Since I watch this stuff really closely for my job--and deal with some of these jokers--it does lead one to behold some of this with a skeptical eye. The industry clearly is angling for a major change in how service is delivered and how it's priced. It's initial, tentative moves to go to a metering approach have been summarily slapped down by the "net neutrality" community and the FCC has been slow to accept the industry's overall view of things thus far. But there's too much money to be made (too many sheep to be fleeced?) for them to abandon this effort. Look for more "random" stories strategically placed like this one.
I think one needs to remember that it's the industry itself that decides the capacity of its network(s). While they would characterize this as a "fairness" issue (a la "why should e-mail users have to subsidize game players?") and/or a supply/demand issue, the industry has considerable sway over the creation of demand and the availability of supply. My preliminary take is that I would feel much more comfortable about things if we regulators would dismantle the vertical integration already too rampant and growing within the industry. Right now, there's a movement growing to repurpose universal service funds toward subsidizing private network deployment, improvement and expansion. Change that word "private" to "public" and I'd be all for that. But I'm skeptical (there's that word again) that any of us will gain commensurately with the public (ratepayer/taxpayer) investment taken/given. Forgive me if I'm cynical but it won't be too long before "all you can eat" plans will be either eliminated or priced in such a way as to make them wholly unattractive. Metering may initially seem like the fairest way to go, but then you have to consider that if the industry controls supply, how fair can the resulting pricing be? And,if on top of that, we (the public, taxpayer, ratepayer) get to underwrite their networks as well... what a bonanza! (For them, of course, while we get raped at both ends.) jaf ---- Rob de Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't help but observe that that AT&T (and Comcast, Time Warner, etc.) are > getting precisely "what they wished for". The internet providers and mobile > phone companies have and continue to endlessly hype the speed and capacity of > their service and the great things you can do with it. like listen to internet > radio, watch movies. check the web, etc. Now that people are doing those > things, they are complaining it hurts network performance. Really? Who da > thunk it? It was all too predictable. > > > > I pay for "unlimited service". If I stop getting that, I may stop paying for > it > and seek a better deal elsewhere. > > > > -- > -Rob de Santos > > > > From: Richard Cuff [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:34 AM > To: Internet radio discussion > Subject: [Internetradio] AT&T considers incentives to curb heavy data usage | > Signal Strength - CNET News > > > > Some consider that an iPhone is a universal personal appliance -- a UPA (how's > that for my own 3-letter acronym?). > > The fact that AT&T is considering incentives for those who consume lower > bandwidth is interesting...particularly because streaming audio & video is > pegged as one of the culprits of high bandwidth consumption. > > See: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10412804-266.html?tag=rtcol;pop > > Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA > _______________________________________________ Internetradio mailing list [email protected] http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/internetradio To unsubscribe: Send an E-mail to [email protected]?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.
