I believe I might actually prefer the expensive and fair model.
I believe I might actually prefer the expensive and fair model.
Rationally speaking: These blokes were given a free rein and tax breaks by Clinton to develop sturdy networks capable of handling great loads and redundancies at multiple layers and levels. The fact that they sat on their asses all the while eating the money and spent virtually nothing on improving the internet experience makes them monopolizing culprits. If anything,the government should penalize them to the tune of billions for the disservice they've done the public. And oh btw, for these rates I'd switch providers immediately if I had an option or go back to dialup.
What I meant was, this is slightly more honorable than telling the customer that it is unlimited and then cutting off the account without warning when the magic undisclosed number is reached. This way the customer knows in advance that the service sucks monkey balls and can choose an alternative if possible.
Or, you know, they could have enough network capacity to support the speeds they offer.
Ironically I moved to Beaumont (the city in question) last week (girlfriend earns big bucks with Exxonmobil). I'm definitely glad I have a 6m/768k dry loop DSL plan with AT&T that doesn't have any bandwidth limits... especially since it's only $38.99 a month.
If they were really trying to fix a network problem by modifying behavior, it'd make sense to go after the top 1% of bandwidth users (which according to my last cable company used 35% of bandwidth) by setting really high caps and higher per gb fees. By applying silly things like 5gb caps, all they are trying to do is milk more money out people that don't know any better.
(If anyone in the Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas area wants dry loop DSL, you can save yourself time by calling the dry loop department directly at 1-800-264-0002. Sadly I don't even like AT&T that much, but at least they don't do retarded stuff like this.)