Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Broadband Introduces Tiered Pricing

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the add-a-rheostat-and-a-quarter-slot dept.

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."

11 of 508 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Is this bad? by soapvox · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I actually don't think it is bad at all. I run servers so I need the upstream and realize I am more than the average customer so I should pay more for a premium service, but along with that I hope I get premium customer service on thier end (not sure if that is the case or not). This way I can run my servers and not have to pay business prices!

  2. I ache for a little more... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The 384 cap, though much better than it was, still leaves me aching.

    I wish I could do a 2 meg down 1 meg up. I'd pay $80 a month for that RIGHT NOW.

  3. 3.5Mbps for $32/month by red_gnom · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In Canada, company called AEI offers 3.5 Mbps download speed and 800 Kbps upload speed ADSL for $50 Canadian/month (US$32).

    The link is over here here

  4. Know what'd be nice...? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... What if the $80 a month charge means that they won't complain if you use bandwidth intensive stuff like P2P. If they'd put in the ToS "You can max out the connection 24/7 without fear of being disconnected or having ports blocked.", it may be worth $80 a month.

    I already pay $55 a month now. If paying $80 would guarantee those clauses in my ToS for as long as I'm a subscriber, I'd probably go for it.

  5. Hey, how about $14.50/hour for 2400baud! by jgsfcaus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh how quickly people forget the early days of being online...text based bbs software, arcane keywords and CompuServe with tiered access pricing:
    300 baud 6.50/hr 2400 baud 14.50/hr (prices are in 1982 dollars, so let's say roughly double for 2002 dollars?) Sign me up!

    Then the world was invaded by the likes of PCLink, the Commodore 64 version of PCLink and the Mac based version which bore the same name that these three companies were known as once they merged in the mid 80s...AOL. Now downloading new artwork at 2400 baud, only 30 minutes left to go...but aint it pretty!

    Hey, at least they aren't rolling out METERED BANDWIDTH pricing ... at least yet...

    And funny how they chose 3Mbps for the enhanced services...similar to RCN in it's fiber network markets...however, RCN didn't raise its price one cent. Still appx. $40/mo in my bundle from them...that includes modem rental.

    However, I daresay that AT&T may have difficulties consistently delivering the higher speeds as their digital network nodes are already overcrowded causing traffic jams and more general angst in the world....

    --
    Jack Greenwood Southern California Inland Empire Suburban Hell
    1. Re:Hey, how about $14.50/hour for 2400baud! by OneFix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CompuServe with tiered access pricing:

      Actually, in most areas, CompuServe used a network of systems called Tymenet. The company has now turned to broadband...but I think one of the many National ISP Modem Pools took over their network. (yes, this is even used in the "internet age")

      Anyhow, Tymenet would charge an hourly maintainence fee to the online services and they would just pass on the costs to you. More than just CompuServe used them, I think AOL^H^H^HQ-Link even used them at one point. But I agree, this is really just adding a faster access speed to their "lineup". It's actually been happening for ever...when you buy DSL you can generally decide on the speed you want, normally something like 256/128 for dialup prices, 512/256 for about $15-$20 more, 1M/512 for a much higher price.

      At least that's what they've got around here...

    2. Re:Hey, how about $14.50/hour for 2400baud! by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Amen. Sometimes I think that the first experience most slashdotters had with being 'online' was in the 14.4k era. Very few remember the fun of war-dialing and looking for BBSes.

      They act like the 'dueling 56k standards' was a big deal. Lemmetellyu, nuthin' like the 9600 fight, or the earlier fights (ever wonder why modems have like 27 different acronyms on the box or in the manual?)

      Oh, or remember actually have to know Hayes codes in order to get your modem to talk to a certain other modem?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:Hey, how about $14.50/hour for 2400baud! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Hey, at least they aren't rolling out METERED BANDWIDTH pricing ... at least yet..."

      Metered bandwidth has been mentioned for a long time. It makes sense. You pay for electricity and water that way and it works great. You want to use more, you pay more. You want to save money, you conserve. The problem with metering is the fact that it would make people furious when they downloaded X-10's latest "illegally tape naked girls without their consent" pop-up ads. Those ads are bad enough, but when they cost you money I think people will openly revolt. I've gotten two telemarketer calls on my cell phone during the day and I was pissed. They would have to figure out a way to differentiate content you asked for and unsolicited content that wouldn't count towards your fees. Then 8 minutes later a 10K software program blocks all the content you aren't being charged for. Then 8 minutes after that, the remaining ad revenue supported sites go under.

      Instead of yelling at you for leaving the front door open, your dad could yell at you for leaving the firewall open. "I'm not paying to serve warez to the whole neighborhood, you know."

      -B

  6. Re:Is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ditto, why should I have to pay for bandwidth hogs? I do extensive browsing but rarely download anything except for RedHat's latest ISO's. I don't do the filesharing thing and my mp3's are ripped from CD's I own. No, I won't share them.

    Unlimited and equal access is great. But there is really little reason to make responsible users subsidize users with high bandwidth demands.

    I'd love to see tiered service:
    - 128k up/386k down for $20/mth
    - 386k up/1M down for $50/mth
    - whatever... >$70/mth

    On the other hand, I strongly disagree with dynamic limits, where ones b/w is reduced as a certain amoutn of data has been moved.

    Just my few pennys worth...

  7. Re:That ain't bad! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Don't forget that ATTBI is trying to give itself to Comcast, who forbid any use of VPN on "residential" service. But Comcast doesn't offer a "commercial" service! This is the first step toward offering a (naturally, higher-priced) "service" where VPN will be allowed -- same crap, but you get to pay more! So yes, it will affect your current "service" in that Real Soon Now they'll either block VPN or cut you off if they detect it; or, more likely, bump you into the more expensive package if they detect it. For those of us who occasionally work from home, this is a Bad Thing, and it's a kick in the crotch after the wedgies of recent price increases.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  8. Re:Power users? by Sentry21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why must providers always assume that someone who sets up a home network is a bandwidth hog?

    One of the techs at Shaw Cable told me, long ago, that the reason they didn't support home networks is that people buy cheap, and don't understand the difference between a hub and a switch... so they buy a hub, because it's cheaper, and then all your lan data gets thrown to the cable modem, which dutifully passes it on to the upstream gateway, which then deals with (and disgards) it.

    While I'm not sure if this is necessarily applicable in all (any?) cases, it sounds like a good indicator of what's wrong - stupid or ignorant people doing networking badly. Networking can be a very finicky thing if it's not extremely well done, and it's easy for people to cause problems.

    --Dan