dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-03-24 18:27:44: Earlier this week we noted that AT&T's usage meters for their upcoming metered billing push aren't accurate when compared to user firewall or router logs. ..

prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next

chachster
Premium Member
join:2002-08-07
Westerville, OH

chachster

Premium Member

How to determine my usage... How will ATT figure it out??

I'm trying to figure out how to determine my usage since all my TV's and PC's use Ethernet from the iNID and I have a little monkey wrench called using the XBox 360 as a STB.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

batterup to ARgyBargy2

Premium Member

to ARgyBargy2

Re: Adios AT&T You greedy fools!

said by ARgyBargy2:

They are under estimating the power of HOA's and condo boards.

You people can no longer enter into exclusive agreements with the one company that bought you an indoor pool.
batterup

batterup to NormanS

Premium Member

to NormanS

Re: Question About Image Used for News Piece?

said by NormanS:

There is another problem I am trying to sort. Just what is the metric AT&T is using. And what metric should I apply to the router packets. I.e., how can I be sure that I am measuring the same thing AT&T is measuring? It seems that AT&T is balking at explaining there metric, so how do I know what I will be paying for when they start UBB?

"As we noted earlier in the week, AT&T's decision to measure from the DSLAM could be increasing usage estimates because that would include ATM and PPPoE overhead. AT&T didn't offer us a comment on that.

The company did suggest ...
quote:
some tools could be to blame. ... most likely do not take into account the standard network protocols (e.g. Ethernet, IP) that are used to provide applications and content to our customers via the Internet," says Bloom. "As you know, this is fairly standard to incorporate when measuring broadband traffic ...
"
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman to Rekrul

Premium Member

to Rekrul

Re: at&t's usage meter has flaws!

People really do want to download their email faster. People want webpages to load faster, e-commerce sites to load faster, and photo sharing sites to load faster. And yet they will only use all those sites 3 hours per day. They do other things not involving the internet. Walking, football, tennis, fishing, laundry, cook, clean, change the oil, fix the fence, paint the room, play catch with a child, and stare at the stars. They want higher data transfer rates so they can do things other than waiting on downloads/uploads.
davidhoffman

davidhoffman to kdroop

Premium Member

to kdroop

Re: IEEE standard

Yes, they need an industry standard. I think I will use your method if I get hit with overages.

Nargg
@cox.net

Nargg to 45612019

Anon

to 45612019

Re: Fuck off, AT&T.

LOL! Good luck with that. THey all DO THIS! idiot.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman to 45612019

Premium Member

to 45612019

Re: AT&T dsl is so slow, this may be a blessing

Uverse is not available to most of their customers. Or potential customers. Add up all the houses and businesses that get or could get wire line telephone service from AT&T, then compare to the potential number of Uverse customers where Uverse is deployed. I live in a city full of AT&T plain old wire telephone service, not a single Uverse installation anywhere.

hadeshorn09
@olin.edu

hadeshorn09

Anon

usage stats

When the figure out how to differentiate from all the incoming scans your getting at home constantly, then they can talk to me. I for one do not want to be paying the piper for someones hack/botnet scanning on my home routers front door.

Get a clue ISP's!

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena to brianiscool

Premium Member

to brianiscool

Re: umm

said by brianiscool:

What prevents people resetting the stats on the u-verse device each day? lol

If only it were that easy.

(If it was, someone will have written a Firefox plug in, that automatically opens a tab, opens your RG website, logs in, and resets the stats)

t3ln3t
@rr.com

t3ln3t to Rekrul

Anon

to Rekrul

Re: at&t's usage meter has flaws!

I know in the past, SBC in fact, DID limit the speed at which customers could hit the Usenet servers!

I'm not sure I recall exactly when this took place anymore, but every news server I built, got beat up pretty good by the early DSL users. It made it tough for other traffic on the network that management told me to limit Usenet traffic to ISDN speeds (128kbit/sec). I did what I was asked, and users hit the ceiling then! They were beyond outraged that PacBell sold them ADSL with up to 6mb download speeds, yet on PacBell's own network, Usenet was limited to 128kbit/s. There were even lawsuits because of it!

There is precedent for doing this in at&t, sadly ... and there just weren't that many customers who left because Usenet speeds got throttled.

I do admit, it was rather fun watching the DS3s and OC-3s connecting POPs in those days, go from pretty available to full, just because a new Usenet server went in

I had some of the first servers on the SBC network with Gigabit connectivity, and within a few months, needed more! It's too bad my naming convention didn't get approved.
HSP01.snfc21.pbi.net (HSP = High Speed Porn). Instead, they got nnrp and nntp names

Here's the funny thing: Usenet services were terminated in 2009 ... yet ALL the server names are still in DNS?
WhyMe420
Premium Member
join:2009-04-06

WhyMe420 to Nargg

Premium Member

to Nargg

Re: Fuck off, AT&T.

said by Nargg :

LOL! Good luck with that. THey all DO THIS! idiot.

Nice flaming. They don't all do this. Cable Co's don't charge overages. Next time look in the mirror before flaming.
decifal7
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN

decifal7

Member

huge

A big reason this is even happening is because the lack of "true" competition.. If there was "another" ship to jump to, many would do it when they pull something like this. Where are you gonna go? Cable? Many don't even have that option.. And i'm sure if ATT gets away with this, even comcast will charge overages in the near future.. Wireless is done and dusted when it comes to overages and prices. Satellite.. Ha..

They will happily sell you a T1 thats unlimited though for over five hundred a month....

Welcome to capitalism!
stunod2002
join:2003-11-07
Carol Stream, IL

stunod2002

Member

Measured at the DSLAM ???

If at&t is measuring the packets / bytes / bits what ever at the DSLAM then how are they separating the at&t specific data? IE IP TV on U-Verse... If they are not the they are double charging for the service (Pay for the TV and then pay again for it to be delivered)...

I personally don't care if they collect the data, they can even enact a FAP policy like sat. BB and reduce your speeds then you are taking more than your share (what ever that is), I could even come to grips with paying overages but first they have to clearly define what counts as data, justify why you get their data for free but have to pay for a competitors data to travel even though you and the competitor already has, and submit to some kind of regulated metering system that is under the oversight of the W&M agency like gas pumps, water, electricity, etc..
pnolte
join:1999-10-21
Chino, CA

pnolte to Rekrul

Member

to Rekrul

Re: at&t's usage meter has flaws!

I would think that there would be less congestion on a faster system. If I could download a movie in two minutes rather in two hours, the tubes would be open for someone else to use.
pnolte

pnolte to hadeshorn09

Member

to hadeshorn09

Re: usage stats

SHHHH don't tell people that. once you're within 50 Meg of paying for the next tier, don't you think ATT will just flood you to get the extra bucks anyway. They will say someone was scanning you and say they have no control over that and take a few more dollars from your pocket.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to davidhoffman

Member

to davidhoffman

Re: at&t's usage meter has flaws!

said by davidhoffman:

People really do want to download their email faster. People want webpages to load faster, e-commerce sites to load faster, and photo sharing sites to load faster. And yet they will only use all those sites 3 hours per day. They do other things not involving the internet. Walking, football, tennis, fishing, laundry, cook, clean, change the oil, fix the fence, paint the room, play catch with a child, and stare at the stars.

Oh please. Anyone explicitly paying for anything faster than 3Mbs service to get web pages and email to load faster is just stupid. I started out with 3Mbs service and with very few exceptions, web pages loaded pretty much instantly. The only reason I'm paying $20-25 more for 12Mbs service is to be able to download large files faster. If I was only browsing web sites and reading email, I'd still be at 3Mbs.

I know a guy who's still using dialup because he says he doesn't mind waiting a couple extra minutes for a site to load, or email to download.
said by davidhoffman:

They want higher data transfer rates so they can do things other than waiting on downloads/uploads.

See, that's the whole point. They pay for faster speed so that they can UPLOAD and DOWNLOAD faster. As in files. Usually large files, which is exactly what the ISPs are trying to prevent people from doing by imposing caps.
Rekrul

Rekrul to t3ln3t

Member

to t3ln3t
said by t3ln3t :

I know in the past, SBC in fact, DID limit the speed at which customers could hit the Usenet servers!

I'm not sure I recall exactly when this took place anymore, but every news server I built, got beat up pretty good by the early DSL users. It made it tough for other traffic on the network that management told me to limit Usenet traffic to ISDN speeds (128kbit/sec). I did what I was asked, and users hit the ceiling then! They were beyond outraged that PacBell sold them ADSL with up to 6mb download speeds, yet on PacBell's own network, Usenet was limited to 128kbit/s. There were even lawsuits because of it!

I never used SBC's Usenet servers. I looked at them a few times when I got DSL in 2006, but all the missing parts and less than 24 hour retention time made them pretty much useless for binaries. I ended up buying credits on Astraweb and using them instead.
said by t3ln3t :

There is precedent for doing this in at&t, sadly ... and there just weren't that many customers who left because Usenet speeds got throttled.

Most people I talk to, don't even know what Usenet is. I've heard that most ISPs want to stop offering any Usenet access at all. The New York AG's child porn scare campaign made a good excuse for AT&T and some others to dump their news servers. Not that it was that great of a loss, but it makes it that much harder for new users to find out about Usenet.
said by t3ln3t :

Here's the funny thing: Usenet services were terminated in 2009 ... yet ALL the server names are still in DNS?

I'm pretty sure that some of the FAQs still mention newsgroup usage as well.
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman to Rekrul

Premium Member

to Rekrul
I forgot to mention getting software and software updates faster.

The ISPs are imposing caps because of rampant sharing of copyrighted video that cuts into the profit they share with content producers and copyright holders. AT&T would not be imposing caps if UVerse VOD and UVerse television did not exist. AT&T did not care how many YouTube videos of your house construction project, boat building adventure, and children's dance recitals you uploaded before Uverse. I do not think they cared much about the volume of jpeg, tif, doc, and other static files you sent back to the office server from your house while you were home sick, but completing some work project. The AT&T DSL system was probably 80% to 90% complete at the time Uverse first appeared. If everyone was paying for copyrighted video the way the copyright holders, cable companies, and Uverse type operators wanted, you would have seen a more nuanced approach to network congestion issues. As has been noted elsewhere, there are no limits to how many VOD payments you can make on Uverse or how many hours the regular Uverse TV channels stay on in your house. Regular TV and VOD takes up capacity also, but there are no caps, because you are paying for the copyrighted content. The ISPs are like the people in ancient times who scratched out an existence in a dry mountain region. When loads of valuable goods began to pass by them in the river valley below the cliffs, they demanded payment or they took your goods by force. They never cared before when goods they could not use or sell passed, it was just a curious passing of no importance.
Rekrul
join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

Rekrul to pnolte

Member

to pnolte
said by pnolte:

I would think that there would be less congestion on a faster system. If I could download a movie in two minutes rather in two hours, the tubes would be open for someone else to use.

Networks have a finite capacity. When you have a faster speed, it causes more data to move through the network at once.
Rekrul

Rekrul to davidhoffman

Member

to davidhoffman
said by davidhoffman:

I forgot to mention getting software and software updates faster.

I still don't buy it.
said by davidhoffman:

The ISPs are imposing caps because of rampant sharing of copyrighted video that cuts into the profit they share with content producers and copyright holders. AT&T would not be imposing caps if UVerse VOD and UVerse television did not exist.

Yes, that's obvious.

What I was arguing is the legality of their ability to sell you a service and then prevent you from using it in the way it was obviously designed to be used.

AlphaOne
I see
Premium Member
join:2004-02-21

AlphaOne

Premium Member

Featured Content ????

Is this like a "paid" or "sponsored article" ?

Just curious.
bonorum
join:2004-04-03
Winston Salem, NC

bonorum

Member

ATT meter does not have a result for my connection

I cannot believe that they tell users there is a cap, but cannot provide you with any source of information on your current usage. How do they know that DSL users are even the source of the problem. Clearly they do not know where their network traffic comes from.
pika2000
join:2005-10-13
Seattle, WA

pika2000

Member

Funny

Funny isn't it, that a company can charge users based on usage that they cannot measure accurately. Talk about scam. Class action lawsuit.

riturno
join:2004-04-20
Dallas, TX

riturno to BiggA

Member

to BiggA

Re: Class-action

According to the new terms of service they have implemented binding arbitration and eliminated your ability to file lawsuits as a class.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION WITH AT&T BY BINDING ARBITRATION

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS.

Most customer concerns can be resolved quickly and to the customer's satisfaction by calling AT&T at 1-800-288-2020. In the unlikely event that AT&T's customer service department is unable to resolve a complaint you may have to your satisfaction (or if AT&T has not been able to resolve a dispute it has with you after attempting to do so informally), we each agree to resolve those disputes through binding arbitration or small claims court instead of in courts of general jurisdiction. Arbitration is more informal than a lawsuit in court. Arbitration uses a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge or jury, allows for more limited discovery than in court, and is subject to very limited review by courts. Arbitrators can award the same damages and relief that a court can award. Any arbitration under this Agreement will take place on an individual basis; class arbitrations and class actions are not permitted. For any non-frivolous claim that does not exceed $75,000, AT&T will pay all costs of the arbitration. Moreover, in arbitration you are entitled to recover attorneys' fees from AT&T to at least the same extent as you would be in court. In addition, under certain circumstances (as explained below), AT&T will pay you more than the amount of the arbitrator’s award and will pay your attorney (if any) twice his or her reasonable attorneys’ fees if the arbitrator awards you an amount that is greater than what AT&T has offered you to settle the dispute.



»uverseonline.att.net/uverse/tos
davidhoffman
Premium Member
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA

davidhoffman to Rekrul

Premium Member

to Rekrul

Re: at&t's usage meter has flaws!

Well it is similar to renting a automobile. The rental car company can install devices that limit top speed, track your location, and monitor other aspects of use. They can decide that you are not allowed to tow anything, even if you are renting a Ford F250. The network is AT&T's and they get to set limits even though we do not like them or know the network is capable of more. For example Verizon FiOS should be easily capable of symmetric data transfer rates, yet most of the plans are asymmetric. Other companies, like EPB Fiber, give only symmetric plans for similar fiber infrastructure. It is all very legal.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA to riturno

Premium Member

to riturno

Re: Class-action

Hmmmm, maybe the state AG's or DPUC's can step in? I'm pretty sure an individual state DPUC could kill the caps, even if it only works for that one state...

saladbar15
join:2009-07-18
Brighton, MA

saladbar15 to WhyMe420

Member

to WhyMe420

Re: Fuck off, AT&T.

And that's why Comcast will actually shut off your connection when you go over their cap. At least you still can use your internet with AT&T's plan.

If I had a better idea of the bandwidth that I was using right now, and assuming that I'm passing my caps, I'd probably be looking for somebody else to serve me. But, where I live you can have AT&T or Comcast. That's it. It sucks.
WhyMe420
Premium Member
join:2009-04-06

WhyMe420

Premium Member

I'd rather be cut off than put another dime in AT&T's pocket.

Plus, there's no guarantee they'll even cut it off. It's only if you're clogging a node, and you're the top user. Whereas with AT&T, you're guaranteed to get an overage at 251GB+. At least cable co's have a half-assed excuse to cap. Whereas AT&T has no excuse other than greed.

Not to mention AT&T can't even get the meter right.
Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
Aptos, CA

Ulmo

Member

Scales Must Be Licensed

Metering bandwidth is measurement, and measurement must be checked and approved by the appropriate government authorities. It may be wholy illegal for AT&T to bill you for measured commerce without getting the measurements verified by the appropriate government entities, just like any scale at any store.

nei1
Premium Member
join:2005-08-13
Nashville, NC

nei1 to ARgyBargy2

Premium Member

to ARgyBargy2

Re: Adios AT&T You greedy fools!

said by ARgyBargy2:

250 gigs [cap] would be more reasonable

I don't know. I'm on Comcast, and I'm not impressed by my 250 GB cap.

It was implemented sleazily, the usage meter becomes unavailable at the end of the month when you need it most to avoid your service being cut off, the cap was implemented diminishing my level of service but the monthly charge was increased a dollar, I also have to take their word for it regarding how much bandwidth I've used, and all the while users' bandwidth requirements are increasing.

I mean, just as I was getting warm and snuggly with my new torrent manager, WHAM! I got a cap. Like all good Americans, I was planning on using Data for my video habit. Now I'm back to 6 channels on ATSC-TV.

And I'm being throttled.

The old business model was that when a neighborhood's node was getting crowded, the cable company would cut in a new node. Cutting off users who get too close to the Cap is the new way of maximizing profits. They're living off the fat provided by the last generation of cable workers that built the sytems, without having to make any improvements anymore, because the bottom line is all that matters.

And as a conspiracy theorist, I'm not sure that there's not a higher interest in limiting our 1st Amendment rights that's driving the new business model.

Anyway, maybe I should have saved this tirade for the Comcast forum, but this is where Google landed me. Now, I'll slink away into the inky blackness; thanks for tolerating.

n
prev · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next