Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Caps Are A Giant Con And An Attack On Cord-Cutters (dslreports.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Following a report from DSLReports that ATT would be imposing usage caps on the company's U-Verse broadband customers, ATT has announced it would now be following Comcast's lead by "allowing" users to pay $30 more a month if they wanted to avoid usage caps entirely. However, ATT has taken it to a new level by "allowing" users to graciously avoid the $30 fee -- if they subscribe to DirecTV or U-Verse TV service. These data caps allow ISPs like ATT and Comcast to cash in on internet video and make cord-cutting less viable by making streaming more expensive. And now, ATT is using caps to force users to subscribe to traditional TV if they want their broadband connection to work like it used to.

96 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. FUCK ATT. by zenlessyank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone hates them. Go in with tanks and disband the treasonous bastards.

    1. Re:FUCK ATT. by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Informative

      This works for politics, too.

      Not really, not in the US at least, where only about 180 families hold over 50% of the entire nation's wealth.

    2. Re:FUCK ATT. by Immerman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not so much for politics. It's a rare politician who actually gives a damn if they get *any* contributions from the proletariat - to raise enough to matter for anything other than talking points you pretty much have to at least claim to turn your back on the few thousand people who contribute *real* money. And so long as we keep voting for those treasonous bastards for fear of someone even worse taking office the problem will only get worse.

      The people hate the lizards, and the lizards rule the people. And everybody votes for them because if they didn't then the wrong lizard might win.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:FUCK ATT. by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't imagine what North Koreans have done to deserve their government. The people seem to be the victim in that case.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    4. Re:FUCK ATT. by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      No, people usually get the ISP they deserved. People usually get the government their GRANDPARENTS deserved.

    5. Re:FUCK ATT. by Immerman · · Score: 2

      No. People usually get the government that's imposed upon them. The idea that they deserve it is based on the assumption that they have a well-functioning democracy - something provably false in the presence of a first-past-the-post voting system, which necessarily devolves into, at best, a two party system, where the parties are then free to collaborate to pursue their shared interests while maintaining a facade of deep, emotionally stirring differences over which somehow neither side ever manages to make dramatic progress. So really, a one-party system with two vehemently opposed faces designed specifically to keep the electorate distracted from the fact that their democracy has been co-opted.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:FUCK ATT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I get the government deserved by a bunch of people who are stupider than I.

    7. Re:FUCK ATT. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Really? And how exactly do you avoid funding investment banks that have co-opted my taxdollar-backed FDIC insurance to back their gambles? At least if I were rich enough I could get an electric vehicle and solar panels (and a house to put them on) to avoid directly funding the petrochemical lobbies, but good luck buying... *anything* really, that doesn't indirectly fund them. Even the solar panels and electric car likely involve considerable petrochemical purchases in their production.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:FUCK ATT. by un1nsp1red · · Score: 1

      No, people usually get the ISP that happens to have the monopoly where they live.

    9. Re:FUCK ATT. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, fuck 'em.

      U-Verse was supposed to be capped anyway, right? Or am I the only person who remembers this?

      A couple of years ago I moved, and for [reasons] I started new service at the new place. They insisted on selling me a modem for $200, instead of renting one to me at $5/mo as I was accustomed to.

      Now, this would be fine, except they no longer allow U-Verse installs using customer-owned modems, so the device itself is useless to both me and anyone else.

      So, now that I've switched to cable, I have a $200 doorstop.

      Thanks, fuckers.

    10. Re:FUCK ATT. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Technically U-Verse was capped at 250GB. However I've long suspected that they never actually did the cap, either being unable to figure how to do the accounting or else too lazy. For example there was no tool available to tell you how much data you have used so far, or when there was one and it worked it would claim it didn't know.

      Anyway, this current news isn't bad for me, it ups my cap to 600GB and I think I only use around 175GB a month while streaming so I get to binge watch even more now.

    11. Re:FUCK ATT. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you're in the US then you get the government a few people in swing states deserve. Whether you vote in another state doesn't really matter.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:FUCK ATT. by adolf · · Score: 1

      They never figured out the accounting. I suspect this has as much to do with U-Verse also being an IPTV service as anything else. Counting U-Verse Internet traffic is certainly a lot simpler without all of the television traffic (including free VOD traffic from lots of sources). I expect that this current shift (whereby TV subscribers automatically are not-capped) simply reflects the inherent difficulties of the problem.

      According to my own logs, I've routinely done over 900GB a month with U-Verse, and a slow month is generally at least 400GB.

      Netflix, perhaps unsurprisingly, was most of this. Back when I still had U-Verse TV, years and years ago I wasn't keeping bandwidth stats. I didn't start doing so until they announced the caps several years ago, so I'm not sure how much their TV service chewed up the bandwidth.

      That all said, I'm completely flabbergasted that The Phone Company, of all things, has taken this long to figure out how to do cumulative billing.

      I recently dropped U-Verse because they raised my rates and refused to be competitive without talking to their customer retention department and I figured as long as I am talking to those folks I might as well jump ship. It turns out that I did so at the right time, and I'm currently with Time Warner's 30/5Mbps package for $35/mo (plus $10 for a fucking modem, but I'll fix that soon enough).

      The sad part is I actually liked U-Verse, and their local techs were generally stellar. They spent at least 50 man hours tirelessly troubleshooting the first loop I had, some of which was still in ancient lead-sheathed cable, and that's an effort that I find to be fairly endearing. They had some hard problems to solve, and not only did they fix them, but they'd credit me for entire months of service at a time until they did.

      Oh, well.

    13. Re:FUCK ATT. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Well... to vote with your wallet you need to have a wallet, and those 180 families do.

      Why did you assume it's you who gets their vote to count? Remember the golden rule.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    14. Re:FUCK ATT. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Uverse is always sending me extra equipment. It doesn't seem to go on your account until you activate it. I had a wireless receiver for the longest time until I gave it to a tech who was fixing another problem. Now I'm sitting on a router the sent me for no reason.

      I have Uverse TV, but Comcast internet because I qualify for their "internet essentials".
      hmmm... 10/1.5 from Comcast for $10, or 15/1.5 from Uverse for $49.99. Uverse's upstream blows, the fact that I have TV without internet seems to be driving them crazy.

    15. Re:FUCK ATT. by dj245 · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine what North Koreans have done to deserve their government. The people seem to be the victim in that case.

      They were a pawn in between Russia/China and the US during the cold war. A cold war that is still fairly frosty in that part of the world. North Korea exists because China doesn't want a US-friendly, democratic country on its border. Given the way that China has been grabbing up sea territory, the US doesn't want to deal with a "Great Crimean Heist" situation either. It is a convenient buffer in between superpowers. As such, they are greatly abused by both sides. Many North Koreans resent China more than the USA.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    16. Re:FUCK ATT. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is why anyone would be surprised at this, or not expect worse to be coming.

  2. Fuck AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I say this as an AT&T cellular customer, who is lucky enough to live in a building with its own "ISP" (the condo association itself) that provides high-speed fiber and thus unaffected by this.

    Fuck AT&T

    I will never use them as my ISP wherever I live if I can possibly avoid it, and guess what: I've already cut the cord.

    Sianara, fuckers.

    1. Re:Fuck AT&T by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Is Sianara hot?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:Fuck AT&T by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      When the only choices are AT&T or Comcast, then what?

  3. Not forgetting their internet service... by mikael · · Score: 1

    ... It used to upload your local username as well as your network name to their systems.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Caps have been in place... by oic0 · · Score: 2

    They charged me an extra ~$100 one month and ~$50 another. Just charged my card and left me wondering wtf happened until I called them.

    1. Re:Caps have been in place... by wiggles · · Score: 5, Informative

      They charged me an extra ~$100 one month and ~$50 another. Just charged my card and left me wondering wtf happened until I called them.

      Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.

      You asked for this problem when you signed up.

    2. Re:Caps have been in place... by jbwolfe · · Score: 1

      As an alternative one could read the statement prior to the date the payment is debited. If there are questions about charges clear it up right then and there. Not paying your bill just to be obstinate (as much as AT&T and Comcast deserve to be deprived of the revenue) is asking for a bigger headache.

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    3. Re:Caps have been in place... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly, if you give a company -- especially a company like AT&T -- the ability to just take your money, you deserve it.

      Send me a paper bill, in the mail, and I'll pay it. If you just make shit up, I'll call you and yell.

      But if you demand the right to just take money from me? Fuck you, fuck off, no way in hell I'm signing up for that bit of stupidity.

      Companies like AT&T are too greed and incompetent to be trusted with that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Caps have been in place... by imidan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, I won't give AT&T my credit card number because I don't want them just reaching in and taking money whenever they feel like it. I certainly wouldn't give them my debit card money--then the money that they take is the money I'm using to, like, buy food and pay rent.

      I use my bank's billpay thing to pay AT&T every month. I'm pretty sure I can set it up to be automated, but I just log in and check it each month to make sure nothing's changed, and then I push the button. Easy, and keeps AT&T from rummaging in my bank accounts.

    5. Re:Caps have been in place... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A credit card they can have. There is fraud protection, charges can be reversed and most importantly they do not drain my account directly. I still have to approve every charge, just get to do it as a batch on one bill. It does default to approved but I can handle that.

      Bank account or debit card, no friggin way. I refuse to use debit cards at all because the money comes directly from the account and in the case of fraud there is no vetting of purchases.

    6. Re:Caps have been in place... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Paying monthly manually sucks though. Heh.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:Caps have been in place... by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I won't give AT&T my credit card number because I don't want them just reaching in and taking money whenever they feel like it. I certainly wouldn't give them my debit card money--then the money that they take is the money I'm using to, like, buy food and pay rent.

      I use my bank's billpay thing to pay AT&T every month. I'm pretty sure I can set it up to be automated, but I just log in and check it each month to make sure nothing's changed, and then I push the button. Easy, and keeps AT&T from rummaging in my bank accounts.

      I do exactly the same thing. I don't understand why companies do this to themselves. I want my customers to be my best buddies who trust me. There are ways to do that and still make a lot of money. But that requires skill. The MBAs in charge have no talent so squeezing a customer who doesn't have a choice looks like a good idea.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    8. Re:Caps have been in place... by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Hell, do it with any company you buy a metered service from. Even honest companies make mistakes. My gas bill last month was 3 times more than usual for that time of year. It turns out that the tech who pulled the numbers from the gas meter wrote an 8 instead of a 6 for the thousands digit.

    9. Re:Caps have been in place... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.

      You asked for this problem when you signed up.

      In my case, AT&T got me when I paid my bill by check on time. They then sent a refund check to me for that amount, recharged my account, and put a late fee on top. It took a long time to figure out since the sequence of events was so nonsensical. And the AT&T finance rep swore they did not receive a payment for that month even though I had the canceled check. When I refused to pay the extra charge they closed my account for non-payment (after being told the account was going to be frozen to prevent just that), and when I asked I was told that since the account was terminated, I would have to sign up for a new one with a new email address, and my old email address was no longer available. Back then, EVERYTHING was tied to that email address.

      I learned then never to trust AT&T, and switched to a local ISP. AT&T sucks.

    10. Re:Caps have been in place... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I won't give AT&T my credit card number because I don't want them just reaching in and taking money whenever they feel like it.

      This is pretty much why I don't give Paypal direct access to my bank account no matter how much they beg for it. They have been known to 'fine' users they believe broke their ToS, and if they have your account well.. they can just reach in and take out the money. Once it's gone, you have little recourse.

    11. Re:Caps have been in place... by imidan · · Score: 1

      I knew a guy who had TV cable service. One of the big companies, but I don't remember which--and they probably all do this kind of thing. But he'd set it up from the beginning so that each month, the TV company would take their monthly bill out of his checking account. Time comes when he's moving, and he cancels his service. Which is fine, he's not under contract or anything. He cancels his service, and he brings the cable box and stuff down to the local office and hands it in.

      The next month, the cable company takes its fee from his checking account again. He calls to complain, and they say they'll fix it. A month goes by, and they take even more money. This time, he complains a lot more, and they assure him that they've finally managed to cancel his service. And they'll refund his money for the last two months, but it will take 30-60 days. The next month, the cable company takes an amount of money that is multiple times his usual bill amount from his account. This time, they agree that his account is canceled, but they're claiming that he never returned the cable box. This overdrafted his checking account and cost him about $100 in bank fees.

      It took him at least six months to get this sorted out. He finally got refunded for all of the cable company charges, but I don't know whether he was able to get them to reimburse him for his overdraft charges.

      It's absolutely crazy to give a corporation the ability to just take money from you. I long since closed my PayPal account because it was connected to my bank and I'd heard horror stories about them stealing from people.

  6. FUCK AT-ATs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone hates them. Go in with snowspeeders and trip the ten-storey bastards.

  7. Re:Three words by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 2

    Why not just allow some other company to also run underground cables in my neighborhood and to my house?

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  8. spinning templates at once by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $MY_CURRENT_CABLE_PROVIDER is the worst. I thought $MY_PREVIOUS_CABLE_COMPANY was the worst for years, but then I moved from $MY_PREVIOUS_REGION to $MY_CURRENT_REGION and sometimes I actually feel like I owe $MY_PREVIOUS_CABLE_COMPANY an apology.

    1. Re:spinning templates at once by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I meant to say "INTERNET_PROVIDER", not "CABLE_PROVIDER". I got confused because for some reason they're the same company in my area. I asked my congressperson if this made sense, and he said, "YES! ME LIKEY MONEY GOOD!"

    2. Re:spinning templates at once by Immerman · · Score: 1

      This frying pan sure is hot. I mean really hot. I used to think the fire was bad, but this is intolerable. I think I'm going to jump.

      Dang this fire is hot...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:spinning templates at once by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      Regarding the switch to a new provider and back again, I will say this:

      That's the only way to get offered any sort of discount service.

      I was with a cable provider for years until I left for a package they didn't offer. I received a sweet sign on deal with the new company, and now the old provider is wining and dining me with the sort of offers I might've stayed for.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:spinning templates at once by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      DVR lockin... Wish I could take my DVR schedule with me.

  9. Re:Three words by mattyj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sonic.net is doing this in San Francisco. Unfortunately, I live literally 50 feet outside the neighborhood they're running fiber to right now. I'm thinking of moving just to get out from under AT&T. I've never had to suffer through such a consumer-unfriendly ISP before. The only alternative where I live is Comcast so I'm screwed either way.

  10. FIOS by friedmud · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is all definitely making me happy I'm on Verizon FIOS. It is expensive... but I get full bi-directional 75 Mbps that is rock solid and with zero caps. I've had it for almost 2 years now and I can't list even one complaint (ok, it is pricey... but you get what you pay for!)

    1. Re:FIOS by friedmud · · Score: 1

      Where did you see that? I haven't seen anything like that and my bill certainly hasn't changed (yet!).

  11. Re:Three words by Etcetera · · Score: 1

    Why not just allow some other company to also run underground cables in my neighborhood and to my house?

    As long as it can provide all the insurance necessary and pass authorizations that it can properly co-exist with everyone else on the poles, in many jurisdictions you can.

    Now. Who's going to pay for all that capital you're about to spend several dozens to hundreds of millions on, depending your jurisdiction?

  12. May 23 is the date by mattyj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just logged into my ATT account and this is what it says:

    Starting May 23, we are increasing the U–verse Internet data allowance for many customers. After a grace period, and as our agreement provides, there's a $10 charge for each 50GB of data you use over the allowance. Want unlimited data? You can:

              Bundle your U-verse Internet service with DIRECTV or U-verse TV. This gives you an
                unlimited Internet data allowance ($30 value) for no additional charge.

              Purchase an unlimited allowance for your Internet service for $30. This option doesn’t
                require a TV bundle.

    1. Re:May 23 is the date by youngone · · Score: 3, Funny
      So? What's your problem?

      All you people here moaning about expensive, slow crappy Internet from your monopoly provider haven't stopped to look at it from AT&T's point of view.

      You know those huge subsidies they got? You know all those legal concessions they needed to prevent cities from creating publicly owned ISP's?

      Do you really think all the money they needed to bribe politicians just came out of thin air?

      You really do have the government you deserve, and it was sold years ago, to the likes of AT&T.

    2. Re:May 23 is the date by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Time Warner is available in my area. Perhaps I'll switch. They offer faster speeds anyways, and my neighbor's connection is proof that they are, indeed, faster.

      I see what you did there.

  13. How is this not covered under fraud statues? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2

    Is it because of their service "agreements"?

    Is it because of "contributions" to state politicians to craft loopholes?

    I'd happily give more to the EFF as this seems like something they'd take to court or lobby against, but they can't be the only ones doing it. Especially given the long and cozy relationship the major telcom companies have had in capitals. Who else can we get in contact with to voice concerns that doesn't end up labeling us as "Chicken Littles" or Boy who cried wolf"?

  14. FCC, DO SOMETHING!! by surfdaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FCC, you are supposed to protect and look out for the public good rather than be beholden to the corporations. I can't imagine a more appropriate use of your authority to ban this type of crap.

    1. Re:FCC, DO SOMETHING!! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      FCC, you are supposed to protect and look out for the public good rather than be beholden to the corporations. I can't imagine a more appropriate use of your authority to ban this type of crap.

      Funny thing about that. Every time the FCC tries to actually do their job, all of the pro-competition Republicans immediately sue them over it, and often win, thanks to Republican-appointed judges.

    2. Re:FCC, DO SOMETHING!! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Please point out the specific law which grants the FCC the authority to do so. Just because it is named the Federal Communication Commission does not mean that it has authority to regulate all communication.
      Personally, I think this problem was created when the government encouraged the creation of cable monopolies in the first place. The answer to the problem will take time, but it is to encourage competitors (and I do not mean Comcast, Time Warner, etc).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:FCC, DO SOMETHING!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is the queen whore of the R's. Ironically in the state that contains the most progressive fiber city, Chattanooga.

    4. Re:FCC, DO SOMETHING!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    5. Re:FCC, DO SOMETHING!! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That is a good start, but I do not feel like reading the entire law. So, would you care where in the law you referenced it gave them this specific power?
      The link you gave merely describes the creation and purpose of the FCC. It then states that the powers of the FCC are laid out elsewhere in the law. The fact that the FCC was created to regulate wire communication does not speak to what regulations it was empowered to create.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:FCC, DO SOMETHING!! by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 1

      This shows a fundamental misunderstanding.. yeah, you damn right they are going to purchase those things. Because their life SUCKS. All of those are all ways to escape, just for a little bit a life of poverty. Is it unwise? Yes. Is it completely asinine thing to do? Yeah. But there you have it. They didn't have the privileges that you and I had and it takes an enormous amount of discipline to get out of something like that.

      So can the judgement and at least try to understand these people's lives are extremely stressful.

  15. How is this a con? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems pretty clear to me, you pay $30 and get unlimited internet. Seems pretty clear and non-donnish to me.

    Paying for something you are not getting would be a con.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How is this a con? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read the summary again.

      Cable (as in TV, not internet) cutters have to pay $30 for unlimited data. If you also pay for spoon-fed propaganda, er, I mean, TV, then you don't have to pay any *extra* to avoid the cap.

    2. Re:How is this a con? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'd like to get the unlimited internet minus the $30 TV service, thank you.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:How is this a con? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      I'd like to get the unlimited internet minus the $30 TV service, thank you.

      I'd like fully bidirectional 200Mbps for $25/month.

      What are we playing?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:How is this a con? by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      It's wrong in that prior to some poorly advertised date, that same "service" was unlimited for the same price. They are milking money from those with internet service to pay for those that still give a damn about TV.

      I for one am not interested in paying for someone elses service, and I have a real hard time believing that the upkeep of their network is truly costing them enough money to grab $100 a month. I also have a hard time believing that there is much of an operational price difference between 10Mb/s and 100Mb/s, but I digress.

  16. This is an entirely predictable development by idontgno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Several types of predators migrate alongside their prey. You go where the meat is.

    If ATT could find a way to keep charging you for not using their wares, don't you think they would?

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:This is an entirely predictable development by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If ATT could find a way to keep charging you for not using their wares, don't you think they would?

      At least Frontier and Vonage have cancellation/termination fees baked-in to their contracts.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  17. Re:Three words by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, do you live in a place where another company is free to run a sewer line to your house so you can subscribe to their service?

    Or do you think maybe the final infrastructure which comes into peoples houses shouldn't be the property of a corporation?

    It's time to stop pretending that infrastructure which we've paid for, and which has rights of way on public and private property should be treated as the exclusive property of some asshole corporation like AT&T.

    That's just idiotically subsidizing AT&T to remain a monopoly, while saying if people don't want monopolies they can build their own infrastructure.

    Like the water, sewer, and electricity coming into your home ... the network needs to be considered part of the municipal infrastructure.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  18. Re:Three words by Qzukk · · Score: 2

    Who's going to pay for all that capital you're about to spend several dozens to hundreds of millions on, depending your jurisdiction?

    You mean "Who's going to pay for all that capital you're about to spend several dozens to hundreds of millions on, when Google Fiber has demonstrated that the competitors WILL cut costs and improve services in order to try and drive you out of the market?"

    I certainly wouldn't loan anyone money to do this unless they've got enough cash reserve to outlast the Comcasts and AT&Ts that are already established.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  19. What "should" unlimited Internet cost? by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Assume 50 Mbit/sec, symmetric bandwidth, dynamic IP address, no caps on upload/download?

    What would it take to actually operate this network?

    If you had 100,000 customers in a given metro area, what would you need for uplink capacity at the head end? My probably-has-an-error calculation at 5% average utilization is 250 Gbit/sec, 50 Gbit/sec at 1% (my 1 day average over 3 months is .55 Mbit).

    What would 50 or 250 Gbit/sec of Internet uplink capacity cost if you had to go out and source it commercially?

    I hate all these caps but I'm kind of curious what exactly it would cost to operate the kind of Internet connectivity everybody really wants.

    1. Re:What "should" unlimited Internet cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mostly the answer is "it depends". At that size, you don't buy from the menu, you negotiate. But there is some publicly available information that you can use for ballpark figures. For example, the German science network (DFN, Deutsches Forschungsnetz), which is a cooperative and provides internet access at cost to universities and science institutes in Germany, has this price list for its members. The biggest individual link you can currently get from them is 100Gbps, and that would cost you roughly 50000 EUR per month (the price list has the prices per year), so 25 EUR per 50Mbps (symmetric, dedicated, uncapped). 5EUR/month for 50Mbps with a contention ratio of 1:5 or 10Mbps dedicated.

      Just to give you an idea how much 100Gbps is: It's 2% of the traffic at the world's biggest internet exchange, DE-CIX in Frankfurt, Germany, which handles peaks of 5Tbps. 100Gbps is a quarter of the peak traffic at Telehouse's New York internet exchange NYIIX.

    2. Re:What "should" unlimited Internet cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An actual 50Mbit up/down unrestricted business line runs us about $4000/mo

      But for 7 days a week and 9 hours a day during first shift the incoming link is saturated completely, and second shift still keeps it under roughly 25% utilization at least mon-fri.

      Our outbound traffic is much more moderate, I'd guess around 25% during first shift and spiking to 80-90% when the video conference calls are going on.

      We can upgrade to gigabit service over the same fiber and hardware we have now with a simple software configuration, but a full unlimited gigabit line was closer to $25k/mo and is a bit more than our actual business needs.

      Just remember that all residential service packages are sold far far under standard rate because the uplinks are over subscribed and shared over many many people that in sum total about that amount of money just to pay for the shared uplink.

      Business service packages are sold with the understanding that you will be using both up and down 100% of the time at 100% utilization and so are priced accordingly so you pay for the uplink bandwidth all yourself.

      That is where you will get your more accurate numbers from.

    3. Re:What "should" unlimited Internet cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Out in the sticks" isn't too far from the truth of the situation actually.

      We had to pay around $10k in construction costs to get that fiber pulled the 12 miles between the closest access junction and our location.
      Before that, the only connectivity option was AT&T POTs lines that were of such poor quality they couldn't even provide PRI service for voice calls, and the lines shorted out and went down every time it rained.

      Prior to me switching us to fiber, we had a wireless cisco canopy radio link at 5Mbit/sec for $600/mo.
      Worse, we didn't even have a direct line of site to the ISP, so our link pointed to a setup mounted to a farmers silo 7-8 miles down the road to relay back to the ISP.
      (Apparently the ISP offered the farmer free internet service and compensation for electricity for this silo radio dish space)

      While I admit I was shocked how stable and resistant to interference that wireless link was, it definitely topped out at 5Mbit and the RTT was pretty horrible. Even on third shift when our bandwidth usage was below 2% you could feel how slow to respond websites were.

      So yes, our options are about as limited as those in the sticks, despite being in a respectively sized city (nothing compared to LA or NY of course)

      Either POTs dialup at far under 56k, wireless, or the rates I stated for fiber service that is actually capable.
      I'm certainly not complaining about the price given the situation.

      Given that the parent wanted numbers on bandwidth that is literally 1:1, you realistically still need to factor in other costs related to "this is just for you and all on you, there is no one else to split the cost with"

      PS Fuck you Slashdot for making me use IE just to reply
      "It's been 1 hour, 10 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

    4. Re:What "should" unlimited Internet cost? by hankwang · · Score: 1

      "Assume 50 Mbit/sec, symmetric bandwidth,... at 5% average utilization is 250 Gbit/sec, 50 Gbit/sec at 1% (my 1 day average over 3 months is .55 Mbit)"

      I assume that the last number was supposed to be in Mbit/s units, or 1.1% average utilization. I think an ISP is more interested in peak, not average, utilization. For example, in the evenings around 8 pm when everyone is at home, watching youtube/netflix; say two HD streams at 5 Mbit/s each makes 20% utilization at prime time. And if you are the only uncapped ISP in the area, then you would get all the heavy users...

      Also realize: at 100 k customers, you may be too small to get Youtube/Netflix to offer servers within your own network, so all that bandwidth really goes over your uplink.

    5. Re:What "should" unlimited Internet cost? by hankwang · · Score: 1

      Update: Netflix will start talking to your ISP if it has at least 5 Gbps peak traffic for Netflix. So, it's likely that your single-city ISP will qualify for a free (except for connectivity and power) appliance. Ref.: https://openconnect.netflix.co...

    6. Re:What "should" unlimited Internet cost? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      100,000 users @ 50Mbps is ~10-50Gbps uplink at the colo with these providers. That will set you back ~2-10k/mo if you do not peer. Peering on your own fibers allows you to do this for practically free.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:What "should" unlimited Internet cost? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you live. I can get a 1Gbps/1Gbps for $1200/mo and $10k for the dig at my house because the fiber passes my house.

      Business packages ala TWC Business Class is just home Internet with slightly faster technical service (1h on location vs 3 days) but you still pay through the nose for not-really-dedicated Internet (although they do offer it at even more exorbitant prices). If you are near a fiber (which most business ares of a city would be), you can get away with a lot cheaper options as long as you can terminate yourself on your end (they don't give you a modem, they give you a fiber/wire).

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  20. Let's see them 'tax' my OTA broadcast usage! by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I 'cut the cord' years ago, too -- and put an antenna on the roof. AT&T and Comcast both can go fuck themselves sideways with a rusty chainsaw; they can't 'tax' my usage of OTA broadcast television.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  21. Re:Three words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not just allow some other company to also run underground cables in my neighborhood and to my house?

    Because 10 different companies running their own wires all over town is impractical and just a bad idea. The phone and cable oligopolies get huge amounts of taxpayer-financed subsidies. Force them to open up their networks and things will change over night. Prices will go down, speeds will go up and bullshit like data caps will disappear. We've already wired the entire country -- twice (first phone, then cable) -- there's no need to run more wires. Open up the networks we already have and that we have already paid for, several times over.

  22. I don't understand this. by glwtta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They provide two levels of service, to get the better service you either pay more money or also purchase a separate service from them.

    What part of this is the outrage? This is just how buying things works.

    When some companies had caps on "unlimited" plan, that was obvious bullshit. (I hit the cap with Comcast a couple of times, they told me that bandwidth wasn't the aspect of the service that was unlimited)

    What's all the whining about here, though?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re: I don't understand this. by glwtta · · Score: 1

      That was my point - what Comcast was doing was bullshit, but how is it relevant to this article?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re: I don't understand this. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But AT&T has had a cap for five years now, only they never enforced it for u-verse. The only new things are that they're finally enforcing it (maybe), and the caps are being increased at the same time. I knew there were caps in place when I first got u-verse but they were so high there was no way I was going to reach those limits, even now with streaming TV I'm not hitting them.

      So really the only ones who should complain are those who had the service for more than 5 years who thought the "no cap" part would last for a lifetime, but they've had five years to complain about this cap or find a new ISP.

  23. Going back to BD/DVD by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    To be honest, with the way things are going and how shitty NF streaming is anyway...
    I wouldn't have a problem going back to just DVD/Blu-Ray.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  24. That's the point by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The $30 is for just the unlimited service, no TV.

    I pay somewhat more to Comcast myself than I could, just because I want only internet and no TV.

    Comcast also has a cap but I've never hit that, even though I regularly stream video and download a number of multi-GB files a month for development purposes.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. Remember this by jon3k · · Score: 2

    When a new provider comes into your area, remember this. Don't hem and haw over paying a few more bucks per month if you need to. You need to PUNISH the existing providers. They've taken advantage of you for years.

  26. Where are these arguments in Canada? by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, we've got the same stagnant pile of shit that the US has when it comes to service providers. About the only difference here is that we get to pick which company we want to bend us over, and we are free to jump from one to the next. But we've had data caps for at least a decade now, and the base prices are HUGELY inflated (as evident in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan - which both have their own independent providers... and service with the big 3 cost significantly less).

  27. Re:Three words by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    True story: I used to get DSL service in San Francisco from a CLEC, Earthlink, because I already hated AT&T back then.

    One day, my service goes down. Modem lights blinking. I put in a repair request, and the service person tells me that she can verify there is indeed a problem with my line, and someone will take care of it. I go to work. I come home from work and there's a message on my voicemail telling me the problem has been successfully resolved. The lights on my modem are still blinking. Still no service.

    I call back and say I still have no service. They say according to their systems, I do. I say I don't. They say the problem must be with my interior wiring. I say, how is there going to be a problem with the interior wiring when nothing has even moved? One day, service; the next day, none. It has to be Earthlink's problem, so could they please send someone out to take a look?

    They said no. I said, what? "No. We will not roll a truck, sorry. But if you like, I could quote you a price on our satellite internet service."

    It went back and forth like this over a couple more calls, them not budging, until finally I get someone at second-tier tech support. He goes, "You wouldn't happen to have a pair of alligator clips?" Flabbergasted, I said, "Um. You mean a length of phone cable with the ends stripped and a pair of alligator clips attached to the ends? Uh, yes. Yes, I do." He advised me that if I had a power outlet available, I could take my DSL modem out to the phone box on the side of the house and use the alligator clips to find my line. Depending on whether the modem loops up from the box or not, I'd know where the problem is.

    So I did. I went out to the box, and sure enough, the modem looped up. And that's how I discovered where the problem was. Because the lines inside the box -- my nice little pair of wires with the Earthlink tag attached to them -- had been cut. Clearly snipped in half with wire cutters.

    And that's when I remembered. A few days before my DSL went out, a new neighbor moved in upstairs. What do you do when you move into a new place? You order phone service. They had probably called AT&T to have a new line set up -- maybe even DSL -- and when the AT&T tech came out to the house, he saw my non-AT&T DSL line and he cut it, likely knowing Earthlink wouldn't do a damn thing about it and I'd be forced to switch back to AT&T. (Later, someone explained to me that AT&T's field techs are union and Earthlink's were not. I can't vouch for that but it's another theory.)

    So that was my situation. Either I could go with AT&T, which I had already got fed up from dealing with for both home service and business networking. Or I could go with Earthlink, who were obviously competing in a totally hostile market and clearly didn't give a flying fuck about my business, so much so that when they told me they wouldn't repair my line, they helpfully added, "And because you've been a customer for nearly two years now, you won't have to pay any fees for early cancellation."

    So I went with Comcast. Fuck DSL, fuck 'em all. And you know what? I know they suck and I've heard all the stories, but for the most part, Comcast hasn't given me any trouble ever since. It's been 10 years now, too.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  28. Paper billing surcharge by tepples · · Score: 1

    Send me a paper bill, in the mail, and I'll pay it.

    They'd gladly do that in exchange for a $5 per month paper billing surcharge.

    1. Re:Paper billing surcharge by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Yep, this is how all the telcoms work. Keep jacking up the "base" rates and offer "discounts" for things they cannot legally require. Automated billing? Discount! TV service you don't want? Discount! Privacy? Discount!

      I don't know why they don't make the rates $1 billion/mo with a 99.99% discount to get 1mbps service with a 1GB cap only with automatic checking account withdrawl and selling all your data to 3rd parties.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  29. Re:FUCK ATAT, ATDT RULES! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    FUCK ADT.

    I think they still require a POTS landline for monitoring purposes

    Well, the "T" in ADT is for telegraph.

  30. Your old contract probably expired by tepples · · Score: 1

    What was the duration of the contract you signed? (If there's no ETF, there's no real duration.) When it expired, Comcast signed you up for a new contract that included a monthly data transfer quota, and you indicated your agreement by continuing to receive service.

  31. Re:Three words by Scoth · · Score: 1

    I did DSL Support for MindSpring/Earthlink in the 1999-2001 timeframe, and in general we leased lines from the ILECs in the areas. It was always a challenge because we were basically middlemen between our customers and the ILECs, so we'd always get stuck with the phone companies saying everything was fine, and our customers saying they weren't. Some ILECs were better than others - QWEST was completely useless; BellSouth could be ok depending on specific tech and the phase of the moon; AT&T was a mixed bag depending on geographic area.

    "Sync at the NID" came to be the big bad word we all hated, because not everyone was capable of it (elderly, etc), and not all NIDs had test jacks. If you were lucky the customer could run an extension cord, unplug the house wiring, and plug the modem into the test jack to test it. If you weren't, you'd spend sometimes days arguing with the ILEC about it. Sometimes we outright lied and told them there was no sync at the NID so they'd at least do something if it was a case where the customer simply wasn't able (Probably at least once a week I talked to an elderly person who simply wasn't able to get all the required bits out to the phone box and deal with it). By the time I got out, regulatory stuff was getting real bad and most of the ILECs were getting pissier about supporting us with anything. May have been about when you had that problem. Towards the end we'd have ILECs literally refusing to roll trucks if we hadn't crossed every t and dotted every i.

  32. Re:FUCK ATAT, ATDT RULES! by keytohwy · · Score: 1

    They no longer require POTS.

  33. They should never have been allowed to buy DirecTV by Halo5 · · Score: 1

    If the FTC had even the slightest clue about how to do it's job, they would have blocked this sort of bundling as a condition of the buy-out.

    --
    665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
  34. Re:Three words by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    I probably would have thermited the box and ended up with a prison record.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  35. Ugh att by Scared+Rabbit · · Score: 1

    One time AT&T failed to turn off my service when requested. I made a payment to keep it current and reached out again. They said that they saw my request and they didn't know why it hadn't been shut off (being as that I'd moved to a place they didn't service). This person told me that I'd be issued a refund for the month I didn't use but had payed for. The next month I received another bill. I called, and said that I should ignore the bill and that my refund should arrive shortly. This happened 3 times before they sent me to collections. It took the threat of taking them to court to get them to fix it all. As a result, I'll never do business with them again.

  36. Re:Three words by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3

    Ahhhh now see. I can relate a similar experience but with Comcast instead of AT&T.

    My neighbors house was purchased by a new family who wasted no time cutting the cable in half with a shovel while planting new trees in their back yard. They give Comcast a ring and they roll a tech out to fix it for them.

    To " fix " it, the tech removed my cable line from it's connection on the pedestal and hooked up the neighbors instead. Leaving my entire home quite dead. Internet, Alarm System, Television, etc. Didn't even bother to check to see if the connection was an active customer or not, just disconnected it. :|

    Called up Comcast and told them what happened. Told them my service was out BECAUSE one of their technicians disconnected my line. They told me it would be TWO MONTHS before they could send a tech out to fix it :|

    As the pedestal resides in my back yard, my solution was far more efficient. I moved the neighbors connection to their original post on the pedestal and reconnected my service back up. Then filed a Complaint on the tech for being incompetent. ( Not that it would do anything, but whatever )

    Seriously though, TWO MONTHS to get a tech back out for an outage your tech caused in the first place ? WTF.

    Moral of this story: It isn't just AT&T that sucks. They all do in one form or another.

  37. Re:Three words by jjbenz · · Score: 1

    I had a similar situation when I lived in an apartment building. I had TV through dish network using the communal satellite dish on the roof of the building. It seemed like everytime somebody new moved in and got TV through Charter they would unhook the satellite feed into the junction box. Those idiots never bothered to hook the connection back up and I had to have the satellite company that serviced the building reconnect it on multiple occasions.

  38. Re: FUCK ATAT, ATDT RULES! by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    Is that you, KETTLE?

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  39. Credit cards by phorm · · Score: 1

    Really? Personally I *love* credit cards for bills. I can build nice updates/reports regularly to see if anything seems unusual, and if somebody has decided to charge me when they weren't supposed to, I pay one bill (the CC) regularly instead of a dozen, and it's easy enough to charge-back if somebody does screw up the billing and isn't willing to fix it.