I would deal with it by a data transfer cap.  Charge more when they
exceed a "normal" amount.  I need to be able to oversell my bandwidth
and if everyone used their speed to its max, I would not be able
supply a good service for the price I charge.

The good thing is that if everyone watches TV using the Internet then
soon you'll have the TV stations providing Internet with their unused
bandwidth.

Lonnie

On 9/12/06, Frank Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=100380

<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?



Frank Muto
Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
www.wbia.us












----- Original Message -----
From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> George Rogato wrote:
>
>> 
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-09-12T052710Z_01_N11192322_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-TELECOMS-ATT-TV-DC.XML&from=business
>
> 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 ;)
>
> David Smith
> MVN.net

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to