reply to SRFireside
Re: Usage billing NOT just because of more revenue
said by SRFireside:To be honest I can't imagine a monthly per byte. Though like you say in parenthesis, I think it it may be more realistic that they may pay for a bucket of like 1TB or just a flat monthly access fee. Which, if we argue 1TB per tower, I can't imagine people eating through that. That would require 1024 people to download 1GB. Which, considering that most people don't stay in one spot 24/7. said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:
I agree with karlmarx, until someone can prove to me that it costs carrier's $$$ per byte, I won't buy your opinion TK.
While I also agree with Karlmarx I also have to say there are additional costs for an ISP. This mainly comes from connecting to the rest of the dark fiber out there ATT doesn't own. Every ISP either owns bandwidth and/or has access agreements with other providers to give their customers more capacity. Now if AT&T do use access from other carriers then they do pay a monthly per byte (per gb or tb or whatever) for that bandwidth. At the same time while these fees can be costly these ISPs have been paying for them since the beginning and there is no way they are losing money now by this model.
That's assuming ATT&T has any peering done in this manner. If they are running on their own bandwidth then there really is no excuse. Actually there isn't much excuse now either.
But then again, we don't know *exactly* what the providers are doing so it is all speculation at this point. Hell, it could even be something like "hey, AT&T well let you use our (T-Mobile) bandwidth if we can use yours, deal?"