Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Broadband Introduces Tiered Pricing
Joey Patterson writes "It had to happen sooner or later. CNET reports that AT&T Broadband has introduced a tiered pricing plan called UltraLink (3 Mbps down/384 kbps up) for $79.99/month if you buy your own modem and $82.95/month if you lease one of theirs."
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
It had to happen sooner or later.
You make this sound like a bad thing. As long as it doesn't affect my current service, I like having the option of jumping up a notch in performance.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
Jesus! You people whine too much. At least they're not charging per bit, like just about every other country on the planet does.
For better service, in the real world, you do have to pay more. To me, this sounds like a good deal.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Why must providers always assume that someone who sets up a home network is a bandwidth hog? Personally, I have several computers on my home network. However, none of them hog bandwidth unless I'm downloading a system upgrade. It just happens that the best way to have everyone able to access e-mail and surf at once is to network the computers. (Duh)
I'm on Time Warner Cable, and they prohibit servers. If they were to enforce that prohibition, would that mean their bandwidth usage would go down? I doubt it. How much e-mail does a normal, non-spamming personal e-mail server handle in a day? Come to think of it, the traffic isn't any more than I'd handle if I had to POP it all at once!
It is much better that they do it this way than a bandwidth cap / per MB charges. I'd much rather choose a connection speed / price tiered plan than be thinking about how many MBs I have used each month, tracking them like minutes on my cell phone plan.
Tiered access is a reality; now hopefully they will introduce a cheaper, low speed plan (like perhaps 500k u, 100k d, for $30/month)...
I don't see the real question addressed in the article, which is, will this new service have a different TOS agreement (Terms Of Service) then the current service? I'm annoyed enough at being told that I can't run servers, regardless of the bandwidth. I simply will not pay more then I pay now, and still be told that I can run servers, can't VPN, can't this, can't that, can't do anything but consume. (Yes, I tweak the rules with the SSH server that can do anything, but I shouldn't have to.)
On that topic, anybody noticed how almost all of the nasty trends lately that annoy Slashdot denizens boil down to making laws about enforcing the easy things, rather then the illegal things? Instead of enforcing theft laws, make it illegal to change phone ID numbers.... it's easier. Instead of enforcing bandwidth usage (the real money-eater for an ISP), enforce server bans... it's easier. Don't enforce piracy laws, make it illegal to create or use DeCSS and enforce those laws.... it's easier.
I wrote an essay that tangentially touched this issue in the context of automated enforcement a few months ago, but I think the problem is extending out from there. Enforcers of all kind (not just law, AT&T enforces a contract) are getting lazy, and making laws/contracts to help them be lazy.
While certainly those who set up home networks are more likely to be tech savvy and more likely to use more bandwidth, this is also about marketing. You call up AT&T and have a conversation like this:
You: Hi, I wants me some Internet
ATT: Alright, fine, would you like to use our basic plan or our ultralink plan?
You: Ummmm, what's ultralink?
ATT: Ultralink is a service we provide that provides the bandwidth that home networks demand.
Average customer, at this point, will probably think that if they are planning to set up a home network, they'll need whatever this service provides and pay the extra money.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Bandwidth is still every bit as expensive as it was when we were still using 486's and first gen Pentiums. No wonder the internet never took off like it should have. As I recall, many of the pie-in-the-sky projections for the dot-com companies were based on the assumption that everyone would soon have high speed bandwidth. Based on the last six years I would have to project that the internet will never see significant bandwidth gains.
Why? Because if computing and home network power continues to increase as it has, while internet connection speeds remain static, the internet itself will become more and more useless. Our own personal networks will be faster and contain more information, so why bother?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?