It's more a case of profiteering than any real engineering problem that forces Big Telco to charge heavy users more to fund expanding infrastructure.
You can bet that they won't be sending refunds for unused portions of bandwidth caps to anyone. On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists <[email protected]>wrote: > This is a bunch of noise about nothing. A big part of that that 2% is Bit > Torrent and other filesharing traffic. Setting the future indeed. > > This debate isn't about the future anyway - it is about right now and how > do we make the transition from our current network structures to ones that > can handle more capacity without problems. DSL , Docsis 2.0 cable systems > are stretched to the max to handle the current load. Outlawing bit caps > will not solve the problem - IT WILL MAKE IT WORSE! Mobile broadband is > already a joke, and without caps it will be even more of a joke to the point > of being useless. > > For example - what do you call an iPhone in New York City? > > An iPod. > > Seven years ago, the majority of my fixed wireless ISP customers were > buying 256K connections with a 3gig cap and were ecstatic because it was 10x > faster than dialup. Today, I have 25meg at my house on my fixed wireless > connection and an 80gig cap that I never even come close to hitting. DSL > is still capped at the same speeds from seven years ago because it is > obsolete technology. Cable has generally seen a 4x increase in speed in > the same time frame. Mobile wireless is just now getting to the place > where you can get the same speeds that were available on my network five > years ago. Fixed wireless speeds have gone up almost 100x in that same > time. I am ready to compete with cable and DSL, and so are a couple > thousand other fixed wireless ISPs in the US that are capable of serving 72% > of US households with broadband. Even so, we are operating with limited > spectrum to deliver the last mile and get backbone to that last mile APs, so > bit caps and reasonable network management are a necessity for us to > maintain network integrity. > > Bit caps and reasonable network management are important intermediate steps > to get from where we are now to where we want to be without ruining the > Internet experience of the other 98% of the population. If the telcos and > cablecos don't upgrade their networks to accomodate the increase in traffic, > then we need to have legitimate competition that can take their business - > not unreasonable legislation that introduces congestion issues. Push for > competition and quit getting distracted by sideline issues. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > > > > On 3/14/2011 11:37 AM, Bob Frankston wrote: > >> And those 2% are the ones trying to define the future. >> >> Remember that in the 1970's ATT would've reminded us that no one uses >> packet >> networks and thus they shouldn't be forced to provide a service for naked >> packets and instead only allow packets associated with a tariffed service. >> >> Modems were probably far less than 1% of the traffic in the 60's so why >> would ATT have permitted them to abuse the voice lines with their chatter. >> >> Any company that can squash the leading edge can prevent the future, >> especially when it is a threat. >> >> Of course this is all about the accounting model in which we assume that >> the >> gatekeepers must make a profit no matter what the cost to society. With a >> different accounting model the rationalization for caps would disappear. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of >> Lauren Weinstein >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:48 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [ NNSquad ] AT&T imposing DSL and U-verse bandwidth caps, fees >> for >> "excess" use >> >> >> AT&T imposing DSL and U-verse bandwidth caps, fees for "excess" use >> >> http://j.mp/esGMKS (Engadget) >> >> "AT&T U-Verse TV service won't count towards the GB cap" >> >> Translation: Screw you, Netflix! >> >> "Less than 2 percent of our Internet customers could be >> impacted by this approach" >> >> Of course, that assumes no increase in usage, which assumes >> the predicted increases in video streaming don't come to pass. >> But then, the incentive here is clear -- don't watch >> or use competing Internet services that count against the cap, >> get U-verse and watch AT&T video services and your usage won't >> apply against the cap! >> >> ===> We control the pipe. We win. Thank you for using AT&T.<=== >> >> --Lauren-- >> Lauren Weinstein ([email protected]): http://www.vortex.com/lauren >> Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org >> Founder: >> - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org >> - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: >> http://www.gctip.org >> - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com >> Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >> Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein >> Google Buzz: http://j.mp/laurenbuzz >> Quora: http://www.quora.com/Lauren-Weinstein >> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >
