Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Time-Warner slaps $10 surcharge on iTunes movies?

destinyland (578448) writes | more than 6 years ago

The Internet 4

destinyland writes "Time-Warner wants to charge a per-gigabyte fee. A leaked memo reveals they're now watching how many gigabytes customers use in a "consumption-based" pricing experiment in Texas. "As few as 5 percent of our customers use 50 percent of the network," Time-Warner complains, mulling plans to cap usage at 5-gigabytes, with more expensive pricing plans granting 10-, 20-, and 40-gigabyte quotas. Steven Levy suggests Time-Warner's real aim is to hobble iTunes, raising the cost of a movie download by $10 (or $30 for a high-definition movie). Eyeing Time-Warner's experiment, Comcast cable also says they're evaluating a pay-per-gigabyte model."
Link to Original Source

cancel ×

4 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pay-per-GB makes sense... (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 6 years ago | (#22295808)

...but shouldn't it be more like $10/mo/mbit ($1000/mo for 100 mbit, low-end wholesale price I saw quoted somewhere a while ago) = $10/(mbit * 3600*24*30 / 8) = $10/(GB * 2592) = $.004/GB, plus a reasonably large (25x) markup to maybe $0.10/GB?

Also, I would like to note that the price in the title is from Bell Canada ($7.50/GB). I don't see anything about what TimeWarner and Comcast are thinking about charging (so it's probably even more ridiculous).

Re:Pay-per-GB makes sense... (1)

burne (686114) | more than 6 years ago | (#22298486)

4/10ths of a cent is a bit cheap. You're probably comparing prices from a xDSL or cable-company who's selling low to balance their traffic. To get those prices you need to do *outgoing* traffic, and the company you're buying from is doing *incoming* traffic in spades. No use for a cable-company.

Even then: keep the $0.10/Gbyte as an indication of prices one might pay,

Re:Pay-per-GB makes sense... (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 6 years ago | (#22299896)

No, I was specifically thinking of these people [cogentco.com] , who last I saw were making a big deal about selling access at $1K/mo/100Mbit (or IIRC 3x that if you wanted to resell the bandwidth). Looking them up again I don't see any mention of prices now, maybe they decided that rate wasn't profitable...

I like this idea (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 6 years ago | (#22299264)

I like charging per bandwidth usage. It's just like how we're billed for electricity. Metered usage encourages consumers to conserve bandwidth, and it also encourages ISPs to continually improve their networks while lowering prices.

I just hope that "the invisible hand of the market" keeps prices affordable.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>