supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
 ·Cox VOIP
·Skype
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to S_engineer
Re: Wow
said by S_engineer  :Not to mention it would undermine their argument for caps. Seems to me they're going too fast with the Death Star rebuild. They just don't have all of the pieces in place to avoid consumer backlash. I find your lack of faith disturbing. The Emperor is not pleased with your efforts. He will be coming soon. Double your efforts. I'm not as forgiving as he is. -Darth Vader
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :said by Karl Bode :I'm sure they'd like to, but I just don't see them getting away with that. Any attempt to do this will raise the Network Neutrality Red Flag. In this case, they are giving preferred service to their offering due to not charging Bandwidth Usage to the user's Cap Account (instead of the usual "Pay Us and you will get better QoS" scenario). I don't think they care about their appearance, there too many red flags out there now for this one to matter. The same preffered status would cause just as many red flags. These services are fast becoming like insurance companies where all they have to do is advertise their product, not deliver. Cherry pick the clientele, and make the consumer jump through hoops just to use the product. And if they bill you wrong, well you better pay it or like Sprint, they might just dump you as a customer for complaining. God help anyone that actually holds a company to what they advertise! |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :I'm sure they'd like to, but I just don't see them getting away with that. Any attempt to do this will raise the Network Neutrality Red Flag. In this case, they are giving preferred service to their offering due to not charging Bandwidth Usage to the user's Cap Account (instead of the usual "Pay Us and you will get better QoS" scenario). |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Karl Bode
I'm sure they'll find a way....
They 'could' to this by having the 'content provider' (aka themselves or a contracted company) pay them for the 'right' to deploy their video services. In turn, there would have to be a tracking mechanism to rollback the consumption of data used by their service.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to S_engineer
They need to warm consumers to the idea that metered billing is necessary first. They can use it as an anti-competitive weapon later when HD Internet video really takes off. It's all pre-emptive. |
|
Ormaybe
@sbcglobal.net
thumbs down from:
GlassRail
| reply to lengyelc
Or..maybe they know what they are doing,and hope the folks in Reno,NV go over their bandwidth caps so they can pay more $$$$ too AT&T.  |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to Karl Bode
Not to mention it would undermine their argument for caps.
Seems to me they're going too fast with the Death Star rebuild. They just don't have all of the pieces in place to avoid consumer backlash.
--
"For duty and humanity!"
- Moe Larry and Curly (MEN IN BLACK, 1934)...These are the guys we have in Congress |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to lengyelc
I'm sure they'd like to, but I just don't see them getting away with that. |
|
lengyelc
join:2005-12-11
Alpharetta, GA | reply to Pizz
Maybe AT&T will make this service immune to the bandwidth caps in an effort to drive traffic to these sites, and hence make more money in ad revenue? |
|
Pizz
Hi
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY | Going to implement this type of service, while caps are on their horizon. How brolly these companies have become. |
|
