Re: AT&T Monthly Bandwidth Caps Are Here

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Henrik B" <blondino () gmail com>
Date: November 4, 2008 5:27:49 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: brett () lariat net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: AT&T Monthly Bandwidth Caps Are Here

Dave,

For IP if you wish.

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 1:47 PM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> Date: November 4, 2008 11:41:37 AM EST
> To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] AT&T Monthly Bandwidth Caps Are Here
>
> In my opinion, the term "sabotage" is unduly pejorative and  
> inflammatory, as
> well as simply inaccurate. In all cases, the goal is simply to lower  
> costs
> to consumers by preventing them from consuming more bandwidth than  
> they pay
> for (and thus causing the provider to lose money). Absent such  
> constraints,
> the price of broadband service would have to be increased  
> substantially,
> especially as consumers begin to use more bandwidth-intensive  
> services (such
> as streaming video). Or it would have to be metered by the bit, a  
> strategy
> which consumers have overwhelmingly rejected.

Dear Brett,

I know that as a broadband provider yourself you have a different
viewpoint than most of us who just consume it. But when I, as a
consumer, has been sold a connection with "up to 12 Mbit/s" and
"unlimited data" I don't want to get told that I have to limit my
consumption to protect the company that sold it to me. If they have
chosen a pricing model that doesn't cover their costs, then they have
been stupid and deserves to go out of business.

Regards,

Henrik Brameus

--
"If you're right 98% of the time, why quibble about the remaining 3%?"
MSN: hbrameus () hotmail com




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com