dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2718
share rss forum feed


pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Lemme Guess

I'm willing to bet that in 100% of these cases, the meter claims the user always used more than he actually did use.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.


Chubbysumo

join:2009-12-01
Superior, WI
Reviews:
·Charter

well, i can tell you this from experience.
I have charter, and they have so called "soft caps" on the ultra60 tier. I monitor my usage thru my router, and I average 2TB per month. When charter called after I had used over 4TB, and they had an accurate number(only a few GB off of mine, and in a lower direction), it shows that it is possible to monitor accurately. AT&T does not want to do this, as it can easily overbill users, and make more money. They probably aritifically inflate the data count with padding packets. A good test would be to have a service line with them, and then have nothing on it for several months, leaving only the DSL modem on, and nothing connected to it. I suspect that this is AT$T charging you for standard routing protocols and communications between the DSL modem and the DSLAM/headend. Any users of AT$T try this yet?


cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

That's not going to work. If it has an IP address, there will be traffic hitting it. You cannot escape being scanned.



Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1

said by cramer:

That's not going to work. If it has an IP address, there will be traffic hitting it. You cannot escape being scanned.

I think his point is leave the service running without the customer using it and see what ATT says is being used. It's quite obvious it's going to get some data flow.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK

That brings up another point. Where's the legality in charging people for unwanted traffic they did not originate and have zero interest in receiving? Since it costs them money, it immediately in legal terms equates damage.

You know, I really hope a whole host of lawsuits is filed over this type of crap.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini



rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105

Re: unwanted traffic

That's been my opposition to UBB ever since it was conceived. The lartc.org site puts it well in that controlling (traffic shaping) an Internet connection is analogous to the postal services: you can influence but not control what's mailed to you, and one only controls how much one sends. One can attach a traffic policer to ingress queues so that applications only receive data at some rate, but that's not necessarily related to how much gets shoved down the line at you. So it is with all the potential traffic generators on the Internet. Suppose someone picks your address at pseudorandom and decides to flood ping you, or repeatedly tries to p0wn your computer...didn't ask for the traffic but I get it anyway, and no reasonable means to make the upstream stop.

It would also be interesting if a carrier (e.g. AT&T) ends up charging you for traffic the company itself generated, such as Web site ads or promotional emails.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.

Jeopardy! replies and randomcaps REALLY suck!



dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to pnh102

Re: Lemme Guess

said by pnh102:

I'm willing to bet that in 100% of these cases, the meter claims the user always used more than he actually did use.

And the meters will ALWAYS count a kilobit as 1000 bits, not 1024 to get those overages rolling in faster!
--
The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to Cheese

The point is, there will never be zero usage. And it only takes one byte to go over the limit.

150GB equates to 6.67% of the capacity of my DSL Extreme 6.0 DSL connection. I don't know where on Earth anyone would tolerate any company charging like that. Would you like to be charged for 100gal of gas for every gal you actually got from the pump? I don't f'ing think so. And that is why I will NEVER do business with AT&T EVER again.

Again, if it really were about network health and congestion, how the hell does charging people an extra fee anytime they cross an imaginary line (that they may not even be aware of, and may not know they're approaching) do anything to improve network health and/or reduce congestion? The answer is that it doesn't. An extra fee does nothing to improve the situation; we're still "f***ing up the network." They're just putting more money in their prockets -- to the tune of 2.5-5mil per year per million subscribers (assuming their 2% number is true.) Come Sept. when the first bills start being paid and they see just how much cash it's creating, the caps will drop; when people adjust their usage to avoid the caps, the caps, again, will drop.

(If they wanted to improve their network and fix these problems, they have the profits to do so (granted, that's all of AT&T) -- and have for many years. But that means they have to stop putting that money in their own executive pockets.)



pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
reply to KrK

said by KrK:

You know, I really hope a whole host of lawsuits is filed over this type of crap.

Agreed. If you're gonna pay by the bit, then there's no way people should be charged for bits they do not want.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to pnh102

said by pnh102:

I'm willing to bet that in 100% of these cases, the meter claims the user always used more than he actually did use.

The ATT meter is probably severely delayed. Its probably polled only a couple times a week or a couple times a month.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to pnh102

Good for you. Public IP address is now $12.95 per month with incoming traffic wavier. Otherwise you get a safe firewalled private IP that gets zero incoming traffic.



Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
reply to KrK

Yup, should be like cell-phone telemarketers. You don't get them because it's illegal. If you do, they have broken the law and you can sue.
--
My Blog 2.2



Gbcue
Premium
join:2001-09-30
Santa Rosa, CA
kudos:8
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to patcat88

said by patcat88:

said by pnh102:

I'm willing to bet that in 100% of these cases, the meter claims the user always used more than he actually did use.

The ATT meter is probably severely delayed. Its probably polled only a couple times a week or a couple times a month.

Too slow for practical usage.
--
My Blog 2.2

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9
reply to Gbcue

That used to be true, but with all the number porting these days, it's next to impossible to tell a number is "cell" just by looking at it. In the old days, you could look at an NPANXX and know what CO it's going to.



Someone34987

@comcast.net

said by cramer:

That used to be true, but with all the number porting these days, it's next to impossible to tell a number is "cell" just by looking at it. In the old days, you could look at an NPANXX and know what CO it's going to.

Iirc the FTC makes available a list of former landline numbers ported to wireless. There are other ways to make the determination as well using telco databases.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

Like I thought but didn't type... "unless you have a live copy of the LNP database(s)." (and those are NOT free.)



shawnmb

@sbcglobal.net
reply to KrK

The same could be argued for mobile carriers who double dip on a text message fee charging both the sender and receiver, even if the message is unsolicited on the receiver's end... how long have they been getting away with that?



Ref

@bellsouth.net
reply to cramer

Re: Leemme Guess

LOL, in order:

1. You have to have 150Gb and 1 byte to go over the cap.
2. You are not paying for a 6Mb real time/ full time connection. You are paying for a consumer grade shared use service and thinking you get to hog the whole thing. You cost about 20 times the revenue you generate.
3. Buy a real 6 Gb connection and you won't have a cap. It will cost about $1250.
4. AT&T will not mourn the passing on of someone exceeding the cap. Do them a real favor and go to their competition, they will throw a party. Just don't come to my company, we are a couple of months away from implementing our caps and I don't want you messing up my network.
5. Did you even read what you said about their profit margins? If it is correct, that means they make less than $5 per year per customer. Less than a dollar a month is zero margin and you are costing them $1000 or so more than you generate ? Goodbye is a good turn of phrase for you.
6. 50% of cap affected users will adjust their usage patterns appropriately, the rest will leave. Only a few usage charges will be applied, but the management and cost control will help in the long term.
7. You will not see additional profits being plowed into wireline of any sort. It is also not possible to actually get 10 MB with wireless to every user. Physics doesn't really go there because of a variety of cost and bandwidth issues. Yes you can do it inside your home, but it is a big issue with doing it outside to individual users in a non shared setting.
8. Caps have already been litigated. You can litigate again and throw your money away, but the result will be the same.


cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:9

2. You are not paying for a 6Mb real time/ full time connection. You are paying for a consumer grade shared use service and thinking you get to hog the whole thing. You cost about 20 times the revenue you generate.
3. Buy a real 6 Gb connection and you won't have a cap. It will cost about $1250.

No, it's not an SLA'd 6Mbps connection. It's "up to 6meg", which means AT&T has every right to make it slower. If there really were congestion issues, then charging people more money for crossing an imaginary line is a complete failure. It doesn't do jack for the their congestion issues; people can (and will) still use whatever is available to them. And they didn't tier the caps... it's the same 150GB line for 6meg as it is 768k customers. If there's no congestion (and there's no evidence that there is), then the network has the capacity to give people what they want to use.

Obviously, it's about money. And getting the sheep used to having caps with overage charges. Sure, it hits "2%" today -- which is a significant increase in revenue which is 100% profit -- but it will start hitting more and more people over time... network usage is going up, and those caps will be going down.

4. AT&T will not mourn the passing on of someone exceeding the cap. Do them a real favor and go to their competition, they will throw a party. Just don't come to my company, we are a couple of months away from implementing our caps and I don't want you messing up my network.

I'm not the only one pissed off by this. They will lose measurable amount of revenue because of this bullshit. I use next to nothing on my DSL line, yet due to this bullshit, they are losing me as a customer for everything. forever. (and I'm not the only one.)

5. Did you even read what you said about their profit margins? If it is correct, that means they make less than $5 per year per customer. Less than a dollar a month is zero margin and you are costing them $1000 or so more than you generate ? Goodbye is a good turn of phrase for you.

Yet another person who fails totally at math.

6. 50% of cap affected users will adjust their usage patterns appropriately, the rest will leave. Only a few usage charges will be applied, but the management and cost control will help in the long term.

I think this is going to backfire MASSIVELY. A lot of people are already leaving. Many who don't come anywhere near the (current) line are leaving. Those that cross the line will be searching for a different ISP, and failing that do what they can to reduce usage.

7. You will not see additional profits being plowed into wireline of any sort.

*cough*UVERSE*cough* Yes, as I've said many times, it's epicly stupid and shortsighted to invest in all that VDSL gear to keep using 3000 year old copper instead of working towards FTTH that actually has a long-term future.