Re: AT&T Monthly Bandwidth Caps Are Here

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: November 4, 2008 5:42:12 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: AT&T Monthly Bandwidth Caps Are Here


Dave,

Of course, caps carry a definite profit center bonus as compared
with throttling, at least when subscribers are being charged extra
for exceeding the caps (and especially when those caps are
relatively low).  That is, a circuit that is throttled but not
capped will never bring in additional revenue since there's no cap
to exceed (and so no "excess" data to charge for).

Note also that currently announced caps, even for similar technology
and speed circuits, are varying widely from different companies.
This *suggests* that perhaps their levels are being set arbitrarily,
or at least that's a reasonable assumption in the absence of public
data to explain how these caps and related charges actually relate
to claims of "degrading" other customers' traffic.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

- - -

> 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
>
> > Surveying the broadband landscape in this country, It's either  
> > caps=20=20
> > or slowdowns or filters. (Unless you're on Comcast, then it's a two- 
> > =20
> > for-one.) Caps seem like the lesser of the three evils, if only=20=20
> > because they're fairly transparent=97filtering and slowdowns are  
> > more=20=
> =20
> > insidious, since you might not be immediately aware it's  
> > happening.=20=20
> > They're essentially legitimized forms of sabotage.
>
> In my opinion, the term "sabotage" is unduly pejorative and=20=20
> inflammatory, as well as simply inaccurate. In all cases, the goal  
> is=20=20
> simply to lower costs to consumers by preventing them from  
> consuming=20=20
> more bandwidth than they pay for (and thus causing the provider  
> to=20=20
> lose money). Absent such constraints, the price of broadband  
> service=20=20
> would have to be increased substantially, especially as  
> consumers=20=20
> begin to use more bandwidth-intensive services (such as  
> streaming=20=20
> video). Or it would have to be metered by the bit, a strategy  
> which=20=20
> consumers have overwhelmingly rejected.
>
> Explicit caps are the tactic least liked by consumers, who despise  
> the=20=
> =20
> "surprise" overage fees imposed by cellular providers. Throttling  
> and=20=20
> filtering impose implicit limits which the user, in most cases,  
> does=20=20
> not notice and which actually improve his experience by preventing  
> him=20=
> =20
> from slowing down or degrading his own highest priority traffic  
> (e.g.=20=20
> VoIP) by running a low priority application (e.g. a file transfer)  
> at=20=20
> the same time.
>
> --Brett Glass





-------------------------------------------
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