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."

21 of 508 comments (clear)

  1. Is this bad? by Saib0t · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Could someone please explain why this is bad? I fail to understand...

    --

    One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
    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. Re:Is this bad? by StupidKatz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do you need more than 384kbps up? If you wanna run a warez server, buy a T1. :P

      The big deal should be whether or not they put restrictions on what you can do with that 384. (I have 128 and run a full suite of services, tho obviously I'm not serving more than a half-dozen people.) "Give us our 384 and begone!" should be our battlecry. Since an ISP is an Internet Service Provider, that's all they should do: take your money, give you the line, and shut up.

  2. 1.5Mbps for $45.95/month by hendridm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Must be nice - we're enjoying 500kbit cable for $50/month here in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Damn cows must be sitting on our optic cable.

    1. Re:1.5Mbps for $45.95/month by Clay+Mitchell · · Score: 5, Funny

      yeah, but once you run it through the Canada->US exchange, it's only like 1.25MB/250KB :(

  3. What is the big deal? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?"
    1. Re:What is the big deal? by mosch · · Score: 5, Funny
      Look, you may not realize this is a total ripoff, but I installed a network, so I do.

      These people are buying T1s for hundreds of dollars a month, then selling us a lousy 3Mbps for $80/mo. That's a rediculous amount of profit!

      We need to contact our government representatives, and do something to prevent this sort of gouging now, before it's too late.

  4. Power users? by Ioldanach · · Score: 5, Insightful
    AT&T Broadband said UltraLink will serve power users, which it described as those who have "set up home networks, send or receive large files such as when downloading software, or enjoy other bandwidth-intensive applications."

    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!

    1. 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

    2. Re:Power users? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

      I don't think that is the case with AT&T, at least with my service. The cable modem acts as a bridge, it should only pass traffic that is destined for the MAC address of my default gateway (and broadcasts). I don't have my network set up in that way, but if I did I don't think it would cause much more data to be pushed up my cable. Maybe the NetBIOS(except AT&T explicitly blocks NetBIOS) broadcasts from the Windows machines and ARP requests, but the bandwidth consumed would be negligible.

      --

      Enigma

    3. Re:Power users? by Master+Bait · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Stupid and ignorant people with home networks could benefit from clever and informed cable network companies. Don't you understand that home networking is an economic opportunity for cable ISPs, rather than a trouble? The ISP COULD sell switches and install everything for profit. I have yet to see the government-supported monopolies that sell cable go much beyond a stupid minimal revise of the failed @home's Terms of Service, which was only a rewrite of old-fashioned dialup TOS.

      People want and need services that the government-supported cable monopolies are too lazy to supply. Some want fixed IP numbers, some want domain hosting. Some want fatter upstream, some want home networking, some want to serve their own email or web pages. Some don't want ISP-supplied webspace of ISP supplied POP email or a newsfeed. These are economic opportunities for ISPs in a free market, but competition in both cable and DSL is next to nothing, and this absurd level of service is our reward.

      --
      "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
      --Tom Schulman
  5. Wow - it's cheaper (less than half that) in Canada by Rikardon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bloody hell! Here in Calgary, AB, Canada I have 1.5Mbps down, 640Kbps up, for CDN$34.95 per month with a bought modem, $39.95 with a leased one. Cap is 5GB down, 1GB up.

    That's DSL; the cable company pricing is similar, and the performance (I was a cable customer) is virtually identical -- it's theoretically 3Mbps down, but I never saw that. However, there's theoretically no bandwidth cap. That's with Shaw Cable, for the other Canadians reading this: YMMV with Rogers et. al.

    Mind you, IIRC, Calgary and Edmonton were the first two cities in NA (maybe the world?) where you could get broadband at any residential address, so the competition has been going on longer, which affects the pricing, but MAN the prices quoted in the article are expensive!

  6. Comcast too by kawika · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comcast has been offering a premium service for a few months now:

    http://comcast.comcastonline.com/memberservices/ Ad ditionalProducts/serviceupgrades.asp

    They don't seem to promote it though.

  7. 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

  8. 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 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
    2. 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

  9. Re:I can't believe some of you would complain... by forkboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    What they're offering is NOT better than a full T1. Sure, it might be faster on the download side, but the advantage of a T1 is that you have equal bandwidth upstream, as well as a block of static IPs to have your way with....not to mention no restrictions on use. (barring legality of course)

    Of course, a T1 is still around $800 per month and this is $80, so obviously this is the better choice for the home user with a limited budget.

    Just don't say it's better than a T1....it's a far cry from it.

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  10. Thank you everybody! by mosch · · Score: 4, Funny
    I want to thank everybody for helping out the troll reply drive. 17 responses in a half hour, truly, this has been one of the most sucessful drives ever.

    I'd like to thank all of you who've contributed, with a stylish tote bag, and a brand new Sarcasm Detector.

  11. no servers by phriedom · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry no. It took some searching, but I found their Acceptable Use Policy and:

    "Examples of prohibited programs and equipment include, but are not limited to, mail, ftp, http, file sharing, game, newsgroup, proxy, IRC servers, multi-user interactive forums and Wi-Fi devices;"

    so you are not allowed to run any servers, nor an open WAP node. I have no personal experience with them so I don't know if they even try to enforce this restriction, but it is there and they could. They want you to pay the business rate even if you aren't making money on it.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  12. Even Comcast doesn't know they offer this service. by BenSnyder · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm on the phone as I type this trying to upgrade our Comcast service to Comcast Pro. I swear we just had this conversation.

    Me: Hi. I'm currently a Comcast Broadband Subscriber and I'd like to upgrade my service to Comcast Pro.

    Comcast: What?

    Me: The premium bandwith service, Comcast Pro.

    Comcast: I have no idea what you're talking about.

    Me: I saw it on your web site. Would you like the URL?

    Comcast: Comcast Pro? I've never heard of this before.

    Me: Well let me tell you about it...

    Comcast: Hold while I transfer you to another department.

    I dunno, I just found it funny that the number they give you to call to get the service is answered by somebody who has no clue that there is, in fact, a service.