|
|
|
Fees for heavy Internet use inevitable, says AT&T
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 14 June, 2008
AT&T representative Michael Coe has said the company believes it is "inevitable" that heavy Internet users will eventually have to pay some sort of surcharge for the extra bandwidth demand placed on the network.
The ISP along with other providers have been seeing a huge surge in traffic for its DSL services, which can be attributed to a small group of users. Coe added that only 5 percent ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
16. June 2008 @ 22:47 |
Link to this message
|
People that use home Based Servers,like me are getting Screwed. this is bull crap and nonsense,
if need be i will breakout my Star Tracker satellite and steal my internet. These people are fools and idiots, there cheap asses who refuse to lay new lines, to replace the ones that were there longer than there company existed.
Company's only interested in milking Every last dime from the American people And the government doesn't give a dame as long as they get there share.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
jwk27603
Newbie
|
19. June 2008 @ 02:27 |
Link to this message
|
Anybody who is supporting this with a little "it's only fair" speech is either naive or a cable rep. Don't tell me you know that heavy users are all stealing movies. You don't know anything of the sort.
How about this instead - there is an FCC plan to use radio for broadband.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_hi_te/free_broadband
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. June 2008 @ 03:07
|
Member
|
19. June 2008 @ 11:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
mspurloc
Not really the way current service and infrastructure is setup there is not enough bandwidth to give everyone a super fast plan with no limits.
The cheap super fast net services will become a thing of the past in some places because like satlitle internet they do not have the infrastructure to meet the demand and the end result is a costly craptactuler service.
There are too many suppositions in this that only serve the ISP cause.
1. There are no real limits to bandwidth except corporate greed. Korea and several other countries have two to four times better service and infrastructure than we do.
2. Their "we lack infrastructure" argument is just beyond lame. If you don't have it, build it!
3. Besides being stupid, it's dishonest. There are thousands of bundles of dark fiber out there. "Keep supply low and prices high." They're gouging.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. June 2008 @ 11:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mspurloc:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
mspurloc
Not really the way current service and infrastructure is setup there is not enough bandwidth to give everyone a super fast plan with no limits.
The cheap super fast net services will become a thing of the past in some places because like satlitle internet they do not have the infrastructure to meet the demand and the end result is a costly craptactuler service.
There are too many suppositions in this that only serve the ISP cause.
1. There are no real limits to bandwidth except corporate greed. Korea and several other countries have two to four times better service and infrastructure than we do.
2. Their "we lack infrastructure" argument is just beyond lame. If you don't have it, build it!
3. Besides being stupid, it's dishonest. There are thousands of bundles of dark fiber out there. "Keep supply low and prices high." They're gouging.
*head desk*
You do realize that Asia has a quarter or less of the surface area to pipe lines in, there is a logical reason why most of the Asian countries flogged using speed and serviceable areas in less than 5 years it dose not have anything to do with government or business you have a small area with huge population centers making it ahell of alot easier to do.
In the US not only to do you have large areas of nothing but sparace population centers, no one company has the money to put the pipes in to provide the services that are not there or under serviced right now, while they have screwed up the truth of the matter is they can not afford to keep giving away supper fast connections on the cheap.
There are MANY issues in the US net infrastructure one of the key things coming up is a balance of bandwidth, the cheaper you make the super high speed the more people will be on it and the quicker it will be used up.
I am not calling for metered rates or heavy caps or what not just anything over 1000KBPS needs to be over 50 a month, anything under 300KBPS needs be under 20 a month, you can't build infrastructure on the money you have for maintanace and what you run your business on.
They are greedy but only a bit more than sheeple and almost as dumb, but the fact remains we don't want them to move to something like Satilite DSL caps there needs to be a balance, and price plans to speeds will do it.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
19. June 2008 @ 13:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
The Type SCSC 48 strand optic trunk cable that we use cost @ $11.00 per foot. Each splice box cost around $1,200.00 . Of course each house, block, road, etc does not need 48 strands. The cost of outfitting one small town is crazy. Some one has to pay for this. As ZippyDSM stated, a wireless future may be the way to go.
I live in a town with @ 220 homes. If everyone in my town decided that they wanted a fiber optic connection and a service provider decided to lay fiber optic cable and equipment in our town; for material alone just to get to each property, it would cost $387,000. That would have a ROI of over 7 years. You figure in the Lease of land lines, labor, equipment for burial, connection to your house, modems etc... The Return On Investment would be 20+ years. Banks are looking for a RIO of 3 to 5 years. What kind of monthly bill would you be willing to pay to make this feasible?
In a Large City where hundreds of people live in 1 building and multiple buildings per block, Fiber is feasible to install. For us who live in rural areas, we are out of luck. It may be that if larger cities convert to fiber, it will lift the load on copper land lines. Nothing is for free. Does not mater who foots the initial bill, the users and possibly non users through Taxes if the government pays for it.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. June 2008 @ 14:34 |
Link to this message
|
Zippy you were quite reasonable on you last post. I would like unlimited bandwidth for free just like I would not mind a money tree.
As long as they are resonable and fair that would be OK by me. I do not expect to get either anymore than a 250 g / month cap. These scum bags throw out big numbers not to panic the public. I doubt if we see 100 G cap, they will try to push a 50 g cap. That is enough for heavey surfing fat email and a touch of heavy down loading. If you want more you will have to pay more.
If they are more generous than that you can ALL flame me for at least a month! I would count myself lucky!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. June 2008 @ 15:33 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
Zippy you were quite reasonable on you last post. I would like unlimited bandwidth for free just like I would not mind a money tree.
As long as they are resonable and fair that would be OK by me. I do not expect to get either anymore than a 250 g / month cap. These scum bags throw out big numbers not to panic the public. I doubt if we see 100 G cap, they will try to push a 50 g cap. That is enough for heavey surfing fat email and a touch of heavy down loading. If you want more you will have to pay more.
If they are more generous than that you can ALL flame me for at least a month! I would count myself lucky!
It all goes to the situation as a whole, paying under 30 for under 300KBPS with odd halving caps is not to far fechted, the point of this is to replace dailup yet not overload the ISP, moderate usage would double or triple the the rates and caps for under 50/60, Unlimited plans at high speeds above that.
of course they will try everything in the world before anything like this is implemented.
|
Member
|
17. July 2008 @ 17:57 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by llongtheD:
"Although DSL is switch-based unlike cable Internet access Coe says the highly disproportionate use is still affecting other users."
So they offer high speeds and unlimited use, for a fee, and now are bit??ing? I guess in a perfect world everyone would pay them the fee's and not use their internet. It seems fairly simple, if you don't have the bandwidth, don't sell it. I wish I could sell an unlimited service that I didn't have, then charge extra when a customer tried to use it.
AMEN!!!
If it isn't unlimited, don't sell it that way.
If you can't deliver high-speed, don't call it that.
If you can't deliver, period, get out of the business and make way for someone who can.
This is a case of ISPs not wanting to do their jobs and not wanting to deliver the product they sold us. There is dark fiber out there and they are gouging, claiming the bandwidth's locked up. The only reason it is, is that they are sitting on it, too lazy and greedy to open it up. They gorge on our cash and sit around while the rest of the world is enjoying high speed, low cost Internet service.
How many times have these guys LIED to us?
How many times have companies like Comcast bribed their way out of an investigation?
(You can quibble about terminology, but paying disinterested people off of the street to take up seats so the public wouldn't have a voice at a public hearing is a from of bribery.)
I'm sorry. It's over. It's time to rattle their cages.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
