AT&T To Impose Caps, Overages

[Arch-Stanton]

flood99 that bottom chart is terrifying, especially since its shows what ATT is already doing up north.  This is EXACTLY why bandwidth caps are such a big deal, even if you're not hitting 250 now, this is what you have to look forward to in the future.

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

Here is my correspondence to the AT&T CEO:

Mr. Stephenson,

My name is Dave H and I have been a loyal AT&T U-Verse customer for the past 2 ½ years.  I have really enjoyed the product, though at times things have been rocky.  I champion the unique features of U-Verse and participate in the official U-Talk forum to offer assistance to new subscribers.   I want to keep U-Verse my service but as you’ll see in the next paragraph, I may have no choice but to leave.

The one particular development that has really gotten me fired up is U-Verse Internet caps.   I understand that bandwidth is not infinite but I also know that companies such as AT&T often explore creative ways of increasing revenues.  I also understand that Netflix on Demand is extremely popular and may even be so popular that it might cut into AT&T’s Video on Demand revenues.

It is lingering questions and doubt as to why AT&T is implementing these changes that have fired up so many consumer watchdogs, media outlets, bloggers and consumers (such as I).   

I find it odd that no one at AT&T can tell me how much data I have used in the past but in less than 6 weeks, our internet will be capped at a certain amount.  I may be worried for nothing but at this point, how can I tell?  I have also been told that no “gauge” will be provided to show us our current usage.  We will only be told when our usage hits three predetermined percentages.  With no gauge how can we tell how close we are if we hit the last benchmark? 

AT&T has also stated that only 2% of users are classified as heavy users.  This does not indicate that these users exceed 250 GB/month or 1 TB/month.  Where is the actual, factual data?  There is no transparency.  Again this sounds like AT&T is saying (just like a used car salesman) “trust me.”

Since I have no idea; if I am anywhere near the cap, if this is or if this is not just a way for AT&T to make more money and the fact that there is no transparency, I am asking that AT&T delay implementation of the proposed caps for 6 months.  During the May 2nd – November 2nd timeframe, I would like each user to be given usage stats so we can see if this will affect us.   I would also like to see each month how many percent of U-Verse users exceed the proposed 250 GB cap.  This will help confirm if it is indeed 2%of the users, 20% or 66% (random number).   You could even show that this is transparent by having an independent auditor to provide the data.

Again, if you hold off for 6 months and provide us with some real data, it would say a lot about your company.  If not, come May 2nd, I may have no choice but to find another internet provider and just maybe another TV provider as well.

Respectfully,

Dave 

{Keep it Relevant: No legal discussion is allowed on the forums}

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

---

rharkness wrote:

Unfortunately, I won't be able to use U-Verse Realtime to help cross-check then.  The way my house is wired, I won't have a way to run TV out of one RG Ethernet Port and Internet out of another.  Each room terminates with only one ethernet drop and I have a hub that allows me to hook the various network devices.  So, every room that has a TV almost always has some other device as well (printer, gaming system, computer, etc).

If this becomes a big enough problem, I may have to pay to have a 2nd drop run to every location

---

There is another way that your network can be hooked up that will allow UVRT to properly measure internet usage while at the same time using only a single Ethernet drop to each location.

Doing this requires VLAN-capable switches at the RG and at each remote location where there are HSI and IPTV devices.

Here is a diagram of how I've done this in my house, using NetGear GS108T-100 (older model) switches, and it works perfectly.

The NetGear GS108T-200 switches work properly in this application, and are priced at around $99 street, but Directron has them for $84.  Do not attempt to use the NetGear GS108E switches -- someone tried them over on DSLReports and could not get them to work in a VLAN configuration.

Though you will need multiple switches at $99 each, that may end up being comparable to having someone run 2nd Ethernet drops to each room, and the VLAN configuration is just as flexible.

[chachster]

I was considering the vlan approach, however, I have one device that is the oddball... my Xbox 360.   It's connected ethernet however needs both internet and video.   Any ideas on how to seperate the XBox?   I haven't been able to come up with any good idea.

[CaptainA-W-E-so…]

Unless someone has these switches lying around whose spending $100 just to track their usage?

While I appreciate the effort to describe how it *can* be done it's not all that practical on a home user. 

Maybe we should talk to local gov't officials and see about forming a body to lodge bandwitdh meter complaints to. UCAN (http://www.ucan.org) seems like the a good start. 

Honestly, I don't like this middle ground we're in. Either bill me for my usage of internet (like my water bill) or bill me based on unlimited usage (like U-verse was). This mish-mash of both just sucks. 

[kshusker]

---

CaptainA-W-E-some wrote:

Honestly, I don't like this middle ground we're in. Either bill me for my usage of internet (like my water bill) or bill me based on unlimited usage (like U-verse was). This mish-mash of both just sucks. 

---

You hit the nail on the head perfectly!

I wouldn't mind metered billing - if it were truly metered and audited, like water or electricity. The "monthly fee" for electrical power is almost nothing. You just pay what you use. Ideally, internet should be the same way. Everyone gets the top speed (you don't pay the electric company more if your home has a 150 amp break as opposed to a 200 amp breaker) and you only pay for what you use (beyond a nominal fee merely to have service).

Imagine perhaps 25 cents per GB - someone who uses 200 GB would pay 50 bucks, a "hog" who uses 400 GB would pay 100 bucks, and so on. But this is fair, just like with power and water, you pay for what you use. And if you just check your email and watch a rare youtube video, maybe you use 20 GB a month and would only pay 5 bucks.

The reason AT&T doesn't go this model is because it would hurt their bottom line - they want the best of both words...force people who need very little service to pay huge minimum amounts to merely have service, while charging heavy users way more then they otherwise would be able to.

Not to get political, but internet bandwidth infrastructure should be regulated the same way water and power are.

Can you imagine if AT&T ran your electric company? You'd have to pay $50 to even get service, no matter if you never turned on a single light all month, and then you'd get "unlimited" power, until you used a certain number of kwH, after which you would have to pay for overages in big chunks. And you could only buy circuit-breakers from AT&T, and no one would audit your meter, which you could only look at every few days.

[herozero]

I JUST signed up for service and I love it!  But I will exercise my 30 day guarentee if these caps aren't dropped.  I work from home and connect to my office over VPN for data and VoIP, I do a lot of remote IT work and download Linux distros and server components all the time, on top of regular and LEGAL Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes.  Get over the fact that I don't use U-Verse for all my media consumption (even though I already get a TON of my movies and media over U-Verse), and stop punishing me for USING MY INTERNET CONNECTION THAT I ALREADY PAY YOU FOR.

[Arch-Stanton]

I've thought about metered usage, but I also download a lot of HD movies from PSN and Amazon.  This are typically 6-8gb, so on top of the $4 rental fee I would have to pay another $1-2 usage fee.  Not sure how I feel about that, probably OK with it as long as I didn't have a flat monthly rate (when you divide out my bill it probably hits that anyway).

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

Arch-Stanton wrote:

I've thought about metered usage, but I also download a lot of HD movies from PSN and Amazon.  This are typically 6-8gb, so on top of the $4 rental fee I would have to pay another $1-2 usage fee.  Not sure how I feel about that, probably OK with it as long as I didn't have a flat monthly rate (when you divide out my bill it probably hits that anyway).

---

30 movies a month and you are close to the cap!  AND by the time you add in your other net use, it could be easy to bust it in your case.  I also do not think that you are in the upper 2 % of heavy users, either........  This is starting to smell rotten............

[herozero]

---

dhascall wrote:

 This is starting to smell rotten............

---

starting?  it's been rotten the whole time, and even longer in companies like canada with draconian rogers.  and talk to comcast customers who have had this cap already and see how they like it.

[Arch-Stanton]

Here's how my usage breaks down:

2 people in household, me and gf.  We cut the TV cable a year and a half ago, use Uverse MaxPlus (18mbs), and probably watch more TV now online than we did when we had 'official' TV service.  We use Amazon VOD streaming to net-enabled TV, netflix and hulu on laptops, and Playstation Network on PS3.  Typically I will DL 3-5 PSN HD movies per week (18-40gb per week, or 72-160gb per month).  My gf works from home a lot, and typically has TV episodes from Netflix streaming when she's around the house.  Probably 3-4 hours of netlix streaming per day, lets be on the low side and call that 3-4 gb per day, or 90-120gb per month.  Some of Amazon VOD is HD, but we don't use so much of it, so probably 10 hours or 10gb per month there.  So just from video services my total is:

172-290 gb per month

This doesn't include online gaming (don't do that a lot, don't know the data rates) or general internet use.  I do NO file sharing whatsoever, and still I'm bumping the cap already if not going over.  This is why I'm so upset about this whole thing, the reason for these caps are not for people running server farms off ATT residential services or file sharing.  Its for people like me, who figured out that TV service is unnecessary these days.  I find it hard to believe I'm in this '2%' club (I should get a patch, like those biker 1%er patches) who are somehow destroying ATTs ability to make profit off services.  Gosh, if I lived in Canada with thier rate model, I might already have to find something else to do, like not use att's services.  

Believe me, this has nothing to do with 'network support' and is all just to get people like me plugged back in to TV services that I don't want, and to prevent others from following our path.  But I don't care, because someone's going to step up as a pure play service provider, charge reasonable rates for internet access that don't have conflicts of interest with TV and content services, and wipe the floor with ATT, comcast and the rest.  This capping to protect buggy-whip TV service is stupid, and the reasons are abundantly clear.  You can't penalize customers back into the past.

Someone said it before 5-10 years from now we'll all have wimax or satellite internet anyway, and its bye-bye cell phones, land lines and pretty much all the telco infrastructure we have today.  

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

herozero wrote:

---

dhascall wrote:

 This is starting to smell rotten............

---

starting?  it's been rotten the whole time, and even longer in companies like canada with draconian rogers.  and talk to comcast customers who have had this cap already and see how they like it.

---

At this point and in terms of caps, I actually trust Comcast a bit more than AT&T.  

AND AT&T is having lost of issues with iPhone / Wireless caps in proving verifiable data as to how tey come up with their data usetotals for subscribers.  I trust AT&T on the TV side but have none on the data side!

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

Arch-Stanton wrote:

Here's how my usage breaks down:

2 people in household, me and gf.  We cut the TV cable a year and a half ago, use Uverse MaxPlus (18mbs), and probably watch more TV now online than we did when we had 'official' TV service.  We use Amazon VOD streaming to net-enabled TV, netflix and hulu on laptops, and Playstation Network on PS3.  Typically I will DL 3-5 PSN HD movies per week (18-40gb per week, or 72-160gb per month).  My gf works from home a lot, and typically has TV episodes from Netflix streaming when she's around the house.  Probably 3-4 hours of netlix streaming per day, lets be on the low side and call that 3-4 gb per day, or 90-120gb per month.  Some of Amazon VOD is HD, but we don't use so much of it, so probably 10 hours or 10gb per month there.  So just from video services my total is:

172-290 gb per month

This doesn't include online gaming (don't do that a lot, don't know the data rates) or general internet use.  I do NO file sharing whatsoever, and still I'm bumping the cap already if not going over.  This is why I'm so upset about this whole thing, the reason for these caps are not for people running server farms off ATT residential services or file sharing.  Its for people like me, who figured out that TV service is unnecessary these days.  I find it hard to believe I'm in this '2%' club (I should get a patch, like those biker 1%er patches) who are somehow destroying ATTs ability to make profit off services.  Gosh, if I lived in Canada with thier rate model, I might already have to find something else to do, like not use att's services.  

Believe me, this has nothing to do with 'network support' and is all just to get people like me plugged back in to TV services that I don't want, and to prevent others from following our path.  But I don't care, because someone's going to step up as a pure play service provider, charge reasonable rates for internet access that don't have conflicts of interest with TV and content services, and wipe the floor with ATT, comcast and the rest.  This capping to protect buggy-whip TV service is stupid, and the reasons are abundantly clear.  You can't penalize customers back into the past.

Someone said it before 5-10 years from now we'll all have wimax or satellite internet anyway, and its bye-bye cell phones, land lines and pretty much all the telco infrastructure we have today.  

---

Right on!  Comcast, AT&T, Verizon and so on can only lobby so much to try to keep the status quo before the inevitable hits.  I agree that "Pay TV" as we know it will be a different beast by 2020.  Terrestrial radio is trying oddball formats and some stations are going dark.  A few full power AM stations are selling for not much more than what a new car would go for.  Print media, same boat.

[Phil_San_Diego]

I found out about this last night at 9PM. It's not even noon the next day yet and we've already pounded the spike through the heart of the Uverse service we just signed up for. Luckily we're still within that thirty day trial period.

This may be a bundle of home phone, cable TV, and internet, but the pivotal service is internet. That's the one upon which the entire account hinges. Time Warner assured us that they have no plan for caps and they can be here to change our service over before end of business tomorrow. So for the price of these caps AT&T has lost not only our internet business but also our land line and cable TV accounts.

All the babble about how many of this and that it takes to get to 250GB is silly. My wife and I work different shifts so it's not like our internet usage is limited to a few hours in the evening. She streams Netflix, I download mp3s from Amazon, the kids play online games, and we all watch videos on YouTube. This doesn't even include basic internet use for email with attachments, Facebook, news, online services, or VPNing in sometimes for work. Sometimes we have three different connections going. I can just imagine snagging one of Amazon's $1.99 "deals of the day" on 99 classical mp3s and having that download be the final 2GB that pushes us over the 250GB limit, and the AT&T penalty more than offsetting the bargain price of the download.

Our friends just stopped by to drop off their kids for some impromptu babysitting. In the five minutes we had we gave them a heads up about these caps - it turns out they've had Uverse for a while - and will have it at least until Monday when they return from their weekend getaway. He's got online gaming, he and his wife both have Netflix... you get the idea.

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

Phil_San_Diego wrote:

I found out about this last night at 9PM. It's not even noon the next day yet and we've already pounded the spike through the heart of the Uverse service we just signed up for. Luckily we're still within that thirty day trial period.

This may be a bundle of home phone, cable TV, and internet, but the pivotal service is internet. That's the one upon which the entire account hinges. Time Warner assured us that they have no plan for caps and they can be here to change our service over before end of business tomorrow. So for the price of these caps AT&T has lost not only our internet business but also our land line and cable TV accounts.

All the babble about how many of this and that it takes to get to 250GB is silly. My wife and I work different shifts so it's not like our internet usage is limited to a few hours in the evening. She streams Netflix, I download mp3s from Amazon, the kids play online games, and we all watch videos on YouTube. This doesn't even include basic internet use for email with attachments, Facebook, news, online services, or VPNing in sometimes for work. Sometimes we have three different connections going. I can just imagine snagging one of Amazon's $1.99 "deals of the day" on 99 classical mp3s and having that download be the final 2GB that pushes us over the 250GB limit, and the AT&T penalty more than offsetting the bargain price of the download.

Our friends just stopped by to drop off their kids for some impromptu babysitting. In the five minutes we had we gave them a heads up about these caps - it turns out they've had Uverse for a while - and will have it at least until Monday when they return from their weekend getaway. He's got online gaming, he and his wife both have Netflix... you get the idea.

---

TWC has assured you?  Did you get it in writing?  AT&T assured us too.   It must have had a disappearing ink asterisk next to "unlimited."  One of the articles that I saw mentioned that TWC is actually testing caps    That article also has doubts that congestion is AT&T's true motivation (the coin operated washing machine analogy is funny but prophetic).

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

Add Consumers Union (the Consumer Reports, consumer watchdog folks) to thoise who oppose the caps.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/149615-consumers-union-objects-to-atat-data-caps

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

kyaMega wrote:

With all due respect (and I really do mean that, I respect anyone that takes the time to write their congressmen for any reason) I do not think getting the government to intervene is the right thing to do.  I prefer a smaller less interfering government.  It is also less likely to be effective in any reasonable timeframe.

I think the most powerful thing we can all do to fix this is to boycott.  Don't wait to get an overage letter.  Cancel your service as soon as the cap is instituted.  Wait until May 2, and then do it on THAT day.  Then AT&T will get the message loud and clear they made a bad business decision.  If you have an ISP in your area that is currently not capping, then sign up for them on May 2 as well.  With an influx of customers, they will make more money than ever, and would be crazy to put the cap on.  I know we can potentially make a difference because it happened with Time Warner.  They made the same announcement, and the public response was so negative they changed their mind and there is still no TW cap in my city.  Ironically AT&T gained quite a few new customers over the TW announcement.

If you are in a location where AT&T is the only choice you have for decent broadband, then call them on the phone and complain.  Do it every day or as often as you have time.  Tell them the minute you hear of a competitor offering unlimited usage at decent transfer rates, they will lose you as a customer.

---

Write your congressman?  Look at this article and read the last paragraph.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/03/14/att-dsl-adopts-250gb-monthly-bandwidth-cap/

[liquiddestiny]

Me and my familly are opposed to this action by AT&T.  There is no reasonable explanation that they can offer that will disuade me from this sentiment.  The simple fact is it is pure profit mongering and nothing else.

Reason 1

Any congestion will occure ate certain times of the day.  There is no need for a blanket cap when the congestion is limited typically to one city at one time zone.  This can be solved through more infrastructure and proper data management techniques.

Reason 2

This is a transparent ploy to damage the competition on the web.  Netflix and other providers are now in direct competition with AT&T's uVerse offerings.  And this is clearly and quite obviously a method to stymie users of those services while giving their own services an unmetered treatement.  They even give uVerse an advantage over thsoe whoe can not get it...it is cow manuer and they know it!

Reason 3

The cost of a gig of data is south of one penny when it comes to AT&T's role in sending it.  This means that extra 50 gig only costs them less then 50cents to send.  They are charging twenty times that for going over...that is extortion...plane and simple.

These are the reasons why I have contacted my Congresswomen and my Senator...this is why this has to stop.  And this is why I feel they are damageing the market place with anticompedative activities that are only designed to beat down the competition.  And it is my personal hope that others also speek up.  Because if they will not back down, I hope they get legislated into oblivion.

Note: I also e-mailed the DoJ...since theyr also like to investigate monopolies acting badly.

[dhascall ACE - Professor]

---

liquiddestiny wrote:

Me and my familly are opposed to this action by AT&T.  There is no reasonable explanation that they can offer that will disuade me from this sentiment.  The simple fact is it is pure profit mongering and nothing else.

Reason 1

Any congestion will occure ate certain times of the day.  There is no need for a blanket cap when the congestion is limited typically to one city at one time zone.  This can be solved through more infrastructure and proper data management techniques.

Reason 2

This is a transparent ploy to damage the competition on the web.  Netflix and other providers are now in direct competition with AT&T's uVerse offerings.  And this is clearly and quite obviously a method to stymie users of those services while giving their own services an unmetered treatement.  They even give uVerse an advantage over thsoe whoe can not get it...it is cow manuer and they know it!

Reason 3

The cost of a gig of data is south of one penny when it comes to AT&T's role in sending it.  This means that extra 50 gig only costs them less then 50cents to send.  They are charging twenty times that for going over...that is extortion...plane and simple.

These are the reasons why I have contacted my Congresswomen and my Senator...this is why this has to stop.  And this is why I feel they are damageing the market place with anticompedative activities that are only designed to beat down the competition.  And it is my personal hope that others also speek up.  Because if they will not back down, I hope they get legislated into oblivion.

---

liqquiddestiny - you speak the truth.  You may be wasting your time with state or Federal lawmakers, however.  I'm sure that AT&T lobbies heavilly to keep themselves out of the spotlight.

[liquiddestiny]

I will admit that the Congressmen may not be listening...but one voice can make a flood.  After all they may not hear me, but if I am in a chorus no ammount of graft can keep some one out of fear of not being elected again.  As for senators...there are allot in california and they are more sensitive to their constituants.  So it never hurts to say your piece on things like this...especially when you can make a vote count for somethintg.

[gofer6064]

        Is any one else having a problem displaying the diagrams in some of these posts, especially Some Joes, i had them this morning but now i get a message saying that Internet Explorer cannot display this web page, this seems to be for anything that has to do with internet caps, not the messages just the diagrams or links that lead to them that are included in the posts.

[SomeJoe7777 ACE - Geek]

Those images and signatures are hosted off of my home server, which is apparently down due to a power failure.

I will restart it when I get home from work.

[trparky]

I have already written my Senator and Congressman.

It has been brought to a lot of the technology savvy citizens of these United States that AT&T is about to implement data usage caps on their customers who use their DSL/uVerse Home Internet Service.  Specifically, 150 Gigabytes for those who are on AT&T's legacy DSL services and 250 Gigabytes for those who are on AT&T's new uVerse service.

Their claim is that 2% of their users are using more bandwidth and downloading more than the rest of their customers.  75% of that small 2% of those users are like me who use next generation Internet media services such as Amazon.com Video and NetFlix for many of their entertainment needs.  This includes the streaming of full length feature films as part of their NetFlix subscription as well as many television shows.  They also claim that because of these users that "abuse" their connection, their networks are congested.  The only thing is, these so-called "abusers" are simply using next generation media services that are enriching everyone’s digital lives.

Note that NetFlix and Amazon.com Video are competing products to AT&T’s own uVerse TV and On-Demand services.

A lot of Internet users believe that this is simply a ploy by AT&T to make us (the consumer) pay more for our home Internet connections.  This in turn will slow the growth of home broadband connections and once again, put us (The United States) further back behind the rest of the world in terms of being technologically advanced.  We are currently the 16th country on the list of countries throughout the world who have broadband.  Do we really want us to be put further back?  I don’t think so.

We must put a stop to all usage caps on our Internet connections.  It doesn't matter who your provider is, if you pay for your Internet connection you should be able to use it as you see fit.

[gofer6064]

          Thanks for the update Joe, i just wanted to make sure it wasn't my computers.

[npruzaniec]

Not that I think I deserve special treatment for being an AT&T wireless and Uverse internet subscriber with a combined bill of over $130/month. I don't expect any favors for paying for the highest internet tier available in my area. All I expect is to get what I pay for...not that I do...ever. 

Never have I seen the actual advertised top speed on my Uverse (even in short bursts), but at least I always felt like I had the best internet available to me. I figured since I know I am a very heavy internet user, it was probably reasonable for me to PAY for a higher level of service. But this, this is truly brilliant.

Now not only does AT&T not have to deliver the speeds they advertise, but they also get to charge me for every bit I download that they deem excessive. After all, why would it make sense for them to cater to the people who rely on their service the most (that infamous top 2%). Now, instead, they can milk their high end users for even more and continue to profit ridiculously off everyone who uses their internet to check their email before they go to bed.

Sure, for most people 250GB/month may seem reasonable, but what happens in the future as more and more things move to the internet. Do you think AT&T will gladly raise that limit or do you think they will continue to complain that now even more people are using more than their fair share?

Shame on AT&T. I am sure I will be switching ISPs very soon. Good luck finding more suckers willing to pay for your top tiers of service.

[enamorate]

I have thought about it, and I am going to cancel the Internet service. I have placed my order with Time Warner. I will most likely cancel the television service. I am going to wait until Tuesday to make my decision on the television. I am not going to pay AT&T 65.00 a month for internet alone to read e-mail. Also. I don't want big brother AT&T telling me when it is time to get off the Internet. I have been a die hard advocate of their service. Other carriers may follow their lead, but I won't be back. I have also discouraged friends from getting their service. My friend Michael is going to cancel his wireless contract when his contract comes up for renewal. I am bummed about leaving, but I don't want to put a lot of effort in figuring out my usage. The rep from AT&T told me that downloading 13 h.d. Movies in a month would cause me to go over my allotment of bandwidth. I suspect AT&T will lose more then just Internet business.

[jenlperez]

I think I'm going to copy this and send it to my Senator and Congressman too, if enough of us do the right thing we might not havee to deal with these ridiculous caps

[liquiddestiny]

Yes, Use the government for what it should be for, protecting it's citizens.  Not to be pawns of corperations!  Use that ritiousindignation and write!  Oh wow...head rush.

[bbmak]

This is a great mistake for ATT. For me, if they impose cap on me, I will jump to a 250GB cap(Comcast) instead of 150GB.

Winner:

Comcast

Loser:

Skype (related services)

Netflix (related services) maybe time to short nflx stock. Wondering how they stream 1080P HD movies.

Online Gamers (related services)

Downloaders

ATT (in someway, I think revenue will down. If you cannot switch to cable, then u would downgrade your serivce to Pro. Since 150GB every month.)

[jmsherman8]

I am just putting this out here now for ATT moderators to take back to there superiors. The reason that I left comcast to come to ATT in the first place was the bandwidth cap that comcast put into play last year. Now IF ATT moves forward with this bandwidth cap, I WILL be dropping my uverse services entirely. If however, someone gets some common sense between now and May I will keep them. Look I stream Netflix to my home. We have 5 kids during the height of summer and I have no time to be playing games with ATT bandwidth caps. Either you remove them or its a done deal.