BlackChampagne Home

In association with Amazon.comBuy Crap! I get 5%.
Direct donations to cover hosting expenses are also accepted.

Site Information
--What is Black Champagne?
--Cast of Characters & Things
--Your First Time.
--Design Notes
--Quote of the Day Archive
--Phrase of the Moment Archive
--Site Feedback
--Contact/Copyright Info

Blog Archives
--Blogger Archives: June 2005-
--Old Monthly Archives: Jan 2002-May 2005

Reviews Section
Movie Reviews (153)

Ten Most Recent Film Reviews:
--Infernal Affairs -- 5.5
--The Protector/Tom Yum Goong -- 6
--The Limey -- 8
--The Descent -- 6
--Oldboy -- 9.5
--Shaolin Deadly Kicks -- 7
--Mission Impossible III -- 7.5
--V for Vendetta -- 8.5
--Ghost in the Shell 2 -- 8
--Night Watch -- 7.5

Book Reviews (76)
Five Most Recent Book Reviews:
--Cat People -- 4
--Attack Poodles -- 5
--Caught Stealing -- 6
--The Dirt, by Motley Crue -- 7.5
--Harry Potter #6 -- 7

Photos Section
--Flux Photos
--Pet Photos (7 pages)
--Home Decor Photos
--Plant Photos
--Vacation Photos (12 pages)

Articles
See all 234 articles here.

Fiction
Original horror and fantasy short stories.

Mail Bags
Index Page

Features
--Links
--Slang: Internet
--Slang: Dirty
--Slang: Wankisms
--Slang: Sex Acts
--Slang: Fulldeckisms
--Hot or Not?
--Truths in Advertising

Band Name Ratings
(350 Rock Bands Listed)
FAQ -- Feedback
A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- X -- Y -- Z

Hellgate: London
--The Unofficial HGL Site
--The Hellgate Wiki

Diablo II
--The Unofficial Site
--Flux's Decahedron
--Middle Earth Mod

Locations of visitors to this page

Powered by Blogger.

BlackChampagne -- no longer new; improvement also in question.: Pay per byte



Monday, June 16, 2008  

Pay per byte


I haven't checked to see, but if this story isn't perfectly designed to generate an outraged 50,000 post new thread on Slashdot and Fark, I don't know what would. Bill Gates buying Google and Firefox, maybe? Anyway, the news is that TimeWarner is going to start charging by the byte for internet access. Higher rates for people who download more. Comcast and AT&T are following suit, through trying slightly different approaches.
Time Warner also frames the issue in financial terms: the broadband infrastructure needs to be improved, it says, and maybe metering could pay for the upgrades. So far its trial is limited to new subscribers in Beaumont, Tex., a city of roughly 110,000. In that trial, new customers can buy plans with a 5-gigabyte cap, a 20-gigabyte cap or a 40-gigabyte cap. Prices for those plans range from $30 to $50. Above the cap, customers pay $1 a gigabyte. Plans with higher caps come with faster service.

...The Time Warner plan has the potential to bring Internet use full circle, back to the days when pay-as-you-go pricing held back the Web’s popularity. In the early days of dial-up access, America Online and other providers offered tiered pricing, in part because audio and video were barely viable online. Consumers feared going over their allotted time and bristled at the idea that access to cyberspace was billed by the hour.

In 1996, when AOL started offering unlimited access plans, Internet use took off and the online world started moving to the center of people’s daily lives. Today most Internet packages provide a seemingly unlimited amount of capacity, at least from the consumer’s perspective.

But like water and electricity, even digital resources are finite. Last year Comcast disclosed that it was temporarily turning off the connections of customers who used file-sharing services like BitTorrent, arguing that they were slowing things down for everyone else. The people who got cut off complained and asked how much broadband use was too much; the company did not have a ready answer. Thus, like Time Warner, Comcast is considering a form of Internet metering that would apply to all online activity.
The article quotes TimeWarner saying that 95% of their users don't go anywhere near the 40gig/month cap, and that effectively those 95% are subsidizing the usage of the other 5%. Naturally, there's no mention of lowering prices for low bandwidth users while raising them on bit torrenters and online gamers. Also, while the article does (very briefly) mention file sharing and online gaming, there's not a single mention of porn, despite the well-documented fact that porn accounts for 40-80% of total bandwidth consumption online. (Probably less than that now, since those estimates were from several years ago, before YouTube and Hulu RedLasso and streaming video sites really took off.)

If this becomes the industry standard, it could have an interesting effect on a lot of online businesses, including online gaming. If you're paying $1 a gig and 4 hours of WoW burns 10gig... that's going to add up in a goddamned hurry. Online games would have to start considering bandwidth delivery in their programming, perhaps offering the option of lower resolution graphics and less detailed game worlds, the way people used to have to turn down the image quality to make games playable on slow computers, or over dial up.

Still, internet use by the gig isn't going to cripple the industry; plenty of people in countries outside the US still pay by the byte (NZ and Oz, for instance) and they aren't exactly boycotting YouTube and surfing with all the images blocked. Besides, do you really need to continue clicking every single cute/funny video link you see? Of course not, not if our corporate overlords tell us not to.

Labels: ,

Comments:

Online gaming doesn't use anywhere near as much as what you're postulating.

I haven't played anything online for a long time, but when I did the usage wasn't really noticable at all.

According to this site http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/archive/index.php/t-25072.html many MMORPG games are less than 10mb an hour, whereas FPS shooters where there is lots of fast action and projectiles etc go up to maybe 80mb an hour.

Viewing porn images wouldn't even take up very much bandwidth in the grand scheme of things: I've got 5488 porn pics taking up 528 mbs on the network, vs 44.4 gigs for all the videos (and we don't even have very many).


 

This was just discussed on the WoW forums and it was stated that in non heavily populated areas of the game it can use as little as 2MB/hour of bandwidth.


 

In Ireland, broadband packages are sold according to speed/download limit. For example, I have a 3MB/20GB package. It's not a problem. I'm a fairly heavy user, but it's still rare that I have to curtail my use. When I do, it's just "I'll wait until the start of next month to download those videos"

Most people who aren't that into computers can get a 2MB/10GB connection, look at movie trailers all day, play their MMORPGs an unhealthy amount, stay up until 4 in the morning watching porn, and still not exceed their limit.


 

I game a LOT, along with using VOIP pretty much constantly while doing so, and my bandwith usage is about 9 Gigs a month. I used to pay for bandwith, and though it sucked it didn't change my surfing behaviour much actually.

So yeah, the only people affected by this are the people seeding torrents 24/7, not a bad thing in my opinion.


 

I suspect that bandwidth ISPs are in a trouble spot; they want more customers to earn more money, but the United State's less-than-perfect internet infrastructure makes giving high speed to everyone who pays for it near impossible. Like, if everyone went to the bank at once to take out all their cash, said bank would be screwed. ISP's rely on people turning off their PC's and heading to bed, and love customers who pay 50 bucks a month for high speed when all they do is share emails and read the news.

It's basic business practice, but what happens when everyone starts demanding what they paid for? If the ISP can't keep up, are lawsuits in order? And what good would a lawsuit do if your provider still can't give you more power? As users understand more about computers and knowledge of networking, byte usage, and hardware becomes as commonplace as understanding vehicle gas mileage or the percent of real fruit in that juice you're drinking, outwitting the consumer will be much more difficult.


 

Post a Comment << Home

Archives

May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2012  

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.