Time Warner tiered pricing

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:08 am

Word on the street is that Time Warner has some testing going on. A few markets (Rochester, NY, & Austin, TX, & others, I think) have been intro'd to old-skool style pricing -- pay for your bandwidth.

There's dl bands w\ set prices up to 100 GBs w\ $1 overage for every GB you go over. The private file exchange network demand will be huge if this spreads.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:41 pm

We TW Roadrunner users are fucked.

http://www.businessweek.com/technol....nalysis

Four Proposed Broadband Tiers

Consumer advocates and Web site owners say tiered Web-use pricing limits customer choice and could stifle innovation by crimping demand for high-bandwidth services such as online video and music. Cable and phone companies say they need flexibility in setting prices for use of large, expensive, heavily used broadband networks.

In the case of Time Warner Cable, customers will be charged from $29.95 to $54.90 a month, based on data consumption and desired connection speed. Customers will be charged $1 for each gigabyte (GB) over their plan's cap. Time Warner Cable offers four cap levels of 5, 10, 20, and 40 GB. A download of a high-definition movie typically eats up about 8 GB. A recent report from Sanford C. Bernstein suggests that a family on the 40 GB plan that streams 7.25 hours of online video a week (a fraction of the 60 hours Americans spend watching TV in a week) could end up spending $200 per month on broadband usage fees. And that's just for video viewing, before factoring in such Internet activities as music downloads and photo sharing. "To put it mildly," says Bernstein analyst Craig Moffett, "the decision to limit data consumption can be expected to have profound implications for [consumer] behavior."

But Time Warner says most people are not using that much data. The company's trial in Beaumont, Tex., lasted several months. Of the 10,000 broadband customers enrolled—about 25% of the company's total for Beaumont—about 14% exceeded their cap and had to pay additional fees that averaged about $19 a month. Time Warner Cable also discovered that the top 25% of users consumed 100 times more data than the bottom 25% of users, suggesting an enormous gap in usage patterns.

A 40GB cap at the top tier? Laughable. TW is trying to get a piece of the movie-download pie from Netflix, amazon, etc. "Use our service instead and it wont count against your 40GB usage."

I will try hard to find an alternate to TWC if this goes into effect for me.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:44 pm

Aha, I am right:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownew....-101655

As usual, Britt tries to suggest that Time Warner Cable's existing flat-rate pricing model isn't "viable" enough to fund essential infrastructure upgrades. That's simply not the case. The company has been very profitable under the flat-rate model, and they've consistently found creative new ways to generate additional income, such as with DNS redirection advertising, which creates a revenue stream out of your URL typing mistakes.

In reality, Britt is pursuing metered billing because it gives him a way to monetize and/or control Internet video, which poses a very serious long term threat to his cable television revenues. The pressure to shift to metered billing also comes from investors, who obviously love the idea of charging consumers more money for the same (or less) service in an age where the cost of bandwidth and network hardware continues to drop. Keep in mind that Time Warner Cable has yet to officially announce DOCSIS 3.0 upgrades in a single market.

Post by **GORDON** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:43 pm

Someone at the DSLReports forums looked up Time Warner Cable's 10-k reports:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22213854-

So I looked at TW's 10-K form and noticed something interesting... their cost to provide broadband service has decreased about 11% since the year before. Yes, you heard that right.

In 2007, TW made $3,730 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $164 Million to support the cost of the network. 2007 total profit on high speed data: $3.566 Billion

In 2008, TW made $4,159 Million, on high speed data alone, and then had to turn around and spend $146 Million to support the cost of the network. 2008 total profit on high speed data: $4.013 Billion

It cost TW 11% less money in 2008, to keep their network running, than in 2007. Their cost to deliver network connectivity to each user has dropped as they highlight here:

"High-speed data costs consist of the direct costs associated with the delivery of high-speed data services, including network connectivity costs. High-speed data costs decreased primarily due to a decrease in per-subscriber connectivity costs, partially offset by growth in subscribers and usage per subscriber."

Because TW is defending this tiered pricing by telling peeps the cost of providing internet is going up...

Also, getting the same service from TWC that you get right now is going to cost you an additional $100/month over the $50ish you pay right now:

http://www.eweek.com/c....-668524

In addition to 5, 10, 20 and 40GB caps, the company said this week that it would offer a 100GB tier for heavy users. Prices (so far) would range from $29.95 to $75.00 a month, and users would be charged an extra dollar for every additional gigabyte they download, up to a maximum of $75. An “unlimited” bandwidth plan, therefore, tops out at $150.

My current plan is that if I can't find an alternative and I need to bump up how much I pay for internet, I am dropping down my Time Warner television package to just basic, and I will build a media center and start downloading the shows I want from hulu, netflix, amazon, etc. If I need to pay $75 more for cable, I will reduce my television package by $75 and shift the TV load to my newly expensive bandwidth.

The good news is, if I pay the $75/month top tier and go on vacation for a couple weeks and not use any additional bandwidth, my internet bill will be cheaper that month.

Hell, might drop TW tv completely ad go dish network, because fuck time warner.

Edited By GORDON on 1239414238

Post by **TheCatt** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:09 pm

We went Dish last Fall. I really like it. We have the lowest tier HD package, and that's all we need.

Post by **GORDON** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:13 pm

I'd still like ala carte channels, though. I will never, ever watch 75% of the tv channels for which I am paying.

Post by **TheCatt** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:45 pm

Yeah, but the most watched ones are the most expensive ones. Although, you're not so much on sports, (ESPN being the most expensive channel), so maybe you'd save money just watching Lifetime and O.

Post by **GORDON** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:48 pm

I'D LOVE to be able to get rid of all the sports channels. And most of the news channels.

Post by **TheCatt** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:45 am

I watch three channels on satellite: ESPN, ESPN2, and CNBC. I've watched Disney a couple of times with the kid when she was sick, but that's about it.

Post by **GORDON** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:21 am

All of the home shopping channels.

Lose them, that is.

Anything in Spanish.

Post by **Leisher** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:55 pm

I'm not sure I'm want ala carte channels.

Sure, the home shopping and spanish stuff never gets watched, but occasionally while channel surfing I'll find something on a channel I never watch that I want to check out.

Post by **Troy** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:34 pm

Leisher wrote:I'm not sure I'm want ala carte channels.

Sure, the home shopping and spanish stuff never gets watched, but occasionally while channel surfing I'll find something on a channel I never watch that I want to check out.

spanish bewbs.

Post by **TheCatt** » Sun Apr 12, 2009 1:03 pm

I never have time to surf.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:39 am

Time Warner to FCC : Move along, nothing to see here.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 12:48 pm

Fuck them. They're just trying to get their grubby hands on federal dollars with as few responsibilities attached as possible. If they don't want to follow whatever rules are decided on they can just not take the money, it's that simple.

When did all these major corporations become whiney little bitches, anyway? What the hell?

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:10 pm

TPRJones wrote:Fuck them. They're just trying to get their grubby hands on federal dollars with as few responsibilities attached as possible. If they don't want to follow whatever rules are decided on they can just not take the money, it's that simple.

When did all these major corporations become whiney little bitches, anyway? What the hell?

And you know, this is exactly why I feel like I have a right to tell them how to run their business... the fuckers get public funds to use, and still try the "we need to raise prices by 300% or we'll go broke." If they can't run their business with current pricing AND hundred of millions in government funds, then break their monopolies, open their lines to the competition, and let them die.

Post by **Leisher** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:43 pm

If they can't run their business with current pricing AND hundred of millions in government funds, then break their monopolies, open their lines to the competition, and let them die.

Seconded.

That quote should be applied to all business and tattooed on the foreheads of everyone in Congress.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:53 pm

The more & more I read this ...

"Now is not the time, nor is this the appropriate proceeding, to engage in a debate about the need for net neutrality obligations," two TWC lawyers warned the FCC on Monday. The discussion should stay strictly focused on broadband deployment, the company insists. "Debates in this proceeding about new net neutrality regulations would only divert attention from these important goals, delaying the distribution of funds while generating considerable contention when the Commission should instead be fostering a spirit of collaboration."

... the more I just see, "Stop talking. If you start talking, you aren't handing out money."

Time Warner should just send in some tax money next time. We don't want to burden them w\ paperwork or forms or any shit. Just take a vague guess at how much they should pay. If it's not enough, all the execs get shot.

I see their not willing to pay enough taxes as delaying the distribution of funds & not fostering the spirit of unilateral collaboration.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 5:34 pm

That's exactly what they were saying. "Shut up and give us cash." My cash and yours.

Thus my vehemence.

Post by **GORDON** » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:15 pm

TW profits will rise with tiered internet...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009....of-caps