Recommended Posts

Hadn't seen this posted here...

TWC New Consumption Rates

Web users, the meter is running. In a strategy that's likely to rankle consumers but be copied by competitors, Time Warner Cable (TWC) is pressing ahead with a plan to charge Internet customers based on how much Web data they consume. Starting next month, the company will introduce tiered pricing in several markets.

In April, Time Warner Cable will begin collecting information on its customers' Internet use in the Texas cities of Austin and San Antonio and in Rochester, N.Y. Consumption billing will begin in those cities later this summer. In Greensboro, N.C., the billing changes will begin sooner. Spun off from Time Warner (TWX) this month, Time Warner Cable had been testing a plan to meter Internet usage in Beaumont, Tex., since last year.

By charging a premium to the heaviest broadband users, much the same way cell-phone providers collect fees from subscribers who exceed their allotted minutes, Time Warner would upend a longstanding pricing strategy among Internet service providers. Typically, phone and cable companies charge flat fees for unlimited access to the Web. "We need a viable model to be able to support the infrastructure of the broadband business," Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt says in an interview. "We made a mistake early on by not defining our business based on the consumption dimension." Time Warner Cable has 8.4 million broadband customers.

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.

Comcast: A Warning, Then No Service

As more and more people download TV shows and movies, particularly those in high-definition, broadband networks are facing enormous strain, providers say. Time Warner Cable has said its strategy is intended to alleviate some of that strain. But critics worry that the pricing will discourage broadband use and impede new online media businesses before they even have a chance to flourish.

AT&T (T) is currently conducting its own broadband pricing trial, also in Beaumont. Comcast (CMCSA), the nation's largest cable operator, has taken a different approach, capping residential bandwidth usage at 250 GB a month. Customers who exceed it get a warning phone call from Comcast. A further problem can get a subscription canceled.

For Time Warner Cable's Britt, instituting broadband pricing is a bold move just as he takes the helm of a newly independent company. Fully spun off from Time Warner, the cable company's shares started trading on Mar. 30. Britt's first big challenge may be to sell the upsides of aggressive broadband pricing to his investors. "It's an intriguing idea if you didn't have such a competitive landscape out there," says Rich Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Research. "There are so many other alternatives for consumers when it comes to broadband."

Edited by lawtai
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/754328-twc-consumption-rates/
Share on other sites

TWC really needs to be sued to hell and back--twice. They are one of those most corrupt and inept corporations in America. TWC is a government-protected monopoly in areas they control, there is no other choice of cable provider in those areas! The city gives TWC its license for exclusive coverage and restricts any competition in those areas for cable service, the government should control TWC's prices so that they are competitive, or step in and end this practice of exclusive licensing deals.

I could understand the tiers, but the limits they have of 5, 10, 20, 40GB a month are ridiculous. All they're doing there is trying to price gouge everyone.

What are you complaining about - in most countries the tiered pricing structure is the accepted norm - NZ did dabble in the 'flat rate' but found that it ended up clogging up the system; why should millions of dollars be spend on capital to upgrade networks because of a small number who go over board - thus force the everyone else to subsidise them?

I have a 10GB allowance with TelstraClear for NZ$55 - and I'm quite happy with it. Instead of downloading crap - ask yourself, "do I really need it?".

What are you complaining about - in most countries the tiered pricing structure is the accepted norm - NZ did dabble in the 'flat rate' but found that it ended up clogging up the system; why should millions of dollars be spend on capital to upgrade networks because of a small number who go over board - thus force the everyone else to subsidise them?

I have a 10GB allowance with TelstraClear for NZ$55 - and I'm quite happy with it. Instead of downloading crap - ask yourself, "do I really need it?".

LOL, just because other places have caps mean we should to? Dont blame anyone else for the fact that you allowed these companies to **** on you.

I'm with TW and 40GB is nothing. They aren't getting any money from newer video services like XBL Marketplace or Netflix Instant Watch, so they're going to price gouge the areas that don't have competition. Why don't they try this in NYC, LA or Chicago? Are they going to drop prices for the unused GB? My guess is hell no. They figure that since cell phone companies can charge .25 per text, that they can do the same and get away with it.

LOL, just because other places have caps mean we should to? Dont blame anyone else for the fact that you allowed these companies to **** on you.

If you failed to realise, these are businesses not charities - or do you want obama to nationalise all the ISP's and offer free internet access as a 'fundamental human right' or something?

If you failed to realise, these are businesses not charities - or do you want obama to nationalise all the ISP's and offer free internet access as a 'fundamental human right' or something?

The power of a dollar is pretty strong. If you dont like what they are doing take your dollar elsewhere, they will get the point pretty quick.

What are you complaining about - in most countries the tiered pricing structure is the accepted norm - NZ did dabble in the 'flat rate' but found that it ended up clogging up the system; why should millions of dollars be spend on capital to upgrade networks because of a small number who go over board - thus force the everyone else to subsidise them?

I have a 10GB allowance with TelstraClear for NZ$55 - and I'm quite happy with it. Instead of downloading crap - ask yourself, "do I really need it?".

Yeah, the difference is I currently pay US$65 a month (BEFORE taxes and fees), which according to http://www.xe.com/ucc/ is somewhere around double what you are paying. So, now, on top of paying double what you are paying, I'm gonna have to tack on extra for usage?

And what do you think this is going to do for companies providing purchases like Steam? Or other online purchase downloads. Games nowadays run in the 5-10 gig range.

What happens when I get something 90% downloaded and the connection drops? You can bet they are still gonna charge me for that incomplete download, after all, it's a business, not a charity!

And believe it or not, they SHOULD have to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their networks, it's call PROGRESS. The technology changes, and with it the demands on bandwidth change. But let me let you in on a little secret. You know where they get the millions of dollars to upgrade their networks? That's right, from customers paying their bill! So you bet I expect them to invest in upgrading their networks. If these companies were hurting so bad for money, they wouldn't be so large.

They aren't doing this to reduce congestion, they are doing it to try to find a way to maintain their profit levels in a difficult economic time.

And as far as wanting Obama to nationalize ISPs, do you realize that 7.2 BILLION of the US Stimulus package is going towards expanding broadband availability? That's right, the government is paying for these very network upgrades, not the corporations.

Yeah, the difference is I currently pay US$65 a month (BEFORE taxes and fees), which according to http://www.xe.com/ucc/ is somewhere around double what you are paying. So, now, on top of paying double what you are paying, I'm gonna have to tack on extra for usage?

And what do you think this is going to do for companies providing purchases like Steam? Or other online purchase downloads. Games nowadays run in the 5-10 gig range.

What happens when I get something 90% downloaded and the connection drops? You can bet they are still gonna charge me for that incomplete download, after all, it's a business, not a charity!

And believe it or not, they SHOULD have to spend millions of dollars to upgrade their networks, it's call PROGRESS. The technology changes, and with it the demands on bandwidth change. But let me let you in on a little secret. You know where they get the millions of dollars to upgrade their networks? That's right, from customers paying their bill! So you bet I expect them to invest in upgrading their networks. If these companies were hurting so bad for money, they wouldn't be so large.

They aren't doing this to reduce congestion, they are doing it to try to find a way to maintain their profit levels in a difficult economic time.

And as far as wanting Obama to nationalize ISPs, do you realize that 7.2 BILLION of the US Stimulus package is going towards expanding broadband availability? That's right, the government is paying for these very network upgrades, not the corporations.

Then maybe they should have rolled out a completely publicly owned fibre to home network and the lease out access to ISP's instead of doing what they're doing - handing over US$7.2billion that'll provide nothing in the way of improved network capacity and service.

Then maybe they should have rolled out a completely publicly owned fibre to home network and the lease out access to ISP's instead of doing what they're doing - handing over US$7.2billion that'll provide nothing in the way of improved network capacity and service.

the goverment already gave these companies money to update their networks with fibre, long before the stimulus.

<<<<<<<The kid that is currently having to live off of wireless 3g broadband and 5GB of data a month. You kinda learn to prioritize your net usage. Things like buying games off steam are bye bye. I'll let you know some time next millennium when I feel sorry for anyone's internet predicament.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!