Slashdot Mirror
AT&T To Start Data Throttling Heaviest Users
greymond writes "AT&T has announced that starting on Oct. 1 it will throttle the data speeds of users with unlimited data plans who exceed bandwidth thresholds on its 3G network. AT&T is following in the tracks Verizon and Virgin Mobile in reducing data throughput speeds of its heaviest mobile data users."
I signed up for unlimited back years ago. Not for unlimited with limits that reduce speed. This is an arbitrary change of contract.
Here in the UK, this has been already happening with British Telecom (BT) for years.
I remember being on 'unlimited' dial-up and getting a letter saying that my speeds are going to be throttled at peak times due to heavy bandwidth usage.
Misrepresentation at it's best.
it is hella slow, I travel to the US a lot for work and mostly use my Sprint 4G mifi while I'm walking around.
I dropped their 3g service last year when they implemented this. Apparently, 30gig/month via 3G was a lot.
The only thing I miss is being able to tell a client: "Let me pull into the next parking lot and I'll log in and fix it for you."
So they plan to make their shit service even worse?
I think that should read users who exceed usage thresholds.
I would LOVE to be throttled! That would mean I actually maintained connection long enough to use the data at a high speed to be in the top x% of users.
Counting down my last month until I switch to Verizon...
The worship of corporations has come so far that customers are allowing companies to spank them when their behavior goes against the established business models?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Instead of coming up with new and innovative ways to increase data usage while lightning the workload on the network, they punish all of their customers to save a few bucks here and there.
It's called the AT&T network.
I hate how these statistics are worded to vilify these users. First, it's the top 5% vs the average of the other 95%. Hell, they don't even filter out the bottom 5% to balance that out who likely use close to zero data. By removing the top 5% from the average, the average is going to be reduced dramatically, unlike the median would be. 2nd, the services they claim as being the data hogs are the same services that are most heavily advertised. And when defined this way, even if top users find more efficient ways to get their content, eg pandora starts to cache up to 2 hours of songs in advance whenever connected to wifi, there will always be a top 5%. Without setting actual hard limits, eg 50x the median user's usage of the previous month, it's impossible to know where you stand without much greater transparency. It's also frustrating that off-peak usage and edge/hspa/lte are costed the same. 1GB on edge is obviously more destructive to the network than 1GB on LTE.
Overall, it's a system that is somewhat fair but doesn't offer the user the tools or opportunity to optimize their usage. It's in everyone's best interest to maximize available bandwidth. The networks need to make the users partners rather than enemies. For example, have an unlimited plan with peak-usage throttling and offer rebates, free music/apps/whatever bonuses to good network citizens. If there was an actual thank you and reward for downloading/pre-caching my music rather than streaming it, I'd certainly prefer that option. But if they only punish, I'm going to give them the middle-finger and abuse 'their' network.
So, Are they saying they can't handle all this data on there network? Did they over sell what they had?
So whats up AT&T, you just can't handle all this new internet stuff? maybe you should just stick with telephone stuff. Let others with better networks handle this other stuff.
AT&T: We have altered the deal. Pray we do not alter it again.
Do you think it's coincidence that this comes when they're buying up the competition? I have been staying with AT&T specifically because of my unlimited data plan. I'll be switching to a different provider when this takes effect, thank you very much. Unfortunately most people don't know the difference, they just know that the guy at the store said they can watch Youtube and use Facebook with plan X. I wouldn't mind non-unlimited plans if they charged a reasonable amount for overage. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist in the US.
AT&T has you by the nads. You have a hard time finding phone service where you don't waive your right to sue and the carrier can make changes any time they want.
There's always some pompous horses ass who jumps in to say, "If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract." But when you can't get service anywhere without those stipulations, there is no consumer choice. The wireless carriers operate as a cartel, not a free market.
Markets are not free if they're not also fair. And when one side can change the terms of a contract at any time, it's not fair.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
...are relegated to tethered phones for internet access where we are so rural as to not have a choice other than satellite and they have similar restrictions. I am not on AT&T but I thought about writing my carrier's (the big V) CEO and issuing a challenge. Go a month with your "surfing habits" with only a tethered phone and your data service plan. No cheating now, tell me if you think it is fair, usable, and how far you get while on the web before you hit your limit. It doesn't take long trust me. Even then I cut back on what I do with it. Being a systems professional, it's not unheard of to download a MS Partner ISO, or a linux distro from time to time, but now if I did that it would either kill my data allotment or my pocket book. If you can't handle the data requirements that your product offerings require, don't you think there is a problem there? Oh, and the best that big V will do is 10GB plan at an additional $80 making my monthy bill equivalent to a small car payment. I can drive my phone!
It's always another ratcheted step in their race to the bottom. One of them pulls some kind of stunt, waits for backlash... if it's sufficiently small enough, they keep it and their increased benefits. The others will follow suit as they see they can do it and get away with it as well.
This will keep going on and on until we see some legislation to stop it. And before anyone says "but we don't need any more laws!" I would like to hear what ELSE could make them change their behavior? No significant numbers of people will stop using their services because of it. So what else is there but law?
eom
I mean, I want my service to work, because it's not overloaded all the time, and this fixes that problem without
a. Hard caps
b. overages.
seems to me, saying you'll get 3g speeds for the first 2gb/mo, and edge speeds after that is the best way to solve the problem. SO long as it's publicized. if you don't like it, too bad, I'm tired of shitty service because some folks use their hacked Iphones to download torrents all day.
that said, if the service still sucks, or the cap it too low, leave.
-and occasionaly a giant moose.
that "Heaviest bandwidth users start ditching AT&T".
if you don't like it, too bad, I'm tired of shitty service because some folks use their hacked Iphones to download torrents all day.
And this is the greatest accomplishment companies like AT&T have ever managed to pull off.
You've now got fools blaming other customers instead of the shit ass product.
or the CEO could go without his new jet this month and actually expand their spread so thin you can see though it decade old network ... many have signed into this thing as unlimited, not unlimted as long as it doesnt effect ATT, I went through the exact same thing with them on long distance and dialup, its their oldest trick
They offer you the moon for a penny and when it starts to catch up with them and bite them in the ass they change your contract and sometimes they might even bother to inform you, most of the time they just add charges and hope you wont bitch
Seriously, to hell with you people who want to live in the country but have all of the benefits of urban living.
A spokesman from Level3 was quoted as saying "AT&T just uses such a tremendous amount of the world's Internet bandwidth. What else could we do?"
I am a Clearwire Customer.
In my area, I can not get Cable or DSL. I am in a city with 180,000 people living in it, so it isn't a small place by any stretch of the imagination.
I got in bed with Clearwire after they were advertising uncapped, unthrottled, unlimited speeds faster than DSL. I signed up for a 2 year contract with them, that I can not physically leave without paying $500 to do so.
When I was getting less than stellar speeds (28Kbps Down / 5Mbps Up), I called to complain and was informed that I was in their top 5% of users on my connected tower, and that as such I am being "managed", and was told how this is significantly different than being "throttled".
When I asked how much I had used to get up to their top 5%, I found out that I was sitting at 38MB downloaded for the month. After repeated calls to attempt to figure out how this made sense that web browsing for a day using my same dial-up habits put me in their top 5%, I found out from one of their senior technicians that I was one of two people who actually use service off of my tower.
They told me that the only way to get unmanaged would be to move to an area with more customers, or convince more of my neighbors to come on board as it would shift that top 5% figure to one of them instead.
The bottom line is that at this point, it will cost me more to cancel with them on day two than it will for me to wait out my contract ($19.95 per month * 24 months = 478.80).
In the mean time, I use my iPhone as my primary method of internet connectivity to browse the web faster than I do with my Dial-up account when I really need to do something in a hurry for work.
When there is no visibility as to what those invisible limits are, than what are you going to do? If you are legitimately within the top 5% of users when using next to nothing after all...
Thirty four characters live here.
I'm on an unlimited plan and recently I called AT&T to see if I could drop my plan to a lower usage plan and (hopefully) save money. The nice lady on the phone looked up my usage, laughed and said that I was "double" the usage rate of the next lower plan both in terms of voice as well as data. The thing is, yes I live by my phone. (I run my own business.) But really, I very rarely watch any videos with my phone. (Though perhaps every other month I'll watch a video on NetFlix) I mostly use my phone for e-mail and for reading various news websites -- being a news junkie -- and yet I'm a "heavy user".
So, from my point of view speaking as one who rarely uses high-data intensive applications, if you aren't a "heavy user", you don't use your phone at all ....
I thought they were throttling me ever since I got the contract. How else would you explain the lethargic data rates I am getting - what feels like 56Kbit modem or less. Oh, wait, someone can download too much data at those speeds and they'll throttle them *even more*? Oh, the humanity.
And that is US data only
Makes me glad I use T-Mobile. Oh, wait. Sh*t.
You mean AT&T actually connects cell phone calls?, wow wish I signed up for that option, I keep getting 2 week old text messages. Maybe
the heavy users are us. facebook,twitter,slashdot,digg,add infitum. along with all the add servers needed to service a reasonably popular web page are the real bandwidth hogs. the interconnects we make suck it all up. but anyway we can blame bittorent. get a sloww connection and see what is actaully is loading regards, mike
I mean, I want my service to work, because it's not overloaded all the time, and this fixes that problem...
To be fair, we don't actually know this. There is no data, they just say "top 5%". They don't say "... that download this many bits" or "... in this particular city where it's incredibly bad.." or anything like that. They don't even actually say "We'll recoup enough resources to make YOUR connection faster".
I'm not saying this to be nitpicky, rather I'm pointing this out because AT&T is currently trying to make their case that they should be able to purchase T-Mobile. Generally speaking, though, the LAST thing I'd believe is their PR spin.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I work for a phone company... and over the years I've made my way up the ladder to the point that now VPs will actually talk to me occasionally. Now, trust me... I'm a hardcore "information wants to be free / net neutrality / anti-software patent" type of person. Look at any of my previous posts on the subject to see this. But recently I got to sit in on a meeting with one of our top VPs who revealed what's "really" going on with this subject. While I still don't agree with bandwidth caps, throttling or traffic shaping, I think his point of view makes a little more sense to me now and is worthy of mention.
Their main concern is what they are calling "free riders." This isn't the customer, and they are in no way mad at the customer. They, in fact, wish this entire subject didn't exist. They aren't worrying about people downloading music, browsing or anything of that nature. Their first concern was You tube... and service like it. At first it was a bit annoying... you-tube setup a service where you could stream video to the customer and in exchange the customer would view adds. Youtube made ad revenue at almost no cost. The ISP saw this as an annoyance because to generate more ad revenue Youtube and service like it forced the user to re-download the same content every time they watched it... or at least made that the most convenient method for the user to use. Now the user is not only sucking up a lot more bandwidth, but they are very concerned about latency and download speeds even at peak hours. All of this to support Youtubes profit model that the ISP has no part of. Now this sort of service was annoying to them for a while, but later it got worse. Netflix put huge strains on their networks. Not only did it increase the amount of bandwidth people used, it also focused all their use to very specific time periods during the week. It was the ISP was a grocery store and some other vendor setup a cart in the middle of their store with "FREE CANDY FRIDAYS AT 8PM" The stores flooded with customers, the bathrooms are wrecked and there are lines of people at the front desk bitching that they cant get to the milk because of the swarm of children in the center isles. Despite all the media hype over Netflix, this wasn't really the last straw... The final nail in the coffin were services that most people don't know exist. In recent years many companies have started selling devices with network connections... in fact, most devices have them now. These connections offer users added services to their devices, like weather updates, firmware updates, games, trivia, TV guides, the works. But few users realize they are trading something for these services. As soon as these devices are hooked up there is almost a continuous stream of data going back to the vendors servers. They're monitoring their customers device usage and rarely even notifying. What's worse is these devices continue to communicate or at least attempt to communicate with their home service even if the vendor no longer cares to receive it. They have no vested intrest in the health of the network their equipment is hooked up to, so they use the cheapest most bandwidth intensive methods available. Why pay for software to compress your data when you don't have to pay for the bandwidth? The customer pays for that right?
These types of service were scary enough, but then Direct TV went over the top. When their receiver is hooked up to the customers internet connection and the customer trys to watch certain movies, the receiver starts downloading the movie from the home network FIRST to save the satellite provider bandwidth. So, what you have, in effect, is one ISP hijacking another ISP to deliver content. This threw the telecoms into a frenzy. All they could see was danger. If Direct TV or a local cable company had equipment hooked up to the telecoms network and the user had unlimited bandwidth and little incentive to pay much attention to how much their equipment was using, the competitor could quite easily cripple the telco.
I think the answer will never be in capping bandwidth. But I can understand their concerns. I think more transparency in how much data and what kind of data a device is using is a better option. But I have to say, I can now see what's got them so concerned.
Wind Mobile does this in Canada. They say you have unlimited but if you go over 2GB, I think, they de-prioritize you and you get throttled if the network needs you throttled.
I agree with it completely, so long as they tell everyone exactly where the line is
Once we explained to your mom that this was about data throttling and not erotic asphyxiation, she complained bitterly that this would interfere with her ability to post to the Craigslist personals section, and additionally objected to having been the first one singled out by AT&T for this.
Bow-ties are cool.
I'm mostly excited about all the choices we have here in America and the fact that all of them give you the same bandwidth throttling option. In a world out there filled with choice it's important to know that we can go to any provider and get the same thing no matter what we want.
So, AT&T is telling us that we(the customers) are causing harm to the network by using what we were fucking promised. AT&T states that we, as "unlimited" customers, will see a decrease in speed, if we are found to be using "too much data". What the fuck is "too much data"? We don't want to hear about fucking percentages; we want hard data.
I found it even more hilarious when AT&T, in this press release states the following:
"The bottom line is our customers have options. They can choose to stay on their unlimited plans and use unlimited amounts of data, but may experience reduced speeds at some point if they are an extraordinarily heavy data user. If speed is more important, they may wish to switch to a tiered usage plan, where customers can pay for more data if they need it and will not see reduced speeds."
http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=20535&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=32318&mapcode=corporate
So, even though we are trying to use what we paid for, and that high usage is causing AT&T a lot of network problems, we will not be affected by the throttling if we pay more money. Excuse me? Either the network cannot handle the traffic, or it can't. With AT&T making almost $20 billion USD, in profit each year, I see no reason why any of us should be paying more for a service we were promised, contractually, would be "unlimited".
What is the excuse going to be? "Limited spectrum"? First off, AT&T is the largest hoarder of spectrum in the United States, if not the world. Secondly, spectrum is no boundary. If AT&T cannot handle the traffic on its network, then it needs to install more towers and improve the overall infrastructure. The number of wireless subscribers that can be handled in a given area is spectrum, multiplied by the number of towers in the area. Of course, AT&T only wants people to focus on the spectrum portion of the equation.
AT&T failed to sufficiently plan for the increased demand for mobile data. Coupled with that, AT&T has failed to completely roll out UMTS/HSDPA over their entire network. severely lagging behind Verizon. I still have yet to see a 3G indicator show up on my phone within 25 miles from where I live. I live close to an interstate highway, and in the metro Atlanta area. Yet, Verizon(yet another company unprepared, but not quite as badly), has EVDO out here, and it has been out here for years.
With all of this, AT&T has also refused to roll out DSL and there are no other options for "broadband" where I live. So, I am a little confused as to what the hell I am supposed to do for data access on my phone. Use one of the non-existent "hotspots" in my area, or use my non-existent DSL service? Oh, wait, AT&T doesn't want us to focus on this problem either.
I have yet to see a commercial that states, directly from AT&T, just how behind the company is in meeting the demands on its customers. All I am seeing is some nice music, happy people, and pretty pictures, while AT&T uses a plethora of euphemisms to describe how it will fuck us, and its employees over, when it takes over T-Mobile. Oh, shit, sorry, we are not supposed to pay attention to that.
Well, you may have not noticed any of this, but your brain did.
Why not charge per bit instead of per bit per month. Then I would agree with you, but if they want to charge a fee per bit per month then we are just paying them to keep service low. Per bit we are paying them to improve bandwidth. If we use more they WANT to make it easier for us to use even more. But as it stands they have no interest in investing in the infrastructure, only in removing 'offending' customers who are trying to get the most out of what they are being charged for.
Other than satellite (POTS lines are so bad here that I can't even get dial-up) 3G is my only option. I pay into it every month. Month after month, and now year after year. And my service continues to go DOWN in quality. VZW can't deliver 500MB of data spread over the course of an entire DAY without choking because of parasitic providers? Bulls***. They'll gladly take our money but then don't want to invest in upgrading the infrastructure.
Obscene profits over quality of service, PERIOD. Go play your violin somewhere else.
I mean, I want my service to work, because it's not overloaded all the tim ...
if the service still sucks, or the cap it too low, leave.
You're not heeding your own advice, it seems.
In true Slashdot fashion, I didn't read the article or the summary, only the title. But frankly, I think this is a great idea since obesity is such a serious problem in the United States. If AT&T begins throttling data for these heaviest users then maybe they'll actually go outside and get some exercise. Though to be fair, AT&T should base it on something like BMI so as not to penalize users who happen to be tall but who are not overweight.
There is plenty of bandwidth on the wired side. If you need more, there is always data compression and even plenty of dark fiber laying around,provided it was you who laid it first. Renting it out means spending your money on rental fees.
AT&T bought the big one when it signed up for iPhone and they figure that t-mobile is going to solve all their problems. Wrong.
The loyal clientele is going to take them to the toilette where they are going to get the beating out of their lives when the new idevices and 3G/4G devices fold up their network and you can not even make a phone call on it.
Their press release closes with:
"But even as we pursue this additional measure, it will not solve our spectrum shortage and network capacity issues. Nothing short of completing the T-Mobile merger will provide additional spectrum capacity to address these near term challenges."
So basically this is just a ruse by ATT execs to have the T-Mobile merger approved by the government posthaste, by trying to underscore how their poor widdle network is crumbling under the weight of the few people left on the grandfathered unlimited plan. It's ridiculous! You notice how they never define a limit, or put a range on what this top 5% is using. It's because the whole thing is malarkey.
It doesn't really make sense to limit speed. If anything they should be doubling the speed to halve the amount of time it takes their top 5% to download their pron.....they'll rub one out and get off the net that much faster.
I'd far rather see who is sending money where than the old system were all of the money was hidden from plain site (not that some is still not obscured).
Citizens United protects freedom of speech, far more than it has any harmful effects. All of the money you fear was already flowing to politicians anyway.
The only solution for the problem you see is smaller government. A smaller government has less power over you, there is less impact that money flowing from corporations can have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So, that free market would get a dial tone out to the never-going-to-be-profitable like the failed government monopolies did?
There's money to be made in any market, no matter how small. It just would have been a bit longer. Or perhaps rural regions would have had more robust wireless technologies sooner. We'll never know because AT&T iced all competition for decades.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, like those buildings called supermarkets where bread and meat and fruits and vegetables magically appear out of thin air.
You're a farmer? Yeah right.
I have considered moving out into the country to but if internet connectivity was important that would ALSO affect where I lived. If you don't like the internet where you live, move; otherwise it was not really that important to you.
I used to live out in the country and we didn't mind going into town for groceries, so you can go into town for internet sessions...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is a market here for this type of internet connection, I'm certain I could sell it.
However, the fcc license fee for doing this would completely dwarf all other costs.
Well with the government, and therefore FCC enforcement, about to shut down - wire up those towers sir and get ready for customers!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This isn't interesting it's complete bullshit. I pay my ISP to provide the bandwidth and Youtube pays their ISP to provide bandwidth, the bandwidth has been paid for.
That's why, as stated, they didn't mind YouTube much.
Has DirectTV really pain anyone much for their content? I doubt it. They are riding off the ISP's network.
You paid for an average amount of data use. When people drive up that average in a huge way, then your costs will also rise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If they place any limits beyond what the technology allows it's no longer unlimited.
I consider it unlimited if I can download continuously and they don't care. They never promised you an exact transfer rate, that was never part of "unlimited". Unlimited was all about amounts of data, never about speed (because claiming it is "unlimited fast" would be silly),
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
AT&T clearly does not have enough money ( how much did they bid for T-mobile again?) to improve infrastructure to service the customer they signed a FUCKING service agreements with TO DELIVER A FUCKING service agreement/LEGAL BINDING CONTRACT(emphasis..mine, sorry, it is late).
I mean shit, if 5% of users can bring this behemoth of a network down then we have some serious problem on our hands, don't we? Well, AT&T does. They contracted so many people that now they admit, they can properly service only 5% of their active users.
Jesus Cryst Superstar, help us...
This post is provided without warranty as to reliability, accuracy or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose.
In Australia most ISPs have had systems like this in place for almost a decade now, and we call it "shaping" (a nice term for "use too much bandwidth and we'll jack you back down to ISDN").
The funny thing is that "shaping" is a change for the better in Australia, as before it became common place (it was initially marketed as "UNLIMITED BROADBAND!11!!*") users were either charged ridiculous rates for excess usage ($50+/gb on some plans) or had their service cut off until the end of the month.
AT&T's move may be seen as a step backwards, but the truth is that Americans are still lucky to have some of the lowest cost bandwidth in the world.
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
I'm all for this as well. So long as it's not like Satellite internet where if you go over the cap your connection is reduced to an unusable state, having your bandwidth capped at a lower rate is much preferable to massive overage fees or service termination.
/.ers have long understood were never truly unlimited and never could be.
Ideally, it wouldn't be an issue and when an ISP (mobile or land based) offered a high speed connection they'd have the capacity available so every subscriber would be free to have that bandwidth pegged out 24/7. But since that's not a currently realistic business model, this is the method that is the least painful. The alternative is to do like most other mobile carriers and eliminate the Unlimited plans which most
Seriously, when do the wireless ISPs get nuked for pulling bait and switch tactics? They love to advertise all the new, shiny gadgets that can play movies, stream music and do all sorts of really cool stuff.
Then if you, you know, actually try to do the stuff they advertise you can do, they turn around and smack you with a huge board and say "Naughty, naughty, you're using bandwidth!" and then either throttle you or send you a bill that leaves a smoking crater where your bank account used to be.
If this isn't bait and switch, I sure don't know what is.
the best way to solve the problem is to improve the infrastructure. you are paying for 'unlimited' service, the provider should actually have the capacity to provide that to EVERY SINGLE CUSTOMER that is given a contract.
what's wrong with getting what you've paid for or been sold on ?
Lol.
There will always be a top five percent.
This is a brilliant move to cause *everyone* to reduce usage. The people at 3GB feel safe because of the headroom. But if everyone cuts down to a max of 3GB, what then?
Top 5% baby! Ok, so *most* of those users cut down. Well, there's still a top 5% that gets throttled, unless *they* also cut down...
Truly a race to the bottom - whatever AT&T says they won't throttle at is eventually where almost all users will end up.
Nice. For them, at least.
Regards.
I am not totally against tiered data plans, but using "Unlimited" for limited plans should get someone in lot of trouble. Why have they gotten away with this for so long?
You agreed to them changing things at their whim.. All they have to do is notify you and they can change it.
But i agree with you in that its uncool, and unfortunately expected.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So if they do enforce this and limit your rates, what does this amount to per month total in practical numbers?
Does this reduce your total potential data 'limit' below the other 'limited' plans or do you still get more?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
To be fair, the contracts they signed were unlimited until either party decides otherwise, not unlimited forever. There will be a few years of grandfathering as multi-year contracts expire, then unlimited will either be gone or relegated to expensive business plans.
OP is right though - this is the better, more honest way to do it. The bandwidth industry lives on overselling capacity to lower prices. From the google searches I've done, it looks like about 20:1 overselling is the norm. Selling that as "unlimited" is simply the marketing department's fantasy, designed to entice customers away from other more honest providers who clearly state their bandwidth and usage caps up-front. Like all fantasies, it's unsustainable. So it's better in that the industry is heading towards honest disclosure of the actual extent of your service.
I'd agree with you that they should be held to the letter of their contract if they sold you "unlimited" service. But once that contract expires, I don't see anything wrong with your only choices being one of their more realistically labeled plans.
I mean, right now, I only get around 80kbps upstream anyway... IN 3G. I realize that i didn't mention downstream there, but for my most bandwidth intensive application, I don't use it. So where's my limit going to be? 2gigs? 5gigs? and what are they going to throttle that 80kbps down to? Will it be incremental based on total data transferred or is it going to get cut sharply? Will it vary based on peak times or will it be constant? Will bandwidth used during non-peak times count as much as bandwidth used when the towers are overloaded? Details will be helpful so we (or at least *I*) can attempt to work within the system to ensure the best quality of service for myself as well as others.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I realize that this will be an unpopular opinion. Feel free to tell me why it won't work.
AT&T here is doing what they have to. The bandwidth from any given cellular tower is a limited resource. throttling the bandwidth on some users when the loading on the tower is above a preset threshold is a potentially network saving step. But, given that, AT&T should then not have bandwidth caps, or data caps.
Let us pay for speed, not for bits. AT&T pays for the bandwidth of the system. The bits are 'free' within the time restraints at the time connected, and the bandwidth used. AT&T obviously needs to have priorities on who gets the (necessarily) limited bandwidth. I would think that first should be the voice customers.
Voice services have a fairly low bandwidth. Typically, 20 to 40 kHz. This is traditionally managed by 'minutes'. Then the minutes for off peak usage are 'given' as 'free'. The cell tower has a much higher bandwidth available than that usually allocated for voice alone, as does the towers communication with the system. If the cell tower is operating at it's maximum transmit/receive rate most of the time, then AT&T needs another cell tower in that area. AT&T monitors that anyway. Additional towers in areas with more customers means more money coming in.
Next should come text and email. These can have a very low bandwidth. Essentially free from the carriers point of view. They also are not sensitive to latency. Voice can be very sensitive to latency. These text messages can be fit into any little space in the queue. Data should be considered as an insensitive commodity like text. Latency is something you should expect with a cell based internet system. It happens even with cable and other land line based systems. If you can't live with any latency, then you really need a direct fiber connection, or a much more expensive data plan.
Then, there should be the various Data plans. Here, slow down anyone who is on the net as needed. First priority for service should go to the highest paying customers. But not for ever. If I have a cheap data plan, then throttle me down to voice levels. That should be the minimum level of service for any data plan. Then, increase the bandwidth for the data users on a highest paying plan first basis. Next, of course wold come the next highest paying plans. And so forth. Eventually, you would get down to the cheapest plans. On a lightly loaded cell tower, with a good open connection onto the internet, I could expect to have a several megabyte per second connection available for an hour or two a day. The hours of this availability would be bad, but, that's all I am willing to pay for.
This would mean that if I have a $10 per month plan for data, I would be limited to old dial up speeds during the maximum traffic time. But, speeds would increase as the system load decreased. If I want to have a good level of service, I will find what that is like if I am online over the phone at 2:AM or so. If I want to get good data flow, then I have a real reason to increase the amount I pay for data. Going to a more expensive plan will increase the amount of time when I can get a higher level of service,
I realize that this flies in the face of the promises that are made by the marketing in ads. but, it would mean that the company would be delivering the service promised, without creating the anger from people who find they are hitting the 'maximum' too often and getting hit with extra fees. There would be no maximum data cap. And, AT&T would have a reason for these people to upgrade their plans.
There should probably be a very high priced plan to get reliable high speed to commercial customers.
Under this kind of system, there would be no need for data caps. No need for tethering restrictions, and a lot of reason to pay more for data on a voice line. Have several levels available.
I wonder why no one at the Cell Carriers have thought of this.
Don't mention BMI around here. Lots of morbidly obese network admins who've never seen the inside of a gym and live off junk food will point out that since BMI gives the wrong answers for professional athletes it is a worthless measure when applied to them.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Soo glad I dumped AT&T for everything earlier this year when they announced broadband data caps. AT&T can kiss my black ass, and I'm not even black.