/17/2008, -4/+41digg addicts everywhere tremble...
- Error601, on 01/17/2008, -0/+35Net neutrality has ZERO to do with resource use pricing structure.
- FloppyLlamaDigg, on 01/17/2008, -1/+36So.. Adblock Plus will actually be able to save me money now...
- coldpockets, on 01/17/2008, -1/+35That's a flawed analogy, once the "pipes" are laid there's not much additional cost. Time Warner doesn't pay 100% more if they're at 25% utilization or 50%. You're not using a physical resource, like with water.
- TenebrousX, on 01/17/2008, -0/+34this isn't related to net neutrality at all
- kiiwii, on 01/17/2008, -6/+39I doubt large web based companies would allow this. ::eyes shift to google::
Anything that would make people think twice about going to a website would be bad for business... - clickwir, on 01/17/2008, -1/+33WTF. Do the other countries that have 100Mbit lines for $50/month have to put up with bull ***** like this?
- nonsequitor, on 01/17/2008, -2/+33Maybe I'm cynical but I think Time Warner is taking a page from the Best Buy playbook. I think they are trying to fire their "bad" customers that make them lose money.
This is bad for me of course since I download all of my tv instead of using Tivo with actual cable service. - yodaj007, on 01/17/2008, -1/+32I didn't see it the first time, dick.
- logandurand, on 01/17/2008, -2/+33Because of government-granted monopolies!
- hoppdawg, on 01/17/2008, -35/+65I would happily pay for more bandwidth. As it is, light users subsidize heavy downloaders with all the extra switches, routers, etc that internet providers pay for to increase the bandwidth of their network.
What if everyone paid the same $59.99 for water or electricity every month? It would be asinine.
Let the free market work. - theragu40, on 01/17/2008, -1/+31***** THAT.
- cambob76, on 01/17/2008, -5/+34What the ***** is the Internet?
- badenglishihave, on 01/17/2008, -5/+34It really is true. Someone who is capping a 5/2 Mb line for 8 hours a day is probably using up 500 times as much bandwidth as the "average" consumer.
- deadlyfluvirus, on 01/17/2008, -0/+28The problem lies with Timewarner not wanting to improve their infastructure and offer better service for the price. They prefer to charge more and let the infastructure become outdated, claim it's because of the customer. I don't see how this idea is going to fly with the huge fiber rollout with other ISP's making these bankrupt cable companies more irrelevant.
- OsiVert, on 01/17/2008, -2/+29It will be interesting to see what happens when these people who think they don't use a lot of traffic get a huge bill because they left their wifi open.
- jgzman, on 01/17/2008, -2/+28You misunderstand. If I have to pay per MB to visit google, I'm not gonna do it, unless I really have to, I'm certainly not gonna click on ads 'just to see' and I'm DAMN WELL not gonna visit any site with videos or flash, if I can help it.
Most everything on the internet is based on the idea of unlimited downloads. Youtube will be hit hard, less-popular versions harder. - ZoomBoy, on 01/17/2008, -1/+27I remember when I went online for the first time with Compuserve. 5 hours free.. A MONTH!
- Insomnya3AM, on 01/17/2008, -1/+25I am part of that 5%.
- asskey, on 01/17/2008, -5/+29Not quite. This isn't a free market when you have giant companies like Time Warner and Comcast. Not to mention this never would have happened without government intervention in the first place. Convincing the people that monopolies are the fault of the market was the biggest scam the economic pro-interventionists have pulled off so far.
- sponeil, on 01/18/2008, -0/+23No, this isn't the first time we've seen it in the US (unless you're still a teenager). Most of the dial-up services used to be like that for us, and some of the big ISP's like AOL were like that for a long time. But then the REALLY big companies like AT&T and Comcast decided to give us cheap unlimited rates for broadband to run all the smaller ISP's out of business. Now that they're fairly certain most of us have nowhere else to go, they're hiking the prices back up and filtering our content. That's how big monopolies form in the US. They try to keep at least two big companies around so no one can call it a monopoly, and they conspire to fix prices to make it more profitable.
- potterboy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+23I still do. I get 43,829 minutes a month.
- deadlyfluvirus, on 01/17/2008, -5/+27Then maybe they should stop advertising unlimited usage 5-10mbit speeds, it's misleading. Then at least I know who to avoid when searching for an ISP.
- toxicshok, on 01/17/2008, -2/+24exactly. Anyone who believes what we have now is a free market has never seen a free market.
- dupswapdrop, on 01/17/2008, -2/+24Remember dialup, genie, 1200 baud? This turkey isn't going to fly! A guy I know gave his kid a account on genie in the 80's, got a $1500 bill for the first month!
- LooterMcBeer, on 01/17/2008, -0/+22I could see Microsoft, Sony, and Blizzard getting involved in this because this alone could put a major hurt on online gaming.
- ggfergu, on 01/17/2008, -1/+21Cox has been doing this for a while. They don't tell customers anything about it, but they have caps at 60gb, 40gb, and 4gb. These guys live up to their name: http://www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp
- DeathGod321, on 01/17/2008, -0/+20The RSS feed said:
"It's here! Time War..."
I got excited over potential dr who news. - InorganicMatter, on 01/17/2008, -0/+19Do you really think they are going to jack the prices on 5% of their customer base so they can lower the prices for 95% of their customers? I don't think so. The light users are where they make all the money - charging someone $50/month for a the few MB they use checking email.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 532 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is