AT&T To Impose Caps, Overages

[EOC_Jason]

---

kshusker wrote:

1. There is generally no significant competition (as that term is commonly understood) in the broadband market in most of the United States. Specifically, in many areas there is either 1 or at most 2 broadband options, generally once legacy telco and one cable company, both of which offer very similar options. You never see true competition (i.e. Verizon FIOS vs AT&T U-Verse in the same market, or a choice between multiple cable and phone companies)

2. The (few in number) towns and cities that have adopted municipal broadband plans, run by the city governments generally have much faster (often fiber to the premise) broadband speeds, without caps, and truly offer an alternative to the existing broadband provider monopoly/duopoly

3. The United States as a whole has been poorly served by its existing broadband providers, as witness to the fact that broadband in the US is at best in the middle of the pack worldwide as far as the speeds offered and the prices they are offered at....far behind the leaders.

---

Here's my thoughts on your three discussion points...

1. One telco + one cable per city is the norm. Ironically it's the federal government that prohibits a CLEC from just dropping into any city and starting to compete. There's many hurdles to overcome before the government will let you compete. For instance, an area where the CLEC is the ILEC, they have to let another CLEC enter that area, then they can go and compete somewhere else. (I used to work for GTE, now Verizon... Being the smaller company trying to expand it was a never ending story about all these crazy regulations.)

Also another matter is the easements and property availability. Easements are the number one headache in established areas. The have to pay whoever has the existing easement contact, and if they don't want them there they will make it some insane dollar amount or just flat out say "no thanks"... Sometimes the feasability in older neighborhoods just isn't there to run fiber to the home. It's much more cost effective to run this stuff in new subdivisions as they are being built. Right now they want the best bang for their buck and unfortunatly older better established neighborhoods get left out in the cold.

2. I've never read about a municipal broadband effort that actually worked / turned a profit. But even so, you should bring that up with your city council (or county commissioners if you are in an unincorporated area)...

3. True

----------

One thing that upsets me is a big company (like AT&T or Comcast) will come into a smaller community and just buy out the smaller cable / internet provider. Speeds and quality of service tend to drop, but I can only assume it's either sell out and make some money or have the big guys compete and die a slow death as you are muscled out.

Perhaps people need to start looking into "Internet Co-op's", much like other cooperatives... A group of people get together and form their own ISP, run their own infrastructure, and everyone's happy...

There could be a killer business for people to run fiber just to the edge of neighborhoods / business parks... Let the individuals figure out their own "last mile". If we could do that at our commercial facility I know every business would drop AT&T / Comcast internet in a heartbeat.

[Gnomatic]

Exactly.  When we have Verizon's FIOS vs AT&T's U-verse vs TWC vs Comcast all competing against each other in most markets, we'll have true competition.

What we have throughout most of the US today byzantine fiefdom structure designed to avoid true competition if at all possible.    In other words, its designed to screw the consumer by giving them the minimum amount of choice possible.

[chuckwk]

When did AT&T notify customers of the new caps? 

Yesterday I got an email: Important Updates to your AT&T Internet Terms of Service

but the only thing that said about caps was:

Usage: We've added a link at www.att.com/internet-usage where customers can
    go to get information about AT&T's data usage policy and managing their data
    usage. 

That hardly seems like informing anybody of any changes.

[oldie_1]

http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB409045#fbid=e5j9pAI2Ac0   This information should help.

[Stormer99]

I was just on-line checking my account and was asked to take a survey.  So I did, it went through a sundry of questions regaurding my use of on-line account management, on-line tech support, the forums etc.  It asked me if I use them and if not why not.   So I answered "No" and when asked why I replied "I don't want to waste my precious 250 GB of bandwidth checking my bill", I don't want to waste my precious 250 GB of bandwidth managing my account" I don't want to waste my precious 250 GB of bandwidth looking for techn ical support".  Anyways you get the idea.  So I've decided to not use any of thier online services.  I will make them spend the money to provide telephone support and mail me a bill each month.

As customers we don't have a lot of options to voice our displeasure, but I will will be voicing mine 44 cents at a time and how ever much they pay that customer service rep to help me.

[jmsherman8]

---

Gnomatic wrote:

Exactly.  When we have Verizon's FIOS vs AT&T's U-verse vs TWC vs Comcast all competing against each other in most markets, we'll have true competition.

What we have throughout most of the US today byzantine fiefdom structure designed to avoid true competition if at all possible.    In other words, its designed to screw the consumer by giving them the minimum amount of choice possible.

---

Yep we need genuine open competition between all carriers. Verizon, ATT, WOW, Sprint, Charter, Comcast, TWC, All of them. Then you will see archaic business models like this will become a thing of the past in a heartbeat.

[callmeox ACE - Wizard]

This looks like a great time to go back to paper billing.

When they ask, tell them that you don't want to use any of your monthly cap to receive the bill.  

[callmeox ACE - Wizard]

---

sirmaru wrote:

I trust Standard Oil to report gallons of heating oil they deliver to me and trust Unitied Illuminating to report my electical usage so why would I not trust ATT to report my bandwidth usage?  Too much cynicism never yields good outcomes.

---

If your house is like mine, the utility has provided you with an industry standard physical meter in order to measure your energy or water use.  A meter that you can lay hands on and look at to verify their readings.  The phone company gives you a detailed listing of all long distance calls, the time they were placed and their duration.  With this bill you can audit their charges to be sure that you are being billed correctly.  The same goes for mobile providers.

The "trust us" method that AT&T is implementing is unlike any other metered use relationship that I have with any company, so please forgive the cynicism.

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

[sirmaru]

---

callmeox wrote:

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

We haven't seen their usage site yet.  It may provide daily bandwidth usage so the user can check to see what he downloaded that day.  It may well be current to the day prior to the day of inspection.  It may even provide details like downloads of Netflix movies, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post, ATT's only big error in this change was not to have that customer usage site ready BEFORE the announcement of the caps.  That would have saved everyone a lot of speculation.

Charter has ALREADY implemented usage caps and will SUSPEND those who exceed them.  ATT's policy is much more lenient allowing us 2 months grace and then just charging us $ 10 for each 50 Gb we exceed the caps.

The Charter policy can be viewed here:

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-follows-comcast-with-broadband-usage-caps/

On that site they say 1 hour of streaming a Netflix movie would eat up 1 Gb of bandwidth.  That means we could watch 250 hours a month on Netflix.  I doubt if any of us could even be capable of that stress.

The Charter limit for my speed of service would be 250 Gb matching ATT.  In my area I only have two choices: ATT or Charter.  ATT is far better in services and far more lenient with the cap policy.

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

[bubbba]

---

willyb wrote:

Hey, you guys who want to complain to your local, state, and federal government officials...this is not their concern.  We are a free market economy.  Do you really want to turn over your Internet service to the federal government...the same government that operates the post office?

Or maybe the state government should run the Internet for you.  The same state government that runs the DMV.  Now there's a place to call to report that your Internet service is out!

Or perhaps the city government could be your new ISP.  That's the same city government that here (Houston) charges nearly twice as much for water and sewer as the rest of the state, in order to use those profits for social programs.

No, my friend.  Keep private business private.  As long as there is competition, there is hope.  Get the government involved and the only thing that is certain is that you will pay more for less.

---

Well put... Our Government as it's run today can only do 2 things right. Waste, and blame someone else for the waste. They would definitely screw things up. I also live in Houston where my water bill is ridiculously high.

[kshusker]

---

sirmaru wrote:

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

---

AT&T used to have unlimited bandwidth. Now they don't. And they are charging us the same as before. How is that in any way "generous?"

[Pake]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

callmeox wrote:

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

We haven't seen their usage site yet.  It may provide daily bandwidth usage so the user can check to see what he downloaded that day.  It may well be current to the day prior to the day of inspection.  It may even provide details like downloads of Netflix movies, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post, ATT's only big error in this change was not to have that customer usage site ready BEFORE the announcement of the caps.  That would have saved everyone a lot of speculation.

Charter has ALREADY implemented usage caps and will SUSPEND those who exceed them.  ATT's policy is much more lenient allowing us 2 months grace and then just charging us $ 10 for each 50 Gb we exceed the caps.

The Charter policy can be viewed here:

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-follows-comcast-with-broadband-usage-caps/

On that site they say 1 hour of streaming a Netflix movie would eat up 1 Gb of bandwidth.  That means we could watch 250 hours a month on Netflix.  I doubt if any of us could even be capable of that stress.

The Charter limit for my speed of service would be 250 Gb matching ATT.  In my area I only have two choices: ATT or Charter.  ATT is far better in services and far more lenient with the cap policy.

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

---

AT&T's usage meter is already up for standard DSL and it's showing nearly 33% off (myusage.att.com)

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Taking-A-Closer-Look-At-ATTs-Inaccurate-Usage-Meters-113442

And take into account, ADSL has been around for over 10 years, along with accurate meters. If they're 33% on old technology, just imagine how far off they are going to be on fiber technology.

Charter's statement on Netflix is only if you stream SD video and doesn't take into account HD. Netflix 720p with stereo audio is about 2-3 GB. When they begin to stream 1080 with 5.1, that amount with 2-3x higher.

As for options, mine is Time Warne which has tried and failed multiple times with it's customers to introduce usage caps. Up to this date, AT&T was the most generous, but now they're turning into Charter which has been ranked as one of the worst services in the nation.

[kshusker]

---

bubbba wrote:

---

Well put... Our Government as it's run today can only do 2 things right. Waste, and blame someone else for the waste. They would definitely screw things up. I also live in Houston where my water bill is ridiculously high.

---

Yeah, the government stinks! I wish we lived in a place where they don't have any government, like Somalia. I bet the internet access is great there, and I also bet it is a much better business environment, at least if you have a speedboat and a few guys with guns.

Seriously, not to turn this thread into a political discussion, but I kinda like having fire protection, police, interstate highways, national parks, a decent military, food inspectors, and Sesame Street for my kids.

[jmsherman8]

---

callmeox wrote:

This looks like a great time to go back to paper billing.

When they ask, tell them that you don't want to use any of your monthly cap to receive the bill.  

---

This is actually a good idea. LOL.

[jmsherman8]

---

callmeox wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

I trust Standard Oil to report gallons of heating oil they deliver to me and trust Unitied Illuminating to report my electical usage so why would I not trust ATT to report my bandwidth usage?  Too much cynicism never yields good outcomes.

---

If your house is like mine, the utility has provided you with an industry standard physical meter in order to measure your energy or water use.  A meter that you can lay hands on and look at to verify their readings.  The phone company gives you a detailed listing of all long distance calls, the time they were placed and their duration.  With this bill you can audit their charges to be sure that you are being billed correctly.  The same goes for mobile providers.

The "trust us" method that AT&T is implementing is unlike any other metered use relationship that I have with any company, so please forgive the cynicism.

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

Especially when there are other users posting 4700% discrepencies in ATT's favor. I am sorry but that is just too much of a leap of faith.

[jmsherman8]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

callmeox wrote:

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

We haven't seen their usage site yet.  It may provide daily bandwidth usage so the user can check to see what he downloaded that day.  It may well be current to the day prior to the day of inspection.  It may even provide details like downloads of Netflix movies, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post, ATT's only big error in this change was not to have that customer usage site ready BEFORE the announcement of the caps.  That would have saved everyone a lot of speculation.

Charter has ALREADY implemented usage caps and will SUSPEND those who exceed them.  ATT's policy is much more lenient allowing us 2 months grace and then just charging us $ 10 for each 50 Gb we exceed the caps.

The Charter policy can be viewed here:

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-follows-comcast-with-broadband-usage-caps/

On that site they say 1 hour of streaming a Netflix movie would eat up 1 Gb of bandwidth.  That means we could watch 250 hours a month on Netflix.  I doubt if any of us could even be capable of that stress.

The Charter limit for my speed of service would be 250 Gb matching ATT.  In my area I only have two choices: ATT or Charter.  ATT is far better in services and far more lenient with the cap policy.

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

---

250 hours of streamed TV? What was the 1gb based on? A SD stream most likely? Because DVD quality would be 2gb per hour. Now lets just say it is 1 GB per hour. I have 5 kids and two adults in this house with me. a 10 year old, 2 12 year old girls, a 17 year old girl and a 20 year old boy, plus my gf. We have two streaming boxes and every kid has a laptop. that means up to 6 concurrent netflix streams? Still think no one is capable of eating that type of bandwidith? I have 6 computers I use and update on a regular basis myself. Then five laptops for the kids, and the gf has two. We haven't even touched on my pandora usage? or the fact that my blue ray player accesses the net. Or the kids wii usage online, or the 20 year olds online gaming habit with starcraft 2 and black ops. Or emails being sent back and forth. Or the 5tb cloud network hard drive I just put online for my convenience? How about now? Still seem so out of reach? Oh yeah our two lines here are VOIP. One vonage and one phone power. How about internet tablets? wifi enabled phones? My point is this. I live on the cutting edge of the digital lifestyle, and maybe you don't today. But what about a few years from now, when you suddenly need/want all of these services? 

[jmsherman8]

---

bubbba wrote:

---

willyb wrote:

Hey, you guys who want to complain to your local, state, and federal government officials...this is not their concern.  We are a free market economy.  Do you really want to turn over your Internet service to the federal government...the same government that operates the post office?

Or maybe the state government should run the Internet for you.  The same state government that runs the DMV.  Now there's a place to call to report that your Internet service is out!

Or perhaps the city government could be your new ISP.  That's the same city government that here (Houston) charges nearly twice as much for water and sewer as the rest of the state, in order to use those profits for social programs.

No, my friend.  Keep private business private.  As long as there is competition, there is hope.  Get the government involved and the only thing that is certain is that you will pay more for less.

---

Well put... Our Government as it's run today can only do 2 things right. Waste, and blame someone else for the waste. They would definitely screw things up. I also live in Houston where my water bill is ridiculously high.

---

I don't see it that way. We deregulated the gas and oil companies back in 2000 under Bush and 8 years later between that and the commodities futures act it managed to destroy the US economy and gas prices skyrocketed higher than they had ever been. Now it still hasn't been reregulated and were right back where we were in 2008 (skyrocketing gas prices and a economy that is on the verge of tanking). So i wouldn't go screaming don't regulate the poor ISPs just yet if I were you. Unless you like paying alot more for alot less?

[jmsherman8]

---

kshusker wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

---

AT&T used to have unlimited bandwidth. Now they don't. And they are charging us the same as before. How is that in any way "generous?"

---

It isn't. They are trying to use the Jedi mind trick on us, the problem is that they just aren't good at it. lol.

[U-LostMe]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

callmeox wrote:

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

We haven't seen their usage site yet.  It may provide daily bandwidth usage so the user can check to see what he downloaded that day.  It may well be current to the day prior to the day of inspection.  It may even provide details like downloads of Netflix movies, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post, ATT's only big error in this change was not to have that customer usage site ready BEFORE the announcement of the caps.  That would have saved everyone a lot of speculation.

Charter has ALREADY implemented usage caps and will SUSPEND those who exceed them.  ATT's policy is much more lenient allowing us 2 months grace and then just charging us $ 10 for each 50 Gb we exceed the caps.

The Charter policy can be viewed here:

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-follows-comcast-with-broadband-usage-caps/

On that site they say 1 hour of streaming a Netflix movie would eat up 1 Gb of bandwidth.  That means we could watch 250 hours a month on Netflix.  I doubt if any of us could even be capable of that stress.

The Charter limit for my speed of service would be 250 Gb matching ATT.  In my area I only have two choices: ATT or Charter.  ATT is far better in services and far more lenient with the cap policy.

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

---

Well, I am not really complaining, but I have checked my options as a result of this move by AT&T and I am not surprised at what I found.  TW is offering me a lower cost, faster speeds, no usage limit, more channels, digital phone service and did I mention NO USAGE LIMIT?  I don't currently have digital phone service through U-verse, not that I didn't order it or want it, but when the installer came to install the service well over a year ago he asked, "are you sure you really want that?”.   Of course it prompted me to start asking him questions about his unusual question.  He said he had seen too many problems with it in my area and didn’t suggest that I use the service and keep my analog line.  As a result of his honesty, I went ahead with the install without the digital phone service.

Don’t get me wrong, I really disliked cable and it is no light decision for me to consider to move or to go back, but they are offering me a less expensive service with no hidden “surprise, you’ve just hit your usage limit” fees on the broadband service, even after the promotional offer expires.  Sure, they may add usage limits in the future, but I haven’t seen the TOS from TW that states it as of today, unlike the one I received from AT&T several days ago.  I, like others have done here, can speculate that they will follow AT&T’s usage limit terms, but as of today they do not have one, so that is good enough for me.

I just checked again and my usage limit meter is not functioning and the new TOS go into effect in less than a month.  Like I have stated before, I may or may not even be close to the limit, but the changes to the terms were delivered to me and there is no way for me to know, although I don’t really care at this point.  Yes, I could keep speculating that my usage is lower, but it is not a fact like the TOS changes that have a specific execution date of May 2, 2011.  The fact that the usage meter isn’t functioning really doesn’t concern me at this point, why should I as a customer have to burden myself to check my usage in the first place, or for that matter wait for the “surprise, you’ve just hit 90% of your limit for the month, get ready for a fee” message from AT&T?  Should I really wait for that message?  It makes me think of another failed business model known for their iconic “You’ve got mail”. 

I have been a long-time customer of AT&T’s, and the former companies that now fall under their corporate name, including PacBell, SBC, and Cingular, even after they acquired L.A. Wireless which I dropped due to their billing problems.  I have used my for what are now called AT&T services for moderate to heavy data usage for many years going back to 1992, including 14.4K, 28.8K, 33.3K, 56K, shot-gunning 56K on two analog lines, ISDN, tethering on my mobile phone, DSL and now the U-Verse service.  No matter what the service that I agreed to pay for, I was never hit with a usage limit on data and I would never agree to one if it was offered as part of the service, as I saw this as the AOL model of doing business with an hourly meter.  I am grandfathered in on the data plan for the iPhone which was unlimited when I agreed to the service.  Of course this means nothing today, that was in the past, as my AT&T statements will be when the new TOS are in effect.

It is now AT&T’s burden to keep me as an overpaying customer for analog, mobile and U-verse service, excluding digital phone, as a result of the new TOS.  I don’t intend to accept the terms because I don’t like surprises.  I am happy to pay the price that I agreed to, but I did not agree to being hit with potential hidden fees, which may or may not change due to my usage regardless if AT&T’s usage meter works or not.   I agree with you simaru customers should shop around, they might be surprised what they can and will find.  I will make this perfectly clear so that there are no surprises for AT&T, if the terms I received are not rescinded that I received I will drop all of AT&T services without complaint.  

Truly, the only surprise I can see here is anyone accepting or trying to justify the usage limit.   Good luck and keep up the great work on your metering effort AT&T, your terms are unacceptable and there are still choices.  Surprise!

[jmsherman8]

---

U-LostMe wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

callmeox wrote:

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

We haven't seen their usage site yet.  It may provide daily bandwidth usage so the user can check to see what he downloaded that day.  It may well be current to the day prior to the day of inspection.  It may even provide details like downloads of Netflix movies, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post, ATT's only big error in this change was not to have that customer usage site ready BEFORE the announcement of the caps.  That would have saved everyone a lot of speculation.

Charter has ALREADY implemented usage caps and will SUSPEND those who exceed them.  ATT's policy is much more lenient allowing us 2 months grace and then just charging us $ 10 for each 50 Gb we exceed the caps.

The Charter policy can be viewed here:

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-follows-comcast-with-broadband-usage-caps/

On that site they say 1 hour of streaming a Netflix movie would eat up 1 Gb of bandwidth.  That means we could watch 250 hours a month on Netflix.  I doubt if any of us could even be capable of that stress.

The Charter limit for my speed of service would be 250 Gb matching ATT.  In my area I only have two choices: ATT or Charter.  ATT is far better in services and far more lenient with the cap policy.

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

---

Well, I am not really complaining, but I have checked my options as a result of this move by AT&T and I am not surprised at what I found.  TW is offering me a lower cost, faster speeds, no usage limit, more channels, digital phone service and did I mention NO USAGE LIMIT?  I don't currently have digital phone service through U-verse, not that I didn't order it or want it, but when the installer came to install the service well over a year ago he asked, "are you sure you really want that?”.   Of course it prompted me to start asking him questions about his unusual question.  He said he had seen too many problems with it in my area and didn’t suggest that I use the service and keep my analog line.  As a result of his honesty, I went ahead with the install without the digital phone service.

Don’t get me wrong, I really disliked cable and it is no light decision for me to consider to move or to go back, but they are offering me a less expensive service with no hidden “surprise, you’ve just hit your usage limit” fees on the broadband service, even after the promotional offer expires.  Sure, they may add usage limits in the future, but I haven’t seen the TOS from TW that states it as of today, unlike the one I received from AT&T several days ago.  I, like others have done here, can speculate that they will follow AT&T’s usage limit terms, but as of today they do not have one, so that is good enough for me.

I just checked again and my usage limit meter is not functioning and the new TOS go into effect in less than a month.  Like I have stated before, I may or may not even be close to the limit, but the changes to the terms were delivered to me and there is no way for me to know, although I don’t really care at this point.  Yes, I could keep speculating that my usage is lower, but it is not a fact like the TOS changes that have a specific execution date of May 2, 2011.  The fact that the usage meter isn’t functioning really doesn’t concern me at this point, why should I as a customer have to burden myself to check my usage in the first place, or for that matter wait for the “surprise, you’ve just hit 90% of your limit for the month, get ready for a fee” message from AT&T?  Should I really wait for that message?  It makes me think of another failed business model known for their iconic “You’ve got mail”. 

I have been a long-time customer of AT&T’s, and the former companies that now fall under their corporate name, including PacBell, SBC, and Cingular, even after they acquired L.A. Wireless which I dropped due to their billing problems.  I have used my for what are now called AT&T services for moderate to heavy data usage for many years going back to 1992, including 14.4K, 28.8K, 33.3K, 56K, shot-gunning 56K on two analog lines, ISDN, tethering on my mobile phone, DSL and now the U-Verse service.  No matter what the service that I agreed to pay for, I was never hit with a usage limit on data and I would never agree to one if it was offered as part of the service, as I saw this as the AOL model of doing business with an hourly meter.  I am grandfathered in on the data plan for the iPhone which was unlimited when I agreed to the service.  Of course this means nothing today, that was in the past, as my AT&T statements will be when the new TOS are in effect.

It is now AT&T’s burden to keep me as an overpaying customer for analog, mobile and U-verse service, excluding digital phone, as a result of the new TOS.  I don’t intend to accept the terms because I don’t like surprises.  I am happy to pay the price that I agreed to, but I did not agree to being hit with potential hidden fees, which may or may not change due to my usage regardless if AT&T’s usage meter works or not.   I agree with you simaru customers should shop around, they might be surprised what they can and will find.  I will make this perfectly clear so that there is no surprises for AT&T, if the terms I received are not rescinded that I received, I will drop drop all services without complaint.  

Truly, the only surprise I can see here is anyone accepting or trying to justify the usage limit.   Good luck and keep up the great work on your metering effort AT&T, your terms are unacceptable and there are still choices.  Surprise!

---

I wonder how they would react to all these posts about people leaving in the corporate boardroom if the stockholders were present?

[U-LostMe]

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

U-LostMe wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

callmeox wrote:

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

We haven't seen their usage site yet.  It may provide daily bandwidth usage so the user can check to see what he downloaded that day.  It may well be current to the day prior to the day of inspection.  It may even provide details like downloads of Netflix movies, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post, ATT's only big error in this change was not to have that customer usage site ready BEFORE the announcement of the caps.  That would have saved everyone a lot of speculation.

Charter has ALREADY implemented usage caps and will SUSPEND those who exceed them.  ATT's policy is much more lenient allowing us 2 months grace and then just charging us $ 10 for each 50 Gb we exceed the caps.

The Charter policy can be viewed here:

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-follows-comcast-with-broadband-usage-caps/

On that site they say 1 hour of streaming a Netflix movie would eat up 1 Gb of bandwidth.  That means we could watch 250 hours a month on Netflix.  I doubt if any of us could even be capable of that stress.

The Charter limit for my speed of service would be 250 Gb matching ATT.  In my area I only have two choices: ATT or Charter.  ATT is far better in services and far more lenient with the cap policy.

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

---

Well, I am not really complaining, but I have checked my options as a result of this move by AT&T and I am not surprised at what I found.  TW is offering me a lower cost, faster speeds, no usage limit, more channels, digital phone service and did I mention NO USAGE LIMIT?  I don't currently have digital phone service through U-verse, not that I didn't order it or want it, but when the installer came to install the service well over a year ago he asked, "are you sure you really want that?”.   Of course it prompted me to start asking him questions about his unusual question.  He said he had seen too many problems with it in my area and didn’t suggest that I use the service and keep my analog line.  As a result of his honesty, I went ahead with the install without the digital phone service.

Don’t get me wrong, I really disliked cable and it is no light decision for me to consider to move or to go back, but they are offering me a less expensive service with no hidden “surprise, you’ve just hit your usage limit” fees on the broadband service, even after the promotional offer expires.  Sure, they may add usage limits in the future, but I haven’t seen the TOS from TW that states it as of today, unlike the one I received from AT&T several days ago.  I, like others have done here, can speculate that they will follow AT&T’s usage limit terms, but as of today they do not have one, so that is good enough for me.

I just checked again and my usage limit meter is not functioning and the new TOS go into effect in less than a month.  Like I have stated before, I may or may not even be close to the limit, but the changes to the terms were delivered to me and there is no way for me to know, although I don’t really care at this point.  Yes, I could keep speculating that my usage is lower, but it is not a fact like the TOS changes that have a specific execution date of May 2, 2011.  The fact that the usage meter isn’t functioning really doesn’t concern me at this point, why should I as a customer have to burden myself to check my usage in the first place, or for that matter wait for the “surprise, you’ve just hit 90% of your limit for the month, get ready for a fee” message from AT&T?  Should I really wait for that message?  It makes me think of another failed business model known for their iconic “You’ve got mail”. 

I have been a long-time customer of AT&T’s, and the former companies that now fall under their corporate name, including PacBell, SBC, and Cingular, even after they acquired L.A. Wireless which I dropped due to their billing problems.  I have used my for what are now called AT&T services for moderate to heavy data usage for many years going back to 1992, including 14.4K, 28.8K, 33.3K, 56K, shot-gunning 56K on two analog lines, ISDN, tethering on my mobile phone, DSL and now the U-Verse service.  No matter what the service that I agreed to pay for, I was never hit with a usage limit on data and I would never agree to one if it was offered as part of the service, as I saw this as the AOL model of doing business with an hourly meter.  I am grandfathered in on the data plan for the iPhone which was unlimited when I agreed to the service.  Of course this means nothing today, that was in the past, as my AT&T statements will be when the new TOS are in effect.

It is now AT&T’s burden to keep me as an overpaying customer for analog, mobile and U-verse service, excluding digital phone, as a result of the new TOS.  I don’t intend to accept the terms because I don’t like surprises.  I am happy to pay the price that I agreed to, but I did not agree to being hit with potential hidden fees, which may or may not change due to my usage regardless if AT&T’s usage meter works or not.   I agree with you simaru customers should shop around, they might be surprised what they can and will find.  I will make this perfectly clear so that there is no surprises for AT&T, if the terms I received are not rescinded that I received, I will drop drop all services without complaint.  

Truly, the only surprise I can see here is anyone accepting or trying to justify the usage limit.   Good luck and keep up the great work on your metering effort AT&T, your terms are unacceptable and there are still choices.  Surprise!

---

I wonder how they would react to all these posts about people leaving in the corporate boardroom if the stockholders were present?

---

I am sure the reaction would be, "We just figured out a way to add even more surprise fees to our under-utilized service and more to your bottom line, can you approve our bonuses now?".

[jmsherman8]

---

U-LostMe wrote:

---

jmsherman8 wrote:

---

U-LostMe wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

callmeox wrote:

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

We haven't seen their usage site yet.  It may provide daily bandwidth usage so the user can check to see what he downloaded that day.  It may well be current to the day prior to the day of inspection.  It may even provide details like downloads of Netflix movies, etc.

As I stated in an earlier post, ATT's only big error in this change was not to have that customer usage site ready BEFORE the announcement of the caps.  That would have saved everyone a lot of speculation.

Charter has ALREADY implemented usage caps and will SUSPEND those who exceed them.  ATT's policy is much more lenient allowing us 2 months grace and then just charging us $ 10 for each 50 Gb we exceed the caps.

The Charter policy can be viewed here:

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/11/charter-follows-comcast-with-broadband-usage-caps/

On that site they say 1 hour of streaming a Netflix movie would eat up 1 Gb of bandwidth.  That means we could watch 250 hours a month on Netflix.  I doubt if any of us could even be capable of that stress.

The Charter limit for my speed of service would be 250 Gb matching ATT.  In my area I only have two choices: ATT or Charter.  ATT is far better in services and far more lenient with the cap policy.

All the complainers here should check their own options and may just be pleasantly suprised at how generous ATT is compared to the competition.

---

Well, I am not really complaining, but I have checked my options as a result of this move by AT&T and I am not surprised at what I found.  TW is offering me a lower cost, faster speeds, no usage limit, more channels, digital phone service and did I mention NO USAGE LIMIT?  I don't currently have digital phone service through U-verse, not that I didn't order it or want it, but when the installer came to install the service well over a year ago he asked, "are you sure you really want that?”.   Of course it prompted me to start asking him questions about his unusual question.  He said he had seen too many problems with it in my area and didn’t suggest that I use the service and keep my analog line.  As a result of his honesty, I went ahead with the install without the digital phone service.

Don’t get me wrong, I really disliked cable and it is no light decision for me to consider to move or to go back, but they are offering me a less expensive service with no hidden “surprise, you’ve just hit your usage limit” fees on the broadband service, even after the promotional offer expires.  Sure, they may add usage limits in the future, but I haven’t seen the TOS from TW that states it as of today, unlike the one I received from AT&T several days ago.  I, like others have done here, can speculate that they will follow AT&T’s usage limit terms, but as of today they do not have one, so that is good enough for me.

I just checked again and my usage limit meter is not functioning and the new TOS go into effect in less than a month.  Like I have stated before, I may or may not even be close to the limit, but the changes to the terms were delivered to me and there is no way for me to know, although I don’t really care at this point.  Yes, I could keep speculating that my usage is lower, but it is not a fact like the TOS changes that have a specific execution date of May 2, 2011.  The fact that the usage meter isn’t functioning really doesn’t concern me at this point, why should I as a customer have to burden myself to check my usage in the first place, or for that matter wait for the “surprise, you’ve just hit 90% of your limit for the month, get ready for a fee” message from AT&T?  Should I really wait for that message?  It makes me think of another failed business model known for their iconic “You’ve got mail”. 

I have been a long-time customer of AT&T’s, and the former companies that now fall under their corporate name, including PacBell, SBC, and Cingular, even after they acquired L.A. Wireless which I dropped due to their billing problems.  I have used my for what are now called AT&T services for moderate to heavy data usage for many years going back to 1992, including 14.4K, 28.8K, 33.3K, 56K, shot-gunning 56K on two analog lines, ISDN, tethering on my mobile phone, DSL and now the U-Verse service.  No matter what the service that I agreed to pay for, I was never hit with a usage limit on data and I would never agree to one if it was offered as part of the service, as I saw this as the AOL model of doing business with an hourly meter.  I am grandfathered in on the data plan for the iPhone which was unlimited when I agreed to the service.  Of course this means nothing today, that was in the past, as my AT&T statements will be when the new TOS are in effect.

It is now AT&T’s burden to keep me as an overpaying customer for analog, mobile and U-verse service, excluding digital phone, as a result of the new TOS.  I don’t intend to accept the terms because I don’t like surprises.  I am happy to pay the price that I agreed to, but I did not agree to being hit with potential hidden fees, which may or may not change due to my usage regardless if AT&T’s usage meter works or not.   I agree with you simaru customers should shop around, they might be surprised what they can and will find.  I will make this perfectly clear so that there is no surprises for AT&T, if the terms I received are not rescinded that I received, I will drop drop all services without complaint.  

Truly, the only surprise I can see here is anyone accepting or trying to justify the usage limit.   Good luck and keep up the great work on your metering effort AT&T, your terms are unacceptable and there are still choices.  Surprise!

---

I wonder how they would react to all these posts about people leaving in the corporate boardroom if the stockholders were present?

---

I am sure the reaction would be, "We just figured out a way to add even more surprise fees to our under-utilized service and more to your bottom line, can you approve our bonuses now?".

---

I don't see the stockholders being that forgiving. LOL.

[bld522]

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

callmeox wrote:

I simply don't trust the same company that can't get sports blackouts correct to measure my use correctly absent a very detailed bill that I can review to check their math.

---

We haven't seen their usage site yet.  It may provide daily bandwidth usage so the user can check to see what he downloaded that day.  It may well be current to the day prior to the day of inspection.  It may even provide details like downloads of Netflix movies, etc.

---

How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion, sirmaru?  According to AT&T:

"The usage of customers who have not exceeded the usage allowance may be measured weekly.  Once a customer exceeds the usage allowance, we measure usage daily.  Usage data is posted on the web site within 4 days after it is collected." [Emphasis added]

Before you comment, I'd suggest you keep in mind that I CAN SEE MY AT&T USAGE METER.  There is absolutely no way to tell whether the data being reported is accurate or how long ago it was collected.  Nor does the meter begin to provide the level of detail you're suggesting it might.

I'm certain you're a perfectly fine person, sirmaru.  But you really DO need to get a grip on the reality of the situation.

[willyb]

Thanks to {Keep it Courteous/Relevant} for my objective comment earlier in this thread.  I'm sure he is an authority on both, but he also remarked about how much less Europeans pay for Internet service. {Keep it Courteous} but out of curiousity, I posted an inquiry to an unrelated UK-based forum to which I subscribe.  I asked what people pay for Internet service in the UK and what they get. 

The first reply was from a guy using Virgin Media for Phone/TV/Internet.  Sound familiar...like a Universal provider?  The Internet portion of his monthly charge (converted to USD) is $35.51 for 10Mbps down and 1.5Mbps up, and with no data cap.  The closest AT&T plan would be the 12/1.5 "Internet Max" service for $45 plus tax.  Considering that we always get less than the advertised speed, the 10-12 comparison seems reasonable.  Taxes and "fees" here in Texas make the total cost of Internet Max $48.74. 

So, for a service that costs $35.51 in the UK, we pay $48.74, or about 37% more.  And that's before the new AT&T data cap.  That's it.  I'm officially unhappy!  After the cap is in place, I'm cutting back my TV from U200 to U100 and turning in two of my five receivers.  AT&T is not going to collect more money from me for a service that is already overpriced!

And, have a nice day, kshusker!

[bubbba]

---

kshusker wrote:

---

bubbba wrote:

---

Well put... Our Government as it's run today can only do 2 things right. Waste, and blame someone else for the waste. They would definitely screw things up. I also live in Houston where my water bill is ridiculously high.

---

Yeah, the government stinks! I wish we lived in a place where they don't have any government, like Somalia. I bet the internet access is great there, and I also bet it is a much better business environment, at least if you have a speedboat and a few guys with guns.

Seriously, not to turn this thread into a political discussion, but I kinda like having fire protection, police, interstate highways, national parks, a decent military, food inspectors, and Sesame Street for my kids.

---

You completely missed the point. Try not reading more into something then what is there. I never said the Government Stinks, what I said is that the Government Wastes.

[willyb]

And now I'm really mad! I pay $185 a month to AT&T for TV and Internet.  I also pay AT&T Wireless $190 a month.  They already charge more if I talk too much on their unreliable wireless network, and now they want to stick it to us for using their Internet that we pay for.  See my earlier post on what service costs in the UK.  37% less than AT&T.

All of us should make it a point to be more costly to AT&T.  This money grab should end up with AT&T losing money, and the no-account execs who thought of it should get fired, or at least have their million dollar bonuses reduced.  After posting our complaints here, we should call (I'm going to right now) and complain.  Also call tech support if your Internet speed is less than advertised (yeah, I know...their 18Mbps service is quoted as 12-18 and no guarantee, but we can still call and complain).  Other ideas:

• I just changed my billing back from paperless to 'send me a paper bill'.  I don't want it or need it, and I'll just shred it for paper recycling, but I am not going to save AT&T $.01.  Let 'em pay more people in the mail room and more postage to the USPS.
• I'm also switching my payment method from debit card to credit card.  Let AT&T send a few more dollars a month to those other crooks at Chase or Citibank!
• Cut back your TV package one level.  I'm going from U200 to U100.  Yeah, I'll miss the Military History Channel, but I'll deal with it.
• If you have Uverse or other AT&T phone service, consider dumping it and getting MagicJack.  I've had it for five months now and have no complaints.  $20 a year with unlimited talk and unlimited U.S. long distance, plus caller ID, and voice mail--and they email your voicemail messages to you as wav file attachments.  There are many, many other VOIP services, too, if you don't like MagicJack.  They're all cheaper than U-verse phone.
• I'm already planning to cancel Internet from my AT&T Wireless phone service on two phones--that is, if I don't just move to Verizon. 
• Finally, really shop your alternatives.  Your local cable company may decide to take advantage of AT&T's actions and offer deals to new customers.

At the very least, AT&T should have had the sense to recognize good customers and treat them as such.  Even the rascals at Chase Bank understand that if they gouge their good customers the same as their marginal accounts, they'll lose business.  If you stay above the minimum balances at Chase, you pay no fees.  AT&T, with its most admirable democratic approach, says "We don't care how much you pay us now, we want you to pay more.  We're going to treat you--who pay us $375 a month for many services--the same as the lowest dry loop DSL customer who is sharing an Internet connection with three neighbors."

OK.  Rant over.  (But I'm still calling to complain, and doing the other stuff.)

[nukacola]

This.

Anybody who thinks the cap is anything but a way to stop people from non at&t streaming video sites should only look at the cost situation in Europe (or Asia). 

After I had uVerse installed my mother was here and said it felt laggier than her wireless usb-stick from Sweden. I spoke to my brother and he said he was getting about 16Mbit speeds tethering to his iphone. In his apartment he gets 100Mbit up and down. No cap. He pays less than we do for uVerse.

If that is feasable in a country the size of California with a population that is about the size of NY City there is no reason we couldn't have it here if it wasn't for the fact that there is no competition and incentive for the providers.

[jmsherman8]

---

nukacola wrote:

This.

Anybody who thinks the cap is anything but a way to stop people from non at&t streaming video sites should only look at the cost situation in Europe (or Asia). 

After I had uVerse installed my mother was here and said it felt laggier than her wireless usb-stick from Sweden. I spoke to my brother and he said he was getting about 16Mbit speeds tethering to his iphone. In his apartment he gets 100Mbit up and down. No cap. He pays less than we do for uVerse.

If that is feasable in a country the size of California with a population that is about the size of NY City there is no reason we couldn't have it here if it wasn't for the fact that there is no competition and incentive for the providers.

---

exactly nukacola! We should be moving forward not backwards. Unfortunately large monopolistic companies like ATT and Comcast have a vested interest in the status qou. 

[jmsherman8]

---

willyb wrote:

And now I'm really mad! I pay $185 a month to AT&T for TV and Internet.  I also pay AT&T Wireless $190 a month.  They already charge more if I talk too much on their unreliable wireless network, and now they want to stick it to us for using their Internet that we pay for.  See my earlier post on what service costs in the UK.  37% less than AT&T.

All of us should make it a point to be more costly to AT&T.  This money grab should end up with AT&T losing money, and the no-account execs who thought of it should get fired, or at least have their million dollar bonuses reduced.  After posting our complaints here, we should call (I'm going to right now) and complain.  Also call tech support if your Internet speed is less than advertised (yeah, I know...their 18Mbps service is quoted as 12-18 and no guarantee, but we can still call and complain).  Other ideas:

• I just changed my billing back from paperless to 'send me a paper bill'.  I don't want it or need it, and I'll just shred it for paper recycling, but I am not going to save AT&T $.01.  Let 'em pay more people in the mail room and more postage to the USPS.
• I'm also switching my payment method from debit card to credit card.  Let AT&T send a few more dollars a month to those other crooks at Chase or Citibank!
• Cut back your TV package one level.  I'm going from U200 to U100.  Yeah, I'll miss the Military History Channel, but I'll deal with it.
• If you have Uverse or other AT&T phone service, consider dumping it and getting MagicJack.  I've had it for five months now and have no complaints.  $20 a year with unlimited talk and unlimited U.S. long distance, plus caller ID, and voice mail--and they email your voicemail messages to you as wav file attachments.  There are many, many other VOIP services, too, if you don't like MagicJack.  They're all cheaper than U-verse phone.
• I'm already planning to cancel Internet from my AT&T Wireless phone service on two phones--that is, if I don't just move to Verizon. 
• Finally, really shop your alternatives.  Your local cable company may decide to take advantage of AT&T's actions and offer deals to new customers.

At the very least, AT&T should have had the sense to recognize good customers and treat them as such.  Even the rascals at Chase Bank understand that if they gouge their good customers the same as their marginal accounts, they'll lose business.  If you stay above the minimum balances at Chase, you pay no fees.  AT&T, with its most admirable democratic approach, says "We don't care how much you pay us now, we want you to pay more.  We're going to treat you--who pay us $375 a month for many services--the same as the lowest dry loop DSL customer who is sharing an Internet connection with three neighbors."

OK.  Rant over.  (But I'm still calling to complain, and doing the other stuff.)

---

willy I agree with you the only thing they understand is what hurts there bottom line.

[nukacola]

---

exactly nukacola! We should be moving forward not backwards. Unfortunately large monopolistic companies like ATT and Comcast have a vested interest in the status qou. 

---

Yeah, the duo-poly situation in most of the US is the problem. I did what I could though and went from one evil to the other. Now posting from my just installed Bright House connection. Speed testing at >30Mbps down, 1.95 up. Not too shabby even though it will most likely drop to about 20Mbps at peak hours (I'm paying for 20Mbps with boost up to 30 when available). No cap. I'm getting some rebates too, significantly cheaper than uVerse.