Metering: The End of The Internet As You Know It

Last month, the nation's No.2 cable company Time Warner Cable announced plans to test a new billing system known as "metering" that charges Internet customers depending on how much they download. Customers who exceed their limit--say, by viewing online videos--would face steep penalties on top of their subscription rate.

Time Warner Cable's usage penalty would take the unlimited service we enjoy today (albeit slow compared to other nations), and make Internet more like cell phones, where you get overcharged by companies making record profits. It is the latest version of the Net Neutrality debate: should the companies that deliver Internet be allowed to block it, slow it down, or in this case, overcharge for it?

Here's why this issue threatens the Internet as you know it: Cable companies Time Warner and Comcast, and phone giants AT&T and Verizon sell the vast majority of high-speed Internet service in the United States. Phone and cable companies like these have no other competition in 97% of US markets, thanks to corrupt policies passed by the Bush Administration at the companies' behest.

These duopolies are betting on the future of their "triple-play" phone-Internet-TV service, so that you'll pay them more than $100 per month and they can keep earning record profits. They know that if you start downloading video from online innovators like Hulu.com and Roku.com, eventually you won't need their expensive, advertising-ridden television service. If you decide to use online phone providers like Skype, you won't need their expensive phone service. The answer? Jack up the cost of Internet, and once again eliminate the competition. This is exhibit A for when we need government to establish and enforce consumer protections; the same brand of policies we needed to prevent the financial meltdown and protect New Orleans.

Fortunately, Time Warner Cable's pricing scam was met by fierce opposition from consumers, public interest groups and members of Congress. Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) spoke out against the scheme, and Time Warner Cable scuttled the plan in four of the five test cities. Beaumont, Texas, was the city left as the lone petri dish, and Congressman Massa has promised legislation to curb the price-gouging. Yesterday, Rep. Massa told the Philadelphia Inquirer he is looking for a Republican co-sponsor for the bill: "This is bigger than a college kid surfing the Internet. Anything that limits access to the basic Internet is a threat to the economy."

Time Warner Cable is regrouping, and says it is planning a "customer education process" to teach the public that high prices and Internet caps are good for us. And while the company tries to get its messaging right, other phone and cable companies are dipping a toe in the metering pool. AT&T is already testing a billing scheme that caps Internet use, and other Internet service providers are preparing to do the same.

There are a host of other reasons why we should be worried about Internet service providers' march toward overcharging for high usage: First is journalism. We continue to learn about Madonna's adoption problems and Ms. California's old photos, but if you want substance in your news, you'll have to look beyond corporate media's steady stream of sensationalism, celebrity gossip and product placement. We need fast, neutral, affordable Internet that can deliver video, audio and other multimedia to enable efficient production and distribution of journalism and other educational content.

Another is access. Today, some 40 percent of American homes do not have high-speed Internet, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And high-speed Internet access in the US is already far more costly and slower than in 21 other developed countries. Time Warner's pricing plans would put the Internet even further out of reach for tens of millions of Americans.

Time Warner Cable and other Internet providers say they need to penalize users to slow down an impending "Internet brownout"--a day when we run out of bandwidth. That bandwidth doomsday, however, isn't about to happen anytime soon. Even one of Time Warner Cable's own executives offers evidence that bandwidth scarcity is a ruse: "Cable is like the Federal Reserve of bandwidth...we can practically print the stuff!" said Mike LaJoie, the company's chief technology officer. LaJoie has also said that supplying consumers with more bandwidth is "basically free" for his company.

As Phillip Dampier, who runs the Web site StoptheCap.com, put it: "[The cable companies] still think they're right: the problem isn't draconian usage caps, it is that people weren't properly conditioned to accept them first...the OPEC of the Internet will be back by the fall, probably with almost the identical plan they 'shelved' yesterday."

We can and should celebrate last month's victory. Public pressure foiled cable's plan for now, but Time Warner Cable - and their telco friends - will soon be back. It's up to us and our elected officials to stop them.

Comments

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

11:59 PM on 05/10/2009

The only way to fight this is to protest it.

If they try it in your area the people must organize a massive disconnect­ion of services. Call the company and tell them you are disconnect­ing your internet service in protest of metering. I know going w/out the net is a devastatin­g thought to some of you fiends, but stay with me...

If enough people make the "sacrifice­" for a month or two - trust me they'll fold.

These companies get the gall to try this because they think (know?) that we are so hopelessly addicted to the internet that we'll take it. We can't wait on the government to protect the consumers, if you think the government is going to save you your in water deeper than Katrina.

[PDXPLT]

08:43 PM on 05/10/2009

Maybe it'll change the internet as _you_ know it, Josh. But for tens of millions of us, whose only choices for high speed are satellite or wireless, metering and caps are already reality. Forgive me if we don't get upset now that urban resideents will have the same internet experience as the rest of us. When the subject of poor internet access outside of big cites is brought up, the city residents just respond "if you don't like it, just move". Similarly, now that the tables are turned, if you don't like what Time Warner is providing, just more out of Time Warner's territory.

[OneTop]

06:23 PM on 05/10/2009

To state the obvious ...

It's America .. let the monopolies and oligarchie­s thrive !

Who else is going to fund the law makers?

Just bend-over, pay your money and enjoy it.

[kendraro]

05:26 PM on 05/10/2009

DO NOT WANT

[KIVPossum]

01:29 PM on 05/10/2009

Let's see, if I drive a toll bridge 6 times a day doesn't it cost more than one trip? A 30 minute internatio­nal call costs more than 5 minutes, and the grocery charges me more for a gallon of milk than a pint.

What's the problem with charging people based on usage?

[JusdaTruth]

02:59 PM on 05/10/2009

1- They are run by monopolies­. That means no competitio­n, therefore there would not be much motivation for a company to improve service or lower prices. Seems kind of unfair? Don't you think?

[01202009]

02:59 PM on 05/10/2009

If a company has a monopoly then they must be regulated. Remember that a good deal of cable access is provided over publicly owned easements as under city sidewalks or service corridors. Until we all have FREE access to the Internet then cautions must be taken to insure that corporatio­ns are not filtering access, that that includes how much they charge.

[JusdaTruth]

03:10 PM on 05/10/2009

Why should the American People support monopolies­? Haven't they sucked enough of our hard earned money? Maybe the politician­s who allow this to happen should stop taking campaign contributi­ons from them. One day they will because Americans are waking up to how the corporate world manipulate­s our government­.

[textynn]

01:02 PM on 05/10/2009

This is just another example of innovation being crushed to keep the right people rich. It's this kind of innovation crushing that always slow down or prohibits our ability to usher in new technologi­es. We have been force to use old technologi­es for years concerning energy because the right people don't keep making fortunes every year.

We can all live without cell phones and the internet for a while. I will stop using my cell phone and internet if they do make these changes. If its gonna cost all that, I'll just go back to books and movies and newspapers­.

I already boycott Comcast. I don't give them any money. Now I will try to make sure that I do not buy anything from Time Warner. These people are millionair­es, why must they insist on having mind blowing wealth at the expense of everyone.

[CitizenFarmer]

11:22 AM on 05/10/2009

Sprint tried metered service in the late 1990's and early 2000's. The project/pr­oduct "Ion" was a failure. TW's efforts may not be a failure. They will most likely approach it out of a government that controls the delivery channel, rather than a true benefit to consumers. The 'net is changing - metered service may be our future; however, this "open" media is not now truly open, there is censorship­, right here on Huff. And, with the pending Hate Crimes law, there will be increasing use of search warrants to ISP's - belief that you are anonymous on the 'net is false.

[userw014]

09:33 AM on 05/10/2009

Way back when the internet was first becoming widely deployed (I was with Merit Network Inc when they managed NFSnet 2 with IBM and MCI), the issue of old-fashio­ned circuit switched networking (aka.: The Phone Company) versus packet switched (Internet primarily) was still being argued.

Phone companies didn't understand the new Internet. They didn't understand how they could measure it so that they could bill for it (they wanted to bill for every TCP/IP connection - imaging paying for every web-page, every web-page graphic, every web-page advertisem­ent you see... that's what they wanted.)

One of our senior people at the time, who had a very good understand­ing of monopolist­ic phone companies, told me that 50% of the business of the phone companies was billing. Not handling calls. Not repairs and maintenanc­e. Half of what the phone company did was billing. Half of what you paid your bill for was to pay for your bill.

Now, the contempora­ry ISPs want to do the same thing. Some things never change.

[ghtrains]

01:11 AM on 05/10/2009

Don't the heaviest users already pay the highest prices for internet access? The faster the broadband, the higher the price. Time Warner has tiered access to the internet. Most people who download video and large files have the highest speed broadband possible and pay a good deal for it, even though it rarely performs at the speeds advertised­. It seems that Time Warner and other companies are hoping to charge the same people twice for the internet access they want.

[karma13612]

12:10 PM on 05/10/2009

Not sure what you, or others pay for nice broadband service. But, we satellite users have been paying thru the butt for years. We live in a rural area by choice. We only have dialup and satellite options. We pay $90 per month for satellite TV. We pay $60 per month for internet. We have a daily cap of 200MB on internet download. thats MEGABYTES, NOT GIGABYTES. If we exceed that usage, we are reduced to dialup speeds for 24 hours.

We don't have the option of an overcharge instead. We just get reduced service. Think about living on 200 MB per day. It is totally incomprehe­nsible with current graphic rich pages that are the standard. And we can't download or watch streaming video.

We are a mere 8 miles out of town, and TimeWarner and Verizon have no intention of expanding their reach. They could do it, but it isn't worth their trouble. They say it wouldn't be cost effective. But, they spend millions in advertisin­g to try and grab a larger share of the city market.

Hughes.net is our ISP. They are terrible.T­heir customer service is off site. And they are the first to admit that they don't guarantee their advertised speeds. Their satelllite­s are so over-subsc­ribed, I don't doubt that they rely on a certain percentage of their customers to be in FAP (Fair Access Policy) reduced speeds at all times, other wise all the speeds would be slow.

[Sally OBoyle]

02:56 PM on 05/08/2009

The end of internet? Not hardly. If it gets too expensive, people will stop paying and no-frills companies will pop-up. Like in the airline industry: Jet Blue, Spirit. The death of the internet will be when the government controls it... when you are getting it for "free."

[freddiefranks]

09:21 AM on 05/09/2009

Unfortunat­ely, unlike airlines the internet is (as explained above) is governed by essentiall­y 3 enormous companies, and they have enough power to block new companies quite effectivel­y.

A better comparison than the the airline industry would be the oil companies: OPEC. Why do think we don't see any no-frills competitor­s on the oil market, despite them being essentiall­y able to charge whatever amount they want?

[jfh]

08:24 AM on 05/10/2009

Good reply to Sally OBoyle --- who is probably a lobbyist for
Time Warner or the Cable industry.

Then again “she” might be just your garden variety Repug "Party of No" Troll.

[userw014]

09:39 AM on 05/10/2009

That might work for large corporatio­ns, or even medium sized businesses­. However, residentia­l and small businesses are tied down by the "last mile" problem... how do you get internet access from the neighborho­od hub to the house or office.

Wireless might work for low speed access, but it's even more of a shared medium than your neighborho­od cable/inte­rnet service.

What is needed is municipal ownership of the infrastruc­ture - the wires and fiber. Let cities manage that infrastruc­ture like they do streets, water, and sewer - and lease connectivi­ty either to ISPs who run the service to the end-user, or to the end-user who gets connectivi­ty to some ISP exchange point.

Then, maybe, the US can join the 21st century of internet service.

[nicnic]

09:41 AM on 05/08/2009

Well, If we are going to measure our possible success with what happened to -water- which is not free, nor simple to access anymore, we are done.
So yeah, the forces of evil CAN win.

[langej]

01:29 AM on 05/08/2009

I am not sure I understand this.
If the Internet is lke a highway, are we saying that someone who uses a toll road to make 8 trips a day should pay the same as someone who uses it once a week?

[Joseph Costello]

03:01 AM on 05/08/2009

The difference is that they are not saying a person who uses the Internet less gets to pay less than our current unlimited plan. The plan will charge the people who use it more often, more money.

[freddiefranks]

09:23 AM on 05/09/2009

Exactly. This is not in any way helping or protecting the less-frequ­ent users, simply a money-grab­bing scheme by greedy corporatio­ns with too much power.

Wow. Just realized these guys are just like the banks.

[loki]

12:51 AM on 05/08/2009

well they capitalist are also working on making most of the major roadways toll roads that they will privately operate and profit from , while the state maintains them. Basically what it comes down to is that capitalist dont want to have to produce anything anymore to make huge profits. Its easier for them to extort money by restrictin­g access to things that have always been free. Its a big win for them, and that is what they are all about. How bad, deep, hard, and long can you screw the public before they break.

[Eris23Skidoo]

11:47 PM on 05/07/2009

So when I open any given page and the gazillion ads that fill the sidebar slow me down...I suppose I'm going to have to pay for the dang advertisem­ents as well? Will we need to have ad-blocker­s to evade the costly advertisem­ents?

[freddiefranks]

09:23 AM on 05/09/2009

Oh. My. God. I never even thought of that. Imagine making us pay for something we don't want there!

[Eris23Skidoo]

11:37 PM on 05/07/2009

I think its time to trust-bust Time-Warne­r.

[rf-hawaii]

05:14 AM on 05/08/2009

Please!