[ NNSquad ] Re: AT&T imposing DSL and U-verse bandwidth caps, fees for "excess" use

On Mar 14, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Tim Karr wrote:

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/>