decifal
join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| said by ztmike:U-Verse has a bandwidth cap to? lol I thought that was just for their dsl side.. lol at&t doesn't even have this rolled out all the way and they are capping users already? Then your TV experience might take a hit from your internet surfing? I'm surprised at&t is not capping how much people watch their TV also. If they capped how much TV you could watch, this will be the biggest flop in telecom history I think... Who the hell wants to be limited on TV choices when you can simply get Satellite TV, which unlike Satellite internet it works very well as an option for broadcasting.. With the proposed caps they are toying with and the very pathetic range limitations of Uverse from a Vrad, they would be better off just going back to offering HSI to people and let the TV service side sit till they get serious and want to offer fiber to the premisis..... Caps... What the hell man.... |
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to ztmike
AT&T is running a trial of caps in Reno, NV. No caps have been put in place elsewhere, and it remains to be seen if caps actually do get imposed (but I would not bet against it), and how big they will actually be.
The caps trial is for both DSL service and U-Verse Internet service (VDSL).
No, there is no cap on U-verse TV. I think it's safe to say that would never happen.
First, U-verse TV does run over their IP backbone, but it's essentially a broadcast (maybe multicast would be a better term). Therefore it consumes only a small amount of the backbone capacity. Contrast this with home consumers running their Internet connections at full speed 24x7 (downloading videos or whatever). Each consumer is using the full capacity of their dedicated pipe. Thus the impact on the backbone is immensly greater than the TV impact.
Second, they could not possibly compete with satellite or cable if they somehow limited the amount of TV you could watch. That's a non-starter. |
