51–60 of 68 posts
The idea that 2% of users using 20% of the bandwidth is hurting "normal" people is a PR move that is going to do great harm to future innovation. The way I see it those 2% of users are early adopters and a couple of years from now "normal people" will be using as much bandwidth as the current 2% does. Limiting bandwidth now hurts future innovation.
AT&T: $10/50 GB = 20 cents/GB
Amazon S3/EC2: 10 cents/GB
It's not like we're being gouged here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nowadays, a significant portion of those "bandwidth abusers" are people who are just watching movies and TV shows on Netflix. The use of Netflix instant streaming has grown tremendously over the past year, and for many people, it's become the exclusive source for non-live video content.
To bust a 250GB cap with NetFlix, you have to watch 250 hours of exclusively HD content; 8 full hours a day, every day, nonstop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bingo, especially since AT&T TV (which is all over IP and therefore is just as likely to 'clog the tubes' -- actually even more so since it has better QoS) is exempt. They are going to go kicking and screaming into the age of being a dumb pipe.
AT&T's video is significantly cheaper to provision; it's housed entirely on their own network.
The 'user pays for bandwidth' pricing is fundamentally more efficient, and is a good model to move to long term, provided there are sufficient controls to prevent price gauging in areas where ISP(s) act as a monopoly or duopoly (20c per GB in the US excluding the pricing for last-mile fixed costs seems like price gauging to me - but it depends on the technologies; it is probably a lot more expensive to get extra bandwidth to a cabinet than to an exchange), and the companies don't misrepresent what is on offer to consumers.
However, all information flows should be treated equally; companies shouldn't be able to abuse their market power as network services providers to make their own information services cheaper than those of everyone else. It seems that the best solution would be for regulators to ensure that AT&T and other ISPs charge for bandwidth used by their own applications in the same way as they do for their competitors.
I think this is fair. Bandwidth costs money, usage likely follows a power law distribution, and their fees are reasonable: AT&T: $10/50 GB = 20 cents/GB Amazon S3/EC2: 10 cents/GB It's not like we're being gouged here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AT&T's video is significantly cheaper to provision; it's housed entirely on their own network.
AT&T is a tier 1 ISP; they don't pay for traffic from outside of their network. The 'user pays for bandwidth' pricing is fundamentally more efficient, and is a good model to move to long term, provided there are sufficient controls to prevent price gauging in areas where ISP(s) act as a monopoly or duopoly (20c per GB in the US excluding the pricing for last-mile fixed costs seems like price gauging to me - but it de…
I love the paper-thin justification here the most. "We have to do this because people don't want to pay for bandwidth they don't use!" OK, where's my $10 a month refund for every 50 GB I go under the limit?
I'm not saying this is right, I'm just pointing out that this is far from the worst case scenario.
The idea that 2% of users using 20% of the bandwidth is hurting "normal" people is a PR move that is going to do great harm to future innovation. The way I see it those 2% of users are early adopters and a couple of years from now "normal people" will be using as much bandwidth as the current 2% does. Limiting bandwidth now hurts future innovation.
This moves the argument up the chain a little bit. Why did AT&T implement fiber-to-the-node after they were given billions upon billions of tax breaks and subsidies? Verizon implemented fiber-to-the-premisis in some markets at least.
If this isn't simply a way to generate more cash while still appearing price competitive to the newcomer, why not implement soft caps? I anticipate many technically disinclined people receiving very large bills as a result of running an open wireless network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AT&T's video is significantly cheaper to provision; it's housed entirely on their own network.
AT&T is a tier 1 ISP; they don't pay for traffic from outside of their network. The 'user pays for bandwidth' pricing is fundamentally more efficient, and is a good model to move to long term, provided there are sufficient controls to prevent price gauging in areas where ISP(s) act as a monopoly or duopoly (20c per GB in the US excluding the pricing for last-mile fixed costs seems like price gauging to me - but it de…