For years we've heard about how usage caps and limits on broadband are necessary because it's expensive to run a network. Until we read earnings reports clearly showing how flat-rate broadband pricing has long been profitable. Then we were told that caps were necessary due to network congestion, until even the cable industry itself admitted that wasn't true on well-managed networks.
These days, despite some still trying to claim costly usage overages are about "fairness," most people understand that usage caps and overages are about protecting TV revenues from Internet video.Sonic.net CEO Dane Jasper knows a thing or two about running networks, and in a conversation with Multichannel News about the company's new $40, 1 Gbps offering (previously discussed by us here), Jasper makes it clear that arbitrary usage limits on fixed-line broadband aren't based on realities on the ground, however much ISPs like to pretend otherwise:
quote:"The difference is that in the steak [example], there’s more cow. It’s not artificial. There’s a higher materials cost,” Jasper said. “But when it comes to broadband performance and speed, the limits are artificial. They sound fair, but they’re entirely contrived. There isn’t a cost around speed. We believe that tiered pricing doesn’t make sense."
I like to call them arbitrary. One company's 5GB cap is as "generous" as another's 300GB cap. It's all unnecessary and the companies that produce cap-oriented technology platforms don't market them for traffic management as much as they do for "revenue enhancement."
They sound fair, but they’re entirely contrived. There isn’t a cost around speed.
That can't be true! I refuse to believe it!
All the ISP supporters here and throughout the online community will surely come here to show us evidence riddled with facts disputing this guys false information.
Surely he has no clue what he is talking about. He is a CEO of a broadband company for the love of God! How can he know anything related to internet things?!?!?
So once again, DSLR celebrates the "small businessman" who speaks out against the large cap broadband industry.
How convenient is it that the gentleman can rail against (mostly unenforced) caps, while he finds it perfectly acceptable to force bundling on his customers and adding a not-very-optional modem rental fee, citing industry standard practices.
Meanwhile, he is also celebrated for $70 Fiber that isn't available to anyone, but all other firms are denounced for "Fiber to the press release".
Where is this internet video that he speaks of, that will compete directly with the cable industry he's assailing? After all, he doesn't impose caps to protect it, so where is it? Why is he only offering bogus Directv bundles that require monthly rebate compliance?
When will DSLR and their anti-corporate allies in the press ever hold Sonic to the same standard they apply to the rest of the industry?
·
