dslreports logo
 story category
AT&T Follows Comcast, Will Charge $30 More to Avoid Usage Caps

Back in May of 2011 we were the first to exclusively report that AT&T would be imposing usage caps on the company's DSL and U-Verse users. Users were told DSL users would see a cap of 150 GB a month and U-Verse users would see a cap of 250 GB a month -- with all users paying $10 for every additional 50 GB of data they use. But as it turns out only DSL users found themselves actually capped, AT&T telling us that due to "the greater capacity of the U-verse architecture" U-verse caps wouldn't be enforced.

Click for full size
Today, AT&T announced it's bumping these usage allowances, but only for U-Verse. DSL caps will apparently remain at 150 GB. The company's also following Comcast's lead in charging users $30 a month if they want to avoid the caps entirely.

In a blog post, AT&T's Bob Bickerstaff stated that starting on May 23, the U-verse usage cap will be bumped from the uniform 250 GB per month, to different caps based on your service tier. AT&T says customers on U-Verse tiers with speeds of 768 Kbps – 6 Mbps will now face a 300 GB cap; customers on U-Verse tiers of speeds of 12 Mbps – 75Mbps will see a 600 GB cap; and customers on speeds of 100 Mbps – 1 Gbps will see a cap of 1 terabyte.

Users who exceed these caps in any given month will automatically have to pay for 50 GB of additional data for $10 each. Users who want to avoid the cap will now need to pay $30 a month more moving forward. That is unless you're also a DirecTV or AT&T U-Verse TV customer, in which case AT&T is waiving the $30 fee.

That last bit is a fairly transparent ploy to address a spike in cord cutting t AT&T -- by forcing customers into signing up for television services they may not actually want if they want to avoid usage restrictions. Whether using arbitrary caps to force users to sign up for TV technically violates net neutrality (either the FCC's rules or the concept in general) is something that's likely to be hotly debated.

It's also curious that just as AT&T indicates it's backing away from U-Verse TV (which should technically free up more bandwidth on the AT&T network), it's implementing caps on a network it originally stated didn't need caps thanks to "greater capacity." That's because as with Comcast, caps really aren't about capacity or financial necessity, they're about protecting traditional TV revenue from Internet video. At the end of the day, AT&T's just charging $30 a month (or more) for the same service, while trying to frame it as a net positive for consumers.

"We want to continue providing a great experience for our Internet customers so we’re giving U-verse Internet customers more choices," says AT&T of the changes.

Most recommended from 137 comments



delusion ftl
@comcast.net

41 recommendations

delusion ftl

Anon

Utopia model

I know it bugs my more conservative friends, but I am all for the government owning and maintaining a fiber to each address "network". And then not have the government be the ISP, but have private companies with their own strengths, weaknesses, cost structures, caps, tiers and speeds compete over it.

The entire reason that this bothers ANYONE is because most users cannot switch from AT&T, and if they can, the only other person they can pick is someone like Comcast. If AT&T was one of a dozen vendors competing over fiber for customers, this BS would never happen, and if it did, they would quickly find themselves out of business.
microphone
Premium Member
join:2009-04-29
Parkville, MD

24 recommendations

microphone

Premium Member

$60.00 for getting nothing

That's $30.00 to avoid usage caps and $30.00 for privacy. Two things that should be assumed as part of the package these days.

TIGERON
join:2008-03-11
Boston, MA

23 recommendations

TIGERON

Member

Tell me again how this is reasonable

This is just another money making scheme designed to gouge people out of their hard earned money.
TIGERON

1 edit

23 recommendations

TIGERON

Member

I've posted this on several threads and WORTH REPEATING

Click for full size
bill
Click for full size
online bill

list of price continued price gouging
 
For those DENIERS trolling this site defending AT&T saying "show me the evidence" here IT IS. This is $84.00 for sub par last mile 6-meg (in reality it never went above 5 megs) monthly capped 150 gigabytes DSL from AT&T.

»Re: [West] $84 for a 6-meg 150GB cap DSL internet service is bad business

and here are the bills reflecting the so-called "usage meter" AT&T has 99% of time I could not access on their pathetic badly designed website. Thank goodness there's something called "evidence" to back up what people like me, Karl, Dampier and others vehemently opposed to any kind of data cap on fixed wireline has plenty of to obliterate your rationale for fleecing hard working U.S. citizens out of their money.

AT&T cap defenders, you infuriate me. I wonder how do you sleep at night?

If you're going to go in line with the company saying that this affects only a small percentage, TAKE NOTE : I am one of those former AT&T customers who this company plays this bullshit game. This is why if ISPs like AT&T and Comcast want to play this metered broadband game and treat the internet like a rationed utility THEY SHOULD BE REGULATED. No fucking excuses.
shmerl
join:2013-10-21

20 recommendations

shmerl

Member

Racket

You've got a nice connection here. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it...

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· mtpPtW1Q
smk11
join:2014-11-12

17 recommendations

smk11

Member

Last mile toll booths are getting set up

All ISP owned content is in the speed-pass lane and exempt from the toll road.

Tomorrow: DirecTV content cap exempt.

Red Hazard
Premium Member
join:2012-07-21
O Fallon, IL

12 recommendations

Red Hazard

Premium Member

Caps not enforced will now be

For U-verse customers where the Caps were not enforced ,probably can count on having them enforced now if they don't pay the ransom.
sandman_1
join:2011-04-23
11111

1 edit

11 recommendations

sandman_1

Member

I call BS

I just downloaded a 42GB game on Steam. I am sure some people have a lot more games than me and could easily blow through these caps. For a large family household, this is essentially a price increase of $30. And people saying this is reasonable, yea it might be now but what about in 5 years? Caps on wireline Internet are stupid and everyone should be against it. We are talking fractions of a penny to move data over wireline and these ISPs are already making hand over fist profits off of the Internet side. I am glad I don't have AT&T or Comcast. Just another reason to tell the Uverse salesperson that occasionally visits our home to take a hike.

maartena
Elmo
Premium Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

8 recommendations

maartena

Premium Member

Caps don't make sense....

Data isn't being "produced" like electricity.
Data isn't a natural resource like water or gas.

Data is made out of sending 0's and 1's through either electron bursts or light bursts. The equipment doing that does indeed require electricity, but that is paid to the electricity company and the cost for electricity is factored into your monthly fee. (Also factored in is network management, investment, new hardware, salaries, profit, and other business related costs).

Once the network is in place, it doesn't cost the ISP's one cent more to transfer 1 MB, 100 MB or 1 GB. Backbone connections aren't measured by amounts of data anymore, they just pay for huge pipes connecting to other huge pipes in data centers.

The only issue that could be a thing is capacity to transfer ever-increasing amounts of data, and all we hear from the ISP's themselves (including from CEO's of TWC and Comcast) is that caps were never about capacity.

Look, I can see a "top end" cap happening, for users that are clearly abusing the network by hogging as much bandwidth as possible 24/7, but 99% of customers are not that kind of customer. Perhaps if you cross 5 TB more then twice a year an ISP can slap them on the wrist and say.... hey, tone it down a little, will ya!

I download between 300 and 500 GB per month. 70% of that is probably streaming. And THAT is where the real issue is.... it isn't about data, it is about wanting to prevent people from switching to streaming instead of paying for cable.
grabacon9
join:2013-08-21
Newark, OH

7 recommendations

grabacon9

Member

Fuck you

I am so pissed off at At&t. $42 is now going to be $72.
bcltoys
join:2008-07-21

7 recommendations

bcltoys

Member

Expansion!

Neither AT&T or Comcast or anybody for that fact want to expand deeper into rural area's they are losing customer's that are cutting the cord ,they have to do something to raise more money. I will never have that problem of bitching cause my cable company put caps on my service I was told by Comcast today they will never be serving my road. Fuck them some bitch'es.

jsolo1
Premium Member
join:2001-07-01
PRIL

4 recommendations

jsolo1

Premium Member

caps everywhere?

So for those in a contract with att, is there a clause about a change of terms allowing you to withdraw from contract with no penalties??

Does this att cap apply to all markets? Comcast is not enforcing caps in the chicago market. Guess we're lucky we actually have a choice in cable co's (comcast/rcn), and uverse. 3 options to choose from. Will be surprised to see caps here.