Dillusional lobbyist piece
I agree, this article is so wrong on so many levels that it is really just a dillusional lobbyist blurp in favor of big telcos.
"Those throttling limits make sense." - No, they do not! Carrying extra data over the often ridiculously low limits (such as 5GB per month shared for five lines) costs the providers fractions of pennies. What costs a lot is having many people generate a lot of traffic at the same time. For that reason, throttling only makes sense when it is turned on at all times. The current approach increases the bandwidth needs at the beginning of a billing cycle when there is no throttling while it drops bandwith needs at the end of a billing cycle when folks hit the limit and the transfer speed is artificially lowered. Providers have to keep sufficient bandwidth available at all times so the throttling doesn't really help. All it does is collect extra cash from customers, it does not address the technical issues in any way!
"Segmented traffic treatment on an optional fast lane could help solve access and billing problems" - While I understand the benefit for the providers, it clearly is a massive disadvantage to customers AND businesses. It hits especially those businesses who try to enter the market as new content provider. Having pay for play fast lanes benefits only established players with deep pockets. Startups would need to secure more investments just to be able to compete on a technical level before they can even generate interest with their content. The barrier to market entry will be incredibly huge. This means that less content providers will be able to operate successfully under the proposed fast lane model, which means less competition and less competition always means higher consumer prices. Compare broadband costs for consumers in the US and Europe and you will see that the more competitive market is in Europe benefiting consumers and businesses with much higher bandwidth offerings at a much lower price point and plenty of service providers to chose from. The proposed model will only solve access problems for a select few offerings. And billing problems ought to be not a reason for anything, billing is a commodity task found in EVERY business in EVERY market. There are gazillion solutions for all the billing issues that might come up. Providers would not have billing issues if they provided less ridiculously complicated service plans. Billing by application falls flat when businesses start using a wide variety of applications, some of the custom to the business. Are the providers really tracking usage of every brand new app that comes out? How about billing when VPNs or proxies are used? While there may a benefit to separating business expenses from private expenses I heavily doubt that the added complexity is cheaper than a business paying for an employee checking sports scores on the business plan. In case of BYOD, it is much easier to have the company pay a fair share of the access plans. Administering a flat amount each month is not only easy, it is also by far more predictable. Alternatively, make use of devices that support dual SIM cards, one for business, one for private. That tech already is available and nobody has to wait for providers to offer specialzed billing. Often times it just does not pay to nickle and dime folks for everything.
"Gartner predicts" - Gartner has shown its ineptitude in the tech sector for years now. Many if not all of their predictions turned out false. On top of that, Gartner's predictions obviously always favor the entitiy paying for the reports. Gartner is as trustworthy as any cheap tabloid magazine.
"he held senior product leadership roles at AT&T" - Ah, that explains the obvious bias. InformationWeek should have lead with that statement at the beginning of the article. Would have been much easier to dismiss this campaign piece as the fluff it really is.