<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/time_warner_metered_internet_trial/>:

----- Begin Quote -----

Time Warner Cable is two days away from rolling out metered internet
service in the Gulf Coast town of Beaumont, Texas.

In January, Broadband Reports leaked a Time Warner memo that discussed
this "consumption based billing" trial, and yesterday, in an interview
with the Associated Press, the company finally announced the details.

[...]

Beginning this Thursday, company spokesman Alex Dudley tells us, new
Beaumont customers will be forced to choose a monthly bandwidth cap:
5-, 20-, or 40GB. Pricing plans will range from $29.95 a month for a
5GB cap and 768kbps download speeds to $54.90 for a 40GB cap at
15mbps. There's also a 10GB cap option, but that's only available
alongside phone and TV service.

If customers exceed their bandwidth cap - which covers uploads as well
as downloads - they'll be charged an extra $1 per extra gigabyte.
"It's just a like a cell phone plan," Dudley says. And they can track
their usage via a "gas gauge" on the company's web site.

----- End Quote -----
--
Martin Jay

In news:37.1212529247.20080603@spam-free.org.uk,
Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
:
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/time_warner_metered_internet_trial/>:
:
: ----- Begin Quote -----
:
: Time Warner Cable is two days away from rolling out metered internet
: service in the Gulf Coast town of Beaumont, Texas.

[snip]

Relevance to UK.telecom.broadband, please..?

(Hint - it's in the group title)


Ivor

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:6am3mlF37vtqpU1@mid.individual.net...
The relevance being that it'll be rolled out here (in the UK) sooner or
later. The existing unmetered model isn't sustainable - more especially now
with the prevalence of MOIP and TVIP
What Time Warner are rolling out is known as the "Australian model", as it's
how many skippys have been paying for their 'net access for several years.
It's by far the fairest way of charging for 'net access, as it means the
likes of me and you would no longer pay the same rate as some halfwit
chewing up 1-2TB of data a month running a FTP / P2P server.

This subject was discussed in depth a year or two back on this NG. Google is
your friend.


Hint - take your head out of the sand.

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 00:50:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:
What is? The relevance to uk.telecom.broadband? Hmmm.

I made it extremely clear in the subject that the article concerns the
US. Hint: US refers to United States (of America).

Relevance to the UK? I thought it was interesting to see how an ISP
in one of the most Internet friendly countries in the world is dealing
with 'bandwidth abusers.' UK ISPs seem to be constantly whinging
about a small percentage of customers who use more than their fair
share of 'bandwidth.' Some already use the PAYG broadband model, but
others rely on traffic shaping and throttling.

I also thought the pricing was interesting: "Pricing plans will range
from $29.95 a month for a 5GB cap and 768kbps download speeds...,"
plus $1 for each extra GByte. Many UK broadband customers would
consider that expensive for what's offered.
--
Martin Jay

"Gizmo." wrote:

And more recently still.

The 'one size fits all' model is barking mad and just ends up pissing off everyone
eventually. The marketing guys like it of course since they can quote low 'headline'
prices and then you get stuck with throttling, shaping and god knows what else.

But not with Idnet of course ! ;~)

Graham

Martin Jay wrote:

Yes, blows the lid on the myth that UK internet provision is slow and overpriced.

Grahama

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:42:36 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Australian figures are a real eye opener:
<http://bc.whirlpool.net.au/bc/?action=list>.

In The Register's comments someone mentioned BigPond charge customers
$150 (about GBP75) per GByte for going over their allowance. I
couldn't believe it, but this page suggests it's true
<http://my.bigpond.com/internetplans/broadband/adsl/plansandoffers/default.jsp>:

$29.95 (GBP15, which is what many people in the UK pay) a month for
256kbps upstream and 64kbps downstream, with an usage allowance of
200MBytes. Additional MBytes cost $0.15 each.

On the other side of the coin, a friend in Sweden has an Internet
connection that's probably faster than that of everyone in my village
put together. 100MBits/sec for (I believe) under GBP30 a month
<http://tinyurl.com/65xfnj>.

--
Martin Jay

In news:7Sr1k.19828$yb3.8343@newsfe18.ams2,
Gizmo. <admin@skyhighrecruit.info> typed, for some strange, unexplained
reason:
: "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
: news:6am3mlF37vtqpU1@mid.individual.net...
: > In news:37.1212529247.20080603@spam-free.org.uk,
: > Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> typed, for some strange,
: > unexplained reason:
: > :
: >
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/03/time_warner_metered_internet_trial/>:
: > :
: > : ----- Begin Quote -----
: > :
: > : Time Warner Cable is two days away from rolling out metered
: > : internet service in the Gulf Coast town of Beaumont, Texas.
: >
: > [snip]
: >
: > Relevance to UK.telecom.broadband, please..?
:
: The relevance being that it'll be rolled out here (in the UK) sooner
: or later. The existing unmetered model isn't sustainable - more
: especially now with the prevalence of MOIP and TVIP
: What Time Warner are rolling out is known as the "Australian model",
: as it's how many skippys have been paying for their 'net access for
: several years. It's by far the fairest way of charging for 'net
: access, as it means the likes of me and you would no longer pay the
: same rate as some halfwit chewing up 1-2TB of data a month running a
: FTP / P2P server.

But would it mean me paying more than I do now, that's the question.

: This subject was discussed in depth a year or two back on this NG.
: Google is your friend.

No it isn't.

: > (Hint - it's in the group title)
:
: Hint - take your head out of the sand.

Ah, insults. It'll be swearing next. That won't work either.

Ivor

The most logical model is a standing tariff plus
PAYG, just like other utilities, the more electricity,
gas, water, phone calls, you make/use, the more
you pay. So the GB per day downloaders, gamers,
etc pay more.
It tends to fall down when the big players buy
out the small high quality of service providers.
They then get obsessed with profits, fail to
invest in adequate infrastructure (in the case
of ISP's backhaul bandwidth), and spend revenue
that should be invested in infrastructure on
advertising, because the bean counters think it
is the best business model.
Well yes it is for the shareholders and board
members on fat salaries, with final salary
pension schemes, private health care and
other perks.

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message
news:6ao1lrF3770d2U1@mid.individual.net...
Depends really.
Do you use your 'net connection to check emails once a day, or do you run
the connection flat out serving a 3TB/month porn server.
Or maybe something somewhere inbetween.


Oh, that wasnt an insult ... although they can be arranged.

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
I think the critical difference is that whereas no consumer can
reaslistically consume so much gas or electricity that his neighbours
get deprived, the bandwidth available in local exchanges / routers or
whatever is finite and /can/ be maxed out.

I don't think this is a big/small provider thing. I think its simply a
matter of how many customers they have. If you only have 1000 customers
in total its easy to buy enough local bandwidth. If you have 1,000,000
customers it becomes significantly harder.

Sorry to say, most such perks are long gone. Board members get a cash
payoff and non-execs don't get fringe benefits (plus they're taxable).

Gizmo. wrote:

Who cares? I hope you are soon charged to breathe.

In newsqkoh5-lmi.ln1@quarkbomb.dyndns.org,
Cork Soaker <Thunderbird@Hardy.invalid> typed, for some strange,
unexplained reason:
: Gizmo. wrote:
:
: > Depends really.
: > Do you use your 'net connection to check emails once a day, or do
: > you run the connection flat out serving a 3TB/month porn server.
: > Or maybe something somewhere inbetween.
:
: Who cares? I hope you are soon charged to breathe.

In your case I'd charge treble and cut off your supply if you go over your
allocated amount for the month.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
Aahahahahahaha, you're very very clever. Tool.

mymail@hotmail.com wrote:
of their what? Who are you talking about genius?