Slashdot Mirror
After Complaints, AT&T Solidifies, Increases Data Limit
New submitter rullywowr writes "After many users expressed anger, AT&T has moved the slowdown throttling bottleneck from 3GB of data to 5GB of data for users of 4G LTE smart phones. 'Previously, AT&T slowed speeds for subscribers who reached the top 5% of data users for that billing cycle and geographic location. Customers were outraged, arguing that the percentage method meant they had no way to know what the limit was — until AT&T informed them via text message that they were in danger of exceeding it.' AT&T still maintains the position that less than 5% of its users exceed the 3GB threshold each month."
So "unlimited data" means 3GB/5GB now?
Anyone in the industry or in the know want to take a stab at where the numbers come from? It seems that 5GB is a common enough number for phone carriers. Is that just a metric that was settled upon, is it arbitrarily set, or are they crunching numbers and coming out with 3GB/5GB as a theoretical "optimal" limit for a network? Feedback welcome from people who know how/why such decisions are made!
For 3G (read, ALL iPhones) its still 3GB.
So for iPhone customers on the old unlimited plan, they still have a choice:
For the same amount of money, either stick with the "Unlimited" plan which goes useless at 3GB, or go to a metered plan where you get 3GB and above that its $10/GB in overages...
As for the 4G/LTE phones, those are in a much smaller minority, as the big grandfathered ones that AT&T dislikes are the iPhones.
Test your net with Netalyzr
I've avoided AT&T and Verizon for this reason. I should be able to use my phone all I want.
Sprint is definitely in a winning position.
The limits are too low. You can blow half of that limit away on one game download if you're not careful.
I really surprised that AT&T listened to its 5% users that complained regarding that situation. Most companies like these have a higher threshold and, I'm sorry but, they don't really give a crap about them too until the complaints gets to a certain level. In the end, I'm happy that they finally listened but something tells me it's not free and/or not without any concequences...I hope I'm wrong on this one.
"...AT&T still maintains the position that less than 5% of its users exceed the 3GB threshold each month."
Really? Seems to me AT&T is causing an awful lot of pain and bad publicity for themselves by creating such limitations around what supposedly accounts for only 5% of their consumer base. Seems like the effort would be worth a hell of a lot more than 5% of revenue.
buy a smartphone they said
watch tv, movies, videos they said
you can't use that bandwidth we advertised and sold you they say
These companies should lose all their spectrum for even thinking about throttling connections.
FCC start the investigation. They advertise unlimited (they did, even if they don't now) - throttling is just another way to *restrict* data - it breaks unlimited.
I for one would love to see AT&T and Verizon lose all of it's cellular spectrum because of these greedy shenanigans.
Cost for unlimited/unlimited/unlimited should be about $20.00 a phone per month. That covers any and all uses of bandwidth in use today and yet to be conceived of.
it's a 3GB limit for 3G users and a 5GB limit for 4G LTE users
Leave the market alone, it'll be just fine they said.
Bullshit, we're getting robbed blind by these people, costs should be nowhere near this high.
If they took one day of bonus away from the CEO, they'd probably be able to upgrade their infrastructure enough to handle all of the current users without breaking a sweat.
Oh, but no, CEO man has to have his 7 yachts and 5 mansions. We would be terrorists if we wanted him to go without just one yacht.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I've got bad news for you - nobody's LTE speeds are 100 MBit. That's the techincal (IEEE?) definition of 4G, however the carriers have co-oped 4G to mean "faster than 3G", or anywhere from 2Mb-6.5Mb (source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/221931/4g_wireless_speed_tests_which_is_really_the_fastest.html). So, yes, you could blow through your cap quickly - in as little as 2.5 hours of streaming at maximum current LTE speed - but not quite as fast as you think.
I have no issue with throttling heavy users to increase the customer experience for all. My issue is that this plan will not really solve that issue. If I am on a little used tower at 3AM it costs ATT nothing extra if use 1GB, 100GB, or 1000GB, neither does it hurt anyone else. However on a crowded tower it makes sense to throttle heavy users so that the other users on the tower will be able to have a better experience.
What they should do, to be open and fair, is throttle heavy users on congested towers and then restore their speeds to normal when there is no more congestion. Annoying, possibly, but at least reasonable and purpose driven to the stated purpose. In this light the proposal that they have outlined is simply designed to make the unlimited plan so unpalatable that the users will switch to the tiered plans that have the possibility of garnering more income for ATT. If they truly want to do that, that would be fine, but do it openly, maybe by saying that the next time these subscribers contracts expire, they will have to switch to the tiered pricing or something similar. At least then they would be honest in their approach.
AT&T user here. I was more pissed off about these limits until I started using an app that shows me my data usage during the month and I had a surprising result: I only use 200 MB a month!! I thought I was someone who would be near the 2GB cap I have, but I am quite wrong. During my afternoon commute (~2 hours) on Amrtrak I use my phone to Facebook (including a lot of picture uploading), Twitter, web browsing, e-mail, light gaming and app downloads & usage. All of this is on 3G (or "4G" if I am to believe AT&T's marketing speak that HSPA+ is 4G). Weekends out around town is the same profile, though evenings and such at home I am on Wi-Fi. So to be using only 200MB was a shock to me. All I am saying is that we should all look at our usage before we are outraged. Yes: it is RIDICULOUS that they market "unlimited" data when throttling is, by any reasonable definition, limiting. But how many of you are really at or near the caps? I would really like to know!! I wonder how many of you are like me, thinking you use more data than you do.
An antenna doesn't have to be on a tower. If the phone companies were really motivated to solve this problem, they could.
Why would it matter where you connect to the Internet from - whether your phone or a Coffee Shop WiFi point?
Because it costs more to send bits over cellular last mile than over Wi-Fi to a wired last mile.
It all goes to the same internet
Over different last miles. Different last miles have different costs per bit. That's why Comcast can afford to charge the same for 250 GB that a cellular carrier charges for 5 GB.
My question is "Why bother to upgrade to 4G or any other speed?". A high speed phone isn't any use if you can't use it for what it's meant for. If enough people just drop the most useful aspects of their phones (Internet) and use then for just them as phones, the shoe would be on the other foot. My phone still works with WiFi and I don't even HAVE a carrier. I find that for me a cell phone isn't viable because I only make a call or two a month. On the other hand I still can check my email and browse when in a WiFi zone like my house of a place of business that offers it, and it still works great as a media and game player.
If the coffee shop runs out of bandwidth, they simply order up a bigger pipe (or a second pipe). Problem solved. If a wireless carrier runs out of bandwidth, then all users are affected, until a few years pass and the next generation of technology becomes available. So, it's fair to throttle the heaviest users (who are pushing bandwidth over the edge), so average users aren't significantly impacted.
Wired and wireless cannot be compared with regard to bandwidth. There is a technology limit for wireless which is not effectively present for wired.
But, I'm sure you can't understand that, since you've made it obvious that this is all about you.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I pay for a higher end connection from Comcast
If you pay enough, you get into the "Comcast Business Class" tier, which has no such cap. Telecommuters should consider asking their employer to pay for it as a business expense.
Comcast throttles if and only if the local CMTS is swamped and it throttles top users first. This is by FAR the most fair system.
Unless Comcast decides to keep the local CMTS swamped on purpose because shareholders want short-term dividends more than medium-term network improvement. See a previous Slashdot story about congestion by choice.
Screw 3G. What about upping that 250 GB limit for their UVerse to something serious - like 1TB?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Cable and DSL took off only because a large part of the fixed costs (i.e. copper) was already in the ground, and speed upgrades over those physical mediums have taken the form of new modulations or new multiple-access modes. Wireless service doesn't have that luxury; volume is growing faster than the big four can put up new towers.