Well, it is the case in France, where France Telecom, Free and other companies have been battling it out for years...all unlimited.
2009/4/13 Patrick Delongchamp <pdelongch...@gmail.com> > > > As a Canadian, it seems hysterical to me as well. > > If bandwidth concerns were in fact misleading than you would expect > countries with a lot of competition (e.g. UK) to have ISPs all offering > unlimited bandwidth at ultra low costs. The opposite seems to be the case. > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Jay dedman > <jay.ded...@gmail.com<jay.dedman%40gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > OK $150 a month for 'virtually unlimited' seems a tad pricey. Maybe > > > $75/month for 100GB is slightly more sane though, does anybody who uses > a > > > lot of video online monitor their bandwidth to see if they get anywhere > > near > > > 100GB a month? > > > Its expensive enough to moan at the companies involved, but isnt > extreme > > > enough to confirm that 'they hope to kill Internet video before it's > any > > > more popular.' which is what that thing you pasted is trying to suggest > > in a > > > rather hysterical way. > > > > Hmmm....attention grabbing but not hysterical. > > Currently....a single HD show is usually about 750MB. Almost a gig. > > The size of files will only increase as quality gets better. > > Start doing the math based on the things you watch. > > > > we arent even calculating the amount of bandwidth a person uses for > > daily web use. > > > > If someone must think about every megabyte they download, this factor > > weighs on the choice to download a video by some unknown. > > > > > If we are thinking that in the near future people will be watching many > > > hours of high-def TV via the internet every day, then there are > capacity > > > issues which someone will have to pay for. I never heard what happened > to > > > the battle in the UK between the ISPs and the BBC who were using > > peer2peer > > > to make TV shows available to customers, thus saddling the ISPs with a > > > greater bandwidth bill, causing them to moan, All I know is that > viewers > > > have certainly embraced downloading TV shows legitimately via the net > > here, > > > and so far there has not been any substantial change to ISP price > > structure > > > or quality of service as a result. > > > > Until broadband providers give proof that the networks are overloaded, > > I think this argument is specious. > > > > The strategy is to squeeze more profit out of broadband, especially if > > people continue to cancel their cable TV subscriptions because they > > are just pulling down the shows they want to watch. Fair enough. These > > companies are private and can charge 100000 per GB if they want. But > > let's all be very aware of the truth behind the decisions, so > > consumers can make clear choices. This also allows us as voters to > > make sure government is not giving unfair monopolies to private > > companies who are squeezing every cent out of their customers. > > > > Jay > > > > -- > > http://ryanishungry.com > > http://jaydedman.com > > http://twitter.com/jaydedman > > 917 371 6790 > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > -- Jeffrey Taylor 912 Cole St, #349 San Francisco, CA 94117 USA Mobile: +14157281264 Fax: +33177722734 http://twitter.com/jeffreytaylor http://organicconversations.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
