Congressman Cleaver,
I would like to draw your attention to the following article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-levy/atts-desperate-shot-at-ne_b_837162.html
In summary, AT&T is going to begin capping Internet usage on their U-Verse network to 250GB of total bandwidth per month. This is in line with what Comcast has already done, and what Time Warner Cable (the only other competitor to U-Verse in my neighborhood) is most likely thinking about doing. I dropped my Time Warner Cable service because they were using traffic shaping technologies which interfered with my legal usage of the Internet (e.g. using an embedded Bittorrent client to download the files needed to install the game Starcraft 2, which was legally digitally purchased from Blizzard's B.Net service), which is essentially in conflict with the term net neutrality we have been hearing a lot about lately.
I am one of the 98% of users AT&T claims this bandwidth capping will not effect, as I typically do not currently use 250GB worth of bandwidth per month. However, my concern is these bandwidth caps will stifle innovation on the Internet and give AT&T a virtual monopoly in the pushed content industry. If HD streaming of video takes off, companies like Netflix and other successful entrepreneurs (e.g. Hulu, YouTube, etc) will be at a severe competitive disadvantage when compared to AT&T, even though the Netflix subscriber has already paid for the privilege of sending data across AT&T's network. A Bluray quality movie, if streamed digitally, can eat up anywhere between 10-50GB of bandwidth in an hour for example. However, I am certain AT&T's video on demand service, which utilizes the exact same network and protocols, will be "duty free" so to speak when streaming this video across AT&T's network because it is a "video" application (again let's not forget it's all just data streaming via the TCP/IP protocol). I am also sure the music services, etc. will all be "duty free" if purchased as part of AT&T's U-Verse IPTV packages.
As a consumer these data caps don't necessarily make me want to subscribe to U-Verse, as my wife and I don't watch much TV, and we don't want 100 channels we will never watch just to get a few that we might for $100+ a month. However, streaming individual shows in an on-demand type of setup is very convenient and currently a cheaper a'la carte option our household budget can afford. I am currently also not a Netflix subscriber, and if these data caps are put into place I likely never will be due to the added charges associated with the increased bandwidth usage, as I also purchase full games through a service called Steam (steampowered.com) and streaming video content added onto the bandwidth required for Online gaming and downloading legally purchased games would put even me over the limits AT&T et. al. are imposing.
Congressman Cleaver, I ask that you take my arguments against imposing bandwidth caps on consumers very seriously, as the health of our economy and the limitation of consumer choices for high bandwidth Online applications are at stake in the future if action is not taken now. If bandwidth caps, which don't cost AT&T hardly anything to remove as the physical infrastructure is already in place (and subsidized by the Universal Service Fund no less), are put in place, the only winner will be AT&T and basically everyone else (you, me, and all your constituents) lose.
I think it's about high time all us tech savy people started taking action. I want my kids to enjoy the "full Internet" when they're my age, and this type of BS needs to stop!
I would like to draw your attention to the following article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-levy/atts-desperate-shot-at-ne_b_837162.html
In summary, AT&T is going to begin capping Internet usage on their U-Verse network to 250GB of total bandwidth per month. This is in line with what Comcast has already done, and what Time Warner Cable (the only other competitor to U-Verse in my neighborhood) is most likely thinking about doing. I dropped my Time Warner Cable service because they were using traffic shaping technologies which interfered with my legal usage of the Internet (e.g. using an embedded Bittorrent client to download the files needed to install the game Starcraft 2, which was legally digitally purchased from Blizzard's B.Net service), which is essentially in conflict with the term net neutrality we have been hearing a lot about lately.
I am one of the 98% of users AT&T claims this bandwidth capping will not effect, as I typically do not currently use 250GB worth of bandwidth per month. However, my concern is these bandwidth caps will stifle innovation on the Internet and give AT&T a virtual monopoly in the pushed content industry. If HD streaming of video takes off, companies like Netflix and other successful entrepreneurs (e.g. Hulu, YouTube, etc) will be at a severe competitive disadvantage when compared to AT&T, even though the Netflix subscriber has already paid for the privilege of sending data across AT&T's network. A Bluray quality movie, if streamed digitally, can eat up anywhere between 10-50GB of bandwidth in an hour for example. However, I am certain AT&T's video on demand service, which utilizes the exact same network and protocols, will be "duty free" so to speak when streaming this video across AT&T's network because it is a "video" application (again let's not forget it's all just data streaming via the TCP/IP protocol). I am also sure the music services, etc. will all be "duty free" if purchased as part of AT&T's U-Verse IPTV packages.
As a consumer these data caps don't necessarily make me want to subscribe to U-Verse, as my wife and I don't watch much TV, and we don't want 100 channels we will never watch just to get a few that we might for $100+ a month. However, streaming individual shows in an on-demand type of setup is very convenient and currently a cheaper a'la carte option our household budget can afford. I am currently also not a Netflix subscriber, and if these data caps are put into place I likely never will be due to the added charges associated with the increased bandwidth usage, as I also purchase full games through a service called Steam (steampowered.com) and streaming video content added onto the bandwidth required for Online gaming and downloading legally purchased games would put even me over the limits AT&T et. al. are imposing.
Congressman Cleaver, I ask that you take my arguments against imposing bandwidth caps on consumers very seriously, as the health of our economy and the limitation of consumer choices for high bandwidth Online applications are at stake in the future if action is not taken now. If bandwidth caps, which don't cost AT&T hardly anything to remove as the physical infrastructure is already in place (and subsidized by the Universal Service Fund no less), are put in place, the only winner will be AT&T and basically everyone else (you, me, and all your constituents) lose.
I think it's about high time all us tech savy people started taking action. I want my kids to enjoy the "full Internet" when they're my age, and this type of BS needs to stop!