AT&T starts capping broadband

[Grey Fox]

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.

By the amount they already charge you for the service? In canada, the profit margin of big 5 is ~24%. They can afford their investments.

Around here the word "fair" is usually thrown in argument for UBB. What's fair about it? If I only use 10% of my cap. I don't get a refund.

[Habbaku]

So, you're arguing for everyone's prices to go up rather than UBB.  I don't think that'll fly, for some reason.

[Maximus]

I don't like the idea of a cap, but they have to pay for it somehow. I actually have no idea how much we download per month.

I guess the question I'm interested in is how do they pay for it in places like Sweden and Finland. Are there subsidies?

[DGuller]

I really don't get the outrage at all.  First of all, they're not capping it, they're just metering it, turning it from a flat price to a variable price.  Second of all, isn't that an economically efficient decision?  Shouldn't people who incur relatively more costs for the provider pay more?  If they don't, then users who don't use Internet a lot subsidize those who do, and the whole pie is less efficiently allocated.

[katmai]

[Habbaku]

RE : GF

Note that I'm not addressing the fact that yours (and our) telecomms are some of the worst companies in our respective countries.  I think a lot of news focused on usage caps and the like distracts from the far bigger issue of the regional monopolies that the companies continue to hold.  I suspect that a truly competitive market would see caps disappear, or be quite a bit higher than the one's instituted by the old telecomms.

[DGuller]

The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.

It's not free to provide either.

[Caliga]

It's not that I think it's unfair, it's just that I'm annoyed that I will have to start monitoring my internet usage now.  I can afford to pay more, but I'm insufferably cheap.

[Habbaku]

It's not that I think it's unfair, it's just that I'm annoyed that I will have to start monitoring my internet usage now.  I can afford to pay more, but I'm insufferably cheap.

How much do you use?  I use the internet quite a bit, download a goodly amount of shows, etc. (though I don't use Netflix) and my usage came nowhere near the cap that AT&T's starting this month.

[DGuller]

Note that I'm not addressing the fact that yours (and our) telecomms are some of the worst companies in our respective countries.  I think a lot of news focused on usage caps and the like distracts from the far bigger issue of the regional monopolies that the companies continue to hold.  I suspect that a truly competitive market would see caps disappear, or be quite a bit higher than the one's instituted by the old telecomms.

I think the opposite will be true.  In a truly competitive market, prices would be more metered than they are now.  Metered pricing would make infrastructure investment more efficient, which in turn would make companies offering metered pricing more competitive.

[Habbaku]

Note that I'm not addressing the fact that yours (and our) telecomms are some of the worst companies in our respective countries.  I think a lot of news focused on usage caps and the like distracts from the far bigger issue of the regional monopolies that the companies continue to hold.  I suspect that a truly competitive market would see caps disappear, or be quite a bit higher than the one's instituted by the old telecomms.

I think the opposite will be true.  In a truly competitive market, prices would be more metered than they are now.  Metered pricing would make infrastructure investment more efficient, which in turn would make companies offering metered pricing more competitive.

You might be right, especially if the price indexes are fine-tuned.

[MadImmortalMan]

I hope this only includes the internet. My television comes down the same fiber and is essentially all "downloaded". Come to think of it, I got a big letter from them yesterday with a new set of terms and whatever. I think I should actually read that...

[garbon]

Not at home though

[Caliga]

How much do you use?  I use the internet quite a bit, download a goodly amount of shows, etc. (though I don't use Netflix) and my usage came nowhere near the cap that AT&T's starting this month.

I have no idea actually, but I have a WRT350N with DD-WRT mega running, which means I can monitor my monthly bandwidth usage.  I should have at least two months' worth of data on there I can check when I get home tonight.

[Grey Fox]

The internet or bandwith isn't a limited resource.

It's not free to provide either.

The cost to provide 1 gb of data is estimated to be 1 to 3¢. The faster the pipe is, the cost becomes cheaper.