If Time Warner wants to charge for the bandwidth I use from the Internet -- eliminating the all-you-can-eat monthly price -- why not consider this arrangement for traditional TV monthly packages as
well?
Cable/Internet services are trying to figure out ways to pay for future expanded operations by proposing charging a higher price tag for those Internet hogs who spend tens of gigabytes downloading movies
per month.
Why doesn't Time Warner then apply this theory to one of its main entertainment/communication products? If I spend only three hours a week in total watching TV, why should I
be charged the same price as the hoarder TV user who's fixated on the screen for 20 hours a week?
Sure, TV delivery operations doesn't work exactly the same way as Internet delivery
operations. The problem is, Time Warner can't have it both ways. Whatever time the average consumer uses for each entertainment/communication device, charge them as such.
advertisement
advertisement
Time Warner's
proposed Internet plans don't make sense against consumers' arguments for a la carte cable programming packages: Why should I have to pay for 600 channels when I only watch seven networks?
This comes at a time many TV network/publishers are considering altering their initial free, advertising-supported Internet ventures to one where consumers have to pay for content..
Hulu has already launched a subscription service for its growing array of TV shows. Traditional newspaper publishers are also considering subscription services, believing real journalism
will be worth more on the Net amidst an ever increasing sea of less-valuable blogging info.
Cable operators -- who are also Internet operators -- should be consistent. If they don't
want to be the all-you-can-eat-restaurants anymore, that tactic should apply to the appetizers and desserts as well as the main courses.