Your browser is not supported at this time.

Browser identifier: msn
Browser version: 9.0
Browser major version: 9
Browser minor version: 0
Browser engine: msie
Browser engine version: 6.0
Full user agent string: mozilla/4.0 (compatible; msie 6.0; windows nt 5.1; msn 9.0;msn 9.1;msn 9.6; msnbmsni; msnmen-us; msncia)
Operating system identifier: win
Operating system version: xp
Is Flash installed? Yes
Flash version: 9
Are popups allowed for this site? Yes
Newest version of Javascript supported by this browser? 1.3

Supported Browsers:

name: msie; minimum version: 6.0; maximum version: 7.0
name: firefox; minimum version: 2.0
name: mozilla; minimum version: 2.0
name: safari; minimum version: 3.0

When I called them, they told me that I should get Earthlink browser.

Paying for internet access is so 1990.

The reason Time Warner, and other ISP’s, have considered this model is due to utilization. Average internet usage in the US is rising sharply, due to services like Netflix Watch Instantly and the new trends in internet video sites and video on social networks. Usage statistics report that 5% of the users account for over 50% of the traffic. I’m sure most ISP’s will see similar trends. These 5% are responsible for pushing so much traffic, it impacts or cripples the site or node they are connected to, increasing the costs associated with operating that site. Not only do they increase costs, but they also negatively impact the other 95%.

Imagine a scenario where everyone paid a flat rate for water usage. A handful of people using a significant portion of the water pressure would leave the rest of the neighborhood without ample pressure to water lawns or even take showers. A natural response would be to charge that small amount of people more. Time Warner is simply trying to do that.

Maybe the model they laid out isn’t the best, and I think there could be better priorities as far as money is concerned, but the options are: charge everyone more, shut off the 5%, or find some middle ground where everyone pays for their impact on the network. Internet is not a service like DirecTV. It is a utility, like water or electricity. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they will have realistic expectations.

I guarantee all the other ISP’s in the nation are watching this trial, waiting for the results.

Cheers!

Apparently the idea that someone might be trying to make some money using their service is what is bothering them, rather than actual load on the network. By the way, when I found this out I asked about a business line and was told it wasn’t available at my location.

Once again the joys of (shared) monopolies.

We need to get every politician running from city council to the White House on record on this issue and start using it in forums, town hall meetings, etc. to identify those lining up with the giant telecoms and those with the average working person.

There has never been a time that unfettered access to information has been more important. Recommend the excellent article in June 16 issue of The Nation on “Who Will Unpolug big Media?” by Robert McChjesney and John Nichols. As well as Chris Hayes’ excellent piece on Lawrence Lessig and his theories on process reform.

With advertising revenues stagnant and looking set to fall be ready more more service providers treading this course.

Stop being a geek Jeff and see the web for what it always was, an idea that had failure built in.

My take is that Comcast has the right to charge active users more-on either end of the “pipe”-just that they do it consistantly and transparently. In other words, not like cable tv where certain studios/networks get the best/only slots for viewership.

But when I read the definitions for net neutrality- they are all over the place.

This above blog post puts it out there that the cable companies are just stupid for being closed networks and trying to charge certain people more-but really there is not that much competition for platform providers.

So is the answer just wait for the competition to come….or what?

This is all about the active users of the internet rather than passive users of tv. Internet companies havn’t quite figured this out yet.

You’re right though, we need that much more competition for platform services to get the change you’re talking about:

“It’d also be smart if they became technology innovators bringing mesh networks to their own communities before new players bring in wireless competitors. What if I could get online anywhere in my town or my state thanks to my cable company? I’d have a deeper, more loyal relationship with them. But not if they tried to throttle my use of their service unfairly.”

See my post:

http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView?showComments=true&printTitle=Metered_Net_-_the_MPAA_at_Work&entry=3389939043

I think this has nothing to do with net neutrality, and everything to do with old media trying to institute a way around Apple’s (et. al.) pricing model.