how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2009-04-20 14:30:44: Time Warner Cable may have slightly buckled (for now) on their plans to institute low caps and high overages, but AT&T is still testing their own metered billing system in Beaumont, Texas, and Reno Nevada. ..
| |
page: 1 · 2  |
 
Lokro
Premium
join:2002-12-28
Loveland, CO | blah Just a matter of time before all these companies band together and set up this metered billing so we can't complain by switching broadband providers. | |
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
 ·VOIPo
| Re: blah You never know, some may not just so they can make money off the costumers that switch from the ones that do.
Now if metered billing was like: $10 for 10m a month and $0.20 per GB then I think people would be more ok with it, it is just the way these two are doing it that gives a bad name. | |
| | | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| Re: blah The problem with that business model is that the customers who would switch to avoid the caps are the ones who want to consume large amounts of bandwidth, thus making them more expensive customers. In the case of TW, with their "we can't afford to do it right" network issues, losing those customers is probably a bonus rather than a problem.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
| | | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: blah Not all who would switch are big users, and for the ones that are just put them on a PAYG plan, some(like me) would switch if their ISP was crazy like that even if I only used 15GB per month. | |
| | | | | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX
| Re: blah said by me1212  :Not all who would switch are big users, and for the ones that are just put them on a PAYG plan, some(like me) would switch if their ISP was crazy like that even if I only used 15GB per month. Not crazy per se' but greedy. | |
| | | | | | jtorre69
join:2005-12-26
Hollywood, FL
| Re: blah Its not greed, it's based on principal. Why are caps being placed in the first place?? It's not because of high bandwidth consumption. They are simply protecting the pay tv model. If they place caps I will change providers. If there is no alternative, I will do without. | |
| | | | | | | 
one_bored_si
join:2003-03-10
Montebello, CA | Re: blah You sir are a brave man, I wish you well. | |
| | | | | | | 
JoeBobJr
@charter.com
| said by jtorre69 :They are simply protecting the pay tv model. What pay TV model is AT&T DSL protecting? | |
| | | | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: blah said by JoeBobJr :said by jtorre69 :They are simply protecting the pay tv model. What pay TV model is AT&T DSL protecting? U-verse. Duh. Before U-verse "No caps, no throttling." After U-Verse Telco-TV "Caps are REQUIRED".
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
| |
| | | | | | | rid0617
join:2003-07-20
Greer, SC
| That is my opinion. I will not deal with caps, I will not pay overage charges. Tired of corporate greed. I lived without internet, I can live without it again. Some can't but when your pushing 60 you can live without anything that gets too expensive. | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by Camelot One :The problem with that business model is that the customers who would switch to avoid the caps are the ones who want to consume large amounts of bandwidth, thus making them more expensive customers. Not always true. I'd switch just for the principle of it. The reason I pay Sprint $99 a month for my cell phone service is I'd rather not be surprised with a bill, nor is "my experience" going to be ruined by always feeling bad anytime I press the CALL button on my phone. I'm always going to feel rushed, if I'm going over my minutes, how much it's going to cost, etc. In the end, I feel even worse becuase I paid for, say, 450 minutes, and often go under.
Because of that, my over all feeling about using the service diminishes becuase I now feel like I got even less now since I would have paid for X amount of use and becuase of "fears" I ended up using even less. Because of a CAP, now they are making even more money out of the less use due to these fears.
For this reason, and even though I do not go over the Comcast 250 cap, for example, I'd switch in a heart beat if there was metered billing. As it is, I have Qwest for DSL and Comcast for their Modem service.. if Comcast became a thorn in my side, ... bye bye!
Also, as for your TWC statement.. considering it costs about $7 a month per HSI sub, they're far from losing money. To lose a subscriber would in fact hurt them, not help them. Those that do 'over consume' are far outweighed by those who under consume... and THAT is what Congress needs to be looking at. | |
| | | | | lovswr
join:2001-09-15
Stockbridge, GA
1 edit | Re: blah said by fiberguy :said by Camelot One :The problem with that business model is that the customers who would switch to avoid the caps are the ones who want to consume large amounts of bandwidth, thus making them more expensive customers. Not always true. I'd switch just for the principle of it. The reason I pay Sprint $99 a month for my cell phone service is I'd rather not be surprised with a bill, nor is "my experience" going to be ruined by always feeling bad anytime I press the CALL button on my phone. I'm always going to feel rushed, if I'm going over my minutes, how much it's going to cost, etc. In the end, I feel even worse becuase I paid for, say, 450 minutes, and often go under. Because of that, my over all feeling about using the service diminishes becuase I now feel like I got even less now since I would have paid for X amount of use and becuase of "fears" I ended up using even less. Because of a CAP, now they are making even more money out of the less use due to these fears. For this reason, and even though I do not go over the Comcast 250 cap, for example, I'd switch in a heart beat if there was metered billing. As it is, I have Qwest for DSL and Comcast for their Modem service.. if Comcast became a thorn in my side, ... bye bye! Also, as for your TWC statement.. considering it costs about $7 a month per HSI sub, they're far from losing money. To lose a subscriber would in fact hurt them, not help them. Those that do 'over consume' are far outweighed by those who under consume... and THAT is what Congress needs to be looking at. fiberguy I have to respectfully, disagree, with your assessment that USWorst is the best of the RBOC's. In my opinion that distinction falls to Verizon (ne. Bell Atlantic). Furthermore in my opinion, it is a close race between SNET (Southern New England Telephone & USWest as the all around worst regional telecommunications company on the face of planet Earth.
My fondest memory of US West was in '99 or '98 when they went on strike. They were the always the slowest to respond, fix/resolve their issues. I know a lot of that had to do with the fact that they had/have the largest geographical area, but the attitude of the typical US West employee is what, IMHO, reserved a special collective place for them in Dante's Hell.
edit: My response was to a fiberguy post below. I have no idea how the response got way up here. | |
| | | | 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| said by Camelot One :The problem with that business model is that the customers who would switch to avoid the caps are the ones who want to consume large amounts of bandwidth, thus making them more expensive customers. In the case of TW, with their "we can't afford to do it right" network issues, losing those customers is probably a bonus rather than a problem. It's not a bonus but a risk that the ISP is taking. They may get rid of the so called high bandwidth customers but the ISP's make money on other things as well like advertising and videos. They may cut down on the expense of upgrade costs but they are taking a risk of losing money from other things.
You can't say there high bandwidth users since I believe that is a myth. The internet is growing and expanding every year. You can do more now on the internet then you could 10 years ago. The problem we have is some companies are having a hard time keeping up with that expansion. Japan can offer 10-20 times more the speed we can, have almost terabyte caps, and all at the same price. We really have to look at what the underlying discrepancy is and how to solve it.
The question would be, is it really beneficial for the ISP's to have caps and for people to use the internet less?
--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: blah One of the big differences between US and the rest of the world is that we have the most offering in the video line. We have FAR more channels available than other countries and there is a desire to protect the video business. Video, currently, is what anchors business. You can certainly see that in the fact that Telephone was chomping at the bit to get into that business. Also, Satellite is still dumping money into essentially what is an outdated delivery model to stay alive. The thing that holds satellite together, in my opinion, is their HD offerings right now AND they are an alternative to people who don't like cable, or those that owe cable money/bad debt.
While the internet is growing, it's not growing as much as people think it is. Really, it's still the same internet that it was a long time ago. Other than it's moved more into a higher data use, it's still just the internet. The amount of data, removing video, that a consumer can use is about the same. People still email, surf the web, chat, maybe cam with others... and they can only do so much with their focus as 10 years ago. What HAS changes are video rich sites like Youtube.
Faster speeds are really only beneficial when content is heavier, which it is getting. But, the more people that try to put information on the net.. it doesn't matter. People can only consume/view so much content at a time.
Caps are not necessary. I will concede that they are there to protect a business model.. but I'm going to contradict myself for a quick second. Caps ARE necessary, but not to the majority of people. They DO need to define what "too much" is for residential. Until the networks can be built out, they have to still manage what they have to offer. Caps, in my opinion, are okay, for now, but only for now. They need to come off in the near future.
Companies like AT&T and other telco's that basically own their connections through and through are doing it out of pure greed. Those that have to buy their connections DO have to manage their costs. However, caps are not the answer, really. The best way to deal with protecting profits to be able to invest into the network.. RAISE THE PRICE OF THE INTERNET. Be honest. Dropping the prices so they have a better price to market, ie: the loss leader, is pure crap. People come here DAILY and admit how important the internet is to them and all it does for them. Well? .. time to price it accordingly. An internet connection, for speeds above 1meg, should be priced more along the line of $60+ per month. | |
| | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: blah fiberguy
Without commenting on the rest, monthly caps do NOT address the problem that ISPs are facing today, congestion. Both hardware and transit costs are based entirely on Peak bandwidth. So any GBs(no matter how many) downloaded during off peak hours costs the ISP absolutely nothing (0) extra. If they actually want to address the issue they have the option of using a proticol agnostic throttle during peak usage hours. This would actually address the issue. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: blah Lazlow, I rarely ever agree with you, as in the case now.
What addresses the issue is simply putting money into the network where it needs to be invested.
The amount of money generated by the industry which is knows as "the internet" is plenty enough to expand capacity and get rid of these bottlenecks.
This issue, to be honest, is FAR more complex and lengthy than I care to get into with anyone on BBR. So, I'll leave my point at that. | |
| | | | | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: blah Fiberguy
I agree with you that if they would reinvest in their network the congestion issues would go away. That just do not seem to want to do that. I also agree with you that there is plenty of money being made(so it is not like the money is not available). | |
| | | | | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: blah There is one thing, now, that is most absolutely for certain.. they are in fact trying to protect their other business lines.. which I don't disagree with. (Talking last mile carriers here for a moment)
There is a VERY simple solution to this problem... and no one will like what I have to say. If Video is being cut into, for cable, and phone is being cut into for the telcos, by their internet services, then simply raise the price of stand alone internet services.
In any business, you need to have a certain base line invoice per customer to survive. If everyone ditched video and telco from the providers, took only internet and got their vid/tel from net providers, then the carriers could not survive off the diminished revenue, and that's a fact. What happens is the cost to operate JUST (or primarily) an internet service goes up.
Simple solution: Raise the base price of the internet. Very easily, too.. and again, no one will like this. But, if you are just an internet customer only, then you should be paying far more for internet, upwards of $60 to $80 per month for internet. With another service, then apply a bundle discount.
It still costs to maintain a last mile network no matter what services go through the lines. People don't like to hear the truth, but the truth is simple.. they lose revenue, then the other services now all the sudden cost MORE to provide.
In the name of competition, this has set pricing points in dishonest ranges for the purpose of advertising. Cable has largely always been honest about pricing their internet at the $45 mark while DSL plays the marketing game by pricing DSL at the $20 mark. This is why most don't want to un-bundle the phone from DSL and why ATT priced DSL alone at $1 less than phone/DSL combined.
The providers need to be honest about pricing their products... however, again, in the name of competition, and to risk collusion charges, they're in a mess and having a hard time digging out of it as well. In a way, this is why I have always said that competition can be both good AND bad for the consumer.
But.. like I said.. you take the millions of consumers with internet, slap another $10 charge on the price of it, per month, multiply, and I think you have MORE than enough to invest into bigger networks.. then, ultimately, the price will/should fall again. We've also had 10 years, or about, under our belt to understand what the internet is doing for us as a society. They KNOW what to put into the network to accommodate what people want from it. If the people want a better network, and one that works for them, when or if a price increase, with in reason, comes about (and I'm not talking about caps and meters) then they need to be ready to pay for it and also be reasonable in the process. Nothing, comes from nothing. Consumers have to be willing to pay for what they get, and right now, many are not paying enough. | |
| | | | 
jsz0
join:2008-01-23
Jewett City, CT
·Comcast
| TWCs caps were simply too low. It was clearly a revenue generating scheme -- not a method of driving unprofitable customers away. I do entirely agree though -- caps done properly should only effect the top 1% at most and exist as a "take it or leave it" system. When you have one customer using 10x the bandwidth of a average customer it's pretty easy to see how losing that customer's $40/month or whatever is more desirable since you can hold off on upgrades until you're making 9 * $40 off average customers and reaching the same capacity level. (either at the edge or locally on the HFC side) | |
| | | | | | | | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: blah There is one capless mobile wireless internet provider I know of, granted its a reseller. | |
| | | | jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
USA | Isn't that called collusion? I agree that they would WANT to do this, but it's not supposed to be legal to do so... | |
| |
lurker9
@bellsouth.net
| just a thought...
what happened with AOL in the late 90's? they were charging for broadband. but, people were fed up when they were being charged for the mandatory downloads.
whenever you go to a web page, there is some actual content there - and the junk advertisements. who is going to pay for that? is the advertising a free download? or somehow excluded from the caps? if i have to pay - should i just go and block sites like doubleclick.net? if so, how will those sites stay alive? will i have to pay to both the ISP AND my currently favorite blogging/news site?
can i browse ebay? ebay emits a lot of javascript to my browser for the nice Ajax/Web 2.0 technology. how is that going to work? can i turn it off so i can browse longer?
and how about the monthly mandatory microsoft security patches? "can't play internet - have to choose between a safer computer and ebay"
and who is going to help out with the VPN charges to my office. or webex's? or gotomypc.com to fix my infected computer? are we going back to the old days where a virus was designed to simply incur billing? like the old dialup modem viruses of the 90's?
how about the basics of the internet. everyone needs an IP address - and usually they get it via DHCP. who is going to pay for that traffic?
I can see a day where AT&T/TWC is a little short on funds, and "accidentally" causes every DHCP address to expire every 60 minutes, causing a huge amount of network traffic - pushing some people into an "overage" situation.
According to economists, protectionism doesn't work. Anti-protectionists say it wouldn't work with the outsourcing of jobs (think telecom) in the USA (now we buy everything except beer and hookers from china). Protectionists would have preferred to have all of the (think telecom) jobs remain in the USA - but "smarter" people knew better. are we simply protecting our free internet? or is there proof that by making an unlimited good (jobs/internet data) scarce (thru outsourcing/caps) a better experience/society?
in the end - the data caps are similar to leasing your car- or more precisely - your cell phone bill. with the exception of rollover minutes, you pay for xGB per month. at the end of the month, you lose your unused portion. kinda like with the lease - unless you drive exactly 36k miles for a 3 yr lease, you lost money. if you drive 36001 miles, you lost money. that is how these plans are being structured. also, if you drove 35999, you lost money.
Cell phones are the same. it is a radio signal that is always there. they don't turn off the cell towers at midnight - nor do they ignore over-congestion. they add more cell towers to certain areas to handle the traffic. do you think ATT has the same cell capacity in times square as it does in downtown reno, nv? i would believe that times square has more capacity - and i haven't been shown a plan to increase my cell bill to upgrade reno to the same level.
if you have a voice, speak out. their plans doesn't make sense for the consumer at all. but, once it is in place, the internet will be too expensive for me. | |
| | slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Maumee, OH
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
·AT&T Midwest
| add a cap lose a customer.
add a cap and offer me television service you'll keep a customer.
My local cable company doesnt have caps, and offers me tv service ( less of a need to stream my tv shows,even with my disliek of my local cable company i dont want to have to worry abotu what im downloading,playing,doing on my internet) | |
| Gman
join:2007-11-01 | Have fun, US. You know what's sad? It makes me feel good to know that Canada isn't the only country getting totally screwed by their ISPs nowadays. | |
| |
GO failmerica
@telus.net
| Re: Have fun, US. Its funny the usa is starting to shift to a canadian style F U system. Telus's limit 60g shaws limit 60g. Conspire much? It's clear the the goal is to force people to pay for tv rather then entertain themself's on the Internets. Thats why i hope verizon rolls out fios all the way to the great white north so one day we can have broadband(3mps is not longer considered such) | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
1 edit | So Much for watching TV on their system. I watch a great deal of off shore television and these caps would put an end to that. I wonder when Qwest is going to try forcing this crap on us. 
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption | |
| | 
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs: | Re: So Much for watching Given that both AT&T and Qwest are members of anti-neutrality astroturf group Hands Off the Internet (AND they don't hide behind fronts), I'd say "soon." | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: So Much for watching said by sivran :Given that both AT&T and Qwest are members of anti-neutrality astroturf group Hands Off the Internet (AND they don't hide behind fronts), I'd say "soon." I'd honestly have to disagree. Qwest, formerly US West, has been the BEST of all major providers at keeping their hands off of the internet product. They, of all, offer the most tools and support for people to use their services the way they want. They also don't have in place, like the others did, that you have to have a business account in order to use static IP or reverse DNS.
The biggest problem with Qwest is the former CEO raped the company and now they're having a hard time beefing up their system to keep up with the rest.
And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I DESPISE Qwest as a phone company. However, honestly believe that with their current attitude towards the customer that of all providers, if they were given any money by the govt to help build out and enhance their network, they, of all of the providers, would offer the best services and options of all of them. (let the daggers fly now) I know everyone that has a beef has their own personal reasons.. but so far, Qwest/USWest, was the first to offer DSL, they had the most features before others, they were the first to disconnect the phone line from the DSL line, they were the first to do away with forced contracts for internet services, they offer the most transparent support for networking with DSL.. they just made some other bad mistakes in their time is all.
I honestly hope they do well. Right now, I'd say they are the least of the evils out there. | |
| | | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| Re: So Much for watching I would also point out that Qwest has no video offering (other than Directv, which doesn't really count) to compete with online video. CEO Ed Muller made it clear about a year ago that Qwest will NOT be doing tv. He intends Qwest to be the pipe, as much as you can milk out of copper, for online video use, primarily on the download side.
On a side note, WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING IN DENVER about selling the IXC business? That's basically selling classic Qwest, and reverting back to US West, but with NO video, NO wireless, NO yellow pages, and TONS of debt. WHAT THE HELL!!! | |
| | | | HexCalamity
join:2005-03-16
Salem, OR
·Comcast
| said by fiberguy :... they were the first to do away with forced contracts for internet services, they offer the most transparent support for networking with DSL.. they just made some other bad mistakes in their time is all. I honestly hope they do well. Right now, I'd say they are the least of the evils out there. Thats semantics on their forced contracts. If you don't want to pay 5-10 more a month or with some package deals they require you to sign up for a 2 year contract. Dont get me started on their 8/month modem rental rate either.
I'll admit I'm biased as I've had many annoyances with them in the past and their basic landline costs me $30 just with basic caller id, unlimited local and eh .10 min long distance. Their idiocy with long distance in the past, especially the fee if you didnt use it each month cost them my business for years. Now its just convenience to have their long distance and since they dont charge me a fee I subscribe to it. | |
| | rid0617
join:2003-07-20
Greer, SC | Check out free to air television. I cut the cord to cable and directv and bought one of these. In the SE I receive over 500 channels legal and free. About 200 of them speak English. | |
| 
doublea
join:2007-06-04
Petaluma, CA
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| what a joke Mark my words ATT I WILL CANCLE if you inpose a cap on me.
150gb for mx 18 internet what a joke?
How come uverse tv data useage is not included in the cap? it uses data too. Infact wathcing/recording 5hrs of hd on your tv uses over 1TB of data on the att network, its all a about the MOLA.
hello local ISP sonic.net
Im not full of hot air, I have an uncapped local alturnative! | |
| |
See 29 replies to this post | |
firefox
Premium
join:2000-12-03
San Jose, CA
|  Low traffic hours
--
"The real 'smart' people are successful because they make sure everyone else remains stupid and ignorant."
-Anonymous | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| Wow Glad I switched to Comcast recently. We watched 4 streaming movies off Netflix on our Tivo this weekend, downloaded a purchased CD from Amazon, and re-installed/patched Warhammer Online... that's like 30GB or so in one weekend.
Of course I don't know how much I could have done had I remained on the highest ATT DSL offered in my area... 3mb. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | I've said it before... ...and will say it again. Given two options, AT&T will always pick the most stupid one. Always.
--
»www.Digium.com | |
| | vinnie97
join:2003-12-05
Mesquite, TX
1 edit | Re: I've said it before... Yep...first, copper and now, caps. The Deathstar must be breached. | |
| ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| Review them! As it happened, right after I posted, I saw a message at the top of the page from DSLR asking me to consider reviewing my ISP. I hadn't thought of doing it before, but I think I will now, and I'm going to include a word of warning about this plan for anyone considering getting AT&T. I'd like to encourage everyone else to do so as well. We may be tech geeks here, but our opinions influence a whole lot of other people, so let's make sure everyone who investigates AT&T's service on DSLR is fully aware of what's going on. | |
| anderboy
join:2007-07-23
Leander, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| Better Metering I, for one, like fair pricing models. But simple caps aren't the solution. They need to charge per-packet based on your link speed, packet size, packet length, QoS priority (if supported), and current network conditions (AKA demand). Unfortunately ISPs want a simple solution, and not a fair one.
The internet really needs a new network protocol that is billing-aware. I'll dub this IPv$. | |
| | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| Re: Better Metering Anything other than simple caps and metering is opaque to consumers. And consumers want to understand their bills.
This is why it's a shame that the FCC, in the Comcast debacle, prohibited transparent throttling of bandwidth hogs. That would be the best answer because it would allow rates to remain flat. | |
| | | 
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| Re: Better Metering said by SuperWISP :Anything other than simple caps and metering is opaque to consumers. And consumers want to understand their bills. This is why it's a shame that the FCC, in the Comcast debacle, prohibited transparent throttling of bandwidth hogs. That would be the best answer because it would allow rates to remain flat. Throttling would benefit all and even the high usage users
They don't make extra money and it will cost them time and money to install throttling equipment.
Their is no profit in that... | |
| | | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY | Re: Better Metering Comcast already had throttling equipment. The FCC cost Comcast money by forcing them to remove it. | |
| | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: Better Metering No, they made them throttle all traffic not just p2p. This was required to stay within net neutrality rules. Unless it has changed just recently Comcast IS throttling traffic during peak times (all kinds not just p2p), only when a channel is congested. The secondary complaint was that Comcast's VOIP, which runs on an isolated channel, was not subject to this throttling, giving it an unfair advantage over other VOIP products. Last I heard the secondary complaint had not been decided on. | |
| | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by SuperWISP :Comcast already had throttling equipment. The FCC cost Comcast money by forcing them to remove it. Unless I am misremembering, what the FCC stomped on them for was not Throttling but breaking the P2P sessions by disconnecting them (ie: By sending phony "I just disconnected" responses to one end claiming that they come from the other end [IOW: Playing Man-in-the-Middle games by impersonating the nodes at each end of the connection]). | |
| 
trebzon
join:2001-09-03
Grandville, MI | AT&T I have no great love for AT&T or Comcast my only two choices. I will dump AT&T DSL if this hits my market. Will have to go back to Comcast for a reasonable cap. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Do what was done to TW. Getting to the point where internet is too much BULLSHIT anymore. Isp want to play cap games. Lets all piss them off and unplug for a while see if they start to crying then. | |
| | | | | |
Alan70
@comcast.net
| I was all excited about UVerse almost here.... I've been tracking a new VRAD AT&T installed here with much anticipation and excitement. But now, I feel totally deflated. I will now hold off and keep my Comcast (w/halfway reasonable 250 GB/month cap) instead of instantly jumping to UVerse, at least until I hear AT&T abandons the trial as unsuccessful. I **REFUSE** to support any company that has such low caps unless perhaps it is structured MUCH differently (MUCH lower overage charges... like 20 cents/GB). When these companies get a GB for around 3-5 cents/GB, it is unthinkable how they can turn around and try to charge us $1 or more per GB. Unbelievable!
As others have pointed out, this is ALL about greed and also protecting their video business. Instead of adapting, they end up scr**ing themselves in the long term by such short-sighted, dumb moves. Sad. Great technology hobbled by terrible policies and decisions. I sure hope they change their mind soon. I really wanted Uverse, but not like this. I refuse to support that, even though I usually use only about 50 GB or less per month on average. We need to get some reasonable laws in place. | |
| 
Murdoc
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI | Att will get another free pass The big phone companies don't care, big gubment will give them another free pass. | |
| Mike_343
I Need Speed.
join:2001-07-05
Dyer, IN
| typical glad I ditched at&t dsl last week. Now I don't even have to think about thier low 80GB/month cap when it hits my market.
Think about it. I have a dedicated server with a company that I pay around 200/month for 2000GB of outgoing transfer which is connected to about 8 different networks within the datacenter. My fee is 10cents/gb if I were to go over that 2000GB limit. I can also buy 2000GB blocks of transfer for 100/month which comes out to 5cents/gb and this network is alot better then at&t's.
NTT America
Equinix
Level 3
SAVVIS
Internap
Global Crossing
Telefonica
Comcast | |
| | dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL | Re: typical Softlayer is $100 for 1000GB, not 2000GB. Even then it still much better. | |
| TebTeb
join:2009-01-28
Columbus, OH | Hope I can still get WOW! I sure hope I can get WOW! when I move in 2 months, the only other choices I have are Road Runner and ATT U-Verse. | |
| | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| Metering is the wave of the future Karl, the fact that AT&T is imposing caps on DSL service, which cannot carry video, puts the lie to your claims that Time-Warner was imposing caps to protect its video business. The truth is that bandwidth is expensive, and becoming more so. (The cost of backbone bandwidth has stopped dropping and has begun to rise, while the cost of the "middle mile" is going up drastically.) The truth of the matter is that consumers are maxing out "flat rate" connections with duty cycles far beyond what was ever anticipated, and causing the providers to lose money. So, the providers are naturally imposing caps and surcharges so that they do not. They must do this; they're not charities. | |
| |
See 20 replies to this post | |
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH
| Video? Everyone blames cable for protecting video revenues. I agree there is a lot of greed here but do we really believe TW is trying to protect video revenues with THEIR caps? If so, why is ATT capping? And beyond that why are the caps HIGHER in uverse areas?
I can "sort of" understand the capping/metering on cable due to it's shared last mile setup...but what in the world is ATT's excuse?
I still believe some metering/throttling/capping is necessary but these are some real extremes lately. | |
| | dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL | Re: Video? AT&T has a big interest in video now with Uverse.
And they are higher in Uverse areas because there is a 10 Mbps and 18 Mbps plan for Uverse. | |
| | | SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| Re: Video? AT&T is imposing the caps on DSL lines, which do not offer video. And it's considering much higher caps on U-Verse, which makes sense because that system has more capacity. So, the argument cannot be made that they are doing this to protect video revenue. | |
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Video? If att did not apply the caps to their DSL lines as well as their Uverse lines it would prove that they are not doing it for cost reasons. att are not total idiots. They knew if they applied it only to Uverse that everyone would point that out. | |
| | | | ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| said by SuperWISP :AT&T is imposing the caps on DSL lines, which do not offer video. And it's considering much higher caps on U-Verse, which makes sense because that system has more capacity. So, the argument cannot be made that they are doing this to protect video revenue. But I can use my DSL to get video, and, if I find I like online video delivery, I might not get U-Verse TV when it gets here, and that's going to be a loss of profit for AT&T. | |
| | | 
sturmvogel
Obama '08
join:2008-02-07
Houston, TX
| said by dlewis23 :AT&T has a big interest in video now with Uverse. And they are higher in Uverse areas because there is a 10 Mbps and 18 Mbps plan for Uverse. Collusion and price fixing. That is what Congress must investigate. Mr. Schumer, please.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. | |
| 
seant169
join:2003-07-21
Forney, TX | not unlimited Say Bye Bye To Me
ATT
Fast and Furrious | |
| 
Bit
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000 | No justification Greed pure and simple. The time has obviously come to nationalize data infrastructure and then lease those lines to ISPs. | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| | |
|
Att I will Cancel!