Questions about data caps? [ Edited ]

[bld522]

---

Stormer99 wrote:

The theme I'm trying to make is AT&T is misleading the public and thier intentions are dubious at best.  To cap bandwidth inorder to curb our access to thier competitors services is unacceptable and only serves to prove why TV/Video providers should not be in the ISP buisiness.

---

I support your theme wholeheartedly.

[ummann]

told ya i made them record it, got there names and manager name and id numbers and case number so i'm atleast good LOL i hope the triple play is same way for everyone!!!!!

[Stormer99]

Well I'm sorry to cast doubt on the Triple Play subscribers not being effected by the cap, but I just called AT&T and chatted on-line with one of thier reps and both said the cap is for everyone!  I hope this is not true, becuase I went with AT&T because COMCASTs internet throttling practices offeded me.  But now that AT&T is swimming in the same pool of unethical internet manipulation I might as well go with COMCAST at least thier glass ceiling is 600 GB per month.

[Gnomatic]

---

Stormer99 wrote:

I hope this is not true, becuase I went with AT&T because COMCASTs internet throttling practices offeded me.  But now that AT&T is swimming in the same pool of unethical internet manipulation I might as well go with COMCAST at least thier glass ceiling is 600 GB per month.

---

Given the same choice as you, I'd probably do the same. 

Out of curiosity, how bad id Comcast's bandwidth throttle?

[buckeye29]

AT&T is trying to stop people from using Hulu and NetFlix to watch shows and movies on demand. They are fronting a misinformation program to cover the policy. AT&T Uverse offers few HD and SD movies on premium channels and a few more on On-Demand for quite a premium price. People have figured out that rather than watch an On-Demand film for $6 to $10/film, they could pay NetFlix $8/month and watch as many as they wanted at no cost. The same is true of Hulu for network shows. Why pay Uverse for multi-tiers and HD service, when all you need do is stream the content for pennies. The new "data usage cap" limits customers to a bare minimum streaming content so they have to pay AT&T more.

[ScottMac]

---

anorman711 wrote:

I'm sure you all have read the updated terms of service that went out this morning concerning the implementation of use limits for internet service:

http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB409045#fbid=AInuBaWbMxZ

It's interesting to note that we can not currently check our usage in all areas, I for one, can not.  I can only calculate the traffic since my router was reset, about 36 hours ago, which indicates roughly 10 gb of data.  That pretty much shows that I will be over the limit by around 16gb, and to be honest, I've not done very much online, but I rely heavily on my internet connection.  To sum this up, this is a deal breaker for me, and this being the suggestion forum, I'd simply like to suggest that AT&T not do this-  other service providers are not doing it, so I'll simply switch. 

Increasing the limit to something reasonable, or adding the option to increase this limit may be acceptable, but 250 gigabytes a month can be easily topped on my ipad, hence the service plan indicative of that expectation.  The observation that the average user uses 18gb per month isn't at all accurate for anyone with a reasonably fast internet connection;  why have a 25208 kbs connection if you only use 18gb a month?

I would also like to suggest that AT&T not trivialize the arbitrary decision to do this by masking it behind a "terms of service" update, this is a big deal, and you should let people know what you are doing so that they can respond to your decision.  Do not forsake the good will of your customers, it's not easily gained.

---

If your router doesn't subtract the traffic for U-verse TV (and voice , which is negligible) then your numbers are probably way high. You don't specifically say you have U-verse, but you did mention the 250G number, which is the threshold for U-verse (versus 150G for DSL).

[ScottMac]

---

ummann wrote:

just started using netmeter and all i am doing is watching tv HD channel and it's adding 5.83mb a second to my bandwidth total. so 4 tv going i'm going to use roughly 20mb+ a second when it has nothing to do with internet. with tv off i'm see'n 12 to 70kb of d/l speed and 5 to 10kb of uplaod and thats with nothing on except this pc and browser open ot anything. 7 minutes of tv and i'm at 500mb already. this pc is on ethernet right to the homeportal no wireless. anyone have any idea's why or is just att sucks and i'll be having fun every month calling and arguing with proof that there system is flawed.

---

U-Verse TV (and voice) is not counted against the cap/threshold.

[JDFan]

I can confirm it will effect triple play customers as well -- got the letter today.  Why have speed tiers if they are going to switch to metered usage ?? (Just let every user have the max speed their connection can support so you can get them to use more and pass the cap earlier !!)

They really need to explain what is included in the CAP -- Does the 250GB. include the TV service and the overhead of the format they are using for transmission ?? -- Are they going to add a way to block all of those Flash based Adverts so that we are not exceeding our cap due to recieving and sending info that we do not want or request to be sent to us ?? What method of measuring a GB are they using ?? (is it like the HDD makers use or actual GBs) ?

It's a shame I really like the U-verse package but with this new policy I will be looking into other alternatives for service and taking our $200+ monthly payment with me. 

[kyaMega]

ScottMac,

I appreciate you staying active on this thread.  I know you do not represent AT&T, but as an employee, you probably have a better way of contacting the powers that be i.e. decision makers on this new policy than the rest of us do... so if I could ask a favor... not a big one... but just to make sure that these people-in-charge are aware of the churn, drama, and outrage some people are feeling about this.

I know the "wait and see" approach makes the most sense from a perspective of seeing if the caps will even affect our bills, but many of us plan to drop AT&T more as a statement of our disagreement with this policy than any actual increased costs we would incur.  I am not sure that message is reaching the intended audience.  If you could help make sure it does, that would be AWESOME.

If the caps do happen (I'm waiting till May 2 to take action giving AT&T time to change their mind like Time Warner did in my area), then I will (as quickly as I can) move my TV/Internet (U200/24mbps) to Time Warner, drop my land line, and move my wireless (5 phones, 2 data plans) over to Verizon as soon as the iPhone 5 comes out.  That will take over $4000/year away from AT&T.

On the other hand, I am happy with the quality of service I have with AT&T, so if the caps do not happen, I will most likely remain a loyal customer.

Here is an earlier post I made with some quick ideas on other ways AT&T might be able to reduce network congestion in a way that people like me might find more ethical and palatable: http://forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-How-To/AT-amp-T-To-Impose-Caps-Overages/m-p/2716867#M24986

Thank you for your time.

-Dean

[jmsherman8]

---

ummann wrote:

Got great one for everyone just got off phone with att. since i have uverse internet, phone, and tv there will be no caps for people who have this service. i made sure the comvo was recorded by melisa and got a case number and her id number and also got her dispatch manager who gave her this info and his id number also so they can't say this convo never happened. so what she said if u have uverse with everything u will not be capped at 250gigs only people u use internet only. can't wait to see reply's to this one

---

You see this is just wrong if it is true. There is no other way to put it. It is obviously a competitive action on ATT's part.

[U-LostMe]

---

kyaMega wrote:

ScottMac,

I appreciate you staying active on this thread.  I know you do not represent AT&T, but as an employee, you probably have a better way of contacting the powers that be i.e. decision makers on this new policy than the rest of us do... so if I could ask a favor... not a big one... but just to make sure that these people-in-charge are aware of the churn, drama, and outrage some people are feeling about this.

I know the "wait and see" approach makes the most sense from a perspective of seeing if the caps will even affect our bills, but many of us plan to drop AT&T more as a statement of our disagreement with this policy than any actual increased costs we would incur.  I am not sure that message is reaching the intended audience.  If you could help make sure it does, that would be AWESOME.

If the caps do happen (I'm waiting till May 2 to take action giving AT&T time to change their mind like Time Warner did in my area), then I will (as quickly as I can) move my TV/Internet (U200/24mbps) to Time Warner, drop my land line, and move my wireless (5 phones, 2 data plans) over to Verizon as soon as the iPhone 5 comes out.  That will take over $4000/year away from AT&T.

On the other hand, I am happy with the quality of service I have with AT&T, so if the caps do not happen, I will most likely remain a loyal customer.

Here is an earlier post I made with some quick ideas on other ways AT&T might be able to reduce network congestion in a way that people like me might find more ethical and palatable: http://forums.att.com/t5/Features-and-How-To/AT-amp-T-To-Impose-Caps-Overages/m-p/2716867#M24986

Thank you for your time.

-Dean

---

I couldn't not have said this better and I subscribe to similar services, U-Verse, Mobile and an analog line.  Suggesting anyone to "wait and see" if AT&T will follow through with their clearly stated limits does not make sense, in my opinion.  As a U-Verse customer with High Speed Internet (U200/6mbps), the stated changes in the usage limits do not make exceptions and therefore will apply to me, even if my current usage does not meet or exceed the limit today.  I am still not being told through the meter what AT&T believes is my usage today, but it doesn't matter, my patterns may change tomorrow and the threat of additional fees is unacceptable.  For that matter, placing a meter on my usage is also unacceptable, even though it does not function.

As stated: http://www.att.com//internet-usage

Broadband Usage FAQs

Are there any usage limits for my broadband service?

Yes.  As of May 2, 2011, AT&T's residential DSL High Speed Internet plans will have a usage allowance of 150 Gigabytes ("GB") per month, and its residential U-verse High Speed Internet plans will have a usage allowance of 250 Gigabytes ("GB") per month.  The usage allowance is the amount of data you can send and receive each month.

I too will be switching to TW and Verison on May 2nd if AT&T continues or implements this metering scheme.  Both TW and Verison have given me formal quotes that are less expensive than the combined AT&T services that I am subscribed to currently. I would not have bothered to shop the plans out, but AT&T did make the first move with their change, so I reacted.

As a result of this announcement of the usage limits, this is what I will be doing on May 2nd;  I will either be canceling AT&T's services completely or I will be contacting AT&T's Customer Retention to get a concession and will switch all services if no concession is offered.  I'll let your management wait and see what I will do.

[chachster]

I hope the triple play rumor is true, but I'm doubtful.

I have the U300/InternetMax (12meg)/Unlimited VOIP.

Also have my cellular phone with them.   The cell is on contract until July, once July comes I will now have a choice to make.  You would think for someone that has the Triple Play or Quadruple Play that an unlimited internet pipe would not be too much to ask for.   I don't think I would approach the cap, but I don't like to have to think about curtailing my current usage because of one.    I still have another week to cancel my Triple Play before I would have to incur a ETF (I agreed to 1 year commitment).

I really like the way the U-verse service works.   The technology is very exciting.   However, with multiple internet choices available, I may vote to give another company my money to enjoy their internet connection.

Maybe a letter to AT&T stating that I agree to all new terms and conditions with the exception to the internet usage cap and if they do not reply within 30 days I will assume their acceptance of my new terms.

My dream is to see a post saying that AT&T has decided not to implement the cap as they have heard loud and clear from their customers.    Triple Play customers will not have a cap.   And a very unheard of thing, make it an option that I can pay for.   Limited Internet is $45, Unlimited is $60. (Unless a residential customer can switch only their internet to business class without being a business)

[7-Cha0s]

ScottMac: Your views in support of data caps are tainted because you are an employee of AT&T. Speaking out against your own employer will be silly.

Where have they said that only data that passes through the firewall will count against your data cap? Where have they stataed that virus attacks that happen to scan your IP address are not counted against your data cap? Where have they said that the data counting against your data cap will exclude PPPoE and ATM overhead? These are all valid questions that a simpel "Who said they wouldn't?" simply cannot answer.  There have already been many proven complaints that AT&T is WAY over charging on the data count and AT&T defends their numbers by saying "Probably is a user error". Oh that is right, only the people that work at AT&T have the ability and smarts to accuratly monitor the data that flows in and out of the house....

[bld522]

I'll put the same question to ScottMac I did before.  Perhaps this time he'll have the courage to answer it:

If you knew there was no way to validate their data, would you permit your electric utility to remove your meter and tell you how much electricity you were using each month from now on?

Come on ScottMac.  A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

[ScottMac]

---

7-Cha0s wrote:

ScottMac: Your views in support of data caps are tainted because you are an employee of AT&T. Speaking out against your own employer will be silly.

Where have they said that only data that passes through the firewall will count against your data cap? Where have they stataed that virus attacks that happen to scan your IP address are not counted against your data cap? Where have they said that the data counting against your data cap will exclude PPPoE and ATM overhead? These are all valid questions that a simpel "Who said they wouldn't?" simply cannot answer.  There have already been many proven complaints that AT&T is WAY over charging on the data count and AT&T defends their numbers by saying "Probably is a user error". Oh that is right, only the people that work at AT&T have the ability and smarts to accuratly monitor the data that flows in and out of the house....

---

"Who said they wouldn't" is perfectly appropriate - everything listed was based on pure speculation with no fact or reference to ground it in reality.

For example, regarding why ATM transmission overhead wouldn't count: note that the "cap" is expressed in GigaBYTES: that implies either pre-or post SAR (segmentation and re-assembly ... where the ethernet frame is either being chopped into 48 bit chunks, or put back together in a frame before/after it's expressed on the wire using DSL signaling) ... meaning that whatever BITS used to transport the ATM cells are not seen by the system. The monitoring system does not count BITS, it counts bytes (although it'd probably look really cool to put the "cap" at Two Terrabits, or two thousand Gigabits ... looks like a really huge number).

As SomeJoe mentioned in another response, some skepticism is not unreasonable, I have a few doubts myself as a U-verse user, but the level of speculation and rumor ( and the apparent anger) was spiraling well beyond anything the facts and technology had to offer.

AT&T (and many other carriers) have been down this road before. I'd hope that they got the bugs mostly out and that implementation will be clean. If not, they'll take their whacks and do something different. I'm willing to wait and see.

[ScottMac]

---

bld522 wrote:

I'll put the same question to ScottMac I did before.  Perhaps this time he'll have the courage to answer it:

If you knew there was no way to validate their data, would you permit your electric utility to remove your meter and tell you how much electricity you were using each month from now on?

Come on ScottMac.  A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

---

No, of course not. but it's a specious question. It's not a situation that is likey to occur. It's on the same line of "If my uncle had breasts, he'd be my aunt." 

This is not an issue of courage to answer or not. Responding to unfounded and hostile speculation is just a wates of time.

[bld522]

And I suppose you believe that electric utilities are required to install local meters and are governed by Public Utility Commissions for their benefit?

What appears as hostility to you is simply common sense to me.  Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

WAKE UP, FOLKS!  Local meters and PUCs exist to protect consumers from the predatory practices of utilities.  What safeguards are in place to protect consumers from the predatory practices of broadband providers?

[jmsherman8]

---

chachster wrote:

I hope the triple play rumor is true, but I'm doubtful.

I have the U300/InternetMax (12meg)/Unlimited VOIP.

Also have my cellular phone with them.   The cell is on contract until July, once July comes I will now have a choice to make.  You would think for someone that has the Triple Play or Quadruple Play that an unlimited internet pipe would not be too much to ask for.   I don't think I would approach the cap, but I don't like to have to think about curtailing my current usage because of one.    I still have another week to cancel my Triple Play before I would have to incur a ETF (I agreed to 1 year commitment).

I really like the way the U-verse service works.   The technology is very exciting.   However, with multiple internet choices available, I may vote to give another company my money to enjoy their internet connection.

Maybe a letter to AT&T stating that I agree to all new terms and conditions with the exception to the internet usage cap and if they do not reply within 30 days I will assume their acceptance of my new terms.

My dream is to see a post saying that AT&T has decided not to implement the cap as they have heard loud and clear from their customers.    Triple Play customers will not have a cap.   And a very unheard of thing, make it an option that I can pay for.   Limited Internet is $45, Unlimited is $60. (Unless a residential customer can switch only their internet to business class without being a business)

---

One hint if you go down and just file a DBA under a business name for a sole proprietership you can then switch it to business class. The dba costs about $15 for two years I think here.

[sandman__1]

I think it is time to break up these duopolies into seperate companies: one for TV, one for Internet, and one for Phone. Also they need to allow line sharing and mandate they provide a "dumb" pipe. In other words, my ISP shouldn't be concerned with what I am doing with my paid connection as long as it is legal activity. With the implementation of caps on data, which isn't some consumable resource to begin with such as electricity, this isn't going to bode too well for consumers especially since there really isn't any competition. What might look like a high cap today, will not be the case tomorrow because various studies have shown that broadband usage is climbing, year after year, not ever declining. They, AT&T and other ISP's, know this and are planning for it now. Case in point, Canadians have dealt with extremely low caps for years now. When it was announced that Netflix was going to offer Canadians streaming service, what did Canadian ISP's do, they lowered their already low caps even further. Don't think that could happen here? Think again.

Think about the logic AT&T is using to justify the cap for a moment. If only a few people are abusing the system, then why are the other 98% being punished for it? Why can't they deal with these supposed data hogs and only them when their TOS already gives them that right? Also if their system is being taxed so much that they must do something drastic as to punish the other 98%, then how much have they oversold their lines? When it has been shown that the cost to the ISP to transfer a GB is less than a penny, then why are they charging $10/50GB, a +500% markup? 

[RicoLX]

Looks like I am voing to have to pull out my old 14.4 squelching modem pretty soon with all this capping continuing. Makes you wonder

[Mikro]

I just got the E-mail mentioning the May 2 2011 changes and includes the still confusing Bandwidth Usage Limits

Looks like I might be looking to go back to charter after reading TOS and the E-mail Because it looks like AT&T wants to Punish the General User instead of going after the 2% they say are abusing Network bandwidth Use.

I can't even find the link to the new TOS

[bld522]

Permit me:

http://www.att.net/tos2011

Note that the update includes a large number of things AT&T users need to be made aware of including new language addressing AT&T's new cap and overage plans, mandatory binding arbitration, mandatory migrations from legacy DSL to AT&T U-Verse service, and even language giving AT&T the right to terminate your service should you get angry about any of these changes and take it out on an AT&T representative. 

Sort of makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, doesn't it?

[EOC_Jason]

Everyone, you NEED to fill out this form at the FCC. Not only did I get a letter back from the FCC saying they will investigate the matter, I got a call from the president's office in Dallas concerning the matter (I didn't talk to them but they leftt contact info, I *might* call back once I calm down)... Obviously if enough people complain, then something WILL CHANGE....

{Keep it spam free - no solitications or legal language permitted on the forums}

It's the deceptive practices / advertising complaint....

On the U-verse site, it CLEARLY shows, "We dont' limit your bandwidth to a particular amount"... I'm attaching an image, but here is the URL too:  http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/resource-landing.jsp

[Mikro]

---

bld522 wrote:

Permit me:

http://www.att.net/tos2011

Note that the update includes a large number of things AT&T users need to be made aware of including new language addressing AT&T's new cap and overage plans, mandatory binding arbitration, mandatory migrations from legacy DSL to AT&T U-Verse service, and even language giving AT&T the right to terminate your service should you get angry about any of these changes and take it out on an AT&T representative. 

Sort of makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, doesn't it?

---

Yeah that's it

[jmsherman8]

---

EOC_Jason wrote:

Everyone, you NEED to fill out this form at the FCC. Not only did I get a letter back from the FCC saying they will investigate the matter, I got a call from the president's office in Dallas concerning the matter (I didn't talk to them but they leftt contact info, I *might* call back once I calm down)... Obviously if enough people complain, then something WILL CHANGE....

{Keep it spam free - no solitications or legal language permitted on the forums}

It's the deceptive practices / advertising complaint....

On the U-verse site, it CLEARLY shows, "We dont' limit your bandwidth to a particular amount"... I'm attaching an image, but here is the URL too:  http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/resource-landing.jsp

---

Jason,

   thank You for posting this link.

[jmsherman8]

I think filing the FCC complaints right now is our best course of action.

---

bld522 wrote:

Permit me:

http://www.att.net/tos2011

Note that the update includes a large number of things AT&T users need to be made aware of including new language addressing AT&T's new cap and overage plans, mandatory binding arbitration, mandatory migrations from legacy DSL to AT&T U-Verse service, and even language giving AT&T the right to terminate your service should you get angry about any of these changes and take it out on an AT&T representative. 

Sort of makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, doesn't it?

---

[7-Cha0s]

I spoke to the FCC on the phone about this and they said that we should also file a comment on Proceeding Number 09-51 at the following link.

{Keep it spam free - no solitications or legal language permitted on the forums}

[7-Cha0s]

Technically they do not 'limit' you, they just charge you after 250gb of up/down data(even data your firewall rejects)(Want to make sure that is perfectly clear!)

[Uniblurb3 ACE - Guru]

I received my notice via email early this morning. It seems they always put the cart before the horse and you would think they would have their data usage measurement site working, instead of under construction, in releasing this announcement/change.

I don't stream video but I'm real interested to see what my usage is since I spend a whole lot of time on the internet, especially in this forum. Guess I'll have to reconsider posting screen shots, and photos from other sites, if they are adding to my usage. Particularly if they are pushing me to/over the limit.

[bld522]

---

Uniblurb3 wrote:

. . . you would think they would have their data usage measurement site working, instead of under construction, in releasing this announcement/change. 

---

Does it really matter?  Working or not, AT&T is still forcing you to rely on THEIR meter, not YOUR meter.  They can give you any data usage figures they feel like giving you and you have absolutely no way of checking to make sure their figures are accurate.

Sort of makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, doesn't it?