A modern marketing mistake created this mess. A company started to sell a product that it was incapable of delivering: unlimited network access. Other companies followed suit and assumed that they would never be compelled to make good on their promise. Now, instead of admitting that they were wrong, most providers are trying to redefine the word 'unlimited' through legal documents that attempt to restrict their customers' actions.
A far better approach would be to determine what their network can handle and charge appropriately for the usage of their customers. If their network can't provide the customer-demanded services at a fair price, then they need to update their network, reduce their costs, or leave the market. It really can be that simple. Regulations in this type of system are only necessary to ensure that providers are disclosing the information necessary for consumers to choose amongst the competitors. Micro-managing the various services running on top of the network only causes the services to route around the complexity of the regulations and adds unnecessary expense for the consumers and a barrier to entry for future competitors. Jeff Pulver wrote a very interesting blog entry on Friday about the issue of bit-pipes vs. artificially-restricted communications pipes. It seems that Congress might be more informed than the FCC on this issue. Time will tell: http://pulverblog.pulver.com/archives/003274.html - Tony On 11/7/2005 1:51 PM, Charles Wu created: > Electricity, Gas and Water are billed on a usage basis > > Competitive market pressures aside, why should Internet be any different? > > -Charles -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
