I think the point is that AT&T is pushing to charge extra for additional
bandwidth loads, e.g., Amazon, Google, Yahoo! etc, and this is where all the
Net Neutrality crap began from.
Do you recall AT&T Whitacre's "nobody gets a free ride" statement?
<snip> Whitacre complained that "some people" want AT&T to act as a "dumb
pipe that just keeps getting bigger and bigger."
"This thing is growing at a rate that nobody would imagine," Whitacre said
of the market demand for bandwidth. He said AT&T networks are now handling
5.6 Petabytes of data every day. "There's more and more content, and you
need more and more bandwidth, and somebody's got to build it." "If you build
it, you have to make a return on that," he continued. "Nobody gets a free
ride, that's all." </snip>
So the point is, if one of your customers subscribes, can your network
handle it? Or will you charge them extra?
Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
----- Original Message -----
From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
George Rogato wrote:
For those who can't psychically divine article content from URLs, the
article is about a service through which a few cable TV stations,
including Fox News (We report, we decide) and The Weather Channel, will
be available for $20 a month. Apparently AT&T is involved somehow, but
the article is a bit unclear as to who's doing what.
I don't really see how this is, per se, subsidizing AT&T. In this
instance, they're just offering a service that folks can choose to
subscribe to, or not, and that's pretty much it. They (presumably) offer
it on identical terms to both their DSL subscribers, and those who
subscribe to other ILECs' DSL packages, and cable, and WISP, and so on.
If NBC Universal offered a service where you could have episodes of
"Project Runway" and "Battlestar Galactica" streamed to your PC, would
we suddenly say we were subsidizing them? (Hey, if it keeps those shows
on the air a few more years, subsidize away ;)
WISPA Wireless List: email@example.com