Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/08/09
I use about 100-250GB a month combined from my iPhone, MacBook and PC Laptop.
If there would ever be a cap on my service I would be in trouuuble!!!
My mom and sister already use like 1-3 Gigs a day! So make that a quarter to a half a terabyte a month!!!
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/09/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
That doesn't make any sense. The amount of data that can move across the network is the limited resource; therefore you should charge based off how much of the resource is used, not at the rate it's used.
Just like the power company charges you by how much power you use, not how quickly you use it.
10/08/09
It actually is the rate at which data is moved, or rather how much can be moved in a certain amount of time, that counts. Charging for teird bandwidth, kinda like they do now..., makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than charging for something that is limited only by time.
10/08/09
Suppose it sucks if you consume huge amounts of bandwidth, but only between 3 and 4AM, but I can't think of a better, easily measured metric for charging people...
10/08/09
Err....
[gizmodo.com]
Any guarantee of unlimited mobile broadband was already illusory by the time the FCC brought down the hammer. To say that we really should ought to have bent over for the telecoms so that we could keep our 'unlimited' data plans is just being naive.
10/08/09
10/08/09
I think the same thing every time i call the unemployment number.
10/08/09
10/08/09
As far as I can tell this guy is a Troll who gets lost on his way to the Free Republic site.
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
You are, of course, absolutely correct. Having customers pay for their use of the internet is a good thing. Why people do not like this is not truly to game the system but because they are concerned the ISP's will game us by charging more than they would have collected otherwise. If the low-use folks are paying the same amount as "unlimited" and the high use individuals are paying even more, we are ultimately being screwed.
That said, if the ISP's are nice (try to control laughter) then this system completely makes sense. I should pay more if I use it more. However, most of us do not trust them. Hard to believe when we are talking about the ever-trustworthy AT&T, but we are a tough crowd.
10/08/09
If there's one thing that no business has ever suffered from, it's too much demand. And we are internet-addicted data nuts here in the U.S.
So go ahead and regulate/cap/throttle whatever you'd like, guys. If not you guys, someone will be along to increase supply of the internet access the consumer wants.
So long as the net stays free and all sites equal, I'm not worried about it.
10/08/09
10/08/09
"If you are on a data plan that does not include a monthly MB/GB allowance and additional data usage rates, you agree that AT&T has the right to impose additional charges if you use more than 5 GB in a month; provided that, prior to the imposition of any additional charges, AT&T shall provide you with notice and you shall have the right to terminate your Service."
The T&C makes it sound grey, but they are covering themselves and are telling customers it will be enforced.
10/08/09
10/08/09
And don't just cry out a data cap for the sake of it. For the light users who can monitor their own usage, they could come out paying less. I have no doubt others could cut out a significant amount of usage by just not surfing for the heck of it. All of our utilities are metered, so it shouldn't surprise people that companies want to do the same thing with internet.
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
10/08/09
Like it's been said, telecoms don't just spring up over night and the moment they a threat one of the big ones eats them up.
Maybe if all this deregulated "free market" Reagan-era bullshit were taken to task instead of defended as the end all be all of capitalism, we would have something resembling real choice.
10/08/09
I'll take free market Capitalism instead, there might not be many choices but it will be better than a single government controlled entity
10/08/09
What a rich socialistic history our country has!
Aside from your understanding of socialism being wrong (HINT: You're describing Communism and there is a WORLD of difference contrary to what your tea bagger and/or 9/12 friends think.)
Furthermore; your problems with it are illogical.
What you are against would be consolidated control of industry by a government entity, which you believe would be run poorly and waste tax payer money. That's an understandable concern.
What you are advocating is a system that allows concentrated ownership by private industry if one company can effectively buy out or otherwise squash the competition, completely unchecked,and void of government oversight or restrictions.
That, sir, is frightening.
How is concentrated control of any industry by appointed/hired (not voted for by the people) better than basic regulatory restrictions by a democratically elected legislative body?
Why would you trust the CEO of a company over an elected and accountable figure?
You're choosing the concentration of power by one over another.
It blows my mind that you can't see the absurdity in that.
Most importantly, NO ONE is arguing for a single, government controlled, anything. That's something you simply made up out of thin air and then railed against.
What I am suggesting is that we get back to what worked well for the better half of the last 120 +/- years.
10/08/09
How is it that the Department of Justice, specifically charged with enforcing these laws, keeps looking at local competition issues in the context of transaction reviews and keeps permitting transactions to go forward? Why do you believe competition does not exist?
09/11/09
09/12/09