AT&T to start putting caps on DSL customers

[Dustin2128]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/13/atandt-will-cap-dsl-u-verse-internet-and-impose-overage-fees/
I thought it was just for the mobile users, but it looks like AT&T is putting a cap- a cap of 150GB a month, on their DSL customers. I don't know about the rest of you, but between my downloads and my family's netflix, we probably burn through that in less than 24 hours. AT&T claims that it's only going to affect '2% of users', but we all know that it's more than that- either for people like me who do a lot of (legal) bit torrenting of linux distros and free software, or netflix fans who use 1.7Gb/movie. I am infinitely relieved that I have the "fortune" of living in an area served by at least a duopoly, with some excellent cable offerings from a company that isn't comcast. For the rest of you AT&T customers... wow, a cap on broadband. Haven't seen non-mobile caps since the dial-up days. Anyone know the bandwidth on packet radio?

[doorknob60]

My ISP has a 100 GB cap. Somehow, I don't think I've passed it yet, but one moth I got to 99 :P I think ISPs should not use bandwidth caps, except maybe on the cheapest plans or for 3G/4G/mobile. Come on, it's 2011, everything is online now, these caps won't last long before they start becoming quite unreasonable.

[thomasw_lrd]

It's making me want to drop my cell service with them, and I don't even have their dsl anymore.

[Dustin2128]

Ugh. Even worse, it seems to be in order to give its own on demand service priority over netflix- it doesn't count towards the download cap.

[Copper Bezel]

That's a nasty marketing trick in a way, but it actually makes sense from a customer perspective for any other service - why punish users for buying into their service?

Watching all of my TV online along with web and radio usage, software downloads, Dropbox, etc, vnstat says I use maybe 15. I've known about this cap coming for some time and haven't become overly worried about it.

[earthpigg]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/13/atandt-will-cap-dsl-u-verse-internet-and-impose-overage-fees/
I thought it was just for the mobile users, but it looks like AT&T is putting a cap- a cap of 150GB a month, on their DSL customers.

odd that ATT would wish to encourage folks to switch from legal high-bandwidth netflix to illegal .torrents of 700mb .avi files from the pirate bay.

[billdotson]

I don't understand why companies haven't been talking about the need to put data caps on internet connections before (I'm talking about the last decade; have they and I just haven't been paying attention?) Perhaps it has to do with the internet starting to be fast enough to offer TV and movie services, and other things that use lots of bandwidth that you used to just not be able to do.

I would really like to have an insider view of the reasoning for this. Is the extra bandwidth really costing them a bunch more money or are they just trying to prevent competition by making their cable service (or their own streaming service) more attractive? I am kind of leaning towards the idea that they are doing it mostly to be anti-competitive; it seems like the telecoms have always had issues with being anti-competitive.

Anyway, I wonder how much 100GB really is when it comes down to actual use. How many people will go over? Will it really affect Netflix and other streaming services that much?

If it really is costing telecoms more money and they are just trying to recoup losses, then they need to have a soft cap of 100GB. If you go over the cap then you have to start paying for bandwidth in a metered manner (at a reasonable price, NOT $10 a GB pricing, like cellphone companies do with limited mobile plans). Really though, I'd like to see a pricing model where everyone gets the highest connection speed available and pays a base price that covers up to a soft cap.

[Copper Bezel]

Well, the idea is that there really is a vast disparity in usage, of like 100:1 at the relative extremes, and of course that usage in total has climbed for (almost) everyone while the contracts have stayed stated in much the same terms. Internet video hasn't supplanted cable yet, remember, and I doubt if it's actually overtaken movie rentals yet - all of that entertaiment is still making a transition over to streaming, so it's going to be more and more for the ISPs to deal with.

If there are no caps and hikes, ISPs are locked into contracts they can't fulfill while folks like us are being subsidized by the folks who are just e-mailing their grandchildren.

Of course cable is going to die kicking and screaming and of course the caps are influenced to protect it, but I really don't think that's the biggest factor. (Then again, there's a reason I use DSL over cable internet, aside from the completely random service outages that seem to plague cable service providers.)

[LowSky]

I don't understand why companies haven't been talking about the need to put data caps on internet connections before (I'm talking about the last decade; have they and I just haven't been paying attention?) Perhaps it has to do with the internet starting to be fast enough to offer TV and movie services, and other things that use lots of bandwidth that you used to just not be able to do.

Actually these companies have talk of caps for a while now. What held them back was internet neutrality that the FCC enforced. Unfortunately we have a weakened FCC because of Deregulation. So now we have Caps. It has nothing to do with bandwidth. All of these companies could give every customer the top tier speed package they sell and they wouldn't pay a dime.


I would really like to have an insider view of the reasoning for this. Is the extra bandwidth really costing them a bunch more money or are they just trying to prevent competition by making their cable service (or their own streaming service) more attractive? I am kind of leaning towards the idea that they are doing it mostly to be anti-competitive; it seems like the telecoms have always had issues with being anti-competitive.
If they had it their way the internet would have tolls. Just like long distance calls. Want to visit a popular destination you pay more.


Anyway, I wonder how much 100GB really is when it comes down to actual use. How many people will go over? Will it really affect Netflix and other streaming services that much?
Lets say you have a family of 5. All of which have wifi devices connected to the internet in some way. The house has multiple netflix and hulu accounts, multiple game consoles and they use skype. And you have a in home geek you downloads ISO's and streams video feeds like mad. You will hit that number. Now lets hope they use the real 100GB and not 100GiB that hard drive manufacturers use. That makes things much worse.


If it really is costing telecoms more money and they are just trying to recoup losses, then they need to have a soft cap of 100GB. If you go over the cap then you have to start paying for bandwidth in a metered manner (at a reasonable price, NOT $10 a GB pricing, like cellphone companies do with limited mobile plans). Really though, I'd like to see a pricing model where everyone gets the highest connection speed available and pays a base price that covers up to a soft cap.

What I want to see is the fastest unlimited service with no strings for a fair price. But we will never get that. We get oligopolies. Look at the cell phone companies. There used to be dozens upon dozens, Now we have 4 major carries. Oddly they all charge nearly the same price for services. Same thing happened to TV. There used to be thousands of cable companies. Then they all merged. Now we have the phone companies trying to break into Cables territory but they offer the same prices for the same stuff. The only reason a person switches is because they are annoyed with their current carrier, or one offers something exclusively, like the iPhone.

Forget lower prices. Forget fast for nothing. Expect the same old crap.
I had Cable internet of 12 down 2 up since 2001. Somehow as all the other technology around me became cheaper internet speeds did not. Explain that to me?

[Copper Bezel]

It has nothing to do with bandwidth. All of these companies could give every customer the top tier speed package they sell and they wouldn't pay a dime.

[Citation Needed]

Telecoms have exactly as much hardware and wiring as they need to meet current demand, because they are profit-driven and would see no benefit in increasing beyond that. Increasing the hardware to meet higher demand would presumably cost money. If I'm wrong, please let me know, because I'd love to have another reason to hate Time Warner.

[Dustin2128]

odd that ATT would wish to encourage folks to switch from legal high-bandwidth netflix to illegal .torrents of 700mb .avi files from the pirate bay.
Honestly, besides the obvious profanity associated with me being an ATT customer, that was my first thought.

[3rdalbum]

Well, I'm capped at 80 GiB a month on my plan here in Australia... so unfortunately I can't really get especially sympathetic toward your predicament, sorry.

[thomasw_lrd]

Well, I'm capped at 80 GiB a month on my plan here in Australia... so unfortunately I can't really get especially sympathetic toward your predicament, sorry.

Sometimes I think we as American's are really spoiled. I have read on several places where others have said they were capped much lower. But then again I think that maybe people in not-US, should fight a little harder to get what we take for granted.

I wish I could say that people would drop AT&T right and left to make them drop this or risk going out of business, but frankly no one will notice for a few more years, and then there probably won't be any competition to go to.

[Copper Bezel]

Geography has a lot to do with it. More urban nations with less flyover territory are much better off than us, while Austrailia, y'know....

[eriktheblu]

I don't understand why companies haven't been talking about the need to put data caps on internet connections before (I'm talking about the last decade; have they and I just haven't been paying attention?)

Simple. Previously there was a bandwidth surplus, but now the demand has increased with new online content and a more interested customer base. If they don't do something, the networks will slow resulting in dissatisfied customers.


Actually these companies have talk of caps for a while now. What held them back was internet neutrality that the FCC enforced. Unfortunately we have a weakened FCC because of Deregulation. So now we have Caps.
The FCC hasn't been regulating it; providers have been regulating it themselves. The fear of FCC regulation is more likely what cause the caps to be put in place.

The reality of it is that with net neutrality, networks will be strained. They have had the luxury of surplus bandwidth for a long time, so they could easily offer unlimited internet. Now that they are in danger reaching their limits, there are a few solutions:
1: upgrade infrastructure, resulting in higher fees
2: cap bandwidth
3: charge by usage (probably even peak hour rates)
4: reduce bandwidth to high demand servers

We need to face the fact that internet usage is going to be more competitive for a while.

[del_diablo]

Sometimes I think we as American's are really spoiled. I have read on several places where others have said they were capped much lower. But then again I think that maybe people in not-US, should fight a little harder to get what we take for granted.

I wish I could say that people would drop AT&T right and left to make them drop this or risk going out of business, but frankly no one will notice for a few more years, and then there probably won't be any competition to go to

Norwegian here, living in the middle of nowhere.
I get 12megabit down and 1,5 megabit upload.
And i have unlimited usage.
This is common in Norway.
What is even worse is that our Neightbor sweden decided to properly found fiber building, and over there it is even cheaper to aquire proper bandwith.
It is just you Americans and Australians.

[Grenage]

Us Brits make do with the usual 40GB cap.

That said, they ignore night-time data transfers. I normally use about 20-25Gb a month, but my record was 400GB.

[Copper Bezel]

See, that's kind of cool, and it's actually a very efficient way to make use of the existing infrastructure.


It is just you Americans and Australians.

Canada, too. They have our geographic problem and some weird state stuff going on on top.

[sydbat]

With Telus I have a 30GB cap based on my plan, and never really get close to it.

What bothers me more is we Canadians use the Internet more (http://www.techvibes.com/blog/trends-and-stats-canadians-use-the-internet-more-than-anyone-else-in-the-world-2011-03-09) than any other country in the world, yet we also have some of the highest prices for Internet access in the world. Shouldn't higher usage mean lower prices? Not for greedy Canadian ISP's...

Other, related info - http://business.financialpost.com/2011/02/02/usage-based-internet-billing-a-global-comparison/

[rg4w]

Since so much of the industry has been pushing cloud solutions, will we see blowback against the telcos for this move? Perhaps a second break-up of AT&T?

I was more than a little dismayed that they were allowed to repurchase Pacific Bell. I chose PacBell over AT&T specifically because I don't like AT&T's policies, and now I have no choice.

[khaos1985]

See atleast comcast gives us a 250GB a month cap which is really good and my speeds run average of 30Mb download by 6Mb upload and i have never had problems with there service or customer service other then on windy days when the cables swing but thats just my location cuz i sit on a long open field road

And since I started using Ubuntu as my main OS it definitely runs smoother on my PC too.

[earthpigg]

odd that ATT would wish to encourage folks to switch from legal high-bandwidth netflix to illegal .torrents of 700mb .avi files from the pirate bay.Honestly, besides the obvious profanity associated with me being an ATT customer, that was my first thought.

it certainly is frustrating that for some folks born into high-technology, there really isn't a legal way for us to go about our business of consuming entertainment.

i don't own a tv or dedicated dvd player, and my 28" monitor and good speakers are pretty much the only way i will consume multimedia entertainment, and maintaining a physically large collection simply is not going to happen in the era of 2tb hard drives.

(i've been known to smirk at folks that actually dig through an actual physical library-of-alexandria-style collection of cds or dvds to find a movie or song to enjoy. "do you also write letters to friends using hieroglyphics on a scroll and then transmit them via human courier?" <-- i tend not to use that one with friends over 35 :P. I'm kind of immature, i fully acknowledge. )

it feels like this is what the MPAA and others would have me do:
1) go to target or wall-mart, purchase dvd
2) copy it onto my computer using licensed ripping software
3) destroy the physical dvd without loaning it to anyone else that owns a computer
4) make no backups of my hard drive

to my eyes, doing any of those four steps (except 2) is seriously bizarre and would make me feel like my grandfather or some form of cave man.