AT&T looking at charging heavy Internet users extra

[maestro55]

http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8483655

I saw this in the news today, I knew about Time Warner's trial in Beaumont and I can promise you if Time Warner Central Texas decides to do this in Waco I will seek another ISP. They can argue all they want about the costs of upgrading and maintaining equipment and that they are 100% fair in charging those of us who are heavier users (I was considering actually the netflix box for my TV if the quality was good) but the fact of the matter is they don't really need to charge us the extra fees.

Already in the United States the ISPs are charging more than less (compared to other countries). $1 per gigabyte extra isn't going to burn a hole in my wallet if they do that here; however, it is extra money I shouldn't be spending on top of what I am already spending (and I don't know what they have set the bandwidth cap at in Beaumont). The fact is, with AT&T (and I am sure other providers will jump on this too) considering this we are going to be looking at even higher costs (and will the speeds increase?) for our access.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

I got AT&T DSL, and since I have 24/7 access, I can't see the need to go up.

 

[mkrishnan]

I think if streaming movie rentals ever really catch on, particularly high def ones, it's going to be a real bandwidth challenge.

With respect to usage fees, it seems problematic to me in that the top 5% of users represent in part the technological elite, the early adopters, who may have a strong impact on the eventual mass adoption of new technologies that might be ultimately good for the economy and enjoyed by many users. Making them shy away from experimenting with new, bandwidth intensive ideas might have complex consequences.

Of course, that 5% also includes a bunch of compulsive torrenter pirates, and they can bite me.

 

[OscarTheGrouch]

I think if streaming movie rentals ever really catch on, particularly high def ones, it's going to be a real bandwidth challenge.

With respect to usage fees, it seems problematic to me in that the top 5% of users represent in part the technological elite, the early adopters, who may have a strong impact on the eventual mass adoption of new technologies that might be ultimately good for the economy and enjoyed by many users. Making them shy away from experimenting with new, bandwidth intensive ideas might have complex consequences.

Of course, that 5% also includes a bunch of compulsive torrenter pirates, and they can bite me.

Hey there are legal torrent sites, and I download on average 10gb a month, not counting my gaming bandwidth, and the photo's i send, and my general browsing. I would quit charter communications so fast they wouldnt know what the heck hit them.

Verizon is going to trump all once their FIOS becomes wide spread. The bandwidth issues will be non existent for years once isp's cough up the capital to convert their infrastructure completely from copper to fiber.

 

[mkrishnan]

Hey there are legal torrent sites, and I download on average 10gb a month, not counting my gaming bandwidth, and the photo's i send, and my general browsing.

You're what I mean by the tech elite -- people who make heavy use of new high bandwidth technologies in legal ways. I'm just saying I care to protect people like you, because I think in the long term you foster adoption of good technologies. I don't particularly care to support pirates, but that's a different story.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

The majority of my downloads are songs from iTunes. Nothing else is of real interest.

 

[mkrishnan]

The majority of my downloads are songs from iTunes. Nothing else is of real interest.

If you're spending enough money downloading songs off iTunes to reach the attention of a bandwidth capper / usage cost analyst at your service provider, you would be spending $1000's on iTunes a month, and at that point, the usage costs would be a "drop in the bucket" anyways!