NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: AT&T imposing DSL and U-verse bandwidth caps, fees for "excess" use
Meanwhile in Hong Kong they're offering 1,000 megabits a second for less than $26 a month, and those rates are likely to improve as speeds increase and usage becomes more creative: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06digi.html?scp=1&sq=hong%20kong%20broadband&st=cse Imagine the sort of edge advances that will yield. Not so here in the US, where AT&T seems intent on locking the our Internet and its users in a time capsule. As in the past, AT&T would rather stifle any innovation that it can't control. -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+tkarr=freepress.net@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+tkarr=freepress.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:43 PM To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: AT&T imposing DSL and U-verse bandwidth caps, fees for "excess" use Paul, Your observation is only true when the DSL loops are all perfect copper back to a central office where it is easy to do upgrades. In the real world - there is a lot of bad copper out there that won't support higher speeds, remote DSLAMs are all over the place and often the backhauls to those remote DSLAMs are already close to being maxed out. People getting their broadband from these facilities will be out of luck, and disallowing bit caps and reasonable network management will make their broadband speeds worse. I don't expect a refund from the water company or electrical company for the "unused portion" of those utilities. There is no reason to expect such a thing from an ISP. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 3/14/2011 2:22 PM, Paul Forbes wrote: > 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 > <lists@manageisp.com <mailto:lists@manageisp.com>> 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 <http://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: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com > <http://bobf.frankston.com/>@nnsquad.org <http://nnsquad.org/> > [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad > <mailto:nnsquad-bounces%2Bnnsquad>=bobf.frankston.com > <http://bobf.frankston.com/>@nnsquad.org > <http://nnsquad.org/>] On Behalf Of > Lauren Weinstein > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:48 > To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org <mailto:nnsquad@nnsquad.org> > 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 (lauren@vortex.com > <mailto:lauren@vortex.com>): http://www.vortex.com/lauren > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: > http://www.pfir.org <http://www.pfir.org/> > Founder: > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org > <http://www.nnsquad.org/> > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: > http://www.gctip.org <http://www.gctip.org/> > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com <http://www.vortex.com/> > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com <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 <tel:%2B1%20%28818%29%20225-2800> / > Skype: vortex.com <http://vortex.com/> > > > > > > >