 Beans
join:2005-07-16
united state | iTunes I would love to see Apple do a streaming service for a monthly fee. Maybe with AT@T. | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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. | |
|
 |  ShadowMastrMaster Of All Shadows
join:2001-09-01
Fort Pierce, FL | 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.
My thinking exactly. They keep shouting about how there is a bandwidth shortage, and the world is ready to collapse because we all use too much of it, yet they still introduce more and more ways to use more bandwidth at faster rates. Nothing oxymoronic or coincidental here, just business as usual for them.
They bank (literally) on the average consumer not noticing the layers of wool being pulled over their eyes, and they are very successful at it.
I used to be sure that people would eventually wake up and see all this for themselves, but It's just going further and further with no end in site. Seems people would rather get another job to pay for all this instead of realizing they shouldn't have to pay so much for so little.
--
Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell
I reject your Reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbuster | |
|
| | | | Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... just check what happened in Canada with Bell and their VDSL with 'fibe' and on demand + TV and bandwidth caps. | |
|
| brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Because those bits and bytes are in short supply and you know paying for them will allow them to generate more. | |
|
| | | There are no bandwidth caps being enforced for U-verse internet; therefore, there is nothing to explain. | |
|
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | 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 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
1 edit | Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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. | |
|
| | | | 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
| Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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. | |
|
| | | elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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
| Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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 | Re: Now let's see how the hypocrites explain this... 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | I will have to check it out... Currently they want between $4 and $9 for onDemand movies, which is quite ridiculous and funny. They can't compete with Redbox with that rate in my opinion as there are so many of them around one surely is within a couple minutes making the $2+ dollar savings worth the trip. | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Awesome, so another average-at-best try at something that is destined to fail...all the while allowing AT&T to bring up my rates in the near future? | |
|
| | Welcome to the neighborhood... Can you spell "me too" boys and girls? ...I knew you could. 
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!" | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Not going to catch on It's not going to catch on with much more limited device support than Netflix. | |
|
| BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Re: Not going to catch on That, and U-Verse sucks in the first place. | |
|
etaadmin
join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1 | Can't wait to see how overly compressed the video streams will be. | |
|
| | out of limits for u-verse internet only subscribers u-basic or higher required. meh. | |
|
|  r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX | Re: out of limits for u-verse internet only subscribers Which makes no sense.
If you cant get Uverse TV but have UVerse internet then why would they not offer this to you??
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·Mediacom
·T-Mobile US
| Re: out of limits for u-verse internet only subscribers I can get TV, but Im saving money for vacations instead. I don't watch a lot of tv or even rental movies so for me paying >$50 for something I dont use a lot doesn't make sense. While they offer a local package for $20 a month, you still have to pay for installation if you go for lowest package, extra $10/m for HD and this basic package is a lot slimmer than Comcast's, it even won't include Comedy Central. | |
|
|
| | | Re: Pointless u-verse tv is att's big cash cow. They only did that so you would order their movies not just when you at home, and in addition for that they ask extra $5 a month. Isn't comcast or fios ondemand online free? They like to charge absurd fees. | |
|
 Sr TechPremium
join:2003-01-19
New Fairfield, CT | No Thank you With netflix I can stream from anywhere (Wii, Android, PC, Xbox and so on). Att should rethink what Netflix can actually do that they do not provide in other areas, again maybe that's why they chose to charge $5 not $8. | |
|
| | u-verse screen pack free trial started yesterday...the movies are beyond old. straight to dvd b movies.... THIS IS NOT A NETFLIX SUBSTITUTE by any MEANS... only some of the movies are in HD, anything that is currently on television is not available. they do have different catagories etc.. you can watch them on your android, tablet etcs... but to be honest...they took the oldest movies they could find. my daughter and i were reduced to watching ,,"THE GIRL WITH BRAINS IN HER FEET"....... YOU KNOW ITS BAD WHEN THEY HAVE NOT ONE DISNEY MOVIE ON THE LIST. IM DISCONNECTING BY THE 13TH AND MAYBE COME BACK IN A FEW YEARS~!!!! | |
|
|
|
·
·