AT&T To Impose Caps, Overages

[oz_1 ACE - Wizard]

As for caps if it does not affect me in my day to day usage which without a way to measure it currently I have no idea

but if it does I will be shopping like others but most may not be anywhere near that cap each month and I doubt I am

unless you download a full length HD movie every night so maybe heavy Netflix users might be hit.

[Garayur]

Time to switch back to my old provider. This has to be the most idiotic thing I've seen for a while. Oh no! we sold more bandwidth than we can provide! Stop! Stop using the internet you paid for! I know, lets put a cap, which has zero effect on when people use the internet, or how much they use at a given time to solve congestion! yeah that will solve the problem!

[Garayur]

Also, just for that I am now going to max out my data usage until I switch.

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

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.

---

I'm curious.  You dropped Comcast because of bandwidth caps, and you are likely to drop U-verse because of bandwidth caps.  Where will you go next?

[zaggnutt]

Hey ATT,

I was a loyal customer for the last 7 years. I pay $55/per month for your high speed service. What good is high speed with a bandwidth cap? That's like having a car that can drive 100 mph, but only 100 miles. Thanks for showing me your true colors. As soon as Verizon FIOS moves into my area, I'm leaving you. Sorry I was such a bandwidth hog to your business. I'm sure you're happy to see me go. Maybe Verizon will cry when I give them my money.

Zaggnutt

[RCSMG ACE - Master]

There aren't any caps yet.  I think I will just use my service now and wait and see how this all works out.  If I have to cut back on what I use I will do it.  ATT and the government know how we feel.  Aside from contacting the politicians not much else is going to make a difference.  IMHO

[lanbrown]

Zaggnutt,

Verizon is not doing any new FiOS rollouts, just what they have planned.  This was announced a year ago, so if you don't have it by now, you won't at all.

What good is a car that can go 250MPH but the fastest road in the country is only 80MPH?

[Computer-Joe]

People complain about "bait and switch" or "that's not what I signed up for". I expect that nobody read the dreaded TOS or Terms of Service when they registered, which has, for over a year, stated that they can impose bandwidth management measures at their discretion. I'll bet nobody has read the new TOS either which states they can cut off your service if you call and complain too much. What really adds insult to injury is that I'm stuck with chrappy DSL because AT&T can't or won't upgrade the infrastructure in my area to make uverse available and because of that I get 100GB a month less than you elitest uversers.

This is purely an anticompetitive move by AT&T but nother will likely happen as AT&T is a huge conglomeration with many, many politicians on their payroll.

__________________________________________________________
How can you be in two places at once, when your not anywhere at all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really want to become a procrastinator, but I keep putting it off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three kinds of people, those that can count, and those that can't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature has made them.

Bertrand Russell

[lanbrown]

---

dhascall wrote:

---

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!

---

Apple couldn't even show the correct signal strength.  I have an unlimited plan, but at the end of the month; the phone and what AT&T has said I used is fairly close; well within a few % points.  In data communication you have headers.  TCP is widely used and there is 20 bytes for every packet.  IP also has a header, so there is another 20 bytes.  That takes care of the L3 (IP) and L4 (TCP) header but doesn't include the L2 header.  Data transfer across a network includes the headers, but is that what the phone is basing it off of?

[lanbrown]

---

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.

---

Don't let TWC fool you.  They have been trialing caps as well.  They have even said that caps are coming down the line from them as well.  So you might think twice before you switch, as it could be anytime they add caps in.

Charter has caps.

Comcast has caps.

Cox has caps.

U-verse will have caps.

TWC will have caps in the future.

[Arch-Stanton]

trparky, just out of curiousity, why did you remove your ID and the email support from your letter-post?

[trparky]

---

Arch-Stanton wrote:

trparky, just out of curiousity, why did you remove your ID and the email support from your letter-post?

---

Huh?  I don't know what you mean?

[oufanindallas]

---

kshusker wrote:

---

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.

---

We don't have regulated power in Texas. We are free to choose our providers in 95% of the area.  Some communities have contracts set up with different providers, but others allow you to choose, so I can have power company A and my next door neighbor can have power company C.

[callmeox ACE - Wizard]

Wait, you mean this is real and not just a rumor?  Well, I'll be.

[oufanindallas]

DSL Reports is sure playing on the caps and fees. Read their weekend open forum intro.

[jmsherman8]

IF they cap this service I am gone. My understanding is the cap doesn't come into play until May 1st. I read about it Ars Technica. As soon as I read the article I immediately started thinking about moving services. That and I guess now if you yell at a ATT rep they can disconnect you. What a hoot. LOL. Well they just became very easy to sell against. I have been recommending ATT since I got the Uverse over Comcast, but now I will have to not recommend them anymore I guess. Here is the link to the article I read. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/att-officially-announces-data-caps-wont-talk-about-c...

[vproman]

---

lanbrown wrote:

People wanted net neutrality, well, they got it.

It is funny that "cord cutters" promote their ideals and they are some of that 2% as they use the Internet for the majority of the content.  Cord cutting just got more expensive.

---

WRONG.  This is not net neutrality because AT&T Uverse TV is EXEMPT from the caps.  Instead, it gets a "premium" lane of the network to travel on, sans cap.  So while Uverse TV users get a free pass eat up network bandwidth, the "cord cutters" are unfairly punished.

This is anti-competitive.  There is very little difference between AT&T placing restrictions on third-party internet television services using internet caps and AT&T placing restrictions on third-party long distance services using an outright ban.  When AT&T got into trouble over the long distance issue, they were forced to split the company into two: AT&T landline phone service and AT&T long distance, and the AT&T landline phone company was banned from engaging in long distance service.  If there are any justices or politicians left who believe that competition is the best way to encourage lower prices and better quality services, then AT&T will be sliced up once again, into AT&T the internet service provider and AT&T the internet television service with AT&T the internet service provide banned from providing internet television services.  Then, AT&T internet television will have to compete with third parties on a level playing field, and instead of winning by abusing their ownership of the ISP, they'll have to compete on the grounds of providing the highest quality service at the lowest price.

[jmsherman8]

I work in the industry and I can tell you for certain that usage caps are not inevitable. Someone WILL put a system in place without caps just to compete against those with caps and then ATT, Comcast and the others will start to die very quickly in the internet arena. At that point, following ATT precedent over the years after ticking off thousands of customers they will rescind the caps, and lower prices to lure people back into ATT service. It is sad that with ATT the best prices / deals are always had by those who leave them and come back.

[vproman]

I honestly am not against usage caps.  What I am against is AT&T's Uverse TV being exempt from those caps.  That exemption is the creation of a "premium" internet separate from the internet we all know and love, the great wall being put up.

I'm going to put a cap on AT&T's Uverse TV box using my router, and when the box goes over that cap I'm going to send AT&T a bill for $10 for every 50GB over.

Or better yet, completely block AT&T's Uverse TV box and cancel my AT&T Uverse.

[lanbrown]

---

vproman wrote:

---

lanbrown wrote:

People wanted net neutrality, well, they got it.

It is funny that "cord cutters" promote their ideals and they are some of that 2% as they use the Internet for the majority of the content.  Cord cutting just got more expensive.

---

WRONG.  This is not net neutrality because AT&T Uverse TV is EXEMPT from the caps.  Instead, it gets a "premium" lane of the network to travel on, sans cap.  So while Uverse TV users get a free pass eat up network bandwidth, the "cord cutters" are unfairly punished.

This is anti-competitive.  There is very little difference between AT&T placing restrictions on third-party internet television services using internet caps and AT&T placing restrictions on third-party long distance services using an outright ban.  When AT&T got into trouble over the long distance issue, they were forced to split the company into two: AT&T landline phone service and AT&T long distance, and the AT&T landline phone company was banned from engaging in long distance service.  If there are any justices or politicians left who believe that competition is the best way to encourage lower prices and better quality services, then AT&T will be sliced up once again, into AT&T the internet service provider and AT&T the internet television service with AT&T the internet service provide banned from providing internet television services.  Then, AT&T internet television will have to compete with third parties on a level playing field, and instead of winning by abusing their ownership of the ISP, they'll have to compete on the grounds of providing the highest quality service at the lowest price.

---

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AT&T is not a monopoly, they were then.  Big difference, something you clearly have overlooked.

The FCC has already weighed in on caps; the ISP can invoke caps.

Using your logic, Comcast needs to be split, so does Charter, Cox, TWC, WOW, Verizon and Qwest.

U-verse TV is exempt because it is a managed service.  U-verse voice is exempt because it it a managed service.

[jmsherman8]

good idea fisnik about the grandfathering. Please post and let us know if they do grandfather you or they don't. Because if they do I would really like to keep the service. But if they are going to impose bandwidth caps there done.

[lanbrown]

---

Apron wrote:

I honestly am not against usage caps.  What I am against is AT&It's Verse TV being exempt from those caps.  That exemption is the creation of a "premium" internet separate from the internet we all know and love, the great wall being put up.

I'm going to put a cap on AT&It's Verse TV box using my router, and when the box goes over that cap I'm going to send AT&T a bill for $10 for every KGB over.

Or better yet, completely block AT&It's Verse TV box and cancel my AT&T Verse.

---

1) AT&T is not a customer of you.

2) The FCC allows managed services.  U-verse TV does not go over the Internet, so you might want to think about your argument or the lack of one for that matter.

{Keep it Courteous}

[RCSMG ACE - Master]

All of the subs are looking at caps.  The question will be who is offering higher and lower caps, and how much will the penalties be for going over them.  IMO

[jmsherman8]

---

richbpark wrote:

Here is the announcement as it appeared in the Washington Post:

AT&T announced that it will impose a limit on DSL data usage on its customers and start charging those who exceed that limit. The cap, which will go into effect May 2, will be 150 GB per month for DSL customers and 250 GB per month for the company’s U-Verse customers. The Wall Street Journal those who exceed the limit more than three times in one month will be charged $10 for every 50GB over the limit.

My only other alternative to AT&T is the cable service provider.  Since AT&T is both a service provider and content provider they are assuming a proprietary and yet and unregulated role that appears to be aimed at their competitors.  If this is not a monopolistic practice then it is very close to it. It is an unfair business practice  {Keep it Relevant} This goes against the notion of an open Internet and with the United States lagging significantly behind other nations (number 16 globally) in Internet price performance this very much a move that will further reduce the United States' position in the global communications arena.  AT&T's service is abysmal compared to Korea's plans of have 1GB/Sec by 2012

http://gigaom.com/2009/02/01/by-2012-koreans-will-get-a-gigabit-per-second-broadband-connection/

AT&T embarrasses the United States and this proprietary announcement reflects a Colonial Internet philosophy that is unacceptable in today's economy.

---

Well said.

[woodscomp]

1) AT&T is not a customer of you. 2) The FCC allows managed services. U-verse TV does not go over the Internet, so you might want to think about your argument or the lack of one for that matter. {Keep it Courteous}

Really, can you explain to me what your definition of IPTV is then?

[RCSMG ACE - Master]

I don't think the tv/internet/telephone services drive up internet useage.  It could be the heavy gamers, people who watch a lot lot of movies and tv programs etc etc etc.  But that's my take.  I don't know, I'm not worried about it.

[vproman]

---

lanbrown wrote:

---

Apron wrote:

I honestly am not against usage caps.  What I am against is AT&It's Verse TV being exempt from those caps.  That exemption is the creation of a "premium" internet separate from the internet we all know and love, the great wall being put up.

I'm going to put a cap on AT&It's Verse TV box using my router, and when the box goes over that cap I'm going to send AT&T a bill for $10 for every KGB over.

Or better yet, completely block AT&It's Verse TV box and cancel my AT&T Verse.

---

1) AT&T is not a customer of you.

2) The FCC allows managed services.  U-verse TV does not go over the Internet, so you might want to think about your argument or the lack of one for that matter.

{Keep it Courteous}

---

If Uverse travels over absolute no part of "the internet" then why is it that the more, higher quality Uverse TV streams I get, the lower my available internet speeds become?  Certainly if Uverse TV was completely separate, increasing the bandwidth it uses would not decrease the bandwidth available to my internet connection, which it does.

The FCC allows managed services, but the purpose of those services is supposed to be for CRITICAL services, such as emergency services.  This is because unrealiable delivery of these services could be life threatening.

The caps are not caused by net neutrality because net neutrality is violated by creating a "premium" network link for AT&T Uverse, so AT&T isn't even following net neutrality.

And I will just cancel Uverse TV, thanks for helping me make that decision.

[woodscomp]

---

vproman wrote:

---

lanbrown wrote:

---

Apron wrote:

I honestly am not against usage caps.  What I am against is AT&It's Verse TV being exempt from those caps.  That exemption is the creation of a "premium" internet separate from the internet we all know and love, the great wall being put up.

I'm going to put a cap on AT&It's Verse TV box using my router, and when the box goes over that cap I'm going to send AT&T a bill for $10 for every KGB over.

Or better yet, completely block AT&It's Verse TV box and cancel my AT&T Verse.

---

1) AT&T is not a customer of you.

2) The FCC allows managed services.  U-verse TV does not go over the Internet, so you might want to think about your argument or the lack of one for that matter.

{Keep it Courteous}

---

If Uverse travels over absolute no part of "the internet" then why is it that the more, higher quality Uverse TV streams I get, the lower my available internet speeds become?  Certainly if Uverse TV was completely separate, increasing the bandwidth it uses would not decrease the bandwidth available to my internet connection, which it does.

The FCC allows managed services, but the purpose of those services is supposed to be for CRITICAL services, such as emergency services.  This is because unrealiable delivery of these services could be life threatening.

The caps are not caused by net neutrality because net neutrality is violated by creating a "premium" network link for AT&T Uverse, so AT&T isn't even following net neutrality.

And I will just cancel Uverse TV, thanks for helping me make that decision.

---

What he said

[Arch-Stanton]

---

trparky wrote:

---

Arch-Stanton wrote:

trparky, just out of curiousity, why did you remove your ID and the email support from your letter-post?

---

Huh?  I don't know what you mean?

---

When you posted your letter to your congressman, at the bottom you initially had something about your role in uverse support, and an email address.  Just curious, why did you edit those out?

[texasguy37 ACE - Champion]

---

woodscomp wrote:

1) AT&T is not a customer of you. 2) The FCC allows managed services. U-verse TV does not go over the Internet, so you might want to think about your argument or the lack of one for that matter. {Keep it Courteous}

Really, can you explain to me what your definition of IPTV is then?

---

U-verse is not transmitted over the internet.  It is transmitted on AT&T's own internal network.  Think of it as something similar to an "intranet".  If you work for a company, chances are that your company has an intranet which is not the same as the internet.