---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

 

@jamiedolan: take note of the above.  The new ATT bandwidth charges may well equal or exceed one of the above options for you and you may want to consider one of those options.

---

The problem isn't the cost of the Internet with any of those options.  I could co-locate or lease a server on a dedicated 10Mbps un-metered use port in a datacenter for well under $100 a month (where a ethernet cable could be run with no telco fees).  I could technically use a total of about 6.6TB a month if I count both directions on that connection. 

It is the "Last Mile" technology that is the killed.  Last time I had a OC-48 shelf installed, the shelf and the drop to the building was around $25,000-$30,000.  The physical running of the fiber to the building from the nearest access point is far and away the largest part of the cost, in most areas your talking about at least blocks of cable unless your on a very busy road way.  Though, honestly that cost was a number of years ago, and I am sure the costs have come way down since then for everything fiber related.

We are already paying for the loop, the "Last Mile" with our basic service fee.  If that line is fully saturated or if it is barely used it makes virtually no difference to AT&T.  The VRAD's they are using have more than enough capicity to let eveyone have all the Internet they want.

They already have huge Internet connections over fiber coming into every CO and being terminated at every VRAD.  Upgrading these is trivial at best, the fiber is there, so you might have to swap out a OC-12 card for a OC-48 card in the worst case.  They are not that expensive (OC-12 vs OC-48 termination).

You can run a fractional T3 or mux some T1's together over existing copper, but using those as the transport technology is still quite expensive, the Internet to run over them as previously mentioned isn't that expensive.  U-Verse already have all the transport in place and the only question here is the Internet acces (aka bandwidth or transfer) which just isn't very expensive anymore.  I bought my first dedicated T1 in 1997 and paid $900 a month for the Internet Access, by 1999, it was down to $550 a month, By 2001, it was about $400; and after that I mainly delt with larger scale connections and pricing in datacenters (and it has all gotten much much much cheaper over the past 10 years).

Jamie

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

 

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

 

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

 

@jamiedolan: take note of the above.  The new ATT Uverse bandwidth charges may well equal or exceed one of the above options for you and you may want to consider one of those options.  ATT may even be able to provide one or more of those options to you.

---

This is officially  **the** funniest recommendation I've ever seen on this or any forum.

"Honey, can we get an OC48 line?  It's too costly on our budget? Dang, how about just a dedicated T3?  Don't you want to stick it to Uverse?  Come on!"

If paying a $10.00 per 50GB overage fee has people rankled, I doubt that they would want to drop the coin for a T-1 or higher when, at the entry level, you're really just paying for the SLA more than performance.

Go ahead and Google the costs for these solutions.

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

Infernal wrote:

---

Its possible that both Comcast and ATT have imposed these caps to identify prospective customers for their business services to increase their revenue overall.  That may be the real reason for the caps.  It probably makes more business sense than building new infrastructure to support residential increases in bandwidth use.

---

There isn't anything new to build, it's already here. 

Just for grins, I looked up some costs on carrier grade Cisco gear (thought I am not sure if AT&T is using Cisco in their VRAD's, Cisco is likely the most expensive option).

I found a OC-48 termination card new for $1,900.  I dug a bit more and found a new OC-192 for $1,700.

They both terminate over the exact same strands of fiber, just a different card. (there may be an external DSU needed with that card, but it cost is not substantial).

AT&T has a huge network and they pier with many providers, basically meaning they say to eachother "hey look we both have lots of traffic to each others network, it currently goes over the Internet and we pay some other carrier to transport it, lets save ourselves some money, make a direct connection to each others networks and we will both save money, but won't pay each other any money for the privilege of doing this, we are just both doing it to save our selves from paying the money to other providers, we're going to call it a Piering agreement".

The real reason they are using bandwidth caps?  It is not a technology problem nor a resource limitation. 

I'll let you guess...........  Hey Who has the AT&T U-Verse TV Service?

Who has some other streaming TV provider that works over the Internet and counts against your useage cap?

Jamie

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

 

The real reason they are using bandwidth caps?  It is not a technology problem nor a resource limitation. 

 

I'll let you guess...........  Hey Who has the AT&T U-Verse TV Service?

 

Who has some other streaming TV provider that works over the Internet and counts against your useage cap?

 

Jamie

---

Yeah, that's a pretty common conclusion.

---

callmeox wrote:

 

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

 

The real reason they are using bandwidth caps?  It is not a technology problem nor a resource limitation. 

 

I'll let you guess...........  Hey Who has the AT&T U-Verse TV Service?

 

Who has some other streaming TV provider that works over the Internet and counts against your useage cap?

 

Jamie

---

 

Yeah, that's a pretty common conclusion.

 

 

 

 

---

What are you talking about?  AT&T is a company that loves and respects its customers.  That's why they spent the money to do a survey and implement the usage cap because its customers requested the cap....

---

SomeJoe7777 wrote:

Post all evidence that you have that shows that your entire post isn't complete speculation that therefore is meaningless.

 

---

I used the words, "probable" "may", etc. and it IS ALL speculation as you stated.  However, I'd place my trust in ATT Uverse meters over anything you could produce unless you could PROVE your meter was more accurate and prove that installations in thousands of PC's didn't cause problems for the users in all cases. When I speculate here, I make it very clear.

How about you submitting your PROOF that your meters are more accurate than ATT Uverse's meters?

The last time you discussed your meter you said I'd need a new router and have to change my hardware arrangement.  Is that still true?  How can you or anyone else JUDGE that ATT  Uverse's meters are inaccurate since no one has seen them yet for Uverse?  If your meter came up with the same results as the ATT Uverse meter, then I would believe yours is accurate but I'd also want to see many posts here saying your software worked without compatibility problems.

Finally, if your meter reflected the same numbers as the ATT Uverse meter, then why do I need your meter at all?  The ATT Uverse meter would be sufficient to the task at hand.  I'll stick with ATT Uverse for the meters and all the rest of the features and services.  I expect to be under their caps along with 98% of users.  And, if I am over the cap, I know how to cut my usage to comply and I do NOT need any 3rd party software to do it.  I take ATT Uverse AND Comcast at their word that the reason for the caps was bandwdith congestion which caused speed degradation to their network.  I also accept the imposition of the caps and, if I had been consulted in a survey, I would have voted FOR the caps to decrease congestion.

I'm still waiting the appearance of the ATT Uverse meter for myself so I can finally rest easy that the caps do NOT apply to me.  Then this thread will be over.  98% of us can then go back to other internet threads and debate other issues.

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

I used the words, "probable" "may", etc.

---

Otherwise known as 'weasel words' and for good reason. Wikipedia has a nice article on the concept and again, Google is your friend.

---

sirmaru wrote:

 

1) I used the words, "probable" "may", etc. and it IS ALL speculation as you stated. 

 

2) However, I'd place my trust in ATT Uverse meters over anything you could produce unless you could PROVE your meter was more accurate and prove that installations in thousands of PC's didn't cause problems for the users in all cases. How about you submitting your PROOF that your meters are more accurate than ATT Uverse's meters?

 

3) The last time you discussed your meter you said I'd need a new router and have to change my hardware arrangement.  Is that still true?  How can you or anyone else JUDGE that ATT  Uverse's meters are inaccurate since no one has seen them yet for Uverse? 

 

4) If your meter came up with the same results as the ATT Uverse meter, then I would believe yours is accurate but I'd also want to see many posts here saying your software worked without compatibility problems.

 

5) Finally, if your meter reflected the same numbers as the ATT Uverse meter, then why do I need your meter at all?  The ATT Uverse meter would be sufficient to the task at hand. 

 

6) I'll stick with ATT Uverse for the meters and all the rest of the features and services.  I expect to be under their caps along with 98% of users.  And, if I am over the cap, I know how to cut my usage to comply and I do NOT need any 3rd party software to do it.

---

1. Yes, it is all speculation and meaningless.  Yet you posted it anyway.  For what purpose?

2. You want me to prove the accuracy of my meter but you do not require the same of AT&T.  Why do you have this double standard?  Are you biased?

3. DSLReports has already shown that AT&T's DSL meters have shown inaccuracies up to 4700%.  AT&T has not explained this issue nor have they stated that any problem has been fixed.  Because of this already-proven inaccuracy, there is a probability that AT&T's U-Verse meter may suffer from the same inaccuracy.  Until it is shown otherwise, skepticism is a logical outlook.

4. If my meter and AT&T's meter disagree, why would you default to believing AT&T's meter?  Especially when DSLReports has already shown up to 4700% inaccuracy?  Why would you immediately assume, without any hard evidence, that it MUST be my meter that is inaccurate?

U-Verse Realtime has been run on over 8200 unique RGs as of the last time I looked at the line stats database.  I have answered maybe 20 posts from people on all 3 U-Verse forums since October with people who have had a problem installing and/or running it, and in all cases the problem was traced to a bad .Net framework installation, a bad Windows installation, or interference from an Anti-Virus product.

Since you have never used the product, you have no evidence, real or anecdotal, that there are any problems with the software.

5. My meter implements many more features than the AT&T meter:

a. Real-time bandwidth reporting, updated every 5 minutes.  AT&T's meter updates weekly normally, and daily if you're close to your usage limit.  (Stated by AT&T in press releases).

b. Historical data available for any time period, not just monthly.

c. 5-minute resolution graphs of bandwidth usage.

d. Ability to see your usage via a web browser from any computer on the internet. (note that you cannot pull up the AT&T usage web site unless you are on an AT&T internet connection).

For a user who is really attempting to manage their bandwidth, these features are far more useful that what you will get with AT&T's meter.

6. It is your prerogative to use whatever meter and whatever methods you want to in order to manage your bandwidth usage.  But you're not going to post speculation, double standards and incorrect statements regarding AT&T's meter or UVRT's meter.  When you do, I'm going to refute them.

In my last post, I posed several questions to you that you failed to answer.  Since you freely admit that you have no evidence supporting any of your speculations, we can assume that all of your assertions are false.

This includes the assertion that 3rd-party meters are inaccurate.  You freely admit you have no evidence of that for UVRT or any other 3rd-party meter, therefore any further insinuation that a 3rd-party meter is not accurate is just another false statement from you.

SomeJoe,

You did NOT answer this question:

The last time you discussed your meter you said I'd need a new router and have to change my hardware arrangement.  Is that still true? 

You stated:

"DSLReports has already shown that AT&T's DSL meters have shown inaccuracies up to 4700%.  AT&T has not explained this issue nor have they stated that any problem has been fixed.  Because of this already-proven inaccuracy, there is a probability that AT&T's U-Verse meter may suffer from the same inaccuracy.  Until it is shown otherwise, skepticism is a logical outlook."

You have got to be kidding.  That was an article by a single author using a SINGLE EXAMPLE. It was not a study.  In addtion, it was about the DSL meter of quite awhile ago.  It certainly was not about the CURRENT ATT Uverse meter.

You stated:

 "It is your prerogative to use whatever meter and whatever methods you want to in order to manage your bandwidth usage.  But you're not going to post speculation, double standards and incorrect statements regarding AT&T's meter or UVRT's meter.  When you do, I'm going to refute them."

Your are refuting an ATT Uverse product's ACCURACY versus your proprietary product in an ATT PRODUCT forum.  Try to push McAfee products in a Zone Alarm Forum and you would be blanked out on the first post.

Your meter and your product competes with ATT Uverse products.  I had told you in the past you should contact ATT and get your product licensed properly with a contract.  If ATT supported and sold your product, I would buy it myself. It does sound fascinating as I read your description.   As it is I am very suspicious of your motives in pushing a competing product here.  You cannot have an even handed approach between your own product competing with an ATT product.  It actually could damage ATT sales.

In addition, you mentioned you also have another JOB.  Does your employer's policies allow employees to develop their own proprietary products when they should be using all their energies and time to further their EMPLOYER'S products?

In fact, I will now SPECULATE, it is POSSIBLE that your employer's policy requires all new products developed by their employees while under employment are the property of the employer.  If you have never cleared your product development with your employer, I suggest that you do so.

For you to do all this would be just as bad as if I was an ATT empoyee and said I was not while defending their products here.  As it is I am not an ATT employee and not employed by any other company either.  I present my own SPECULATIONS and googled facts as a loyal ATT UVERSE CUSTOMER.

---

sirmaru wrote:   As it is I am very suspicious of your motives in pushing a competing product here.  You cannot have an even handed approach between your own product competing with an ATT product.  It actually could damage ATT sales.

 

 

---

Wait; A competing product?

That would imply the bandwidth meter is something AT&T is going to charge for.

Are you saying AT&T is going to charge me to see how much bandwidth I use?

Since you speak of his program having the potential to damage AT&T sales, AT&T must be charging for the use of their bandwidth meter.

That explains everything, that must be why I can't see my use via their web site, I haven't paid the fee yet.

How much is it, where so I sign up?

Jamie

---

Infernal wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

Infernal wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of Videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

 

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

 

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

I'm confused.  What does speeed upgrades have to do with usage cap?  People in this forum are not complaining about their slow speed (or even reliabilities for that matter).

 

What's the point of upgrading my speed to do exactly what I am perfectly happy to do with my currently speed "capacity"?  Does an OC3 not cost hundreds if not thousand of dollars to maybe get unlimited bandwidth?

---

Higher speeds usually come with higher capacities.  If you are uploading at 9.6 Gigabits per second, the bandwidth capacity would have to also be proportionally higher to make sense. 

 

Some of the prices on those lower speed options may actually be less than paying for overages in ATT Uverse bandwidth caps.  You would have to call ATT to see their prices and other vendors to have a price comparison.  You could ask them if any bandwidth caps apply there and what is their bandwidth capacity.

 

Its possible that both Comcast and ATT have imposed these caps to identify prospective customers for their business services to increase their revenue overall.  That may be the real reason for the caps.  It probably makes more business sense than building new infrastructure to support residential increases in bandwidth use.

---

Here in lies ONE of the many problems with this policy.  U-Verse ranges from 3Mbps to 24Mbps with the same 250GB cap (as far as I know).  By your logic, when I get the max speed AT&T offer, AT&T should expect me to use more bandwidth (thus by their chart Max Plus and Max Turbo to to stream videos).  That is at least one of the complaint.  24Mbps users should get more bandwidth.

 

Are you actually avocating AT&T should stop investing into more (hopefully newer tech) infrastructure while the rest of the world around it continue to grow (evolved)?

---

That was one of my first observation as well. I paid for a higher tier because I expected to get more use of it. And, I agree that would be a much fairer way to approach these caps. But, in the last month I have read and researched the issue and my opinion has changed drastically. There should be NO caps in place for ANY tier. Usage Limits only serve AT&T or any ISP and not the subscribers. The ISP's use the excuse that it is needed so that all users have the best possible experience with the service. In the last month I have decided that that is a bunch of hog-wash. It's all about preserving and increasing enormous profits and keeping control of the content (TV), nothing more, nothing less.

In my opinion, of coarse.

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

---

sirmaru wrote:   As it is I am very suspicious of your motives in pushing a competing product here.  You cannot have an even handed approach between your own product competing with an ATT product.  It actually could damage ATT sales.

 

 

---

 

Wait; A competing product?

 

That would imply the bandwidth meter is something AT&T is going to charge for.

 

Are you saying AT&T is going to charge me to see how much bandwidth I use?

 

Since you speak of his program having the potential to damage AT&T sales, AT&T must be charging for the use of their bandwidth meter.

 

That explains everything, that must be why I can't see my use via their web site, I haven't paid the fee yet.

 

How much is it, where so I sign up?

 

 

Jamie

---

lol.  I am quite upset with this usage metering thing, but I will give credit for the policy that inspired some of the funniest comments I'd ever read.

I must admit that the mere suggestion that AT&T sales are damaged by Joe's app does not inpired a whole lot of sympathy from me....

---

sirmaru wrote:

SomeJoe,

 

You did NOT answer this question:

 

The last time you discussed your meter you said I'd need a new router and have to change my hardware arrangement.  Is that still true? 

 

You stated:

 

"DSLReports has already shown that AT&T's DSL meters have shown inaccuracies up to 4700%.  AT&T has not explained this issue nor have they stated that any problem has been fixed.  Because of this already-proven inaccuracy, there is a probability that AT&T's U-Verse meter may suffer from the same inaccuracy.  Until it is shown otherwise, skepticism is a logical outlook."

 

You have got to be kidding.  That was an article by a single author using a SINGLE EXAMPLE. It was not a study.  In addtion, it was about the DSL meter of quite awhile ago.  It certainly was not about the CURRENT ATT Uverse meter.

 

You stated:

 

 "It is your prerogative to use whatever meter and whatever methods you want to in order to manage your bandwidth usage.  But you're not going to post speculation, double standards and incorrect statements regarding AT&T's meter or UVRT's meter.  When you do, I'm going to refute them."

 

Your are refuting an ATT Uverse product's ACCURACY versus your proprietary product in an ATT PRODUCT forum.  Try to push McAfee products in a Zone Alarm Forum and you would be blanked out on the first post.

 

Your meter and your product competes with ATT Uverse products.  I had told you in the past you should contact ATT and get your product licensed properly with a contract.  If ATT supported and sold your product, I would buy it myself. It does sound fascinating as I read your description.   As it is I am very suspicious of your motives in pushing a competing product here.  You cannot have an even handed approach between your own product competing with an ATT product.  It actually could damage ATT sales.

 

In addition, you mentioned you also have another JOB.  Does your employer's policies allow employees to develop their own proprietary products when they should be using all their energies and time to further their EMPLOYER'S products?

 

In fact, I will now SPECULATE, it is POSSIBLE that your employer's policy requires all new products developed by their employees while under employment are the property of the employer.  If you have never cleared your product development with your employer, I suggest that you do so.

 

For you to do all this would be just as bad as if I was an ATT empoyee and said I was not while defending their products here.  As it is I am not an ATT employee and not employed by any other company either.  I present my own SPECULATIONS and googled facts as a loyal ATT UVERSE CUSTOMER.

 

 

 

 

---

So much wrong with this entire post.  How many keyboards will be abused refuting your false claims in this thread?

From weasel words to moving the goalposts (Google it, Wikipedia has some good detail) to legal advice about intellecual property and employment agreements.

You're heading for a logical fallacy triple play, so what's next?  I'm betting that it will be appeal to authority

BTW, I just wrote a quick script to reboot my home machines after a software install.  Should I ask my manager if it is OK to use?  I'd hate to violate any intellectual property rules.

.

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

---

sirmaru wrote:   As it is I am very suspicious of your motives in pushing a competing product here.  You cannot have an even handed approach between your own product competing with an ATT product.  It actually could damage ATT sales.

 

 

---

 

Wait; A competing product?

 

That would imply the bandwidth meter is something AT&T is going to charge for.

 

Are you saying AT&T is going to charge me to see how much bandwidth I use?

 

Since you speak of his program having the potential to damage AT&T sales, AT&T must be charging for the use of their bandwidth meter.

 

That explains everything, that must be why I can't see my use via their web site, I haven't paid the fee yet.

 

How much is it, where so I sign up?

 

 

Jamie

---

LMBO x 10...

Send me all your money! I will email you the address once you contact me via a PM.... lol...

---

bubbba wrote:

 

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

---

sirmaru wrote:   As it is I am very suspicious of your motives in pushing a competing product here.  You cannot have an even handed approach between your own product competing with an ATT product.  It actually could damage ATT sales.

 

 

---

 

Wait; A competing product?

 

That would imply the bandwidth meter is something AT&T is going to charge for.

 

Are you saying AT&T is going to charge me to see how much bandwidth I use?

 

Since you speak of his program having the potential to damage AT&T sales, AT&T must be charging for the use of their bandwidth meter.

 

That explains everything, that must be why I can't see my use via their web site, I haven't paid the fee yet.

 

How much is it, where so I sign up?

 

 

Jamie

---

LMBO x 10...

Send me all your money! I will email you the address once you contact me via a PM.... lol...

 

---

Here's your payment.

Jamie

---

sirmaru wrote:

 

1) The last time you discussed your meter you said I'd need a new router and have to change my hardware arrangement.  Is that still true? 

 

2) You have got to be kidding.  That was an article by a single author using a SINGLE EXAMPLE. It was not a study.  In addtion, it was about the DSL meter of quite awhile ago.  It certainly was not about the CURRENT ATT Uverse meter.

 

3) Your are refuting an ATT Uverse product's ACCURACY versus your proprietary product in an ATT PRODUCT forum.  Try to push McAfee products in a Zone Alarm Forum and you would be blanked out on the first post.

 

4) Your meter and your product competes with ATT Uverse products.  I had told you in the past you should contact ATT and get your product licensed properly with a contract.  If ATT supported and sold your product, I would buy it myself. It does sound fascinating as I read your description.   As it is I am very suspicious of your motives in pushing a competing product here.  You cannot have an even handed approach between your own product competing with an ATT product.  It actually could damage ATT sales.

 

5) In addition, you mentioned you also have another JOB.  Does your employer's policies allow employees to develop their own proprietary products when they should be using all their energies and time to further their EMPLOYER'S products? In fact, I will now SPECULATE, it is POSSIBLE that your employer's policy requires all new products developed by their employees while under employment are the property of the employer.  If you have never cleared your product development with your employer, I suggest that you do so.

---

1. I have no idea what you need, because I don't know how you have your network laid out.  UVRT's usage meter will require that all internet traffic go through a single interface on the RG.  How you accomplish that is your business.  My documentation will illustrate several examples of how to do that.

2. Regardless of how many instances it was or how long ago it was, it still happened.  And AT&T still has not explained the discrepancy.  Nor have they claimed that any problem that could have caused the issue has been fixed.  Thus, the reason for the continued skepticism.

3. I have made no claim that the AT&T meter is or will be inaccurate.  DSLReports has made that claim.  I am simply skeptical until I see the meter and confirm its accuracy.  As far as this forum goes, this is a free forum for free exchange of any and all ideas and concepts.  I am breaking no rules by posting any evidence about a subject and the conclusions that evidence leads to.  You can complain all you want that someone is here shining the light of inquiry into AT&T, but I'm well within the posting guidelines of this forum by doing so.

4. Your definition of competition is very incorrect.  There is absolutely no competition between AT&T and myself.  I do not sell internet service.  AT&T does not sell a bandwidth meter.  By definition, there is no competition.  AT&T is not harmed in any way whatsoever by the existence of my meter, nor is UVRT harmed by the existence of the AT&T meter.

There is absolutely no "licensing" issue between me and AT&T.  There is nothing to license.  I need no permission, license, or agreement of any kind to develop a usage meter for use on AT&T's system.  All data used by UVRT to develop the usage functionality is the property of the person who runs UVRT on their own network.  That data does not belong to anyone else, so no permission or agreement is required to use it.

AT&T sales are in absolutely no jepoardy due to UVRT, because as stated above, they do not compete.  UVRT is not an internet service.

These assertions, in general, are preposterous and it's quite shocking that you would even attempt to state them.

5. My employer has absolutely no say whatsoever in what I do on my own time.  This is a free country, not a communist country.  Neither my employer, you, AT&T, nor anyone else has any say whatsoever in whether I can build a usage meter or not.  I am not developing UVRT on a company computer, on company time, or using the company's software.  I develop it in my home, on my computer, with my software and my own two hands.

The notion that anyone has any right to tell me what to do in my free time is asinine.

In addition, there are several questions I posed to you in my previous post that you have not answered:

1. For what purpose have you posted all of your meaningless speculation, since none of it is true?

2. Why do you have a double standard as to meter accuracy based on who developed it?  Are you biased?

3. Why have you failed to comment on the fact that UVRT has no inherent problems running on over 8000 installations?  Have you conceded that potential computer problems are not an issue with UVRT?

4. Why have you failed to comment on the additional features in my meter over AT&T's meter?  Have you conceded that people might want better bandwidth management features in a usage meter?

I remember when I upgraded to 2400 baud modems from 1200 baud on my BBS. I was a regional Fidonet hub at the time. One modem would be nearly constantly transferring forum updates while the second ran the BBS and sent out forum updates to local nodes. That upgrade effectively doubled the number of forums I could pull down and redistribute. As I worked in IT since and watched bandwidth continuously increase, I’ve also been witness to the innovations it has spurred. With 56k modems and web cams came CU See ME and we started to video chat. The always on broadband brought terrestrial radio and TV to any living room around the world. I think you get the picture.

AT&T says the caps will only affect the heaviest 2% of users. This is a farce; do not be fooled by this. What was the heaviest 2% of bandwidth use five or ten years ago? I would guess what the lightest of user consumes today. Like a goldfish grows to fit its space, the way we use the Internet has grown up with the increases of bandwidth available. Now AT&T and others are putting a stake in the heart of this growth. They are effectively putting a stop to all the innovation that a connected society like ours has created, leaving other nations to continue to outpace us.

One of today’s trends is that many are now turning to Hulu, NetFlix, and other services to consume TV media. Technology including the wide spread broadband use make this possible, people want it, and it changes society as a whole on our habits as consumers. What future products and services will now not exist because we have to look over our shoulder every time we click a link, wondering what our bill will be this month?

Usage caps are socially unacceptable. With our presidents directive to increase broadband use to every citizen, in my opinion, I feel usage caps should be a criminal offense. If you agree, take a few minutes to contact your legislature, call or email AT&T, and make your voice heard.

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

---

bubbba wrote:

 

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

---

sirmaru wrote:   As it is I am very suspicious of your motives in pushing a competing product here.  You cannot have an even handed approach between your own product competing with an ATT product.  It actually could damage ATT sales.

 

 

---

 

Wait; A competing product?

 

That would imply the bandwidth meter is something AT&T is going to charge for.

 

Are you saying AT&T is going to charge me to see how much bandwidth I use?

 

Since you speak of his program having the potential to damage AT&T sales, AT&T must be charging for the use of their bandwidth meter.

 

That explains everything, that must be why I can't see my use via their web site, I haven't paid the fee yet.

 

How much is it, where so I sign up?

 

 

Jamie

---

LMBO x 10...

Send me all your money! I will email you the address once you contact me via a PM.... lol...

 

---

 

 

 

Here's your payment.

 

Jamie

---

Thanks, I will use it to pay AT&T for my overages...lol

> The notion that anyone has any right to tell me what to do in my free time is asinine.

Sure, just keep posting about your employer here in the corp's forum, and as soon as you cross the invisible line they drew, we'll see how fast you end up in the unemployment line.

---

Mentalfloss wrote:

> The notion that anyone has any right to tell me what to do in my free time is asinine.

 

Sure, just keep posting about your employer here in the corp's forum, and as soon as you cross the invisible line they drew, we'll see how fast you end up in the unemployment line.

---

I have said nothing about my employer here in this forum, with the exception that I gave the URL to my company's web site in a thread in the lounge, as an example of how video can be played on a web site and be compatible with the iPhone/iPad.

Again, neither my employer, nor you, nor anyone else has the right to tell my what I can do in my free time (meeting the requirement that what I do is legal and within rules, of course).

Well, I worked for AT@T at one time and I had to sign an agreement when I was hired that anything that I invented, even at home on my own time was theirs anyway. Maybe some other companies are that way also. I did not agree with that policy but that's life.

---

oldie_1 wrote:

Well, I worked for AT@T at one time and I had to sign an agreement when I was hired that anything that I invented, even at home on my own time was theirs anyway. Maybe some other companies are that way also. I did not agree with that policy but that's life.

---

I signed no such agreement when I came to work for my company.  But that's not even relevant.

If I had invented or constructed something on company time, or on a company computer, or with company software, that's different.  But me, at home, on the weekend, on my own computer, with my own software ... no one else has any say about that regardless of what agreement was or wasn't signed.

Companies do not own your life, people.  You supply them your labor, they supply you a paycheck.  That's the extent of the relationship.

AT@T would take you to court and win if you invented something and sold it. I worked for them for 38 years and I saw it happen. I am sure that GM, Ford and most major corporations have the same agreement with their employees.

AT&T must have an unbelievable pension/benefits package to inspired that kind of loyalty for that kind of agreement.

If only they can apply/extend the same courtesy to their customers to inspired the same loyalty would be how American companies can help America be on top of the world again.... *sigh*

---

Infernal wrote:

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

---

Infernal wrote:

---

---

Just out of pure curiosity, what are you planning to do with 2TB worth of data usage (piracy, obsessively online backup everyday, streaming videos 24/7 not withstanding...)

---

 

It was just an example not an estimate of actual useage.  Uploading years worth of videos that I haven't been able to get uploaded on DSL is extremely bandwidth intensive.  Especially the ones I want to use to promote my sites (I have a couple forums I run as a hobby I am promoting) where I upload them to multiple video hosting services for more exposure.

 

HD video is a killer at more than 20GB a hour.  Some longer dog training videos I do are huge.  Even for example if I have a 5 GB video and have 5 different sites I need to put it on, that chews up 25GB.  Then if I had 10 different videos I wanted to upload, there goes my 250GB cap right there.

 

Backing up my Digital Photography is pretty consuming as well and is normally somewhere between 10-30GB.

 

We use Netflix.  I also like to backup copies of my sites on a regular basis so I keep a current copy locally.  I have around 40GB on servers for all my sites, ideally, I do a full backup once a week, that's another 160GB.

 

It was a huge struggle to do most of these things on my dsl due to the speed and problems with the dsl.

 

Jamie

---

If I understand you correctly, you are a plague upon humanity (well, the internet community in any case).  You uploaded hundreds of GB worth of videos for the purpose of sharing... You obviously by logic expect people to download and view them... You get where I am going with this? (j/k)  

 

I have a few TB worth of video compression tutorials if you wish me to share with you.

---

LOL.

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

 

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

 

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

 

@jamiedolan: take note of the above.  The new ATT Uverse bandwidth charges may well equal or exceed one of the above options for you and you may want to consider one of those options.  ATT may even be able to provide one or more of those options to you.

---

Maru,

   DS3's and up are used primarily for good sized businesses, OC's are primarily sold to international companies and in particular ISPs. I hate to break it to you but a good portion of ATT's backbone is OC192. They are stable, secure, constant circuits. Now you are in my world. Would you like me to get some pricing together for an OC192 to your home. I know you like high bandwidth connections to use as a status symbol. It shouldn't cost more than $10000 to $40000 per month. If so feel free to PM me with your address and I will level 3 price it out. They are a bit more expensive, but they are also one of the very best. Now on to the residential connections in Japan. I don't think any cap is good, but I think I could live with a 900 GB uploading cap with an unlimited downloading cap far easier than I can put up with a 250 GB combined cap. Thank you for proving everyone's argument that ATT and the others by doing this, are in fact condemning the USA to become a third world internet country.

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

---

sirmaru wrote:

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

 

This would be far more than adequate and fair.  I honestly doubt that I would even get past 500GB total use once I get caught up on some things I am behind on becuase of the DSL issues.  If it was a 500GB cap and I might have to pay some overage for a little while, I would not even care.  But I know that I will get past the 250 and the extra $50 is just way to much;  I can get a whole additional line installed for that prices and have 2 Internet connections.

 

I just feel the 250GB cap is too low and that the $10 per 50GB is excessivly high.  I know what Internet transfer costs carriers (I don't know the specfics of AT&T financials, but I know enough about the business and Industry in general, including what lines sell for in datacenters and such to make very educated guesses) and their cost is no where close to this.

 

Jamie

---

You could always use a load balancing router and make ATT and Comcast share...LOL.

---

Infernal wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of Videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

 

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

 

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

I'm confused.  What does speeed upgrades have to do with usage cap?  People in this forum are not complaining about their slow speed (or even reliabilities for that matter).

 

What's the point of upgrading my speed to do exactly what I am perfectly happy to do with my currently speed "capacity"?  Does an OC3 not cost hundreds if not thousand of dollars to maybe get unlimited bandwidth?

---

Infernal, 

     All of those are Large business class internet connections that ISPs and Carriers both use and resell. When you hear about dark fiber it is usually OC circuits that are in place, but not yet lit as a back up or as a commodity that they can sell off at a later date to another carrier.

---

sirmaru wrote:

---

Infernal wrote:

---

sirmaru wrote:

I notice that some of you folks worried about the ATT Uverse 250 Gb per month caps are UPLOADING huge volumes of Videos and pictures and then downloading entire blogs and websites.  If you can afford them, here are some alternatives:

 

•DS0 - 64 k­ilobits per second

•ISDN - Two DS0 lines plus signaling (16 kilobytes per second), or 128 kilobits per second
 •T1 - 1.544 megabits per second (24 DS0 lines)
•T3 - 43.232 megabits per second (28 T1s)
•OC3 - 155 megabits per second (84 T1s)
•OC12 - 622 megabits per second (4 OC3s)
•OC48 - 2.5 gigabits per seconds (4 OC12s)
•OC192 - 9.6 gigabits per second (4 OC48s)

 That would definitely give you the capacity you need.  A residential line is simply inadequate for some purposes.

 

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

I'm confused.  What does speeed upgrades have to do with usage cap?  People in this forum are not complaining about their slow speed (or even reliabilities for that matter).

 

What's the point of upgrading my speed to do exactly what I am perfectly happy to do with my currently speed "capacity"?  Does an OC3 not cost hundreds if not thousand of dollars to maybe get unlimited bandwidth?

---

Higher speeds usually come with higher capacities.  If you are uploading at 9.6 Gigabits per second, the bandwidth capacity would have to also be proportionally higher to make sense. 

 

Some of the prices on those lower speed options may actually be less than paying for overages in ATT Uverse bandwidth caps.  You would have to call ATT to see their prices and other vendors to have a price comparison.  You could ask them if any bandwidth caps apply there and what is their bandwidth capacity.

 

Its possible that both Comcast and ATT have imposed these caps to identify prospective customers for their business services to increase their revenue overall.  That may be the real reason for the caps.  It probably makes more business sense than building new infrastructure to support residential increases in bandwidth use.

 

I can already visualize that in 10 years we all may be using OC 192 lines.  With Holographic TV in use right now (my son's business video conferences already use them) those kinds of speeds and bandwidth capacities may well become a necessity.

---

Maru,

   You know on this one statement Higher speeds usually come with higher capacities I agree with you. Which is one of the reasons why it aggravates so many here when a person who has a 6 meg / 768k uverse circuit gets 250 gb of bandwidth allocated while someone that has 18 megs / 2 megs gets 250 GB allocated. By your own argument this is wrong and should never have been done. I guess we all shouldn't trust ATT so much should we?

---

Infernal wrote:

---

jamiedolan wrote:

 

---

sirmaru wrote:

By the way, even in Japan, where speeds and bandwidth are way over our capacities here in the US, most ISP's have caps on uploads of 900 Gb per month with downloads unlimited.  Real heavy use is simply incompatible with residential infrastructure.

---

 

This would be far more than adequate and fair.  I honestly doubt that I would even get past 500GB total use once I get caught up on some things I am behind on becuase of the DSL issues.  If it was a 500GB cap and I might have to pay some overage for a little while, I would not even care.  But I know that I will get past the 250 and the extra $50 is just way to much;  I can get a whole additional line installed for that prices and have 2 Internet connections.

 

I just feel the 250GB cap is too low and that the $10 per 50GB is excessivly high.  I know what Internet transfer costs carriers (I don't know the specfics of AT&T financials, but I know enough about the business and Industry in general, including what lines sell for in datacenters and such to make very educated guesses) and their cost is no where close to this.

 

Jamie

---

Don't forget to add the "equipment fee" to your 2nd net connection.  How does the exact same residential gateway sitting in my closet appreciate from $3 to $4 is beyond me.

---

Its ATT math Jamie. LOL.