 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| No, no, no. quote:
AT&T, meanwhile tells the local paper that limiting your consumption and charging you more for bandwidth is actually about making broadband better and more affordable through targeting "abnormally high usage patterns":
This is clearly NOT about targeting abnormally high usage patterns. If it was, the limit would be more like Comcast's. Just a high limit placed on the overall service to discourage abuse. This pricing structure is clearly set up with low allowances and high overage fees to encourage people to buy higher speed plans.
What's really unacceptable about AT&T's implementation is that not all customers qualify for all speed tiers. What if I only qualify for 3mbps Pro service due to CO distance, but I use 120GB per month? I'm going to get hit with a monthly bill of over $100 per month. The only way to get a cap high enough is to buy U-Verse Max - tough luck if it's not available.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | This is about pulling in more revenue.
This is borderline collusion.
Unlike competition - where both parties are competing through lower prices and incentives for your business, in Beaumont, its the opposite. Both (are there only 2 carriers in Beaumont?) are effectively decreasing service and increasing the cost/service by capping.
I agree that this is primarily targeted towards uses on low / economy tiers, and also hits those on the high end as well.
While I have been able to perform remote work from home over a 3Mbps connection for the past 5 years with ease, pricing structures such as this would effectively kill off those on the lower end. Its a cash grab - pure and simple. |
|
| Its definitely about pulling in more revenue, but I believe thats secondary. The way the internet is headed, with streaming videos and movies and HD etc, there is a clear interest for providers to limit that access as much possible, and instead force users to use their video service or their portals. By providing caps on the connection, the provider accomplishes two things: force the consumer to use their product only (since it doesn't count against the cap) and pretty much have a stranglehold on the market because in essence the provider has erected another economic barrier to entry. Smaller providers or content producers simply can't compete when the telco/cableco are the backbone AND content of the network, and on top of that limit how much access is allowed outside the network. |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | I tend to agree.
This is similar to wireless companies (AT&T Mobility/VZW/Sprint) offering mobile Internet, then stating no streaming... unless you use 'OUR' (read paid for) service. Apps like Skype Mobile should work fine 
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
| reply to bigpimpatl
Re: No, no, no. yes it's a monopoly oh brother, ahem I mean, BIG BROTHER is in control! Nobody to stop the viral monopoly from spreading and constricting it's victoms, er um customers. No way to stop them from "controling" what you get to see or hear either.
Better download lots more now right away, before the price goes up. Get it out of your system and then go for a walk. |
|
