Slashdot Mirror


On Monday, AT&T Customers Enter Era of Broadband Caps

theodp writes "The Age of Broadband Caps begins Monday, with AT&T imposing a 150 GB cap on DSL subscribers and 250 GB for UVerse users, and keeping the meter running after that. The move comes as AT&T's 16+ million customers are increasingly turning to online video such as Hulu and Netflix on-demand streaming service instead of paying for cable. With AT&T's Man in the White House, some fear there's a 'digital dirt road' in America's future. Already, the enforcement of data caps in Canada has prompted Netflix to default to lower-quality streaming video to shield its users from overage fees."

19 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. Sweden by Securityemo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I sit here, 90 miles above the polar circle in the northernmost city in Sweden, and I pay ~52 USD a month for an unlimited 100/10 (guaranteed minimum 60) connection from an RJ-45 jack in my apartment wall. It's an ordinary apartment, nothing special about it, this is something that is generally available. Bask in my smugness, etc.

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
    1. Re:Sweden by Edsj · · Score: 4, Informative

      And not so far from Sweden, baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have unilimited 50,100 and even 200Mbps for a cool $40. These countries are not even the richest but somewhat think that this is an investment for their future as they can create a new type of industry with all that bandwith avaliable, helping their economies.

  2. the joke(s) by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 3, Funny

    I called at&t customer service and spoke to a nice representative. After listening to my concerns about broadband caps being imposed on accounts, he explained that the rising cost of fuel was effecting the price of delivering the bits to my home, hence the need for the limits on bandwidth. He asked if he could place me on hold for a moment while he talked to a supervisor, when he came back he said had gotten permission to grandfather my account to keep it as unlimited for as long as the account remained open.

    (this is probably only sad/funny for people that have actually ever called at&t. feel free to point out all the discrepancies/truths)

  3. Truth in advertising? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the FTC should force them to add a "Not suitable for streaming" disclaimer to all of their advertisements unless their cap can support high quality streaming (2.3GB/hour) for as many hours that a typical household watches TV (6.75 hours/day), which would mean a cap of 465GB/Month.

    1. Re:Truth in advertising? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sure, I understand how oversubscription works, but don't say that your service is great for video streaming when I'd hit your cap in 15 days if I tried to replace my normal TV viewing with streaming.

      I really don't care what the economics of being an ISP are - if they can't support the use they are claiming it's for, then they shouldn't be making that claim. It's not like they didn't know years ago that video streaming was on the upswing and would become a dominant use of bandwidth so surely they've had time to come up with advertising collateral that accurately describes what their product can do.

      It's like a car manufacturer advertising that their latest pickup is great for heavy construction use... then in the fine print they note "Warranty invalid if used for heavy construction use".

  4. What is so bad about it? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Come on a 150GB download limit, that is okay. If you need your porn faster then 150GB per second then... wait, it is NOT per second? Oh well, 150GB per day is still... not per day either?

    Oh dear. You poor Americans... thank god in mainland Europe we have evil state sponsored businesses and no free market so we have a lot of choice of ISP's. But who will I now download my porn from at 100mbit and no bandwidth limit? Oh wait, Japan! Country of un-limitted porn AND bandwidth and now thanks to Fukushima, tentacle porn without special effects!

    But I know the perfect way to get the Americans to shit up and enjoy the AT&T dick going up their ass for the thousand time. Here is it. Are you ready for it? Brace yourself:

    The way to fix this, is government regulation.

    Whoa, see? All the complainers now switched their energy to frothing at the mouth about the free market, small government etc etc and they stopped complaining about the ass raping they are getting. Always works.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:What is so bad about it? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, and since you didn't give an idea of what kind regulation to use to fix this, here's mine:

      We need to separate the service providers from the people who are building the infrastructure. That way, people who are building infrastructure will be competing against those who are building infrastructure, and they will have no way to differentiate themselves except on price and capacity. This will have the effect of driving up the capacity and driving down the cost.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. I know he was trolling by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but that doesn't change the fact that he was right :(. My idea of quality of life is a rising income higher than my parents, good schools and good health care. All of those are disappearing fast. Real wages have been stagnant since the 70s, school funding is being slashed (and what little money there is goes to wealthy schools thanks to the property tax scam) and the only thing going up faster than insurance premiums is the speed they deny your claims. Here in Arizona we literally just let two people die because we didn't want to pay for organ transplants.

    As for the manufacturing, the big threat to Americans isn't Outsourcing, it's computers & robotics. I know keep bringing this up in my posts, but there is a sleeping bag factory making 2 MILLION bags a year with a total workforce (including salesmen, marketing, accounting and all other non-manufacturing jobs) of JUST 120 people. Fact is, it's not just that we're outsourcing, we just don't need all these people. So far the only answer I've heard to this is "Tough titties, at least they're free to starve to death in the streets".

    A free, inexpensive Internet is seen by a lot of progressives as the only hope. China is starting to see some progressive movements (very little, I know) because they have a well educated middle class whose brains work well enough now to realize they're being taken advantage of. If the schools & centralized media fail us, the only hope is people on the Internet. It's not much, but I still like it better than saying 'Oh well, time for 70% of our populace to die in a gutter'.

    So, yeah, he was trolling. But ye was also right.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I know he was trolling by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Oh please. Stop using garbage statistics and uninformed ideas. (yeah, that's a troll way of saying it, but please, get real).

      Real wages have been stagnant since the 70s

      Great, but why would you use that statistic? A lot of people talk about real wages in order to deceive you, because it matches the narrative they want to push. Forget it: it leaves out portions of compensation. Measuring real compensation is hard of course, but it gives a better measurement of what the average employee is getting. And it's been going up. Look at the graph.

      I know keep bringing this up in my posts, but there is a sleeping bag factory making 2 MILLION bags a year with a total workforce (including salesmen, marketing, accounting and all other non-manufacturing jobs) of JUST 120 people.

      Where did you learn history? Really, do you even think? Do you realize how many people were employed in the farming sector just a hundred years ago? When tractors got introduced, people were complaining about the same things you are complaining about. They even made movies about it (check out Gene Autry, The Old Barn Dance as an example). These are things people manage to adapt to.

      And we do adapt. We've already adapted to the robotics revolution. For example, there is a sleeping bag factory that produces millions of sleeping bags with only 120 employees. All this stuff happened years ago. Some people moved to other industries, some people retired early, and for some people who had trouble adapting, it was quite painful. But you'd have to be braindead to think this is going to cause 70% of the population to die in the streets when the manufacturing industry only employs around 10million people? Even if all those people exploded, it would only be ~4% of the population dead. Really, 70% of the population is not going to die in the streets because of robotics. Anyone who told you that is lying.

      A free, inexpensive Internet is seen by a lot of progressives as the only hope

      They are idiots.

      China is starting to see some progressive movements

      Please never use China as an example of what we should do, unless you have extremely smart, solid, amazing reasoning backing up why we should copy them. They jail dissidents, disallow many types of public gatherings, and prohibit free speech, you know. We don't want to copy them. People who hold up China as an example of what we should do are typically just propagandaists.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Marginal pricing is good economics. by imcdowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having a bandwidth cap per se is not a bad thing from a societal perspective; if there really is a marginal cost to carrying a GB of data you'll only get the socially optimal result if you price bandwidth at that marginal cost. From that perspective the Netflix degradation referenced in the article could be a good thing; if individuals value the higher video quality less than the price of transmitting it, the right outcome for society is for them to see lower quality video at lower cost.

    Of course, the marginal price for a GB of data these days is near zero -- (one site pegged it at $.03). AT&T has a fine idea, they're just pricing it 150x too high. The fact that they're able to do so screams market failure/monopoly to me.

    1. Re:Marginal pricing is good economics. by ritcereal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The claim that your denying your neighbor from bandwidth is complete FUD. If you are provided a service (lets say 10 mb down / 5 mb up) and you consume said service and it degrades your neighbor's service, is that YOUR fault? No. It is entirely your service providers fault for providing service in such a way that a single customer affects another customer.

      In the real world, you alone do not deprive bandwidth from another user (even in cable with shared medium environments it is rare, and if it does happen it is STILL the ISP's fault not the customers).

      With that said, the real issue is that the ISPs don't want to pony up and order additional capacity to their providers, peers, or even within their own network. They've all increased subscriber counts, data rates, and expected to spend little to nothing on improving the network? That's crap. ISP's are just trying to convince us that we are the cause of congestion because we watch too much You Tube and Netfix while they neglect maintaining and improving the network. It is ok to oversell, every business does it, but if you neglect your own service to the point that customers service is being denied because you refused to invest in your own network, how could this be the consumers fault?

      Clearly the internet market in the United States is flawed. It's ok, the free market is clearly worse than the guaranteed monopolies we have with our telecoms.

    2. Re:Marginal pricing is good economics. by FSWKU · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It all boils down to greed. First, they pocket the money given to them for building out their infrastructure. Now, they see Netflix/Hulu/etc becoming more popular than their overpriced VOD services.

      My guess is they ultimately want to start raising their overage fees. The reasoning (internally, of course) will be something along the lines of, "Fine...you want to shrink our profits by choosing the better & cheaper streaming alternatives? Well now you're going to be paying us more in overages than you save by not giving us your money in the first place!"

      Now in public, they will try to spin this as a win for "fairness" and being able to provide "quality services that customers demand" or some other such bullshit...

      And this is why I'd love to see more companies providing nothing but a connection to the internet. No phone companies, no cable companies, no other vested interests trying to stifle what you do on your connection because it competes with the other offerings they want to shove down your throat.

      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
  7. Re:Vote with your Wallet by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    oh thank you, I have never thought of that before, lets see here in my area there is

    #1) ATT
    #2) Comcast

    well fuck me, that showed them

  8. If only it didn't suck! by Whip · · Score: 4, Informative

    The caps wouldn't be that bad if the service didn't *utterly* suck.

    The gateway they give you is the only thing that works with the service (you can't use your own hardware, or at least nobody has found a way to). It won't do any kind of bridge mode. It won't talk to more than one IP per MAC address, so you can't put a router behind it (unless that router is doing NAT for *everything*). It randomly drops connections, especially long lived ones -- I can't make local backups of my server in a remote datacenter anymore, because the connection will almost never stay alive long enough to transfer the whole ~400MB. Sometimes it starts blocking random incoming connections, even to static, un-natted, unfirewalled addresses -- one day I can't get to my webserver from the outside world for a few hours... the next I can't ssh into my home server ("unknown inbound session stopped" ... of course it's unknown, it's the first packet of a new connection, you piece of garbage). It supports logging to syslog, but outputs a constant stream of useless messages so thick that it's almost useless.

    Recently I've started to notice having periodic problems downloading content (like the slashdot style sheet!) from akamai-based sites, which a little bit of goggling shows to be an ongoing U-Verse problem since 2008.

    The support sucks massively. If you call with basically any problem beyond "my internet is down" they will forward you on to their "advanced" support department, who has a fee of $39 (might be $29... don't remember)... which they'll charge you even if all they do is tell you that they can't help you and you need to call regular support.

    Netflix, on my 24Mbit downlink, varies from "great quality" to "OMG you can barely do SD quality"... many other people report this as well. Some days the performance is great, some days the performance is just absolutely miserable. I'd try to see if there was some common network path causing problems, but they basically disable traceroute for all of their internal nodes (I'm guessing they just stop them from sending TTL exceeded datagrams completely).

    You can't switch back to ADSL -- they wouldn't even let me get U-Verse service unless they disconnected my ADSL at the same time. But it is "no longer available" so now I'm stuck with this garbage.

    I'd gladly take a usage cap if it meant any of this crap would get better. I'm somehow doubting it, since not a bit of it seems like it's related to network saturation... just lousy service. And my only other choice in this area (AFAIK) is Comcast, who also has caps, along with their own set of problems...

    I'd say "welcome back to the 90s" ... but my network worked a lot better back then. So I guess... welcome to the future!

  9. Re:Vote with your Wallet by magamiako1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FUCK YEAH! FREE MARKET WINS OUT AGAIN!

    YOU TOTALLY HAVE A CHOICE!

    But you forgot:

    #3) No internet at all

    The amusing thing is that the free market libertarians argue very much like religious people (usually they're one in the same), in that the choices religious people present to you are:

    #1) Bask in God's glory and accept Jesus Christ into your heart and be saved.
    #2) BURN IN THE FIERY PITS OF HELL AND BE TORTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY

    Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me, but for them, it is.

    Back to the market for a second, the obvious excuse is "Well, if you feel that you cannot do without the service, that means having the service is worth whatever they're willing to charge and whatever you're willing to pay before you'll do without."

    But me, I prefer to live in a more modern society, with an elected government body that represent the people. And I want laws that I know are good for *everyone*, not just for a *select few*.

  10. Re:A business opportunity by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Informative

    In an ideal world, perhaps that'd work. As it stands, it's exactly the kind of net-neutrality destroying idea that so many geeks are worried about: it'd give the ISPs an incentive to create ever more onerous (and artificial) transfer caps, to encourage more content providers to pay for hosting on their cache servers. It would disincentivise costly upgrades to the backbone network (since many of the big names that customers demand are already on the caching network), further marginalising the wider internet by reducing the speed available within those strict transfer limits. Eventually, as even the last mile network becomes saturated, you might even end up with secondary transfer caps being introduced on data from the cache servers.

    Looking at the past actions of the ISPs, can you honestly say that kind of behaviour is beyond them?

  11. Re:Of course people are swallowing this by KDR_11k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's because many issues foster an us-vs-them mentality where it's either kill-the-market or kill-the-government, never anything in between. Meanwhile the Social Market Economy works just fine in some countries.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  12. you think you understand something, you don't by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You don't understand how the politics break in the US.

    In general, it is the old people who have the money who are complaining about taxes, government regulation and state how the free market will fix everything.

    But it's the young people who watch a lot of video over the internet (specifically torrent a lot) and they aren't anti government-regulation in general. Mostly because they wouldn't mind voting some older people's money into their pockets, which is (to circle back) what the old people are worried about in the first place.

    So you've created a false dichotomy. Those who are up in arms about caps likely would not complain if the government stepped in.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  13. What about online education, etc.? by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The telcos make me sick, and they are making America sick! Imagine what this will mean as education, training, and other necessities migrate online - with massive, bandwidth-sucking applications; those who can pay for bandwidth will be able to access these things; those that can't, won't.

    The telcos have done *everything* they can to cripple expansive growth, so that *they can save infrastructure investment dollars*. In the offing, they have paid off our legislators and others who are supposed to be looking out for us. Their actions are nothing short of criminal, and are legal only because they pay for the laws that are supposed to "protect" the consumer.

    In a word, these capping policies are UNAMERICAN (and, I'm not a nationalist, by any means.) What do these caps do to things like scientific research, education, legal artistic sharing, etc. etc. They *cripple* those innovations, thus crippling the forward promise of Americans, and America. Something HAS to be done; the pure profit motives at any cost of the grotesquely greedy telcos must be legislated. It's time to nationalize these companies, or else slap them upside the head so hard that they will start *serving* their customers instead of crimping their futures.

    What's more, we need to start with the people who run these companies; we need to see them for what they are, and the large-scale harm that they do. They may be scions of their individual communities, and good parents, and all that, but they are literally putting us on a path that will disadvantage this country for decades, if someone doesn't put a stop to this egregious insult to information access, invention, and innovation.

    Bandwidth is (theoretically) unlimited; we don't need to meter it; we need to *make it accessible*, and let 1000 ideas bloom. From now on, we must *insist* on nothing less - our future depends on it!