That depends on whether politicians will continue to allow themsleves to be bought, and whether the public will continue to enable the guilty politicians. The precedents are not very good.

It’s interesting that the providers talk about raising funds for “investment” from customers when they don’t seem to be doing or promising any “investing” in upgraded systems.

In my book, it’s the shareholders not the customers who should be doing the investing, and it’s the customers who will decide whether the fruits of the investment are worth their while to pay for once they become available. What the providers are doing is removing the element of risk to themselves at the expense of the customers. If they were in business to sell ordinary consumer products, competition would see them off, but they can get away with it because they are in effect unregulated public utilities. What’s needed is either regulation or a “public option” – or both – to ensure that they serve the public interest. Sound familiar?

If we don’t reach out and educate people as to what’s real versus what is marketing propaganda, people could be suckered into the belief this kind of billing is somehow “fair” when it really is not.

Low usage consumers won’t realize any savings and expose themselves to overage fees, medium usage customers who will see their usage increase along with everyone else will run into the cap soon enough, and high volume people already paying a premium for faster speeds will be asked to pay even more, often at gigantic markups.

Along the way, they’ll just pocket those profits to placate Wall Street and complete the same incremental upgrades they planned all along. Just look at Canada for an example of this at work. It’s not just me saying it.

What else in technology dramatically increases in price while barely improving, if at all. Usually, companies upgrade their products significantly while charging the same or less as time passes.

Plus, last time I checked, my phone bill went flat rate for long distance and my cell phone plan offers me essentially unlimited calling to the people I call most. While a few providers think they can sell people on broadband bandwidth as a limited natural resource that requires people to pay more, I think a lot of people are too smart to fall for their OPEC of the Internet schemes.

It’s important for people to educate their friends and neighbors on these issues. Too often, those who don’t know will fall into the trap of provider “us vs. them” arguments, and there are some people ready and willing to believe the nonsense that someone else is using bandwidth they are paying for. To stop that theoretical broadband welfare, they’ll cut their nose off to spite their face and end up paying more, sooner or later, themselves.

I would also like to express thanks for writing this rebuttal. I was actually the first person to comment on Mr. Spangler’s blog posting. I guess because I don’t run my own broadband network, I will never understand the complicated concepts that he discusses and that I am just an idiot.

But seriously, I didn’t have the time or resources to properly argue his justifications. I am glad that you dissected his arguments and refuted them point by point, along with providing citations and facts to support your position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBGbef5p3g&feature=related