Doesn't mean it's true. In Austin we have AT&T (DSL) vs TimeWarner (Cable) and both of them have voiced their desire to become "evil corporations" following Comcast.
And why is that a mistake? We're looking at the monopoly that starts milking its monopolistic status. The article assumes that competing technologies will emerge. What if they won't? AT&T is bidding on those frequencies too.
I have AT&T expressly because, of the two options in my town, it's the one that doesn't transfer-limit cap. The other option is the local cable company, which offers higher speeds, but caps monthly and bills for overages. I seriously hope AT&T doesn't follow suit.
I have no problem with a broadband provider capping speeds and managing their network. The problem I have with monthly transfer limits is that it is hard to keep track of your own usage. I would rather be throttled down than billed more, because being billed for overage is neither transparent nor easy to control. You implement a system like this, and suddenly all those open wireless networks in my apartment complex become interesting points of extra free bandwidth for me. Would I be so nefarious? Maybe not, but a lot of people would, and there is no way you can prove to the cable company that it wasn't you. Capping speed is transparent. I know that the speed of my connection is limited to 6mbps. I know how much I am paying for it. If that is overloading your network, add more capacity or lower the speed caps or hell, shape the traffic, but don't just charge extra for it and assume it'll work itself out.
So anyway, maybe these companies can milk it in the short term, but I have faith that in the long term, any time a company tries to hold back progress by abusing it's monopoly, they eventually get smashed.
