• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

AT&T has started bandwidth monthly caps

watermelony2k

Vice Admiral
Admiral
Very underhanded and designed to discourage the flow of people shifting from cable tv services to internet services (hulu, netflix, online games and music).

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/112671/att-capping-broadband-cnnmoney

The days of all-you-can-surf broadband are vanishing.

AT&T this week began capping its Internet delivery service for broadband and DSL customers. The move comes 11 months after it placed similar caps on its mobile customers.

U-Verse -- AT&T's high-speed broadband, television and telephone network -- now limits customers to 250 gigabytes of Internet usage each month. DSL users are capped at 150 GB. Customers who exceed the limits will have to pay $10 for each additional 50 GB.

AT&T moved in June to set pricing tiers for its mobile customers, offering light users a plan that maxes out at 200 megabytes. The company also sells a pricier 2 GB plan. AT&T (NYSE: T - News) remains the outlier among the three major wireless companies, though Sprint (NYSE: S - News) and Verizon (NYSE: VZ - News) Wireless are expected to follow suit with caps soon.

More from CNNMoney.com:

• New iPhone, iPad Limits: 2 GB Won't Get You Far

• 7% of Americans Subscribe to Netflix

• One in Eight to Cut Cable and Satellite TV in 2010

But AT&T isn't alone in instituting restrictions on residential broadband usage.

Comcast (Nasdaq: CMCSA - News) -- by far the largest broadband provider in the U.S. -- also has a 250 GB cap, and Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC - News) experimented with a tiered billing service in some markets in 2008. Though broadband caps are a relatively new phenomenon in the United States, variations on Internet cap structures are quite common in Canada, Asia and in European countries.

AT&T's caps will affect just 2% of its customers, the company said. The restrictions are necessary, AT&T maintained, because those in the top 2% use up 20% of the network's bandwidth. The highest-traffic users download as much as 19 typical households, on average, which slows speeds for other users, AT&T said.

"Our approach is based on customers' feedback," said Mark Siegel, spokesman for AT&T. "They told us that the people who use the most should pay more, and they also told us we should make it easy for them to track their usage. We think our approach addresses these concerns."

Siegel called the caps "generous," and said that AT&T's DSL customers use just 18 GB per month on average. The company didn't provide similar statistics for its U-Verse high-speed Internet customers. Globally, broadband customers typically use 15 GB per month, according to Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO - News).

The caps are fairly forgiving. DSL customers would need to watch 65 hours of high-definition videos on Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX - News) to reach the limit, and high-speed customers would need to watch 109 hours.

Analysts see the move as a strategic one. AT&T, Comcast and many other broadband providers also sell cable TV service, which a growing number of customers are dropping in favor of video on-demand services like Netflix.

"This probably isn't absolutely necessary," said Vince Vittore, broadband analyst at Yankee Group. "It's mostly a move to prevent customers from cutting off video services."

Vittore believes Comcast and AT&T's caps are indicative of what will become a larger trend in broadband services throughout the country.

Cisco recently forecast that video on-demand usage will double every 2 1/2 years. AT&T said its customers are using more broadband as data-intensive video services like Netflix become more popular. Video currently makes up 40% of all Internet traffic and will exceed 91% by 2014, according to Cisco.

Though typical broadband users don't come close to approaching the caps now, the increase in average video consumption will undoubtedly cause a greater number of users to exceed their limits in the coming years.

That could force broadband providers to raise their caps in the future if customers begin to complain.

To head off a backlash, AT&T is sending customers alerts when they reached 65%, 90% and 100% of their data allotment each month. The company is also giving customers an undefined grace period before it charges them for another 50 GB. AT&T also is allowing customers to check their data usage online.

Still, data caps likely won't sit well with those who have called for broadband providers to improve their infrastructure and service.

The Obama administration has harshly criticized the state of the country's broadband infrastructure, noting that most other countries offer broader service with far faster speeds. The president even alluded in last year's State of the Union address to a study in which the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranked the United States 31st in median broadband speed.

As part of its National Broadband Plan, the FCC has set out to bring 100-megabit-per-second speeds to 100 million Americans.

Some Internet companies fed up with the state of American broadband are taking matters into their own hands. Google (Nasdaq: GOOG - News), for instance, is deploying a 1-gigabit-per-second network in Kansas City, Kan.
 
"Our approach is based on customers' feedback," said Mark Siegel, spokesman for AT&T. "They told us that the people who use the most should pay more, and they also told us we should make it easy for them to track their usage. We think our approach addresses these concerns."


Bulllllllll.
 
I have no problems with this. People who use more should pay more. Someone who only checks emails and surf the web an hour or so a day (typically the older folks) shouldn't have to pay the same price as someone who is on 24-7 and constantly uploading/downloading vids, games, mp3, and everything else under the sun.

We pay for water, electricity, and gas based on how much we consume. Why not bandwidth? Also, the service providers know that the cost of establishing new nationwide network infrastructure is so costly that it is the best barrier to entry into the market. Nobody else has the money to lay new networks to compete with the existing ones.

The only solution is that the gov't build a brand new network as a public works project (like the interstate highway system) and rent the network out, we will never have unlimited access to the web again.
 
Traffic management has been going on for quite some time here in the UK, I'm on 40gig a month and i regularly play a MMO(Star Trek online), occasionally online with XBlive or the PSN, and use Iplayer, and obviously the usual surfing on top of that......and i have yet to go over my 40 gig limit.....before that i was on a supposed unlimited service with Virgin media, the service was just abysmal, and in the evenings it was unusable for anything but surfing.

Glad i made the switch to the metered service, i pay less but the service although capped actually works when i need it to.
 
We pay for water, electricity, and gas based on how much we consume. Why not bandwidth? Also, the service providers know that the cost of establishing new nationwide network infrastructure is so costly that it is the best barrier to entry into the market. Nobody else has the money to lay new networks to compete with the existing ones.

Bandwidth is not a consumable. When you buy internet access, you're buying the size of a pipe, not how much you're going to move through it. If an ISP is under capacity they don't save money, it's just unused network hardware. If they are overcapacity it isn't because people are using it too much but because the company oversold.

Usage based billing sounds like it makes more sense when you compare it to other utilities, but physically they are incomparable. It would much more be like putting a talk quota on your local landline.

Also, all the economic reasons that the ISPs have stipulated are really suspect. Caps have either stayed the same or gotten more restrictive in the past few years despite increasing network capacities. Further, you don't need a government owned network to solve this problem. Every single wireline ISP out there has built their network with public funds and on public property, with a franchise agreement with the local government preventing competing companies from moving in. This clearly gives the government the right to regulate what they can do... which includes both net neutrality and scrutiny of bandwidth caps.
 
Very underhanded and designed to discourage the flow of people shifting from cable tv services to internet services (hulu, netflix, online games and music).

Why does AT&T care where you watch TV shows, they don't provide cable or satellite, do they? Comcast I can understand, but I'm not positive there's truly this motive for AT&T.

Then again, I personally think ISPs should be common carriers. I'm far more concerned about censoring emails or internet searches (which they do), but there should be limits to restrictions (certainly, no hard caps on usage. Maybe I could tolerate some kind of overage system provided there's evidence that there's actually a significant disparity between the cost of a customer who uses a lot and a customer that uses little).
 
Who, other than heavy pirates, are affected then?
And jeez if you're stealing that much material another $10 still less than most DVD's.
 
Why does AT&T care where you watch TV shows, they don't provide cable or satellite, do they? Comcast I can understand, but I'm not positive there's truly this motive for AT&T.

Actually, AT&T UVerse is an IPTV service that provides TV channels to its subscribers. It is very much a motivation for AT&T.
 
Who, other than heavy pirates, are affected then?
And jeez if you're stealing that much material another $10 still less than most DVD's.
I dunno. In the past two weeks, I've (legally) watched 70 or 80 Twilight Zone episodes, several Cinematic Titanic movies, about 20 Futurama episodes in the past two weeks, and plan on (legally) watching the full Death Note and Twin Peaks series. I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure I'd be chafing against a 40 GB/lunar cap.

Luckily, I throw away the two tons of garbage I get per month from AT&T about their shitty UVerse package. Maybe if they stopped sending me mail, they could "afford" not to charge for "overage."
 
Who, other than heavy pirates, are affected then?
And jeez if you're stealing that much material another $10 still less than most DVD's.
I dunno. In the past two weeks, I've (legally) watched 70 or 80 Twilight Zone episodes, several Cinematic Titanic movies, about 20 Futurama episodes in the past two weeks, and plan on (legally) watching the full Death Note and Twin Peaks series. I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure I'd be chafing against a 40 GB/lunar cap.

Luckily, I throw away the two tons of garbage I get per month from AT&T about their shitty UVerse package. Maybe if they stopped sending me mail, they could "afford" not to charge for "overage."
Ok. I just wondered if it affected normal users. Though I might suggest you take a walk once in a while.
 
I have no problems with this. People who use more should pay more. Someone who only checks emails and surf the web an hour or so a day (typically the older folks) shouldn't have to pay the same price as someone who is on 24-7 and constantly uploading/downloading vids, games, mp3, and everything else under the sun.

We pay for water, electricity, and gas based on how much we consume. Why not bandwidth? Also, the service providers know that the cost of establishing new nationwide network infrastructure is so costly that it is the best barrier to entry into the market. Nobody else has the money to lay new networks to compete with the existing ones.

The only solution is that the gov't build a brand new network as a public works project (like the interstate highway system) and rent the network out, we will never have unlimited access to the web again.

Despite what AT&T in the U.S and Bell & Rogers in Canada tell you, this isn't about the cost and the data usage, it's about protecting their revenues and services.

They don't want you to go and use Hulu or Netflix or GoogleTV or what ever - they want you to use IpTV or the on-demand service through the paytv division.

Rogers in Canada owns a cable tv provider which has both on-demand and pay-per-view. The day that Netflix started in Canada was the day they drop their data limits.

If they were serious about the data limits etc they'd offer low bandwith users the option of a plan with say 5GB for just a few dollars a month but it's going to be a cold day in hell before you see that.
 
What about television? People who leave their tellies on all day don't have to pay more for Cable than people who don't.
 
This video was made specifically for the UBB stuff in Canada a few months back, but a lot of it applies to US ISP's as well:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c4nc0dBzKY[/yt]
 
Yeah, a 250 GB cap is pretty luxurious, honestly. I'm on a 60 GB cap with Rogers, and pay $2\GB if I go over the cap.
 
A 250GB seems luxurious compared to the ridiculousness of the Canadian market, but the whole thing doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Comcast put the 250GB cap on in 2008, haven't they improved their network since then? AT&T is instituting 150GB caps now, is their current network worse then Comcast's 2008-era network?

Networks are constantly improving and people are becoming more bandwidth hungry as internet streaming becomes a viable replacement for DVDs and cable. Caps should be growing, not staying static or getting lower. In terms of how this affects normal users... I could easily see a family of 4, with two teenagers, blasting through over 250gb a month using legal streaming services if they stopped subscribing to cable/satellite and stopped renting DVDs. But of course the ISP's have a vested interest in keeping people from doing so...
 
The most restrictive plans seem to be the wireless broadband (3G/4G) ones. Back when I had Sprint's wireless Internet service, I had a 5GB monthly cap and it was $50(!!!) for every gig over. I dumped that shit like a bad habit.
 
A 250GB seems luxurious compared to the ridiculousness of the Canadian market, but the whole thing doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Comcast put the 250GB cap on in 2008, haven't they improved their network since then? AT&T is instituting 150GB caps now, is their current network worse then Comcast's 2008-era network?

Networks are constantly improving and people are becoming more bandwidth hungry as internet streaming becomes a viable replacement for DVDs and cable. Caps should be growing, not staying static or getting lower. In terms of how this affects normal users... I could easily see a family of 4, with two teenagers, blasting through over 250gb a month using legal streaming services if they stopped subscribing to cable/satellite and stopped renting DVDs. But of course the ISP's have a vested interest in keeping people from doing so...

It's probably compounded by the providers not wanting to upgrade their infrastructure because data is getting cheaper over time as costs for shifting that data continue to drop.

Okay you're still going to pay as much for as a house for Cisco core router but the data that unit can shift today will be a magnitude greater than what a similar unit did a a few years back iow - great bang for the buck.

This issue also further enforces why net neutrality is so important and why the providers like AT&T, Bell, Rogers, Telstra etc around the world just can't be trust to self regulate.
 
The most restrictive plans seem to be the wireless broadband (3G/4G) ones. Back when I had Sprint's wireless Internet service, I had a 5GB monthly cap and it was $50(!!!) for every gig over. I dumped that shit like a bad habit.

Yeah, I pay $35/month for 3 GB of cellular data on my iPad 2. Jesus, that hurts. But I travel so much nowadays for work that I can't have a guarantee of having access to free wi-fi, so it makes sense to invest the money.
 
How in the world are we supposed to know if we are reaching the threshold of free internet? How many gigs does a Skype conversation take (I am about to move overseas and wanted to use Skype to keep in touch with my family)?

Sucks that my house has a home business and 4 people (one of which is about to take a year long on-line certification to become a medical biller)!

Stupid AT&T...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top