NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: AT&T imposing DSL and U-verse bandwidth caps, fees for "excess" use
(it's amazing how many lists I'm on would be up in arms by all the top-posting in these threads. Personally, I'm glad I don't have to wade through all the old conversations) Matt, your comparison to water/electric utilities is a straw man at best. Utilities aren't flat-rate - if I don't use the water or kilowatts I'm not charged for them. The problem I see is that caps don't directly address congestion. They only address usage. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Matt Larsen <lists@manageisp.com> said: > 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. > > <Rest of thread deleted. If you really need the extra context, see the archives>