Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Embraces BitTorrent, Considers Usage-Based Pricing
Wired is running a story about AT&T's chief technical officer, John Donovan. He contrasts his view of BitTorrent and P2P in general against the controversial policies adopted by other ISPs. Donovan also explains why AT&T is considering usage-based pricing, citing the cost of network upgrades which only affect a small number of users. AT&T is expected to test the new pricing scheme later this year, which should give them plenty of time to see how Time Warner's customers respond to the idea.
"'I don't view any of our customers, under any circumstances, as pirates -- I view them as users,' Donovan said. 'A heavy user is not a bad customer.' What he wants to do is gently encourage more efficient usage of his network, and usage-based pricing may be one of the ways that happens. Such measures may not even be necessary, as Donovan admits that users self-adjust their habits to take advantage of off-peak times. For instance, he said, BitTorrent on the company's network peaks around 4 a.m., when other traffic is at an ebb. Overall P2P traffic accounts for about 20 percent of the network's usage, Donovan said."
According to the CIA World Factbook there were 200+ million Internet users in the US in 2007.
Given that the Internet was designed in large part by DARPA to be cheap and scalable. And indeed, the Internet is just a bunch of wires and switches. And given that even if every user pays just 1$/month, where the hell is all the money going?
Why this post is insightful I don't know.
You are paying for a service! Imagine if your cell phone provider decides to charge you based on the distance your call is from the tower. Are you kidding me? You are joking right? Did you actually mean to post what you did?
In the words of John Stossel, Give me a break!
Lindsay Blanton
RadioReference.com
Sounds simple to track, and all the ISPs I have used with usage limits (non-US) did exactly that. Internal traffic didn't count towards your quota.
Doesn't seem hard to track the traffic as it crosses some boarder router.
Back in the olden days at University I remember departments being billed based on usage with international costing more than national costing more than AARNET and local to the University being free.
How is that a bad precedent? If it costs the provider why shouldn't they pass the cost onto the person causing it. Why should I who only use my internet to access local web sites have to pay for other users who upload/download gigabytes from Tokyo?
"What he wants to do is gently encourage more efficient usage of his network" should be read as "he wants to maximize profits and gouge his customers as much as he can get away with without going to jail", because after all mindless and perpetual expansion of PROFIT is what communications (or any other business) is all about, isn't it?
In the beginning telcos set up "toll booths" at the content provider level, and you had to pay more depending on how much content people downloaded from your site. But now that people have found a way to efficiently break up data and move it around, you might as well tax the whole world. Data is being moved without the appropriate compensation. We can't have THAT!
(begin sarcasm mode)
I know - maybe if we suck the government's metaphorical penis hard enough by providing them any info they need (under the guise of "terrorism") they will be nice to us when we try to screw consumers out of another $100 a month for something we've currently managed to provide for "free" - in fact we built and expanded internet access to what it is today at current market prices but suddenly we can't make money anymore. Those cables and routers have gone on strike and are asking for more money! I mean $60 a month for a cell phone and $60 a month for a land-line just isn't enough! Our telephone poles keep getting ripped up by tornadoes or crashed into, and our cell phone towers are rusting! Oh and we've invested billions of dollars into technology to let us screw our customers or read/modify their data but zero dollars into making our networks more efficient/increasing our capacity. We need more money!!!
(end sarcasm mode)
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
IMO and do you really want to see the telcoms get to a point where they can tell us what we should pay and we pay it beause we have no choice. When I fill up gas I'm always pissed but I am completely powerless. all i can do is bend over and say "Chevron do your worst*.
On a side note: anyone want to join in a class action suit against Chevron and all the oil companies for repeated ass raping. Every time I go to the pump I feel like a prison bitch.
Now the point is...do you want AT&T and Comcast to become even more Oilesque
development models 0f progr[ess.