According to a report from Bloomberg earlier today, Time Warner Cable, Cox Communications and Charter Communications was looking into usage-based fees based on the amount of bandwidth consumed rather than simply a flat rate for a specific transmission speed. This modification in pricing would impose extra monthly fees on consumers that consume larger amounts of bandwidth, likely due to watching high definition video on services like Netflix, Vudu and Hulu Plus. Charlie Ergen, chairman of Dish Network, estimates that a typical fee structure could cost consumers an additional $20 a month. If a consumer was only subscribed to Netflix, it would cost a total of $335 a year to access the video streaming service with that additional $20 surcharge figured into the total yearly price.
If any cable company decides to implement a usage-based fee structure in 2012, this would likely slow the number of people attempting to “cut the cord” and cancel cable subscriptions. This option has previously been attractive for consumers as a combined monthly subscription to Netflix and Hulu Plus costs approximately $16 a month. According to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst Craig Moffett, he expects that at least one cable company will shift to usage-based pricing within the next twelve months. Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley was quick to point out that customers that use a low amount of data like email and simple Web surfing could benefit from the usage-based structure and perhaps get a discount on broadband service.
Since Netflix now consumes approximately a third of all Internet bandwidth in North America, cable companies are concerned about further growth of the streaming company as well as the rise of competitors like Amazon Prime. If Internet-based video consumption continues, analysts estimate that 12.5 million U.S. households will receive television programming and movies through Internet video rather than traditional services by 2015.
Anyone know how much bandwidth the transmission of the cable channels uses?
Maybe if cable offered packages of the shows you want instead of paying for all this bs you will never watch or care to watch. I pay $70 a month to Comcast for 16 Mbps nothing else. Even with their package deals close to this I don’t want it. So I should pay 100+ just for Internet to download and stream?
^^^ ROFL finite,, rofl…. fiber optics is almost limitless james but most people know that out of the womb…
/major dislike, but I had to pass out the info (a la +1 & “like” deal)…
Maybe if cable offered packages of the shows you want instead of paying for all this bs you will never watch or care to watch. I pay $70 a month to Comcast for 16 Mbps nothing else. Even with their package deals close to this I don’t want it. So I should pay 100+ just for Internet to download and stream?
maybe if my Comcast cable connection worked consistently, then i wouldn’t need netflix
This would be bad for me. Internet is already overcharged as it is, to add another fee just for using netflix is a little ridiculous. Crossing fingers.
anybody at Digital Trends look into this when “researching” this article? http://www.cablelabs.com/search/htsearch.html?words=cable+bandwidth&config=public&x=0&y=0
maybe if my Comcast cable connection worked consistently, then i wouldn’t need netflix
@Sean Wilson : bandwidth is a finite resource. Like every other finite resource, the amount you pay is related to the amount you use. I guess most people understand this concept by age 3 or 4, others go through life completely oblivious to common sense and throwing words like “rape” around to describe a fundamental economic truth. Sad.
While I too am sick of the Socialistic/Democratic mindset of entitlement, your answer is a FAIL. If only the cable companies would actually go “pay per use”, I for one would expect my cable bill cut by 65%. It looks like the greedy bastards will keep the existing structure, but add a limit, and a extra fee for over limit.
All I want is local + 5 channels + 7 Mb/sec internet; no “look back”, “movies on demand”, last week’s shows, phone and other BS services. Also, I don’t want to pay extra for HD since HD is the broadcast standard. The people that refuse to upgrade their TV to HD should have to pay more for SD – not the other way around! BTW, I live within 12 miles of most local broadcast towers and for every important show (like the Green Bay Packer game), I use the antenna input for outstanding HD rather than the compressed crap I PAY FOR (cable service plus HD package) over TWC!!
To get back to your point, I use very little so I should pay very little!
Well, I watch a lot of TV. So does that mean I should pay a lot? The current bundlings for me are actually a good deal since I watch so much television.
Maybe they need to offer both choices?
This smells like the baggage fees that airlines charge. Don’t bring a suitcase and you can actually SAVE money. WTF?
Just one of the many steps to the loss of Net Neutrality.
@Stephen LeatherFace Popa : Are you seriously suggesting that there exists an infinite amount of bandwidth? Even if there were, the fact is that an internet provider is a company which has a perfectly reasonable right to charge you according to how much of their service you use. If you don’t like it, you are perfectly free to reject their services.