17 Apr 2009
Time Warner Cable has cancelled plans to trial a new internet pricing model in the US, under which it would charge customers by the megabyte rather than by connection speed.
The trials were to take place in Rochester in New York, Greensboro in North Carolina, and San Antonio and Austin in Texas.
The pricing model would have applied to businesses and consumers, and would have charged $15 (£10) per month for one gigabyte, and around $2 (£1.35) for each additional gigabyte.
However, the move was opposed by consumers and politicians, and protests were set up to take place this Saturday outside the company's offices.
"It is clear from the public response over the last two weeks that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about our plans to roll out additional tests on consumption-based billing," said Time Warner Cable chief executive Glenn Britt.
"As a result, we will not proceed with implementation of additional tests until further consultation with our customers and other interested parties, ensuring that community needs are being met.
"While we continue to believe that consumption-based billing may be the best pricing plan for consumers, we want to do everything we can to inform our customers of our plans and have the benefit of their views as part of our testing process."
US senator Charles Schumer, who represents New York, was particularly critical of the plans, and discussed making some kind of legislative example of the issue.
"By responding to public outrage and opposition from community and elected officials, Time Warner Cable made the right decision today," he said. "I will make sure that any changes are in line with what families and small businesses need."
The decision will be a blow to telecoms providers looking to shift businesses and consumers away from the all-you-can-eat model of internet pricing to one based on usage. Nevertheless, other companies look likely to follow Time Warner Cable's lead.
Latest stories from Web
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
TFL director of Games transport Mark Evers discusses how the public transport network is preparing for this summer's event
Connect with V3.co.uk
The wrong printers, for the wrong tasks on the wrong contracts
Who leads the BI pack and who should we be watching out for?
Opportunity to join a rapidly expanding Microsoft Consultancy...
Technical Architect - UC/Video Conferencing/VAAS Inspire...
A busy organisation in Glasgow is looking for a skilled...
Test, Python, Shell, Automation, Manual My client...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
I contracted for bandwidth, not volume
Bandwidth is a rate of data transfer, expressed in some multiple of bytes per second. Anyone can increase the limits on this transfer rate by paying a higher premium per month. What Time Warner is proposing here is charging customers for the VOLUME of data transferred per month. The bandwidth a customer enjoys is already a natural limit on the volume of data they can transfer in a given amount of time. The fastest bandwidth service offered by these companies is usually around 100 Mbps download/10 Mbps upload speeds; a subscriber at these speeds can at most concievably transfer 241920000 Mb per four week period. When was the last time you saw a personal computer with 240 terabytes of data storage capacity? If you are a Netflix subscriber, then for $15 a month you can watch this much content in a four week period, and never even use your cable subscription. With Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, google video, and scores of other content providers out there competing for your attention, how is TWC going to make their Q2 projections? Time Warner is trying to get out of their obligations to consumers who contracted for a constant download/upload rate, REGARDLESS OF VOLUME OF DATA FLOW, in favor of a 'Pay-per-bit' rate, They're trying to supplant their CONTRACTED obligations to provide consumers with a data flow pipeline in order to provide less service than they ever bargained on when these plans were first built, but still maintain the same, or higher, projected profitablility.
Posted by: Patrick Carey 17 Apr 2009