AT&T Embraces BitTorrent, Considers Usage-Based Pricing

Wired is running a story about AT&T's chief technical officer, John Donovan. He contrasts his view of BitTorrent and P2P in general against the controversial policies adopted by other ISPs. Donovan also explains why AT&T is considering usage-based pricing, citing the cost of network upgrades which only affect a small number of users. AT&T is expected to test the new pricing scheme later this year, which should give them plenty of time to see how Time Warner's customers respond to the idea. "'I don't view any of our customers, under any circumstances, as pirates -- I view them as users,' Donovan said. 'A heavy user is not a bad customer.' What he wants to do is gently encourage more efficient usage of his network, and usage-based pricing may be one of the ways that happens. Such measures may not even be necessary, as Donovan admits that users self-adjust their habits to take advantage of off-peak times. For instance, he said, BitTorrent on the company's network peaks around 4 a.m., when other traffic is at an ebb. Overall P2P traffic accounts for about 20 percent of the network's usage, Donovan said."

Comments

Why?

[mark_hill97]

If users are self restricting themselves to off-peak why the need for usage based pricing at all? AT&T received federal funding to get a fiber network in as well, so far they have failed to do so.

We are going backwards .

[aceofspades1217]

Instead of trying to make internet more expansive the United States telecoms want to make it cost more. I mean jesus christ we are one of the worst developed nations when it comes to internet connectivity. In Europe you can get double our speeds for the price of dial-up. Obviously their is very little costs on simply maintaining a network yet they continue to charge and rake in profits. These telecoms have no excuse. We fork over our money so you can maintain and grow your network...use it. Upgrade the Seconds Mile and start putting more efficient internet pipes. Obviously it has gotten to a point where it is becomes almost as bad as the oil companies. Just raking in profits and not using it for anything.

Re:We are going backwards .

[Verteiron]

Actually I think they're targeting P2Pers because P2P uses as much or more UPSTREAM bandwidth as downstream, which none of the major ISPs have designed their networks around. Cable networks are the worst about this due to how cable internet works, but all the ISPs built their networks around the idea that most users upload less than 2% of what they download. Now P2P is forcing them to realize the intended functionality of the internet, and it's becoming clear to them that their "download only" systems aren't going to cut it. So naturally they're going to do everything they can to curb upstream bandwidth. Otherwise, they might actually have to spend money upgrading their network, at which point they'll be replaced by their shareholders for failing to maximize profits.

Re:We are going backwards .

[aceofspades1217]

Well than upgrade the networks. Whether they like it or not the internet is becoming a more two way experience. There is nothing that anyone is going to do about it. Fighting it is obviously not going to help. People are uploading movies to youtube, uploading photos to myspace and facebook, and using webcams.

It is not only P2P that uses upstream...its everything web 2.0

Maybe we need *ISP 2.0*

Bittorrent and Usage

[stokessd]

Traditionally the best bittorrent users also seed the files they have grabbed for a long time. So under the usage model, being a good torrent person means being penalized for extra bandwidth that I'm using to seed.

Sheldon

Re:Welcome America

[Lumpy]

Cool.

now all you website owners cant bitch when I help set up Ad blocking systems at all my friends, family and associates.

we are not paying for your advertisement to come to my screen. Either make it very tiny in bandwidth used, or get used to the fact that many many more people will be using blocking tools to eliminate your ad's.

AT&T has $150,000/customer ***SURPLUS***

[mikelieman]

Since the Government Attorneys aren't going to hold AT&T responsible for their unlawful spying on every customer, with statutory penalties of $150,000/each, they have *plenty* of money, so shouldn't be crying poverty, should they?

The alternative is being held accountable, and liquidating AT&T to pay the damages, which would prove the point that *every* entity is held accountable TO THE LAW.

If Martha Stewart can go to prison for fibbing while NOT UNDER OATH, why the hell is AT&T getting a pass for it's crime?

Re:IDIOTS !! was that too hard ?

[nurb432]

So you also want to pay per mile of road you use? No, bandwidth should be flat rate. Just like roads and air.

The ONLY reason the internet is what it is today was the switch away from that archaic pricing structure. ( think CompuServe and the old school AOL ).

This is 2008, it doesn't mean something from 5000 years ago still applies. ( i suppose you also propose we trade chickens for bandwidth? And how about offering a cow before you can get married? )

Re:Welcome America

[Smauler]

It is most definately not abusing a service if you've paid for it and are within the rules. If someone sells me a 1 megabit always on connection, it is not abuse if I use it fully 24/7.

If you replace 'abuse' with 'use', your post makes a little more sense. Companies always oversell what they can deliver, and if they screw up, it's up to them to fix it.

I'd guess that in a market which is not dominated by flat rate lines, starting up a flat rate service would be a lot tougher, since you're naturally going to attract the heavy users. In a market in which nearly everyone's on flat rate, companies get all different types of customer.

Enough with the excuses AT&T, build FTTH !

[Brian Stretch]

I am sick and tired of the excuses and outright lies from AT&T for their kludgy FTTN U-verse network when Verizon has already proven that you can profitably build a FTTH network in America. But no, AT&T would rather milk their balky copper plant and put off the one-time expense of running fiber like they'll eventually have to do anyhow.

Every time I ask an AT&T droid about that they make wild claims of Verizon having so much trouble building their network, charging $hundreds to rewire your home, etc, etc. All I know is that my grandmother, in the middle of nowhere, can get FiOS and I, in a major university town, am stuck with U-verse.

Yes, Verizon's stock took a hit when they announced FiOS. I used the opportunity to buy shares for my IRA on the cheap. That's worked out well so far.

Why change plans?

[HalAtWork]

Why? If you're on AT&T then you're already using bittorrent and have an unlimited package, why would you want to transfer to something usage-based? Why would this attract people from other ISPs? Why should bittorrent even be singled out, it's just another packet on the wire. If people start downloading a ton of videos due to subscription service, will they have "plans" that spring up to help charge you more for that too?

Re:Pleasantly surprised

[TheSpoom]

I'm surprised at this, honestly.

Here we have a guy in charge of the biggest telecom company in the US, and he actually seems to know what he's doing. More than that, he actually wants to give his customers what they want for a fair price as opposed to being influenced by some lobbying group or external forces.

It seems so obvious but it's been so rare with companies this large recently. I don't expect it to last long (the CFO will probably figure that claiming unlimited access when it's not is still more profitable and override him) but if AT&T does this, they've seriously made me look at them in a whole new light.