 baineschile2600 ways to livePremium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to manfmmd
Re: How I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want
not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by baineschile:I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want yes customers WANT caps. They've been clamouring for them. Go ahead at&t in my area we also have Charter. I'm sure eventually Charter may have caps until that happens is at&t thinks having cap can posisbly compete with a service that has no cap for the same price they're crazy. Even if you think you'd never use 80 GB of cap space the fact with the other guy you don't even need to worry about it is more than enough for people to switch. How stupid is at&t? |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... "The few that caused the cap?"
So, what Bittorrent warez kiddie do you know that went over 40GB and broke Time Warner's back? 250GB I can understand ... that's a reasonable number, but AT&T and Time Warner's caps are a money grab. Their caps are not because of bandwidth hogs, it's to stifle competing video services, finance upgrades in competitive areas (read TW vs FiOS competition or where AT&T has to compete with Comcast), and protect their lucrative VoD stream. |
|
| Its all a money grab, however it's also a precedent setting measurement. Once these caps are fully implemented and accepted, then there will be a further lowering of caps to coincide with more bandwidth usage. The ISPs will blame the usual suspects...pirates and p2p users as the problem. Buttressing that position by the ISP will be the MPAA/RIAA complaining about lost revenues to our congress and other morons that don't see the bigger picture.
The developers of ARPA net must be ecstatic with this result!
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress |
|
 manfmmdPremium
join:2003-01-14
Earth, TX
 ·AT&T Southwest
·CMA Access
| reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... As plenty of people have pointed out, with the increase of services like YouTube, Netflix, etc. ISP's will have to invest more in their infrastructure to keep up. That's part of growing the business and growing your customer base. |
|
|
|
 sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | said by manfmmd:said by baineschile:I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... As plenty of people have pointed out, with the increase of services like YouTube, Netflix, etc. ISP's will have to invest more in their infrastructure to keep up. That's part of growing the business and growing your customer base. The issue is, slowed down growth coupled with consumers wanting more for the same price. This limiting will give them that increase in profit that consumers don't want to pay directly with higher monthly fees. |
|
| said by sapo:The issue is, slowed down growth coupled with consumers wanting more for the same price. This limiting will give them that increase in profit that consumers don't want to pay directly with higher monthly fees. The problem is that this type of plan may end up turning around and biting them in the ass. As folks now have to worry about avoiding overages, people will temper their usage and may eventually switch to the lower speed packages. It may also create the problem where people use up to their limit and stop, taking what they paid for and stopping their usage.
All of this creates a climate where the demand for broadband will be stymied because people will feel they have to ration usage. This will hurt existing services, like VoIP, and will kill new services and business opportunities, like cloud computing (subscription to application services, like Microsoft is considering again) or video conferencing (if it every takes off again).
Strict bandwidth caps and overage charges that are grossly inflated are BAD for the internet as a whole.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. |
|
sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | Yes, our hopes as consumers will be a push by the high bandwidth applications companies to promote big caps if unlimited is not possible. Depending on the demand of the high bandwidth applications the effect you described of people lowering their tiers may be in fact opposite with people raising their tiers. During all this one needs to contemplate the average users usage which is fairly low(DSLR members tend to not qualify) so this will most likely be a very effective way to curb costs. Restrictions always limit potential growth, there is no doubt about that. But wherever there is a problem innovation generally sprouts. Who knows...
I personally am on your side, I don't have much interest in protecting big corporations but their positions are understandable. I hope these super restrictive caps fail and that this is not a mark for restricted broadband. I like using my internet connection in the way I want to without any big surprises. |
|
mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY
4 edits | reply to Matt
said by Matt: ...Their caps are not because of bandwidth hogs, it's to stifle competing video services, finance upgrades in competitive areas (read TW vs FiOS competition or where AT&T has to compete with Comcast), and protect their lucrative VoD stream. Remember www.mlb.com (for those who check out the ballgame online)..
I I could be wrong though i'm pretty sure I am right. As far as I know, the idea there was that shows could be seen in out of market games only, the thinking to me was that if it was offered in every market, their wouldn't be a point of offering it on cable in the first place; that is why they had it that way. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to baineschile
said by baineschile:I thought it was priority of a company to make money while providing a service that people want not give customers as much as they can possibly afford to, even though the service desired is only desired by the few that caused the cap in the first place... they would make even more money and need to cap less if they didnt pay execs with seven figure pay. there is no reason for someone to make that money just to sit in an office tower and look pretty to investors who dont know the execs take their advice from far lower paid people.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
