elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to skeechan
Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... said by skeechan:They have low caps for "bandwidth management"...wonder if their streaming service will count against their cap or will they tacitly admit the only reason for the caps is to protect their video business from competitors like Netflix, Apple and Amazon.
Dense much?
AT&T's service is not traversing the public internet.
When Netflix, et al, co-market their services with local caching at AT&T, Verizon, and the CableCos, they too, can enjoy cap-free assured delivery. |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Dense much? BW from the CO or other AT&T infrastructure to the Publik Internetz is DIRT CHEAP, pennies per GB yet they charge $10 for 50GB, whether you actually use all 50GB or not. So whether it is locally cached or not makes no difference in the cost to deliver a streamed program. A 4GB HD program is pennies and subscribers already pay to deliver the content.
So obviously their overage fees have ZERO to do with managing network traffic and everything to do with protecting video revenues. Use our service, not theirs and we do that by pricing competitors out of the market through the use of caps and unjustifiable overage penalties. |
|
| reply to elray
Really? So they are only trying to stop congestion between them and companies like level 3 that has much more bandwidth then they do? I assume they are doing this at Level 3's request right? So when I am using net traffic that never leaves AT&T's network, that doesnt count too?
said by elray:When Netflix, et al, co-market their services with local caching at AT&T, Verizon, and the CableCos, they too, can enjoy cap-free assured delivery. We are going with the traversing public internet argument again huh? I think really what you are saying by your very dense statement here is that it is OK to violate net neutrality and to only deliver traffic for "free" that you have extorted money from the company for.
How about we flip this and say when AT&T, Verizon and the CableCos decide to start paying Netflix to put caching services on their networks to assist them in reducing their transit cost (if they have any) and to provide a superior service to their ISP consumers?
What consumers of AT&T, Verizon and the CableCos want falls on them to provide as the ISP. It does not fall on the object of those consumers desire to make sure the ISP will provide them the intertube. That is not the internet, which those ISP's are a part of and are the service they are selling. If they want to break off and create their own portal with their own walled garden so be it. But be sure they speak with AOL before doing so to see how that will go. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| What Netflix ought to do is drop AT&T ESPN3 style. Have AT&T, no Netflix for you and AT&T customer will cancel right and left. Google should do the same. Facebook should do the same. No content provider should tolerate AT&T extortion attempts when it is AT&T's customers who have already paid for and are requesting the content be delivered.
Without content, AT&T subscribers don't need AT&T's service. |
|
| reply to skeechan
said by skeechan:So obviously their overage fees have ZERO to do with managing network traffic and everything to do with protecting video revenues. Use our service, not theirs and we do that by pricing competitors out of the market through the use of caps and unjustifiable overage penalties.
Let's try this again. There are no bandwidth caps OR overage fees being applied to U-verse internet. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·VOIPo
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·PHONE POWER
| said by Rangersfan :Let's try this again. There are no bandwidth caps OR overage fees being applied to U-verse internet.
I suspect that's only because their friends at Time Warner threw them a curve ball, and are currently claiming that they will maintain the availability of an unlimited tier.
When TWC did trials of very low caps in Beaumont, TX, AT&T followed suit, lock-in-step, in the same area. AT&T had the marketing material for a 250GB U-verse cap ready to go.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.
|
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
1 edit | People should actually read their terms of service.
»www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp···ahUXQ-id
If they aren't being billed, it's just because AT&T hasn't figured out how to do it yet.
said by ATT :
If you exceed your data plan in any subsequent billing period, we'll provide you with an additional 50 GB of data for $10. You'll be charged $10 for every incremental 50 GB of usage beyond your plan.
Importantly, if you do not receive a notice from AT&T, it means that you have not exceeded your data plan. In some cases, it may mean that we cannot measure your usage yet. Either way, you should not be concerned about your usage patterns for billing purposes.
Meanwhile that 50GB costs them pennies and they charge $10 whether you use 100KB of it or all of it. And while AT&T claims this is for bandwidth management we all know it is utter bullshit. Don't worry about getting ripped off for overage penalties until we figure out how to rip you off. Nice. |
|
| Baloney. There is no issue with not knowing how to bill. Several ISP's have overage clauses in their terms of service agreements, but those clauses are not enforced.
I see that you are not a U-verse customer, so it is understandable that you do not know the facts. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:Really? So they are only trying to stop congestion between them and companies like level 3 that has much more bandwidth then they do? I assume they are doing this at Level 3's request right? So when I am using net traffic that never leaves AT&T's network, that doesnt count too?
said by elray:When Netflix, et al, co-market their services with local caching at AT&T, Verizon, and the CableCos, they too, can enjoy cap-free assured delivery. We are going with the traversing public internet argument again huh? I think really what you are saying by your very dense statement here is that it is OK to violate net neutrality and to only deliver traffic for "free" that you have extorted money from the company for. Network neutrality applies to public internet traffic only.
Period. |
|
|
|
| The entire internet is public, stop trying to make this more confusing to fit your desire to create pay tolls. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| Meanwhile it is all completely irrelevant since AT&T's subscribers ALREADY PAY FOR DELIVERY OF THE CONTENT. The cost of delivery of an additional GB of content is virtually ZERO.
The ONLY reason they cap and charge overages is to defend their video revenues. It isn't a coincidence that AT&T wasn't interested in capping until they became a video services provider. |
|
1 edit | said by skeechan:The ONLY reason they cap and charge overages is to defend their video revenues. It isn't a coincidence that AT&T wasn't interested in capping until they became a video services provider.
I will repeat, there are no bandwidth caps or overage fees being applied to U-verse internet. |
|
| reply to skeechan
Not sure why I cant respond to you directly Fan, but yes currently they do not meter because they can't get their crap straight to do it correctly and accurately.
However, once they figure that out they will enforce the caps that they have inserted into their TOS. |
|
skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| 
Clock is ticking fanboys |
The fact is the caps and overage penalties are AT&T policy. |
|
