<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bummer! AT&amp;T Implements Broadband Caps</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 05:17:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Karvey</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-612923</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James Karvey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-612923</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What I really dislike about these caps is that AT&amp;T wants its customers tethered to 200 channels stuffed full of aggravating, demoralizing, and completely unwanted commercials.  

Trying listening to a FM radio channel and you will spend most of your time listening to advertising.  Unfortunately, most of AT&amp;T&#039;s 200 hundred channels have the same problem - an obnoxiously high advertising content such that nothing is really worth watching anymore unless it&#039;s seen from a recorded show that can be fast forwarded during the commercial breaks.  

This is what AT&amp;T is protecting and this is the true end result that we will suffer through for another decade.  Television content made worthless by endless commercials.  Do you like CNN?  Actually its called CNNN now - Commercials Not News Network because if you change the channel to CNN, the odds are greater than 50/50 that you will hit a commercial break.

We are at the threshold of exchanging this tired (and tiresome), ultimately untenable video delivery system with a new model whereby we pay directly for what we want to watch without advertising.  We do not need 200 channels.  We do not need 500 channels full of content mangled by repetitious, idiotic, insulting advertising.  What we do need is five to ten shows we like, some news programs, and the occasional movie without commercials.  

I would pay for that.  There are companies poised to provide content directly to viewers commercial free.  We have (or had) an Internet that makes that possible. But there are obstacles.  First are large ISP&#039;s that act like robber barons.  Second are the government agencies (FCC, Justice Department, Congress, President) that act like sheriffs on the take.  Frankly, I can&#039;t tell if those agencies are clueless, gutless, or just plain owned by the corporations.

We need to quit pretending we are powerless in this situation and realize that with principled and throughout  regulation, we can indeed shape the society we want to live in.  But first, let&#039;s string up the thieves and replace the corrupt sheriffs and corrupt politicians.  The sooner the better.

We live in the 21st century, in the digital age.  I will not be dragged back into the last century so some exec can have a bigger bonus and a second vacation home.  End the corruption, regulate a vital national resource (a Free Internet is a Free USA), and force ATT and the cable companies to rescind the godforsaken cap.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I really dislike about these caps is that AT&amp;T wants its customers tethered to 200 channels stuffed full of aggravating, demoralizing, and completely unwanted commercials.  </p>
<p>Trying listening to a FM radio channel and you will spend most of your time listening to advertising.  Unfortunately, most of AT&amp;T&#8217;s 200 hundred channels have the same problem &#8211; an obnoxiously high advertising content such that nothing is really worth watching anymore unless it&#8217;s seen from a recorded show that can be fast forwarded during the commercial breaks.  </p>
<p>This is what AT&amp;T is protecting and this is the true end result that we will suffer through for another decade.  Television content made worthless by endless commercials.  Do you like CNN?  Actually its called CNNN now &#8211; Commercials Not News Network because if you change the channel to CNN, the odds are greater than 50/50 that you will hit a commercial break.</p>
<p>We are at the threshold of exchanging this tired (and tiresome), ultimately untenable video delivery system with a new model whereby we pay directly for what we want to watch without advertising.  We do not need 200 channels.  We do not need 500 channels full of content mangled by repetitious, idiotic, insulting advertising.  What we do need is five to ten shows we like, some news programs, and the occasional movie without commercials.  </p>
<p>I would pay for that.  There are companies poised to provide content directly to viewers commercial free.  We have (or had) an Internet that makes that possible. But there are obstacles.  First are large ISP&#8217;s that act like robber barons.  Second are the government agencies (FCC, Justice Department, Congress, President) that act like sheriffs on the take.  Frankly, I can&#8217;t tell if those agencies are clueless, gutless, or just plain owned by the corporations.</p>
<p>We need to quit pretending we are powerless in this situation and realize that with principled and throughout  regulation, we can indeed shape the society we want to live in.  But first, let&#8217;s string up the thieves and replace the corrupt sheriffs and corrupt politicians.  The sooner the better.</p>
<p>We live in the 21st century, in the digital age.  I will not be dragged back into the last century so some exec can have a bigger bonus and a second vacation home.  End the corruption, regulate a vital national resource (a Free Internet is a Free USA), and force ATT and the cable companies to rescind the godforsaken cap.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Smith</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-609453</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Smith]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:54:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-609453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is not surprising that ATT is doing this.  Their greed is over taking their minds and they are forgetting that they told their current customers that they have UNLIMITED access.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is not surprising that ATT is doing this.  Their greed is over taking their minds and they are forgetting that they told their current customers that they have UNLIMITED access.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry McCaul</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-608411</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry McCaul]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:56:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-608411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How much does this cost? In Australia it would be towards $150 or more and that&#039;s ADSL2+]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How much does this cost? In Australia it would be towards $150 or more and that&#8217;s ADSL2+</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travis</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-608403</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Travis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:26:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-608403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Which begs the question, who&#039;s going to ensure the &quot;meters&quot; are accurate?  And what recourse will the consumer have if they feel the meters aren&#039;t accurate?  Can they turn to their state&#039;s utility board?  Will the state&#039;s commerce commission step in?  If I&#039;m being billed by the amount of data I&#039;m using or will be charged overages, the meters need to be accurate and transparent.  Some what surprisingly, these questions have yet to be answered on the wireless side of data usage as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which begs the question, who&#8217;s going to ensure the &#8220;meters&#8221; are accurate?  And what recourse will the consumer have if they feel the meters aren&#8217;t accurate?  Can they turn to their state&#8217;s utility board?  Will the state&#8217;s commerce commission step in?  If I&#8217;m being billed by the amount of data I&#8217;m using or will be charged overages, the meters need to be accurate and transparent.  Some what surprisingly, these questions have yet to be answered on the wireless side of data usage as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David O</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-608377</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David O]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-608377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am a Uverse customer.  Here&#039;s what is ridiculous about this announcement.  If you look at your current AT&amp;T Uverse bill there is no mention of how much broadband data you are currently using or have used.  Perhaps they will add usage to the May bill.  Thanks for the guidance AT&amp;T!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a Uverse customer.  Here&#8217;s what is ridiculous about this announcement.  If you look at your current AT&amp;T Uverse bill there is no mention of how much broadband data you are currently using or have used.  Perhaps they will add usage to the May bill.  Thanks for the guidance AT&amp;T!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-608369</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-608369</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stremaing Video ads turn page loads into megs. This is not data I have asked for, but I am being charged more and more for it by an ISP for whom it is costing less and less to provide it.

We&#039;re not &quot;extreme&quot; users but easily, being a family of five, pass through 200gb or so a month with ease. Between my daughter&#039;s WoW raids (voicechat and all can turn that into a couple of megs a minute both ways), netflix (which we are already paying for) and other services, it is obvious there is something sinister, if unfortunately not technically illegal (its not illegal if you wrote the laws and deregulated for that purpose after all), I more and more often feel like this can only end the same way the aristocratic bastards did in France.

I&#039;m tired of being massively overcharged TWICE for every movie.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stremaing Video ads turn page loads into megs. This is not data I have asked for, but I am being charged more and more for it by an ISP for whom it is costing less and less to provide it.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re not &#8220;extreme&#8221; users but easily, being a family of five, pass through 200gb or so a month with ease. Between my daughter&#8217;s WoW raids (voicechat and all can turn that into a couple of megs a minute both ways), netflix (which we are already paying for) and other services, it is obvious there is something sinister, if unfortunately not technically illegal (its not illegal if you wrote the laws and deregulated for that purpose after all), I more and more often feel like this can only end the same way the aristocratic bastards did in France.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m tired of being massively overcharged TWICE for every movie.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travis</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-608340</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Travis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 19:06:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-608340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While there is an incremental cost to providing additional bandwidth (GB/month, not speed), its a bit disingenuous to compare it to utilities like electric, gas or water. Those are finite resources with higher production costs than it costs to &quot;make&quot; a GB of data.  However there are carrier costs and other distribution costs associated with the infrastructure to get the data to the user.  

Given the distribution costs and the costs of maintaining and improving infrastructure, I&#039;m not opposed to paying for what I use.  I am opposed to flat caps and outrageous fees for additional usage. If the ISP wants to charge me $0.05/GB and possibly a $20/mo connection fee, I&#039;d find that acceptable.  But that will never happen because 97% of the users would pay significantly less than they are today.

If ISP&#039;s want to bill like a utility, then they need to price like a utility and be regulated like a utility since there is little to no competition in most markets.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While there is an incremental cost to providing additional bandwidth (GB/month, not speed), its a bit disingenuous to compare it to utilities like electric, gas or water. Those are finite resources with higher production costs than it costs to &#8220;make&#8221; a GB of data.  However there are carrier costs and other distribution costs associated with the infrastructure to get the data to the user.  </p>
<p>Given the distribution costs and the costs of maintaining and improving infrastructure, I&#8217;m not opposed to paying for what I use.  I am opposed to flat caps and outrageous fees for additional usage. If the ISP wants to charge me $0.05/GB and possibly a $20/mo connection fee, I&#8217;d find that acceptable.  But that will never happen because 97% of the users would pay significantly less than they are today.</p>
<p>If ISP&#8217;s want to bill like a utility, then they need to price like a utility and be regulated like a utility since there is little to no competition in most markets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Peterson</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-608335</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff Peterson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:46:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-608335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What a shocking development, AT&amp;T sucks.  Who would have ever guessed that...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a shocking development, AT&amp;T sucks.  Who would have ever guessed that&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-608281</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jake]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-608281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Seems like deregulation hasn&#039;t worked all that well.  Sure prices went down, then started creeping up, then exploding.  Got the same pack of lies from cellular (oh, wait. AT&amp;T does that, too...) &quot;Caps are way above average use&quot;, then I looked at my bill. Clearly I&#039;m not average because my use was over the cap already. I don&#039;t stream anything, use wi-fi when available, and texts charges are separate.  Gotta call BS on this one. Now we have uncontrolled monopolies and no voice.  I want to charge the cable companies for the use of my yard for cables that pass through it.  How about that?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems like deregulation hasn&#8217;t worked all that well.  Sure prices went down, then started creeping up, then exploding.  Got the same pack of lies from cellular (oh, wait. AT&amp;T does that, too&#8230;) &#8220;Caps are way above average use&#8221;, then I looked at my bill. Clearly I&#8217;m not average because my use was over the cap already. I don&#8217;t stream anything, use wi-fi when available, and texts charges are separate.  Gotta call BS on this one. Now we have uncontrolled monopolies and no voice.  I want to charge the cable companies for the use of my yard for cables that pass through it.  How about that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/03/13/sxsw-bummer-att-implements-broadband-caps/#comment-608279</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bob]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=316951#comment-608279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think Steve is right. My 56K dial up modem still works great and anybody that uses more bandwidth than I do doesn&#039;t read enough or go outside. 

Anybody up for a game of kick the can?  Shoot me a fax and we&#039;ll meet up!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Steve is right. My 56K dial up modem still works great and anybody that uses more bandwidth than I do doesn&#8217;t read enough or go outside. </p>
<p>Anybody up for a game of kick the can?  Shoot me a fax and we&#8217;ll meet up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
