how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
791 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Lots of flaming, not much else 1. You don't refute any of the data AT&T puts forward. You may not like the fact that they measure transfer by emails or picture views, but at least allow that people do do those things over the Internet, and that AT&T's point is valid (that people who do only those things don't come anywhere near hitting a cap).
2. "An entire home's worth of heavy gamers..." online games do not use a lot of bandwidth. Yes I've seen complaints that WoW puts out updates that are large, but that is not a gaming issue. WoW just needs to figure out how to send incremental updates, which they'd better do before customers start complaining about overage charges.
3. Cries of outrage about a 20GB cap on a 768kbit tier are pretty silly. Why would anyone who is into downloading HD movies get that slow a service? 5GB at 3/4 of a megabit per second is over 8 hours, with no overhead and everything running at max rate. Pay a little more and get a higher rate, plus the cap to go with it!
4. "AT&T has limited Internet usage to 90 minutes a day" --- huh? How could they have come to a conclusion like that? Oh I see. 90 minutes of complete maxed out downloading at 10mb/sec, on a daily basis, would about get you to the 150GB cap. Which doesn't exist yet except on a trial basis. A less polemical statement would be "AT&T is trialing limiting you to an average of 5GB/day over each month." The way it is put makes it sound like you can only connect to the Internet for 90 minutes a day. This is an outrageous distortion, equivalent to saying "Obama supports explicit sex education for kindergartners" (which was actually stated in an ad, BTW... I'm not making this up). It is sort of technically true but strongly implies the opposite of the real truth.
In summary, there seems to be two main arguments you're making:
1) There is no economic need behind caps.
2) The caps don't allow users to download HD movies every day.
To me these are strange arguments.
1) AT&T is a business. They are allowed to choose how they go to market (outside of antitrust violations, which are not in play here). You get to choose whether you buy their service as offered, or not. Whether or not a charge can be directly tied to a cost is really not the issue.
2) You do not have a right to unlimited transfers which would allow you to download HD movies every day for no extra charge. I know this sounds stupidly obvious when I say it, but I really think people think they do. I can't otherwise explain people's emotional reaction when they find out that they may not be able to download as much as they have been allowed to -- like some innate human right is being taken away. Geez, get over it, and get your movies some other way. There's plenty of options -- satellite, cable, DVD rental/purchase, going to a theater. | |
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by MyDogHsFleas: 2) You do not have a right to unlimited transfers which would allow you to download HD movies every day for no extra charge. I know this sounds stupidly obvious when I say it, but I really think people think they do. I can't otherwise explain people's emotional reaction when they find out that they may not be able to download as much as they have been allowed to -- like some innate human right is being taken away. Geez, get over it, and get your movies some other way. There's plenty of options -- satellite, cable, DVD rental/purchase, going to a theater. Ok now for an actual intellegent repsonse. First of all I am ALREDAY paying for bandwidth when at&t gets my $43 a month. The website I am streaming the HD content from is ALREADY paying to the bandwidth it takes to stream said content. Without such sites one many would find the internet pretty useless thus no need to have an intenet account with at&t and thus at&t would LOSE revenue. Hard to make $ without customers. If all I can do is send e-mail I can use dial-up for that.
And yes the first ISP that accepts the fact that it's one purpose is to be a "dump pipe" provider will make a killing. WHY? Because once said compnay stops wasting time, money and resources trying to be other things it will have LOADS of cash leftover. | | |
|
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by BF69:said by MyDogHsFleas: 2) You do not have a right to unlimited transfers which would allow you to download HD movies every day for no extra charge. I know this sounds stupidly obvious when I say it, but I really think people think they do. I can't otherwise explain people's emotional reaction when they find out that they may not be able to download as much as they have been allowed to -- like some innate human right is being taken away. Geez, get over it, and get your movies some other way. There's plenty of options -- satellite, cable, DVD rental/purchase, going to a theater. Ok now for an actual intellegent repsonse. First of all I am ALREDAY paying for bandwidth when at&t gets my $43 a month. The website I am streaming the HD content from is ALREADY paying to the bandwidth it takes to stream said content. Without such sites one many would find the internet pretty useless thus no need to have an intenet account with at&t and thus at&t would LOSE revenue. Hard to make $ without customers. If all I can do is send e-mail I can use dial-up for that. The answer to this is my summary point 1. AT&T is a business and they do not have to justify a customer charge by tying it to a specific cost of theirs (outside of antitrust violations which are not in play here). They offer a service, you get to choose whether to accept their offer or not.
I would add that the website streaming your HD content is, in fact, paying by the gigabyte. They have never had "unlimited" service. It's only in the consumer space that ISPs have offered this type of service.
And yes the first ISP that accepts the fact that it's one purpose is to be a "dump pipe" provider will make a killing. WHY? Because once said compnay stops wasting time, money and resources trying to be other things it will have LOADS of cash leftover.
Assuming you mean "dumb pipe"... if it's really true that ISPs without caps and not trying to make money on content are much more profitable, then capitalist competition will take care of this and provide you with what you want.
I think the truth is much more on the other side. Companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. are not stupid. They have pretty smart people who have gone to years of expensive school and understand the economics of running a business. They are running away from the "dumb pipe" model precisely BECAUSE it doesn't make as much money for them as the content- and service- heavy model. | |
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by MyDogHsFleas:The answer to this is my summary point 1. AT&T is a business and they do not have to justify a customer charge by tying it to a specific cost of theirs (outside of antitrust violations which are not in play here). They offer a service, you get to choose whether to accept their offer or not.
Sure at&t is a business and I am a customer and since Charter also serivces my area I can just use them instead. Good-bye $43 a month at&t. Also since I'm being a real dick I'll just cancell my POTS line with them. So they can say good-bye to $1000 a year from ONE customer. Does it really make finacial sense to put a cap on me then? No of course not.
I would add that the website streaming your HD content is, in fact, paying by the gigabyte. They have never had "unlimited" service. It's only in the consumer space that ISPs have offered this type of service. So you agree the bandwidth being used is ALREADY being paid for. No need to charge TWICE or actually THREE times. Thank you.
Assuming you mean "dumb pipe"... if it's really true that ISPs without caps and not trying to make money on content are much more profitable, then capitalist competition will take care of this and provide you with what you want. If you HONESTLY think that when it comes to the ISPs that we have an actual "free market" system then you are either delusional, ignorant or both. Capitalistic rules can only work where we have actual capitalism. Monopolies and duopolies are not by ANY definition a "free market" | |
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
These statements make my stomach turn:
"In summary, there seems to be two main arguments you're making:
1) There is no economic need behind caps.
2) The caps don't allow users to download HD movies every day.
To me these are strange arguments." Point 1. There isn't. You've been brainwashed. How much dose a T1 cost? You're telling me it's perfectly fine to overcharge HOME users fees that are FAR greater than the cost of T1 service? That's incredulous and sick.
Point 2. So what? Is that wrong of somebody to expect? It's a freaking internet connection, and this is 2008, not 1988. It's a FASTER internet connection that isn't cluttered up with AOL type goofyness. Look what happened to AOL - MOST people wanted JUST that internet connection to CHOOSE what they get from it... NOT what somebody else decides is good for them... Which is also a major difference between TV and the internet... people CHOOSE what they want to see and can add their own content if they want!
If that internet connection is capable of sustaining 8+Mbps a second or whatever it can (ok, 6Mbps with AT&T), and you want to use that speed for a couple of hours per day, maybe a few more, how is that "BAD" that people do this?
It's not that it's a "human right" - and that's a pretty low argument there... it's that this just isn't right from any perspective unless you have some sick pleasure derived from seeing people get tortured financially by companies who have no good TECHNICAL reason for doing this.
"There's plenty of options" PS. There ARE plenty of options for video, yes there are. The internet is one of them now. There IS no reason to overcharge for what is or will soon be COMMON usage for a high speed link. | |
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas:The answer to this is my summary point 1. AT&T is a business and they do not have to justify a customer charge by tying it to a specific cost of theirs (outside of antitrust violations which are not in play here). They offer a service, you get to choose whether to accept their offer or not. Which is what of the consternation around here is about. ATT provides no sound reason for implementing caps, they appear to be doing because they can do it. Sorry, doing something just because you can, with out any rational reason is going to called out for the BS it is.
I would add that the website streaming your HD content is, in fact, paying by the gigabyte. They have never had "unlimited" service. It's only in the consumer space that ISPs have offered this type of service. No, the high bandwidth sites are not paying per GB. They are paying based on 95th percentile utilization rates. Some have even purchased full rate connections (GigE, DS3, etc) and transfer as much as the circuit can carry, essentially the same as flat rate, unlimited.
Companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc. are not stupid. They have pretty smart people who have gone to years of expensive school and understand the economics of running a business. There's a difference between being smart and running to school and getting an MBA because you might make more money. I've worked in many a job and have learned that most of the under-performing, dead-weight is at the top of the company. The management isn't smart, they just use the advice of smart people.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab. | |
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to amungus
said by amungus:How much dose a T1 cost? You're telling me it's perfectly fine to overcharge HOME users fees that are FAR greater than the cost of T1 service? That's incredulous and sick. Actually a T1 costs hundreds of dollars a month, 5-10x what you pay for consumer DSL. | |
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to MyDogHsFleas
What I generally don't get is the ISP's are saying I shouldn't use what I'm paying for. As I look at it, in simplest terms, they built a network and are selling me access to data, said data being streamed in at (up to) 12mbs. They sell the same thing to my neighbors. If there are five of us in the neighborhood who bought this service, the implication is the network can sustain five 12mbs connections, for a total of 60mbs. But when we all USE that service, they scream and say we're abusing the system because it can't support that kind of traffic.
So how is it MY fault (or my neighbors) if the network can't do what we paid for? If I'm buying 12mbs, I WANT 12mbs 24/7. If the best the network can realistically handle is 6mbs, then lower the price and sell me that. But do NOT complain if I expect value provided for services bought. | |
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
But his point is, if you used a 1.5mb DSL connection 24/7 each and everyday, the cost would exceed that of a T1, with the added overage charges. | |
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to MyDogHsFleas
quote:
2. "An entire home's worth of heavy gamers..." online games do not use a lot of bandwidth. Yes I've seen complaints that WoW puts out updates that are large, but that is not a gaming issue. WoW just needs to figure out how to send incremental updates, which they'd better do before customers start complaining about overage charges.
OMG once in a blue moon large patches. but when you add in using Ventrilo on a server with a non shitty quality setting it does add up during an 8 hour(or more:) ) session
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
