AT&T Putting on Caps on DSL and Uverse

[Phokus]

As others have said... now it is a reasonable cap. as backbones get faster and content gets delivered in HD more, 150gb may not be so reasonable. Do you think AT&T would ever consider that? No, when you get to the point where 150GB is unreasonable, they will make you pay for more data.... even as their infrastructure can support more bandwidth.

LMAO, you idiots think that AT&T/Comcrap and all the other internet providers are going to raise caps when they increase capacity. Keep dreaming, last i heard from my networking buddy who works at level 3, there's TONS of unused fiber on the backbone that's just sitting there and bandwidth is dirt cheap.

No, they're going to keep those caps because Netflix/Hulu/etc. are threatening their vertical integration initiatives. I'm seriously thinking of shutting off my cable service because i get all the shit i need via streaming and usenet and there's probably not going to be football next season.

Remember when Time Warner was trying to reduce the caps to 40 Gigs? Their own public financials showed that their customer base was rising, revenues were rising, and costs were decreasing, despite what they said publicly as a justification of capping at 40 gb's.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Just shut up and take it. All you can eat low cost internet is OVER. And there is nothing you can do about it.

On the flipside all you can rape from your customers is OVER. Nothing you can do about it. Ask canada how it went for them

 

[freegeeks]

i love my 60 euro, 30 Mb / 4Mb no caps, 100 channels IPTV service, landline + unlimited calls package

 

[Phokus]

i love my 60 euro, 30 Mb / 4Mb no caps, 100 channels IPTV service, landline + unlimited calls package

Just be grateful that you don't have too many retards like spidey running shit over there.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

I own a boat but am not using it 24x7 because gas costs money and people dont do one thing all day every day.

Its the same with the above. Just because you have a fast dsl/uverse line with a limit, doesn't mean you need to be using it all day, every day, full bore because with usage comes costs and you need to work that out on your end. You want to use it all the time and go over the very generous 250 gb cap, then you pay more. Very simple.

I agree you dont need to use it all day every day, but I dont want the hassle of watching a meter.

Furthermore, whats to be said for mass mailing worms/applications that update without permission? This type of thing doesnt happen with water/power. You dont open your bill to find someone in shitfuckastan has used your garden hose as a spambot for the last month. Some people will say this is a good thing and will teach users to be more cautious, but in reality it will just make people even more afraid of tech than they already are.

 

[brandonb]

I use a 3G wireless provider at the moment. I use about 20gigs a month in just torrent, and probably 20 gigs outside torrent. I use a local and UNLIMITED internet provider. $35/m.

The problem is that it's not very reliable. Pings go from 50ms up to 1000ms at any point during the connection, and sometimes 20k/s up to 300k/s (thats my max for the price point)...

I'd gladly pay for a wired solution with a 250gb/m cap. But I'm ok with my connection as is.

 

[her209]

I own a boat but am not using it 24x7 because gas costs money and people dont do one thing all day every day.

Its the same with the above. Just because you have a fast dsl/uverse line with a limit, doesn't mean you need to be using it all day, every day, full bore because with usage comes costs and you need to work that out on your end. You want to use it all the time and go over the very generous 250 gb cap, then you pay more. Very simple.

Fail comparison is fail. Whether you use your Internet connection or not, the cost to maintain that connection is always going to be there. Couple that with peering agreements between the larger ISPs which allows them to pay nothing for sending and receiving traffic up to agreed ratios.

For your analogy to work, you should include costs like upkeep of the boat and boat insurance and the like.

EDIT: I should also add that in cases where more data flow exceeds the agreement, the ISP in violation compensates the other for it. Which begs the question, do residential ISPs get paid by their ISP peers when their residential customers are heavy downloaders?

 

[her209]

Remember when Time Warner was trying to reduce the caps to 40 Gigs? Their own public financials showed that their customer base was rising, revenues were rising, and costs were decreasing, despite what they said publicly as a justification of capping at 40 gb's.

The same was true in Comcast's case.

 

[0roo0roo]

Not to the shareholders. And why is it up to you to decide what is enough? If you dont like it, dont buy it.

250 GB is more than reasonable. Its brainwashed morons like you who want everything but dont want to pay for it. Your sense of entitlement is sad and I pity you.

EDIT: I have uverse 12 mb service and pay 9.99 for a supernews account monthly. It was just a matter of time before this would happen and 250gb is extremely generous. They don't cut you off at 250gb, but they do charge you a measly 10 bucks more for 50 gb. People who use more, pay more. Its very fair.

Sorry but telco is not regular business, it is a regulated natural monopoly. competition is limited and consumers ability to actually switch servicse is highly limited so there has to be severe limits on how these companies can behave, because they can take advantage of the situation in a snap..just like they are doing now. 20gb caps would have seemed reasonable to many people years ago, it does not account for change in usage at all, and there is no incentive for them to raise caps to encourage new usage. fact is they are capping mediocre service compared to other developed countries around the world, that is how uncompetitive they are. if competition were truly strong, and they were hustling to deliver speeds atleast on par with japan and korea they might have a point in throttling some really hogging users, but since they deliver a fraction of what other countries are, they have no excuse other than to money grab.

 

[bfdd]

so looks like i'm dumping my uverse and going back to timewarner if i can get it. fuck 250gb cap, i'll destroy that in netflix alone.

 

[Phokus]

Sorry but telco is not regular business, it is a regulated natural monopoly. competition is limited and consumers ability to actually switch servicse is highly limited so there has to be severe limits on how these companies can behave, because they can take advantage of the situation in a snap..just like they are doing now. 20gb caps would have seemed reasonable to many people years ago, it does not account for change in usage at all, and there is no incentive for them to raise caps to encourage new usage. fact is they are capping mediocre service compared to other developed countries around the world, that is how uncompetitive they are. if competition were truly strong, and they were hustling to deliver speeds atleast on par with japan and korea they might have a point in throttling some really hogging users, but since they deliver a fraction of what other countries are, they have no excuse other than to money grab.

Yup, in many cases, since it's a natural monopoly, it's cheaper to actually have only 1 provider since the capital costs are so high, having competition actually hurts consumers, depending on which part of the country you're talking about since it's more difficult to recoup the capital investment when you're trying to drive prices down to compete with each other. Of course this means that you have to actually have a local/state government with a pair of balls to actually make sure these utilities don't try to gouge consumers.

That's why i believe that towns/cities should create municipal fiber (like they have in podunk places like chattanooga, tn and wilson, nc), rather than being at the mercy of a for-profit utility who has an incentive to abuse their monopoly status.

 

[rockyct]

Just shut up and take it. All you can eat low cost internet is OVER. And there is nothing you can do about it.

O Canada, our home and native land. True patriot love in all thy son's command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, the True North strong and free...

 

[0roo0roo]

O Canada, our home and native land. True patriot love in all thy son's command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, the True North strong and free...

wonder if he even works in the telecom industry, or if he's just a sad unpaid stooge.

 

[Phanuel]

wonder if he even works in the telecom industry, or if he's just a sad unpaid stooge.

I recall that he is a grossly over-compensated consultant for the telcos. So he does have a vested interest in sticking it into the rest of our rears.

 

[13Gigatons]

The biggest problem here is that people aren't considering families:

250GB / 4 = 62.5GB per family member

That is not a lot.

 

[Homerboy]

This blows. On top of that, my promo just ended and now my bill jumped $35. I'm hear $190 /month now. Fuck this. Back to TW until they bring on caps too.

 

[FelixDeCat]

My Optimum Online doesn't have caps. I downloaded almost 3 terabytes worth of stuff last month... on a 15 mb/s line.

What the heck are you downloading?

 

[SunnyD]

If the cap was 1.5556TB/month, then I would find it acceptable. (That's approximately how much I could download on my 6Mbps DSL line in 30 days if I maxed out the line for 30 days). Anything less that that cap is an insult for the price I pay. A cap of nearly 1/10th that amount means I should be paying nearly 1/10th the price for my service.

 

[slag]

Fail comparison is fail. Whether you use your Internet connection or not, the cost to maintain that connection is always going to be there. Couple that with peering agreements between the larger ISPs which allows them to pay nothing for sending and receiving traffic up to agreed ratios.

For your analogy to work, you should include costs like upkeep of the boat and boat insurance and the like.

EDIT: I should also add that in cases where more data flow exceeds the agreement, the ISP in violation compensates the other for it. Which begs the question, do residential ISPs get paid by their ISP peers when their residential customers are heavy downloaders?

Hardly a failed analogy. The more I use the boat, the greater my expenses are. The more I use my internet, the greater my expenses are. Upkeep and insurance are costs, sure, but negligble. There are also upkeep expenses associated with your internet that you maintain such as internal wiring, etc.

Bottom line, I download a shit ton of stuff, stream netflix, use sickbeard and couchpotato, use my internet connection religiously, and have no issues with the size of this cap. While I am against caps in general, they are very very generous with this cap and I cannot see myself going over it, even with the copious amounts of internet using that I do. People who use the internet more heavily than I might have issues, but overage fees of 10 bucks per 50 gb are in place to account for their higher usage which is only about 2% of the total user base.

 

[Texashiker]

What the heck are you downloading?

Looks like he downloaded the internet - all of it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What the heck are you downloading?

1080p pr0n. the good stuff.

 

[her209]

Hardly a failed analogy. The more I use the boat, the greater my expenses are. The more I use my internet, the greater my expenses are. Upkeep and insurance are costs, sure, but negligble. There are also upkeep expenses associated with your internet that you maintain such as internal wiring, etc.

LOL... internal wiring? Not even in the same ball park of comparison.

 

[PingSpike]

It's because they have to higher more people to listen to you complain about the high prices.

I suppose it would be easier to listen to techs if one was high, but isn't weed pretty cheap?

 

[adairusmc]

If the cap was 1.5556TB/month, then I would find it acceptable. (That's approximately how much I could download on my 6Mbps DSL line in 30 days if I maxed out the line for 30 days). Anything less that that cap is an insult for the price I pay. A cap of nearly 1/10th that amount means I should be paying nearly 1/10th the price for my service.

lol, good one.

 

[Spikesoldier]

I suppose it would be easier to listen to techs if one was high, but isn't weed pretty cheap?

hah, i was going to poke fun about the higher comment a few days ago but was unsure of what angle to come from.

if one wrote to me asking to get highered for a job i would have tossed that letter directly into the cross-cutting shredder.

you win the internets!