dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


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 page · 1 · 2 · 3 · next
ISurfTooMuch

join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

What would prevent...

...a city from refusing to let a company that imposes caps use public rights-of-way for their cables? I'm not talking about franchising here--the company would still be free to offer service, but they'd have to figure out some other means of running their cables around the city. If they want to offer capped Internet, they can remove their lines from public areas and negotiate with each property owner whose land they wish to cross.

bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto

join:2001-02-10
USA

Re: What would prevent...

That would be interesting, but they'll probably have prescriptive rights of way that will be upheld by whatever judge they buy.
ARgyBargy

join:2011-03-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL

Adios AT&T You greedy fools!

First they took away UseNet and charged us the same amount. Now they limit use to 150 gigs per month which is crap! If you download 1 NetFlix movie a day you will go over your limit. Spend some time each day on youtube and you will go over your limit. The only customers they want are 80 year old women that only use the Internet to e-mail their grandchildren. 250 gigs would be more reasonable like they will be offering to U-verse, but most people can't get it. Will U-verse magically become available and soak us for more money?

I will be moving to Cable access the first time they try to charge me 1 penny more if I exceed their unreasonable limit. They are under estimating the power of HOA's and condo boards. My fellow board members are pissed off and we can reach thousands of members throughout our S. Florida tri-county area and make the cable companies very happy and probably even get a discount.

Adios AT&T you greedy bastards!

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

Re: Adios AT&T You greedy fools!

said by ARgyBargy:

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.

nei1
Premium
join:2005-08-13
Scranton, PA
said by ARgyBargy:

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

gigahurtz
Premium
join:2001-10-20
Palm Coast, FL

Shouldn't this have happened before it went live?

I mean, isn't accuracy an IMPORTANT factor in metered billing? Not only because it could say the user is using more than they are, but it could say the user is using LESS which in turn costs AT&T money?
ARgyBargy

join:2011-03-24
Fort Lauderdale, FL

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

Most people that I know have cable Internet that is over twice the speed that AT&T offers. A lot of people I stayed with At&T/Bellsouth because they have it it for a long time and have been to lazy to bother changing it. 6.0 isn't that bad, but cable offers 12.0 and 18.0 with an upload 10 tinmkes faster that At&T/Bellsouth's measly .43. This ought to give all the procrastinators a good kick in the ass and start a major exodus from AT&T/Bellsouth.

If you are a glutton for punishment and stay with At&T make sure you secure your network, because your neighbor may be looking to steal your bandwidth.

We can complain all we want, but the sad part is that At&T doesn't give a crap. They are a monopoly and probably will make more money selling the bandwidth to cell phone users and Ipod type users. So, I for one will be changing my telephone service also as will my friends and fellow HOA and condo assoc. members. There are several thousand of us and we should be able to negotiate a good deal with one of At&T's competitors.

45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY

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

The problem is that they're pulling this shit on their 24/3 Mbps U-verse product. Nobody really cares about their slow ass regular DSL now that U-verse is available in most of their markets.
moes

join:2009-11-15
Cedar City, UT

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

I care because I still have dsl and can not get uverse here. the complexe does not allow it. soo this statement you made does not apply to everybody.

OSUGoose

join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
Yea "available" to like 1/1000th of a serviced city
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3
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.

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

Problems?

So AT&T will work with users on the problems that AT&T has created and stands to profit from? Riiiiiiight. . . And I sh!t diamonds.

Good luck to those of you on AT&T UBB. May God have mercy on your souls. . .
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com
hoyleysox
Premium
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

Pinging people

If I run a continuous ping against an AT&T customer would it count towards their cap?
swiftymc

join:2004-02-15
Mansfield Center, CT

What about Business customers?

Do the Business customers have the same cap? I wonder what Businesses think...if there is no cap on their service I wonder if I can switch to a business account
Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Re: What about Business customers?

It may be like comcast Business no cap or the cap is a lot higher.

yes some people on comcast have been forced to the higher cost business for going over there 250 cap.
FastAttack
Premium
join:2000-07-28
Tampa, FL
Reviews:
·Bright House

1 edit

What a joke

att should be the laughing stock of the industry.. they can't even get a meter that is even accurate working before launch

Maybe their executives and dumb dumbs in their corporate offices should have thought about this a little bit and done a more research.

The can of worms they are opening is going to be incredible.
I can't wait to see the first lawsuit to come around blaming att for have inaccuracies in their monitoring.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

FTC?

What about the Federal Trade Commission? I know they don't act on individual letters, but if enough people wrote to them, maybe they'd get involved. After all, this is sort of a bait & switch where they advertised unlimited usage and now want to cap. Also, they're charging people for a service and then limiting their use of that service to a tiny fraction of what it's capable of. That seems like a clear case of false advertising to me.

In my case, I'm going to be switching to Optimum Online, which doesn't currently have caps.

I'm also confused by all the people claiming that they'll just get business class service with another ISP. Cablevision told me that in order to get a business account with them, you have to actually prove that you have a business by providing a tax ID number.

Are they just the exception and every other ISP lets you sign up for a business account regardless? Or are people planning to register their own company just to get the business service?

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA

Again, AT&T will probably work a bit on accuracy

but at the end of the day, they will be no closer to an actual solution

AT&T will release more statements talking about how they are working with consumers which means....well, nothing.
kdroop

join:2001-08-26
Morgan City, LA

IEEE standard

The only meter I would respect is something along the lines of an IEEE standard that would be documentable and transparent.Otherwise kiss my ass.
Without a standard and some 3rd party backing it up how the f**k do they get anyone to pay the overage?
I would say to the first bill prove it...their response see the meter...my response by which industry standard do you measure...their response there isn't any...mine call me when you get one.
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3

Re: IEEE standard

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

t3ln3t

@rr.com

at&t's usage meter has flaws!

But of course it isn't measuring accurately! The people working on it, are freaking idiots!
Back in the days I was an at&t employee, deploying a usage meter for hosting customers, the first two years, the meters didn't report anything accurately. They did get better, but only after at&t finally spent several millions dollars implementing a 'new' system.
Consultants and vendors were flown in to work out the bugs ... and in the end, they did get a working usage model.

I would be willing to bet, they're still using that vendor (Concord, now CA). The 'tool' is extremely expensive, and I've found from experience the vendor gives you a broken implementation, so you'll be forced to bring in countless consultants to fix it.

When I was working for at&t, I NEVER put much stock in the 'tools' monitoring servers and network elements. In EVERY role I held, for ten years, I ran MRTG/RRDTool with a generic SNMP agent, to watch things. The 'tools' were wrong half the time!!
Disk alarms, agent alarms, filesystem alarms ... often were misconfigured by at&t staff, but in other instances they just were monitoring and alarming on stupid shit!

Let me recall the days when I'd get paged in the middle of the night, because /cdrom was at 100% capacity. IT'S A FUCKING CD-ROM! OF COURSE IT'S AT 100% CAPACITY!!!
This went on, for YEARS! It finally got fixed, but kid you not, five years of being paged in the middle of the night because some ass clown left a CD-ROM mounted in a server. I routinely unmounted the CD-ROM when I was done, if I couldn't remove it. Eventually, once the servers supported it ... I just mounted up an ISO image, then unmounted it, and deleted it when I was finished with whatever maintenance activities were going on.

I expect the at&t UBB model will have similar ... well, let's call them "faults" for some time.
I do think UBB is here to stay, and rightfully so. There ARE customers on everyone's networks using more resources than expected. I saw it on at&t's network, back in my days as the Usenet Administrator ... I saw it in Enterprise and Web Hosting. I saw it again when I was running the DNS & NTP servers.
There are clients who saturate DSL links day and night! I saw a single client flood a DNS server in Midland, TX with requests for www.farmsex.com! I saw customers in Santa Clara, CA take 100GB a night from alt.binaries.* ... that was when at&t still had Usenet offerings, and still offered alt.binaries.* of course.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

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

said by t3ln3t :

I do think UBB is here to stay, and rightfully so. There ARE customers on everyone's networks using more resources than expected. I saw it on at&t's network, back in my days as the Usenet Administrator ... I saw it in Enterprise and Web Hosting. I saw it again when I was running the DNS & NTP servers.
There are clients who saturate DSL links day and night! I saw a single client flood a DNS server in Midland, TX with requests for www.farmsex.com! I saw customers in Santa Clara, CA take 100GB a night from alt.binaries.* ... that was when at&t still had Usenet offerings, and still offered alt.binaries.* of course.

Answer me this; How are users taking down 100GB a night from anywhere, unless the ISP is giving them the means to do so? By my calculations, that works out to something like 3-4GB a second. If an ISP didn't want them to transfer that much data, why would they offer them such a fast speed?

This is the part that doesn't make any sense to me. a user with 3Mbs service can pull down around 8-9GB a night. If AT&T feels the need to cap these users because of "congestion", why would they give users the option of paying for an even faster account that would allow them to take down anywhere from 16-32GB (and beyond), in a single night? Wouldn't that cause even more congestion on the network?

And why would anyone pay for a 12Mbs account if they're not allowed to use it to transfer large amounts of data? Either AT&T is monumentally stupid and thinks that people really do want to download their email faster, or they're selling accounts that they know people won't be able to actually make use of, due to their artificial restrictions.

If this was really about congestion, wouldn't it make more sense to lower everyone's speed? Lower speeds mean less data being transferred at the same time, which means that the network will be less congested, right?

Of course I know that the ISPs don't want to give up the higher-priced accounts, which is why they still offer them. I just don't see how they can legally justify selling people xx amount of service and then artificially limiting them to a tiny fraction of what that service is capable of.

Can the water company charge you for 100x your actual usage? When you buy a box of cereal, can the supermarket charge you for an entire carton? Of course not. So why are ISPs allowed to do this?
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3

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.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

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.
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3

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

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

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

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.
davidhoffman
Premium
join:2009-11-19
Warner Robins, GA
kudos:3

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.

whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH

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

The whole reason we are getting caps is to stop Netflix and other HD video sources from competing with the cost of UVERSE TV.

If it was limited network bandwidth where AT&T said "we spend too much of our subscribers money on lobbyists to afford the big network feeds to support the use of advertised speed" then logic would be to cut speeds down (like 3mbits max) to match a estimated % of old backhaul to their % of overselling where customers won't notice as much congestion.

However you sell lots of 12 and 22 feeds and cap them at 250 gb then "customers can all still use high speed at same time" very easily creating the same problems. Using this model you have only removed only %2 (as AT&T says) of your subscribers from tying up their % of bandwidth at semi-frequent times. It's not going to improve limited backhaul bandwidth much at all.

However if you want to use your monopoly on your internet service to create new monopolies for your video service by stopping internet delivery of any competing services then you "cut off" your competitors from any volume bandwidth, buy out or sign-contract content companies from selling to smaller and cheaper alternatives, and then tell congress your too dirt poor or afford backhaul demand on what money you charge your customers and at the same time give lots of money to congress to vote on your bills that hurt your competitors).

IF you wanted a monopoly in the video services then the goal of capping makes perfect sense. It's congress's job to tell you otherwise (AT&T is just too $$ poor).

Monopolies OWN their customers. Customers CAN'T vote or chose with their services. So without regulation or oversight monopolies do ANYTHING to increase profits.

t3ln3t

@rr.com
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?
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

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

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.
pnolte

join:1999-10-21
Chino, CA
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.
Rekrul

join:2007-04-21
Milford, CT

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

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.

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

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.

hadeshorn09

@olin.edu

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!
pnolte

join:1999-10-21
Chino, CA
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

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.
decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1

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

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..

AlphaOne
I see
Premium
join:2004-02-21

Featured Content ????

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

Just curious.
bonorum

join:2004-04-03
Winston Salem, NC

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

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.
Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
Aptos, CA

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.

Get Help

@mindspring.com

Block Ads to reduce usage -- Make the advertisers complain

I don't like to block ads from my favorite websites because it means less revenue for them from advertisers. But if I had to monitor my bandwidth under these grotesque circumstances, I'd start by blocking ads everywhere.

Maybe then some big websites and advertisers will complain to ATT and the legislatures or AGs too?
slckusr
Premium
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Charter

Re: Block Ads to reduce usage -- Make the advertisers complain

said by Get Help :

I don't like to block ads from my favorite websites because it means less revenue for them from advertisers. But if I had to monitor my bandwidth under these grotesque circumstances, I'd start by blocking ads everywhere.

Maybe then some big websites and advertisers will complain to ATT and the legislatures or AGs too?

I will also find myself blocking ads, as well as avoiding any programs that "phone home" without my really knowing about, that amounts to theft in my opinion. all of these fears are compounded with the lack of accurate meter.