exactly. coming up with better DRM protection is a more feasible solution to piracy rather than capping net usage. capping net usage in my opinion is inhuman.
They (Congress) know damn well it has nothing to do with piracy, but with a forty year old infrastructure that cannot handle even what it's asked to right now--much less in the near future.
However, it is easier for providers to cap their usage to discourage casual users than to address the fundamental issue; which is insufficient network capacity by all of these ISP's that have oversold themselves.
This little push by the copyright bodies on ISP's has forced ISP's to cheat a bit and not upgrade any UBR's to cope with oversubscription in area's. And they in turn blame it on the constant heavy users on poor performance, when a year before + it was stable enough.
They just got greedy like Virginmedia in the UK and tried to get everyone on board quickly with a big "to hell with consequences".. To them it was better to try and get £1B per month revenue than spending a couple hundred million to fix up UBR's to cope.
And to show you their greediness VM only allocated £40m for the whole of the UK in upgrades which is just not good enough, so I suspect its pretty much the same worldwide, except Sweden and Japan who have the best networking in place.
Incidentally, they were the leaders in test markets for capped service.
Actually, they do... they just don't want to admit it so that they can charge obscene amounts of money.
This report also reveals that AT&T's profit margin (before their new-fangled cap) was about 90%.
If they're making that much money, they can spare some to upgrade their 'overburdened' networks, which actually aren't.
[Edited by AdmiralThrawn, 3/16/2011 7:39:46 PM]
Firstly, why would they spend the money, regardless? It is counter-intuitive when they can make more money without spending any.
Secondly, the Stop the Cap blog you posted is arguing more on my side than against me.
"evidence continues to arrive illustrating the company’s planned usage limits are more about protecting their U-verse video business than actually controlling “heavy users.”"
They are working with what is known to be a finite asset, and are giving priority to their own product lest competing products use more of their finite asset.
Thirdly, you can argue that there is no endemic bandwidth shortage at all in the US--because we have vast untapped resources--but that's merely an exercise in sophistry; an untapped resource may as well not exist for the effect it has.
It's a meaningless argument, because for the consumer there is most definitely a shortage.