Slashdot Mirror
AT&T To Introduce Broadband Caps
rekenner writes "In the upcoming weeks, AT&T customers are going to start receiving notices that their broadband services are going to have a monthly cap, starting in May. DSL users will have a cap of 150 GB per month, while U-Verse users will have a more 'generous' cap of 250 GB per month. However, unlike other caps, it won't be until your third month of overage, on the life of the account, that you'll be charged an overage. Thanks, I guess."
What's the average Netflix data rate? That couldn't have anything to do with this now could it ...
(150 gigabytes) / (31 days) = 58.7240143 kBps
(250 gigabytes) / (31 days) = 97.8733572 kBps
That's some bs.
"I like it when the red water comes out.."
It's not the magnitude of the cap. It's that bandwidth - which is a momentary capacity, not a "month cycle" capacity - is being charged that way.
This ain't electricity or water, where there is a certain central pool quantity to draw from. It's on or off.
Add to this the fact that NONE of these dishonest fuckers in these companies give you a good way to track "usage", and it gets worse.
Add in the fact that they are all doing this not to "manage slowdowns" but instead to try to push people back into buying "on demand TV" and "premium cable TV packages with rental DVR" and it's clear: this is not what they say it is. This is pure greed on their part.
What's the average Netflix data rate?
On Xbox 360, 1.8 GB per movie (source).
False dichotomy.
There is a third answer: The people who supply the pipes keep up with the current state of the art. They are not doing so. They are not reinvesting in their infrastructure and the result is lesser quality and rationing.
Frankly, what the telecoms charge for overages on caps is highway robbery. It has been demonstrated that it's simply cheaper to send a SSD via snail mail and *destroy the drive* after than it is to go over the ridiculous caps that are appearing in Canada. And we're starting to see this in the US as TFA indicates.
We here in the US threw tons of money at the broadband providers during the Clinton administration and all they did was give it out to their shareholders. They continue to refuse to reinvest, and prefer to kill the goose for short term gain. We are falling behind Europe and Asia in terms of broadband, and will soon be a backwater similar to Africa if the telecoms get their way.
This is what you get when you utterly refuse to regulate once the telecoms become regional monopolies or duopolies. There is no more competition, so the raping of the customer goes on.
--
BM
I just don't understand why americans tolerate ISPs enforcing ridiculous caps. From a swedish perspective it seems kind of backwards, I don't really know of any ISPs here that have caps and it really seems like a concept take from the early days of consumer broadband (mid-to-late 90s there were a few swedish ISPs that tried the whole thing with caps but they were pretty much forced into obscurity since most ISPs didn't cap).
Even major cities in American typically have only 2-3 available internet service providers, and they tend to implement very similar metering policies at roughly the same time, so there's no easy alternative.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Here's the thing, ATT will be capping the bandwidth of "Internet" usage. This is separate from the usage of the streaming HDTV signal that ATT provides to U-verse customers. One could run the TV streaming 24x7 and record 4 shows at once and run many times the bandwidth cap and there's no cap or additional fees. The issue lies in what you do with your computers. They are basically coming out and admitting that it's not a bandwidth issue, it's a services issues. ATT wants to own parts of what you do such as cloud gaming services and video streaming services. When you use their services they can be exempted from the caps, thus crushing competition like Netflix or Hulu. This isn't about bandwidth or caps or infrastructure, It's about greed and it's about net neutrality. Does anyone find it coincidental that this comes the week after the FCC net neutrality rules got struck down?
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
Usage caps do absolutely nothing to limit the amount of data your customers use. ISPs problems arise when a large portion of their customers use their cap at the same time... usually around 6-8pm. The rest of the day the ISP is idle for the most part. The people hitting caps like this are doing so because they are using their connection 24hrs/day. ALL ISPs in the US throttle peer to peer traffic, even if they don't admit it. So these people are already slowed way down during this peak period. So why are they doing it? New fees, plain and simple. It's the equivalent of credit card overages.
150,000,000,000 GB * 8 (bits/Byte) / 15,000,000 (bits/s) / 60 (sec/min) / 60 (min/hour) / 30 (days/month)= 0.74 hours a day
Thus, you can only use the advertised speed for no more than 45 minutes a day, given you do not use the internet at all during the remaining 23.26 hours.
What's this got to do with Net Neutrality? It's throttling back traffic and charging for overage - it's a Business Model - not entirely unlike how they charge for Long Distance.
It's Net Neutrality because they are not throttling or capping their own competing services, while they are capping Netflix. AT&T has just announced that they, like Comcast, are the gatekeepers of the Internet, and have free reign to control how much you say, who you say it to, and where your information comes from.
Depends on how many can and do vote with their feet. If a lot of AT&T people leave, AT&T might rethink the policy. Likewise if a cable ISP or whoever else is getting a lot of people from AT&T because of the cap, they might think long and hard before putting in such a cap themselves.
If - And I mean that as a really big "if" - You have the great fortune of having more than a single broadband ISP in your area, you might choose to switch between them when one misbehaves. When both demonstrate the same contempt for their customers, what then? Go back to dialup, crippling yourself just to teach 'em a lesson?
Market pressure only works when you actually have something resembling an open marketplace. When only two long-entrenched players offer what you need, they just take turns seeing who can screw you harder.
Add in the fact that they are all doing this not to "manage slowdowns" but instead to try to push people back into buying "on demand TV" and "premium cable TV packages with rental DVR" and it's clear: this is not what they say it is. This is pure greed on their part.
Now you're just making things up. It doesn't mention that anywhere in the article.
There is a finite amount of bandwidth. The options that have been presented to solve this problem are traffic shaping and capping, so please either throw your towel in with one of those or propose another idea.
Oooh ooh! Pick Me! I know!
Another option would be to have more options!
Since ATT is only able to provide service because they have used publicly owned throughways and have been given permission to sell me service, we could allow more people to provide service!
We could allow co-ops and startups to lease/buy/build lines and improve our networks!
Heck, we could even use that bandwidth that they took from TV providers (remember that?) and use it for broadband wireless with open networks like they said was going to happen!
It seems there are a lot of options besides bandwidth capping, traffic shaping, and anti-competitive practices. We just don't use them.
As a sidenote, HR 607 would take the D-Block of frequencies and instead give them to emergency response/public safety people. Sounds good right? Well, they don't need it, and it keeps it away from what it was taken for (which helps these same ISPs) and proposes to take away the 70cm band from Ham radio operators - which would really impair public safety in the event of a true emergency.