site Search:


 
   
story category
More Specifics On AT&T's Cap Plans
20GB, 40GB, 60GB, 80GB and 150GB caps
by Karl Bode Thursday 06-Nov-2008 tags: dsl · business · bandwidth · caps · AT&T U-Verse · AT&T Southeast · AT&T Midwest
Tipped by djrobx See Profile
Earlier this week, we reported that AT&T was planning a trail of caps and $1 per gigabyte overage fees in the Reno, Nevada market, with plans to expand the trial into one additional market before the end of the year. djrob See Profile writes in to note that AT&T has defined their new limits in more detail, and have confirmed that the caps will also impact their U-Verse VDSL service. The new usage allowances, according to AT&T's FAQ for trial participants (see screenshot below if the link doesn't work for you):

Click for full size
AT&T Basic (DSL only) Up-to 768 Kbps 20 GB per month
AT&T Express Up-to 1.5 Mbps 40 GB per month
AT&T Pro Up-to 3.0 Mbps 60 GB per month
AT&T Elite Up-to 6.0 Mbps 80 GB per month
AT&T Max (U-verse only) Up-to 10.0 Mbps 150 GB per month

It's not precisely clear if AT&T has already decided to move forward with the caps and is simply testing the billing and network systems, or if they're seriously looking at consumer reaction before moving forward. If, like Time Warner Cable, the idea is to simply test and refine the marketing message to better sell consumers on caps, that shouldn't be too hard -- most consumers don't even know what a gigabyte is.

Update: We're seeing a lot of inbound hits from Cracked users, who should note this article is from a trial AT&T attempted in 2008. Details on AT&T's 2011 effort to implement metered billing can be found here.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:
page: 1 · 2 · 3

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4

80 for Elite?

No way. If that is their idea I will switch back to the local cable company. 80 gb is RIDICULOUS.

morgan1112

join:2003-04-07
Round Rock, TX

1 edit

Re: 80 for Elite?

I agree! These Caps are way too low. 250GB or 500GB is much more reasonable. Or, better yet don't cap anything at all.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
why not switch now? unless your local cable co has even lower caps?

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
Reviews:
·VOIPo

Re: 80 for Elite?

I am not sure of their caps, so I will have to ping them.

Two reasons actually. One is price vs speed. For 6/512 they charge $45 I belive, for 5.1/656 on ATT it is $35. I also use VoIP and I have found that the quality on DSL is superior to cable....

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

Re: 80 for Elite?

are you dry loop or does that include pots with 50% taxes and unfees?

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
Reviews:
·VOIPo

Re: 80 for Elite?

Not dry loop. We come out to about $52 after the line, taxes etc.
To get the discounted rate on the cable tier, I need to have basic cable service which won't work as I have Directv.

So $39.95 for 6/512 (my bad on the other price) plus $51.05 for basic cable. Never mind what it would cost to terminate the DTV service. Just doesn't make sense. But should the caps hit my area, away I go.
--
"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
when this first came out I though 150 GB for 6 Mbps was ok but only 80 GB? Well at&t guaranteed they won't be getting MY business. If that crap comes here. Sorry U-verse is probably 10 years away for me.

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
This is where I _really_ find that the cap ratio isn't consistent.

768kbps - 20GB (1Mbps:26GB)
1.5Mbps - 40GB (1Mbps:26GB)
3.0Mbps - 60GB (1Mbps:20GB) - getting worse
6.0Mbps - 80GB (1Mbps:13GB) - worse yet
10.0Mbps - 150 (1Mbps:15GB) - not much better

I would expect the cap ratio to actually get 'better' as the price and speed increases... not worse.

If they kept the ratio consistent across the board, here's what it would look like:

768kbps - 20GB (1Mbps:26GB)
1.5Mbps - 40GB (1Mbps:26GB)
3.0Mbps - 80GB (1Mbps:26GB)
6.0Mbps - 160GB (1Mbps:26GB)
10.0Mbps - 260GB (1Mbps:26GB)

tad2020

join:2007-07-17
Orange, CA

Re: 80 for Elite?

That would make more sense.

I just had a DSL line installed for my work at another office. I ordered pro, but the max sync is only 2160kbps (was 1650kbps till I complained for 2 weeks and got them to change the circuit). I'm paying $40/m for that but I got a deal, the normal price Pro with a single dynamic IP is now $52/m.
I'm likely to push around 100-400GB of data over than line a month. If this caps get applied to their business lines, they're going to loose a lot of business.

And uVerse too?!? Well forget that shit then, I was considering switching from TWC to uVerse Max, but if they're going to cap it, they can just go ahead and remove their VRAD from my neighborhood, I won't care.

joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday

join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by en102:

This is where I _really_ find that the cap ratio isn't consistent.
Interesting observation. But - what actually costs? The speed or transfer? I use less than 10GB/mo, but wouldn't want to have under 1Mbs service. Tying the two together doesn't make that much sense to me.
Joe
jimbo2150

join:2004-05-10
Euclid, OH
I switched from ATT a while back to my local cable co. They have no caps. I really have to ask it again... DO THEY REALLY NEED CAPS? They continually claim that less than 1% of users use an excessive ammount... so if 99.X% of users are underutilizing what they bought and 0.X% uses over, is it really cutting away all of their profits? REALLY?
--

- "Techie" Jim

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com
said by ptrowski:

No way. If that is their idea I will switch back to the local cable company. 80 gb is RIDICULOUS.
I am in the same boat and I agree with you. I would call Comcast in a heartbeat and sign up for cable modem service before I would go with AT&T in that situation. Their 250gb cap is much more friendly. While more expensive, I know comcast works great in our area and I know I would get more bang for the buck so to speak.

The ball is in AT&Ts court here.

pspcrazy
Anime Freak

join:2008-02-06
San Diego, CA

Re: 80 for Elite?

Please don't fall into their game of actually fighting over which cap is better. Try to find something uncapped instead.

Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
·Site5.com

Re: 80 for Elite?

said by pspcrazy:

Please don't fall into their game of actually fighting over which cap is better. Try to find something uncapped instead.
Unfortunately, a lot of people won't have that option. Besides, the uncapped solution may not be the best. Just because its uncapped doesn't mean its what you should buy. Case in point, I could go with a 3rd party DSL provider that is uncapped in this area, but if I do, I will be limited to 768k. Is that worth it? Not to me.

Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT

1 edit
said by ptrowski:

No way. If that is their idea I will switch back to the local cable company. 80 gb is RIDICULOUS.
Seeing you've been one of their biggest critics....how are you feeling about comcasts 250 gig cap in comparison now?

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
Reviews:
·VOIPo

Re: 80 for Elite?

said by Rick:

said by ptrowski:

No way. If that is their idea I will switch back to the local cable company. 80 gb is RIDICULOUS.
Seeing you've been one of their biggest critics....how are you feeling about comcasts 250 gig cap in comparison now?
Rick! I was wondering when I would see you.

First things first, I am more a critic of your blatant shilling. No one takes such an interest in an ISP unless they are affiliated with them.

That being said, obviously 250 gb is better than 80 gb, no questions asked. Luckily they are trials in one market now, and I am not capped at this time. Should it be rolled out market wide like Comcast has done then I will look elsewhere.
--
"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT

Re: 80 for Elite?

hmm..funny that you refer to my warnings about AT&T uverse for the last 2 years as "shilling" for Comcast.

I'd call my predictions dead on accurate when it comes to how they should have rolled out FTTH instead. You..on the other hand..countered every post I made as being wrong.

Was I wrong about docsis 3.0 and how fast it would be coming out? It sure doesn't look that way..does it?
Was I wrong about how slow and outdated uverse would look in comparison..especially with this being AT&T's "next" generation service? It sure doesn't look that way.

And, was I wrong about Comcasts 250 gig "caps" as being extremely generous given what the competition would offer?
It sure doesn't look that way.

Instead..what we now have is you..in your own words..saying
how ridiculous AT&T is for proposing this. And how you'll be bailing on them and switching to your cable company instead.

Mr Ptrowski..it looks like you've agreed with me the whole time.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic!

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
Reviews:
·VOIPo

Re: 80 for Elite?

Hardly. Your "warnings" to AT&T are not in their own right shilling. Heck, I would take them as useful information if ot were not for all the other BS you spout. When 5% is good information but the other 95% is junk, you tend to lose site of the good parts.

The speeds for Uverse are going up as we saw. They are moving forward with higher tiers. How is that bad Rick? And don;t forget that in new developments AT&T IS deploying FTTP. Granted the speed tiers are the saem as Uverse, but they are doing fiber in select areas.

Right now it is a trial. HOPEFULLY is does not go across the boards as the cable companies have done. Right now I am not capped, I hope it stays that way. So 250 gigs is good, but my current uncapped system is better. No collars around my neck yet.

If you find my opposing the proposed caps for AT&T being in agreement with you, then so be it. I oppose caps across the boards.

Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT

1 edit

Re: 80 for Elite?

The speeds are going UP Mr Ptrowski because they apparently want people to not watch tv while surfing their 18Mb uverse service. How else would you get 18Mb speeds out of a 25Mb Line?

You would ALSO get it by having to then CAP people at "ridiculous" levels..so ridiculous that the 20Mb cap is not even ONE TENTH what Comcast "caps" at.

The limitations of this "next generation" Uverse service are falling apart by the minute as they desperately try to be anything at all in this new world of broadband being introduced by verizon with their FTTH service..and comcast with docsis 3.0.
Exactly..as I predicted it would. Up to 2 years ago..unless they heeded the suggestion that they MUST begin a FTTH rollout.

Now..they pay they price.

And nowhere is that more evident than in YOUR own statement..about how YOU will be bailing on them.

Said by Ptrowski:
"No way. If that is their idea I will switch back to the local cable company. 80 gb is RIDICULOUS."

You're right Ptrowski.
Absolutely right.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
Reviews:
·VOIPo

Re: 80 for Elite?

Again, although at the same speeds you forget that they ARE deploying FTTH. There are some AT&T customers that have fiber. I assume you forgot that.

I don't want Uverse TV. I have Directv and have no need for their services. So I would take the higher speeds.

Let me break it down to small sentences for you.

Ptrowski = no current caps.
Rick = current caps
Caps = bad
More speed = good for everyone*

*ANY speed increases in the broadband world as a whole is good. It promotes competition which benefits everyone. Do I need to wrap that sentence in a brick and bang you over the head with it?
--
"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org

imakeholsinu

join:2008-01-24
Saint Louis, MO
This will violate their TOS.

powerspec88
Premium
join:2007-03-11
Lenexa, KS
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet

why so low?

I just don't get it, they have to know that Comcast is at 250GB. 80GB for my 6Mbps DSL wont get me very far at all. Now if and only if they do this, i will be switching to Comcast (the only other ISP i can get) just so i can download more per month.
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: why so low?

said by powerspec88:

I just don't get it, they have to know that Comcast is at 250GB. 80GB for my 6Mbps DSL wont get me very far at all. Now if and only if they do this, i will be switching to Comcast (the only other ISP i can get) just so i can download more per month.
the answer is in your post - "the only other ISP I can get".

you are lucky, as most people have no other choice. the incumbents can do this because there is very little competition.

because you do have an incumbent competitor in your area (comcast), it is possible ATT either won't implement caps in your area or will make them higher.
Madtown
Premium
join:2008-04-26
Madera, CA

Re: why so low?

said by nasadude:

said by powerspec88:

I just don't get it, they have to know that Comcast is at 250GB. 80GB for my 6Mbps DSL wont get me very far at all. Now if and only if they do this, i will be switching to Comcast (the only other ISP i can get) just so i can download more per month.
the answer is in your post - "the only other ISP I can get".

you are lucky, as most people have no other choice. the incumbents can do this because there is very little competition.

because you do have an incumbent competitor in your area (comcast), it is possible ATT either won't implement caps in your area or will make them higher.
I have Comcast too in my area, does that mean AT&T will make my cap higher too?
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: why so low?

I don't actually know, I'm just guessing. You would think ATT would be crazy to implement a very low cap in areas where comcast competes with them, as people could change to comcast to get the higher cap.

on the other hand, as is pointed out, a large percentage of people don't even know what a gigabit is, so talk about a "cap" would be meaningless to them.

cookeys
Premium,MVM
join:2001-06-10
Orland Park, IL

Re: why so low?

said by nasadude:

I don't actually know, I'm just guessing. You would think ATT would be crazy to implement a very low cap in areas where comcast competes with them, as people could change to comcast to get the higher cap.

on the other hand, as is pointed out, a large percentage of people don't even know what a gigabit is, so talk about a "cap" would be meaningless to them.
But if ATT does go ahead with such ridiculously low caps in Comcast's areas, I can guarantee you that Comcast will gladly educate anyone who will listen as to the differences between 250 and 80. ATT would have to be crazy to implement such low caps in areas with competition.

powerspec88
Premium
join:2007-03-11
Lenexa, KS
But i would rather not switch as AT&T's routing is far better than Comcast. Thats the main reason im still with AT&T and not Comcast even though i love the speeds of Comcast.

juilinsandar
Texas Gooner
Premium
join:2000-07-17
San Benito, TX
Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
Time Warner is the only other real competitor to AT&T in my area, and their caps, from what I've read, could be even more stringent than AT&T's.
--
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Sir Winston Churchill
radougherty

join:1999-07-23
Austin, TX

Re: why so low?

said by juilinsandar:

Time Warner is the only other real competitor to AT&T in my area, and their caps, from what I've read, could be even more stringent than AT&T's.
You might want to check out Earthlink via TWC vs their Road Runner. AFAIK Earthlink hasn't said anything about caps yet.

Ogy101

@prserv.net

Re: why so low?

I inquired about Earthlink's caps and was told they are the same as TWC.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
said by juilinsandar:

Time Warner is the only other real competitor to AT&T in my area, and their caps, from what I've read, could be even more stringent than AT&T's.
Well I guess if you get BOTH at&t and TW you'll get somewhat halfway decent internet. Goingot cost you over $100 amonth but hey was advance when we can party like it's 1995.

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
said by juilinsandar:

Time Warner is the only other real competitor to AT&T in my area, and their caps, from what I've read, could be even more stringent than AT&T's.
Nice sig by the way! Its very close in principal to my old sig (below), and holds very true in the world today.

quote:
If history teaches us anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly.
-Ronald Reagan-
People need to wake up and realize what we are facing. Sorry to diverge, back to the discussion!
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
said by juilinsandar:

Time Warner is the only other real competitor to AT&T in my area, and their caps, from what I've read, could be even more stringent than AT&T's.
TimeWarner do not have usage caps, they are running a trial in Beaumont, TX but nothing has been decided yet. On the other hand AT&T's trials look more serious and maybe they will be implemented much faster... AT&T is hinting a at a second trial market before 2008. I foresee more markets added to the list in the first quarter of 2009.

Personally, I think cablecos use caps to scare away bandwidth hogs and steer them to the telcos. Unfortunately AT&T's slow reaction to this situation will make them look like the bad guys (which they are).
Sammer

join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA

2 edits
Re: why so low?

Because AT&T doesn't just want to make more revenue they also want to restrain potential competition to their overpriced services. Restraint of Trade is in their genetic code.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4

1 edit

The FAQ is FU'ed.

I get this when I log in.

"Contents not available. "

When I try to check my usage, I get this.

"
Error: We're sorry, but your Internet usage cannot be retrieved at this time. Please check back later. "

djrobx

join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2

1 edit

Re: The FAQ is FU'ed.

I get that too, but I can still click on the FAQ link on the righthand side.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.

ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4

Re: The FAQ is FU'ed.

I saw the front page was changed. It is for people in the trial.

RRMAN
Premium
join:2007-04-02
Cleveland, OH

I am glad

Now all the whiners here and elsewhere can shut up! They whined when the cable company's were doing their trials that I am going to ATT. Well now what are you going to do. NOTHING!!! Shut up and live with it!
--
Two people shorten a road.

See 8 replies to this post

Shelleyp

@sbcglobal.net

Caps are not proportionate

The caps are suspicious. They demonstrate more that the company is concerned about video over the internet competing with UVerse, than they are worried about costs.

For instance, the cap difference between Elite and Max, which is UVerse only, is not proportional, compared to the other cap limits. In addition, the cap for Elite makes any use of the tier for video--which is what ATT recommends for that tier--infeasible. It's too small.

My hope is that something opens up based on the white space FCC ruling, and we have increased options. In the meantime, I'm looking at moving back to Charter in my area, because 80GB is too unreasonable.

See 6 replies to this post

Mr Anon

@k12.il.us

Exemptions, why?

I don't know why everyone was thinking that U-Verse would be exempt, the TV and Internet networks are completely different and should be easily countable. what I'd hate to see is an abuse policy for External DVR users who set up maintenance recordings so the boxes never turn off...

That brings up a good argument, I subscribe to TV, 200 Channels, do you tell me how much TV I can watch? Why are we being metered for the Internet in two ways? Our bandwidth is our channel package, the use would be the number of hours we watch. I think it should be one or the other, either you should charge me by my channel package/bandwidth, or give me everything, all channels, all bandwidth, and charge me by how much I view/use.

All these Internet rants and opinions are always dumb in some way so I'm just going to stop
Lion84

join:2007-08-10
Marietta, GA

Re: Exemptions, why?

Excellent point. As I understand it, the U-Verse box gets the command from the user to say, go to channel 2. The box sends a command to the headend (or whatever the equivalent proper terminology may be) requesting the data stream for channel 2. That data stream is then sent to the box. To me this is analogous to clicking on a Youtube link or Netflix icon to stream video to my computer. Why then should the user not be “capped” as to how much TV they can watch in a given time, say, per month? Probably because of competition – with cable there is always that “data stream” being sent to the box (or QAM receiver) so it isn’t like accessing that stream “fills the pipe.” Therefore it makes no sense for cable TV to “cap” viewing. But why not for U-Verse?

This could turn out to be the Achilles heel of either U-Verse, or caps, or both. If a lawsuit is put forth stating that the caps are not applied to TV services and data services equally, would that not either force U-Verse to cap TV viewing (unacceptable competition-wise to cable) or remove caps entirely? If it could be shown that TV viewing via Internet and via U-Verse TV service is analogous, then what does that say about caps?

The supplier is essentially saying that I have a 3mb download pipe for Internet but I cannot use it 24/7. Granted that most people likely would not use their U-Verse (or any) TV service 24/7, but the question remains, at what point is TV viewing considered “excessive,” and if TV viewing cannot be considered excessive under any circumstance, why not?

viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL

Enhance the users experience

It is all about enhancing the users experience. I thought enhancing was about making something better not worse.
--
Got Change? Better hide it before Obama taxes it!
jkeelsnc

join:2008-08-22
Greensboro, NC

Watch Out

Dear AT&T,

I keep posting this to you. I hope you are reading. I repeat what I have said before now that I see what is really in the works. If you implement these caps I will leave. You will lose a customer. This is not good value for my money with caps.

Have a good day.

See 9 replies to this post

thxultra

@att.net

Talk with your pocket book

Here at&t goes again raising prices. Talk loudly with your pocket book. If they do this in my area I will not only cancel my internet but my phone service and cell service also. If enough people do this they will change there tune really fast.

esc0

@newskies.net

Re: Talk with your pocket book

I agree with you, but it won't happen. As much as folks in America complain they still use the service which in these times most communications are now being done online. I live in west Texas and don't have much options but ATT or TWC. At the sametime I am sure some folks in rural America either has one or no options. But I hear you that if we all spoke with our check books they would realize who is really in control. I am currently working in Afghanistan as a contractor and we have 128Kbs out here ranging from $35US-$100US. It's satellite and it sux, but I am sure if we all used satellite in US the Telco and Cable companies would scratch their heads wondering why? So many disadvantages of course using satellite but it would send a message.............I hope.

Postal Worker

@pacbell.net

What about business class?

What about "business class" customers with static the static IP accounts?

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

Re: What about business class?

they know better than to mess with them. businesses are much less likely to change and when they do finally change, it's for a long time (unlike consumers that will switch back and forth every year).
etaadmin

join:2002-01-17
Dallas, TX
kudos:1
said by Postal Worker :

What about "business class" customers with static the static IP accounts?
Good question.

Before we switched to a TimeWarner road runner bus account 15/2 5 static IP we had a SBC 6000/600 5 static IP account and the monthly traffic was easily over 100GB (web servers, mail, DNS servers, SSH, FTP, VoIP, etc)

My guess is that AT&T will leave business accounts alone. We used to pay $210/Mo with SBC and now we pay $180/Mo for more upload and download speeds and the same number of static IPs.

I think $210/Mo is a fair price to pay for being a bandwidth hog or a business customer.
felony44

join:2003-11-06
Eastlake, OH

Caps

My question is when/if caps are put in place the first (capped Bill) you get might be way higher than your normal bill due to your usage. What they need to do is start sending you your usage (in your bill like the electric co.) 6 months before they put the caps in,this way you know on average how bandwith you use. Either way if caps are put in place im gone

jsm1234

@optonline.net

considering ROI will mean the best of services to come..

My feelings on this..

If a company offers phone, internet & TV, do you think their going to want to build their internal network faster/better to help competition engulf their other offerings while over time, they'll probably end up charging the same for a faster network due to competition.

If I owned this company (and believe me, I don't), I would definately think caps are necessary. caps are not just for limits on bandwidth to suffice others so they have available capacity, but also to make sure they don't build a network that hurts their bottom line in the long run.

Think of this though, looking out for the bottom line in an environment where there is even 1 competitor, and if their bottom line is not threatened, you will get the best of the best.. best features, support, technology, etc. cause their is major reward then, in holding on to you as a customer.

MTBikerChris
Premium
join:2001-08-28
Broomfield, CO
Reviews:
·Comcast

Comcast rocks ...

Thanks Comcast for you 250 per months VS ATT BS caps. If I still lived in Houston and had ATT I would say don't let the door hit you in da @ss. last month I watched what my d/l and U/P was and i only did 62 gigs. So I am cool with the cap Comcast has..

See 7 replies to this post
Madtown
Premium
join:2008-04-26
Madera, CA

Does AT&T read this?

Well do they? Because the caps are way too low, and Comcast offer 250GB, you would think if they want to compete with Comcast they offer higher caps than 250GB.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: Does AT&T read this?

said by Madtown:

Well do they? Because the caps are way too low, and Comcast offer 250GB, you would think if they want to compete with Comcast they offer higher caps than 250GB.
Based on the .756 and 1.5 tiers the 3 and 6 tiers have their caps set too low. The 3 and 6 tiers should be 80GB and 120GB respectively. That way you get the same amount of Full Speed downloads in all 4 tiers (ie: You can download at full speed for the same amount of time no matter what your tier is).

NOTE: I am not commenting on what the Caps should be but only that the caps should be proportional to the speed and pointing out that the upper two tiers are being short changed on their caps based on the lower two tier's caps.

rahlquist
Redeye

join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA

Watch AT&T crumble

Bye AT&T you can cram your caps.

Jon303

@ameritech.net

Multiple Computers

I have 4 computers connected to my system. Two computers are connected via ethernet and two connected wirelessly. So I guess anyone with more than one computer connected on their system would hit their caps real quick.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Multiple Computers

Not necessarily. I have 5 (soon to be 6) computers in my house, and I average about 40 GB/mth.

NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

Re: Multiple Computers

said by openbox9:

Not necessarily. I have 5 (soon to be 6) computers in my house, and I average about 40 GB/mth.
You may be the exception to the rule. I know households with a teenager or two can easily blow past that with all of the Myspace, Youtube and streaming audio usage.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2

Re: Multiple Computers

I can also say that those households are exceptions to the rules. Granted, I do expect to see the balance shift, but I don't think it's happened yet. I think there are still too many "old-timers" on the net.

NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

Re: Multiple Computers

said by openbox9:

I can also say that those households are exceptions to the rules.
Based on what? The majority of multi-computer households are because of kids and those kids (folks under 18) are more connected than anyone else right now.

For single computer households, the old-timer idea may work, but for a majority of multi-computer households, the old-timer rule doesn't work.
--
---
Drilling for more oil is akin to giving a methhead the keys to the meth lab.
racart

join:2006-08-15
Rockford, IL

Lucky I have a choice

I'm lucky I have a choice to protect myself from ATT's insanity. I really feel sorry for those that do not. I would have to change my internet habits with a 80 GB cap.

I work from home, have 4 PC's in the house, have three ATT POTs lines and DSL Elite. All of which are paid on time every month by direct debit from my checking account. I would think I'd be the type of residential customer ATT would want to keep, even if my internet usage is higher than the average. ATT must not want my biz because as soon as that cap is implemented, I will be on the phone to Comcast changing all services to them (and saving some money in the process). I've only stuck with ATT this long because, even though their prices are higher, I thought the better quality justified it.

ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save

join:2005-10-17

Uverse 18mb tier...

What ever happen to the internet only 18mbit uverse are they going to cap that too?
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·RoadRunner Cable

Re: Uverse 18mb tier...

said by ftthz:

What ever happen to the internet only 18mbit uverse are they going to cap that too?
It is supposed to be launched on Nov. 9th (Sunday). I would imagine that if anyone in Reno orders it, it too will come with a cap. AT&T has not extended their list of caps to include the 18Mb option, so it's only a guess as to what that trial cap will be (if any).

MGFan

@bellsouth.net

ATT - don't charge me for unsolicited data

Before ATT starts charging for data, they really need to clean up their network. Anyone taken a look at their firewall logs lately to see all of the unsolicited packets generated by malware/viruses getting blocked? If they want to count packets, then they need to EXCLUDE charging for the CRAP we don't request. Heck, a few strategically placed filters in their routers would eliminate a lot of garbage flooding their network right now and make our surfing experience much better

And if they are really wanting to set caps like wireless, give us rollover caps. That way on the months I don't hit the cap, I can bank the surplus and use it later when M$oft releases one of their massive service packs !!!
Joe12345678

join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Will the caps be by makeket / arae?

Will the caps be by market / area?

Will bigger city's / areas have higher caps?
decifal

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

Re: Will the caps be by makeket / arae?

Yup, now that the caps are going to be placed... And soon internet regulations on what you can do, i'll finally get broadband and basically might as well keep dialup... I love innovation.

Wednesday, 19-Jun 02:35:12 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 13.5 years online © 1999-2013 dslreports.com.