This is really another front of the net neutrality battle

[misterikkit]

Time Warner was recently in the news for attempting to roll out a ridiculously expensive pricing scheme to some test areas. (The ars technica article shows that it is more than 15 times as expensive as any competition.) Fortunately, they backed down, but my friend Geoff pointed me to a page on Cox's website showing they have similar plans

Comments

[mmm_opensource]

While I agree that the approach being taken is wrong. This isn't a front for net neutrality. The pricing schemes effect any web connection/download that is done. Not just the entities that haven't payed. This is all a function of the isp being too cheap to allocate an appropriate amount of bandwidth to its users (You know the advertised amount when they actually want it).

In a sense you are taxed for every mile you drive (Oregon wants to make this more true link) whenever you buy gas that is taxed, this is a function of how many miles you drove

[misterikkit]

I don't know how I would make more people concerned about this, but I'm open to suggestions.

I guess I'm thankful to already have the ears of a handful of friends.

[cakoluchiam]

Assuming streaming one episode of a TV show in what web providers call "HD" takes about 1Gb of bandwidth, then accounting for other various uses of the web I probably use about 25Gb of bandwidth a month. Now, considering I share that internet with five other students at a tech school who probably on average use about ... well, let's say half as much bandwidth as I do (I definitely watch the most TV of all of us, but a couple of my roomies definitely make up the difference in porn and various file sharing). We together pay about $65/month for this total of about 100Gb/month at 10Mbps down with cable service

[cakoluchiam]

And by download illegally I of course mean download legally from people who are illegally providing.

[pentacruz]

I salute TW for taking the first step in releasing us from our slavery!