AT&T starts capping broadband

[grumbler]

It is pretty much the norm to have caps here.

Capped interwebs? WTF is this the Stone Age? Oh, it's Europe.

That's a little ironic given the OP.

[Grey Fox]

Stupid Regulators allowing this. The internet isn't like Electricity!

  Does this actually mean anything?  They are, in fact, trying to ration usage of a limited resource here by one of the most basic of methods--pricing.  How would "Stupid Regulators" not "allowing this" be better for anyone?

The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.

[MadImmortalMan]

Shit. I've been a U-Verse customer since they first laid fiber up my street in ...2007? I fucking love it. Or maybe it's just that it's so much better than the Charter cable I had before. Either way, this is a big bummer. I use a hundred hours of Netflix a month easy.


I guess I'm the problem. 

[Habbaku]

Stupid Regulators allowing this. The internet isn't like Electricity!

  Does this actually mean anything?  They are, in fact, trying to ration usage of a limited resource here by one of the most basic of methods--pricing.  How would "Stupid Regulators" not "allowing this" be better for anyone?

The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.

[Faeelin]

In both areas (mobile coverage and internet infrastructure) Western Europe had one advantage vs. U.S.: short distances, high population density. It's probably more viable economically to bring mobile and high speed broadband to, say North Germany or the Vienna/Bratislava hub than to a similarly sized  area in the U.S. Midwest or Alaska.

The relevant comparison would be parts of Europe that are less densely populated, no? And living in New YOrk, I can't get a download speed like Syt's...

[Grey Fox]

Stupid Regulators allowing this. The internet isn't like Electricity!

  Does this actually mean anything?  They are, in fact, trying to ration usage of a limited resource here by one of the most basic of methods--pricing.  How would "Stupid Regulators" not "allowing this" be better for anyone?

The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.

Okay, there's a limit of bytes per second but you consuming 200gb of data/month or 2gb/month makes no difference.

[Cecil]

[Habbaku]

Okay, there's a limit of bytes per second but you consuming 200gb of data/month or 2gb/month makes no difference.

Ah, now we're on to something.  Yes, I'm aware that there's virtually no difference between consumption of relatively little data and large amounts, but what method other than pricing by usage would you suggest the company use to recoup infrastructure investments that allow for greater bandwidth in the future?  At least pricing by usage would seem, on the face of it, to be a far more equitable method of doing so.

[MadImmortalMan]

What the fuck good is a hundred megabits if you're capped at 60mb anyway?

[MadImmortalMan]

Okay, there's a limit of bytes per second but you consuming 200gb of data/month or 2gb/month makes no difference.

Ah, now we're on to something.  Yes, I'm aware that there's virtually no difference between consumption of relatively little data and large amounts, but what method other than pricing by usage would you suggest the company use to recoup infrastructure investments that allow for greater bandwidth in the future?  At least pricing by usage would seem, on the face of it, to be a far more equitable method of doing so.

I suggest a surcharge on iPhones and Macintosh computers.

[Caliga]

I suggest a surcharge on iPhones and Macintosh computers.

i.e. a gay tax.

[Habbaku]

[Habbaku]

I suggest a surcharge on iPhones and Macintosh computers.

[Syt]

"Faster than 50% of US" really sells it.

[Habbaku]

"Faster than 50% of US" really sells it.

"Only breaks down a few times a year!"