Web Usage-Based Billing on its Way

MediaBuysEyez

dialin' for dollars
Jan 27, 2011
453
1
0
LV, NV
Title says it all:

I am not happy with the possibility of this...What I don't have a good feel for is how likely this will actually be implemented. I'd be curious to hear what others have to say.

Hey FCC!! ---> :nopenope::nopenope::nopenope: <---

Web usage-based billing on its way

The days of watching movies on the cheap via the Web may soon be over.
Time Warner Cable and U.S. pay-TV companies, weighing how to profit from surging Internet demand spurred by Netflix and Hulu, are on the verge of instituting new fees on Web-access customers who use the most data.
At least one major cable operator will institute usage-based billing next year, predicts Craig Moffett, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York. He said Cox Communications, Charter Communications or Time Warner Cable may be first to charge Web-access customers for the amount of data they consume, not just transmission speed.
"As more video shifts to the Web, the cable operators will inevitably align their pricing models," Moffett said. "With the right usage-based pricing plan, they can embrace the transition instead of resisting it."
U.S. providers have weighed usage-based plans for years as a way to squeeze more profit from Web access, and to counter slowing growth and rising program costs in the TV business. While customer complaints hampered earlier attempts, pay-TV companies are testing usage caps and price structures that point to the advent of permanent fees.
According to media researcher SNL Kagan, about 12.1 million U.S. households will receive TV shows and movies from Internet services rather than a traditional pay TV provider by 2015, up from 2.5 million homes at the end of 2010.
Cable's best option is to find ways to profit from the online shift, said Moffett. If the companies were to lose all of their video customers, the revenue decline would be more than offset by a lower programming fees and set-top box spending.
"In the end, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the cable industry," Moffett said.
Web demand

While demand for Web service grows, cable operators are battling to preserve profit in the mature pay-TV business and withstand competition from satellite carrier DirecTV, Verizon Communications' FiOS and AT&T's U-Verse.
The incentives to focus on Web access are compelling. Cable's broadband gross margins are about 95 percent versus 60 percent for video, according to Moffett. As programming costs increase nearly 10 percent a year, video margins are crimped, he said.
AT&T, based in Dallas, charges digital subscriber line, or DSL, customers who exceed a monthly limit of 150 gigabytes in three consecutive months $10 extra for every additional 50 gigabytes of data they use.
Suddenlink, with about 1.4 million customers, began instituting usage caps in some markets in October. Users pay $10 for each 50 gigabytes they use over their monthly allowance.
Data usage is surging by almost 50 percent a year, Chief Executive Officer Jerry Kent said. Suddenlink's broadband revenue rose 12 percent in the third quarter, versus a 1.6 percent gain from pay TV.
"Our video business is challenged," Kent said. "My broadband margins are double my video margins."
Movie quotas

Comcast, the cable provider for much of the Bay Area, has instituted caps large enough that most customers aren't affected. Comcast does not charge overage fees, nor does it have near-term plans to charge subscribers based on consumption, according to Comcast spokeswoman Jennifer Khoury.
The standard cap for Comcast is 250 gigabytes per month. That's enough for a household to send or receive 12,000 one-page e-mails and watch 60 standard-definition movies with excess capacity for other tasks.
Netflix protests

Netflix steers customers with enough bandwidth toward high-definition movies, which soak up about double the data. Charging by Web usage, cable companies may discourage customers from dropping traditional pay-TV service and slow the growth of Netflix, Hulu and an expanding list of online alternatives, Moffett said.
The possibility of usage-based pricing has brought protests from Los Gatos-based Netflix and warnings from Charlie Ergen, chairman of rival Dish Network, which operates the Blockbuster movie-rental business. "That Netflix subscription of $7.99 could go to an extra $20 a month for bit streaming," Ergen said, making a total monthly subscription "the equivalent of $27.99."
Consumption-based pricing is anticompetitive if the goal of broadband providers is to boost revenue by diminishing the value of rivals, wrote Netflix General Counsel David Hyman in a July Wall Street Journal editorial.
The practice "is not in the consumer's best interest as consumers deserve unfettered access to a robust Internet at reasonable rates," said Steve Swasey, a Netflix spokesman.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski publicly supported usage-based pricing in December, a victory for cable companies concerned that usage-based billing would run afoul of net neutrality rules prohibiting Internet services from favoring one form of content for another.
 


Yeah, but there is more to this than just Hulu and NetFlix users. I don't use either and now I'll pay per usage instead of a flat rate? To me that sucks.

lol @ netflix complaining about their little gravy train coming to an abrupt halt.

Why the fuck should Time Warner subsidise them?
 
MY AOL PLAN GIVES ME 40 HOURS A MONTH SO IT WILL NOT EFFECT TO ME! BWAA HA AH!

I looked at your post, then at your avatar and cracked a smile.

Laughing_black_man_with_aol_laugh_hahahaha.jpg
 
The standard cap for Comcast is 250 gigabytes per month. That's enough for a household to send or receive 12,000 one-page e-mails

WTF kind of emails are these people sending? A full page of text is 2-3kb. Let's be generous and say 5kb. That means 200 emails = 1MB, and 250 gig is something like 50,000,000 emails.

Plus, everyone knows that about 2/3 of emails are about 1 sentence long.
 
lol @ netflix complaining about their little gravy train coming to an abrupt halt.

Why the fuck should Time Warner subsidise them?

It's not about Netflix being subsidized. It's about Big Content not learning how to adapt to changing markets and wanting to keep maintaining their business models. If you notice, every Cable and Movie-based company that also has an Internet option started charging for usage and implementing caps. This does several things:


  1. Limits their expenses in new infrastructure
  2. Gets additional revenue
  3. Puts strain on their competition or removes their competition all-to-gether
This is all about them not wanting to change their revenue models. But, just like SOPA/PIPA, etc. in the end it stifles any future innovations and kills millions of jobs when our country cannot compete globally by offering new technologies - because the Internet is how you compete globally.

Countries in Europe and Asia have been getting 1GPS speeds with no usage cap for years. Hell, Japan has been streaming their television to their phones since the 90's. It's only "new" to us within the last couple of years because Internet services pulled the wool from our eyes. Imagine where we would have been if back in the 90's we didn't have the FCC to regulate and create pseudo-monopolies in the Infrastructure industries?

2011 is the year for regression in the USA. Sad, sad, sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guerilla and WTFlux
Canada just went thru this and the bill was pushed back. There were half a million signatures (a lot for Canada). Need to act. Wake up. Donate to the organization that steps up and win. We did it. You can too.
 
It's not about Netflix being subsidized. It's about Big Content not learning how to adapt to changing markets and wanting to keep maintaining their business models. If you notice, every Cable and Movie-based company that also has an Internet option started charging for usage and implementing caps. This does several things:


  1. Limits their expenses in new infrastructure
  2. Gets additional revenue
  3. Puts strain on their competition or removes their competition all-to-gether
This is all about them not wanting to change their revenue models. But, just like SOPA/PIPA, etc. in the end it stifles any future innovations and kills millions of jobs when our country cannot compete globally by offering new technologies - because the Internet is how you compete globally.

Countries in Europe and Asia have been getting 1GPS speeds with no usage cap for years. Hell, Japan has been streaming their television to their phones since the 90's. It's only "new" to us within the last couple of years because Internet services pulled the wool from our eyes. Imagine where we would have been if back in the 90's we didn't have the FCC to regulate and create pseudo-monopolies in the Infrastructure industries?

2011 is the year for regression in the USA. Sad, sad, sad.


^^^ This. Plus Rep
 
mine is 250 GB w/ comcast

I used up 205 GB this month with almost constant streaming of tv shows/movies/documentaries/video games while i worked.
 
just like SOPA/PIPA, etc. in the end it stifles any future innovations and kills millions of jobs when our country cannot compete globally by offering new technologies - because the Internet is how you compete globally.

this exactly, and passing sopa pretty much works hand in hand with sealing the deal for bandwidth use charging models. No coincidence both issues are pushing hard at the same time.

250 gig is something like 50,000,000 emails.

Pretty sure there are people on this forum who eat 250 gigs a day for breakfast on a regular basis.
 
We don't have that shit in the UK, unlimited with cable companys means unlimited, no caps.
 
Actions have consequences as I pointed out to all the net neutrality fanboys a couple of weeks ago when I said this would be the next step. Tell companies they do not have the power to regulate their networks and of course we go to tiered pricing by usage instead of pipe size, only logical.

Next step will be that some states (probably starting with California) will make it illegal for companies to do this, then the base prices will go up for everyone and the state will tell them they can not do that either at which point the companies just plain stop investing in infrastructure all together. If you want to see the future path for this just take a look at what has happened to the state of electrical production/transmission in California over the course of the last 20 years.
 
A fun/interesting pro tip about our friends at the cable companies. And artists formerly known as RBOCs to a certain degree. You can get 100mbps in your home from Comcast for a mere $200 a month. However with their 250gig transfer cap, you could burn through that in 6 hours at 100mbps. The real punchline: Comcast's bandwidth costs are well under one cent per gig of transfer. They peer with folks like Google, Facebook, and Yahoo so essentially all they pay for is the wire.

So to recap, Comcast charges you up to $200 for as little as $2.50 worth of product, and they want to cry about subsidizing Hulu and Netflix.

wat
 
WTF kind of emails are these people sending? A full page of text is 2-3kb. Let's be generous and say 5kb. That means 200 emails = 1MB, and 250 gig is something like 50,000,000 emails.

Plus, everyone knows that about 2/3 of emails are about 1 sentence long.

It's all the uncompressed pictures of cats with pomelos on their heads.
pomelo-rind-on-cat.jpg