NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: User sues AT&T after $5000+ bill for exceeding 5 GB bandwidth cap
--000e0cd259fcc22ff104644effa9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com> wrote: > At 04:50 PM 3/3/2009, Sean Bradly wrote: > > > However, this is what not what AT&T elects to charge you for 15GB/month: > ($60+$5000(10GB overage))*12(months)*2(years). *That's $121,440 folks. > That's 2800% markup.* Thats a 30 year mortgage. > > > That's a bargain. *It's a fraction of the cost of the spectrum needed to > deliver that much bandwidth.* Remember, companies like AT&T bid up to $3 > million on tiny 5 MHz slivers of spectrum, which one user could consume > completely by downloading data 24x7. > I don't see how the data supports your assertion. Unless you know the theoretical limit on how small AT&T can make their cells, and the propagation characteristics of that particular 5 MHz, you can't say with any certainty how much revenue AT&T is extracting from that spectrum. The whole point is moot anyways when you consider how much of the country is lacking reliable 3G to begin with. Spectrum is not the limiting factor here: I'd be more than happy to use that 5MHz "sliver" in my neck of the woods. This conversation is sounding dangerously close to disregarding the economics of statistical (or geographical, in this case) multiplexing that /any/ commercial network depends upon. -Nick [ OK, I'm ending this thread here for now. Whether or not AT&T is charging reasonable fees to their wireless users (vis-a-vis bandwidth capabilities) isn't really relevant to the original controversy. The key questions are does AT&T appropriately and fairly inform subscribers about the fees, and did AT&T follow its own rules before imposing the massive extra charges -- both questions better dicussed over on GCTIP at: http://forums.gctip.org/thread-26.html -- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]