Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Begins Capping Broadband Users (dslreports.com)

Karl Bode, reporting for DSLReports (edited for clarity): Just a reminder to AT&T customers: the company's usage caps on U-Verse broadband connections is now in effect. When AT&T originally announced broadband caps on fixed-line connections back in 2011, it capped DSL customers at 150 GB per month and U-Verse customers at 250 GB per month. But while the DSL customer cap was enforced (by and large because AT&T wants these users to migrate to wireless anyway), AT&T didn't enforce caps for its U-Verse customers. Until now, anyway. Back in March AT&T announced it would begin enforcing usage caps on all connections starting May 23. As of today, U-Verse customers face different caps depending on their speed tier. AT&T says customers on U-Verse tiers with speeds between 768 Kbps and 6 Mbps will now face a 300 GB cap; customers on U-Verse tiers of speeds between 12 Mbps and 75Mbps will see a 600 GB cap, and customers on speeds between 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps will see a cap of 1 terabyte. Users who exceed these caps in any given month will automatically have to pay for 50 GB of additional data for $10 each.

180 comments

  1. OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stay away.

    1. Re:OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too much of what I do at home relies on an internet connection and AT&T is the only company that can be bothered to supply one. And they can just barely be bothered at that.

  2. In case you were thinking about cutting the cord by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The helpful folks at AT&T would like to remind you that they have a great Uverse cable package too....should your HBO Now/Sling/Hulu accounts be causing you to go over their new broadband caps.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  3. How Many Times by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Do I have to post FUCK AT&T on a Slashdot forum. FUCK AT&T until there are no cells left in the organism.

    1. Re:How Many Times by Moof123 · · Score: 2

      Tilting at windmills. Internet outrage has only a minuscule effect on the real world, and outrage on a niche site like Slashdot has even less effect.

      Write your congressman, complain to the FCC. Those avenues are also weak due to regulatory capture and the corrupting nature of our style of campaign finance, but they are still orders of more effective than swearing into the void.

  4. In Seattle... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    In Seattle I have multiple providers of 1Gbps service that I can choose from with low rates. My guess is it is the proximity to Microsoft and the progressive city council that has helped make this happen. Data caps stink!

    1. Re:In Seattle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Seattle too and get 1Gbps..so fast! I feel sorry for u-Verse users.

    2. Re:In Seattle... by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are basically saying I'm going to give you a monthly account but at 75mbps you can only use it for about 18 out of 720 or so hours in month.

      Alright I know that even with me being a cord cutter and all my TVs running on streaming services and kids playing games on xbox live I only use about 400-450GB a month because those services don't actually serve up video at 75mbps but if you're selling 75mbps on a monthly account the cap needs to be 75 * number of seconds in a month.

    3. Re:In Seattle... by glomph · · Score: 1

      I live in Queen Anne, to get anything broadband-ish I have a choice of Comcast or Comcast. I won't go into detail here, but their business practices are... questionable. Century Link DSL need not apply, I have too many friends that have been screwed by them and their 'fiber' service.

      In most places in Crony Capitalismland, a given location has a choice of identically one broadband provider. Thus you pay far more for far less than one does in regulated Europe, where the local last-mile proprietors *must* offer access to customers at a decent rate, so you get (trumpets blaring) competition. That is a scary word in the US, at least to corporate oligarchs and the politicians they buy so cheaply.

    4. Re:In Seattle... by zennyboy · · Score: 1

      You said it better than I could;

      I live in rural Spain (arse-end of nowhere) and I STILL have more internet choices than most of the US, it appears...

    5. Re:In Seattle... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Not where I live (in Seattle). I have 3 ISPs with 1Gbps in Seattle to choose from. I pay $29.95 a month for mine. You have CenturyLink, Wave and Comcast to choose from.

    6. Re:In Seattle... by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      if you're selling 75mbps on a monthly account the cap needs to be 75 * number of seconds in a month

      You can get that, but you'll be paying closer to $1,000 per month. The only reason normal people can afford retail internet connections is because they are oversubscribed. The wholesale cost of bandwidth is counter-intuitively many times more expensive than the retail cost.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    7. Re:In Seattle... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      They are selling a service on monthly account and then capping it but I don't even get to keep my unused data... so if I use 400 this month I don't get to keep my 200 and next month when I use 700 they charge me an extra $20. All those people that never go over and always have a couple hundred GB left over aren't getting a $10/50GB discount either.

    8. Re:In Seattle... by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      In Seattle I have multiple providers of 1Gbps service that I can choose from with low rates. My guess is it is the proximity to Microsoft and the progressive city council that has helped make this happen. Data caps stink!

      Must be a fairly recent development.

      Five year ago I had a roommate who finished his degree and was hired right into Microsoft. At the time we were sharing a 50 mbps cable modem connection (we were in Kansas), and apparently he could not get higher than 15 mbps in the area of Seattle he was relocating to. It was an uptown apartment so maybe it was a case of old infrastructure and an incumbent provider controlling it.

    9. Re:In Seattle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >and the progressive city council

      Give it a rest. Wow, we're so progressive we even got a minority, female, socialist city council member! Beat that rest of the world, that's why we have more choices in broadband!

    10. Re:In Seattle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're selling 75mbps on a monthly account the cap needs to be 75 * number of seconds in a month

      You can get that, but you'll be paying closer to $1,000 per month. The only reason normal people can afford retail internet connections is because they are oversubscribed. The wholesale cost of bandwidth is counter-intuitively many times more expensive than the retail cost.

      This pricing could not be less true. I can get dedicated 1Gbps of "premium" bandwidth that I can and have full saturated nearly all the time for about $300 a month. I can do that for less than $100 if it doesn't need to be top tier bandwidth. Don't buy into the bullshit the ISP's are selling. The only reason they want to cap is to squeeze you for money and try to compensate for the dying cable industry.

    11. Re:In Seattle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would they need to cap you at 100% saturation for 100% seconds in the month? First of all, they don't even guarantee 75Mbps--that's a peak value. Secondly, even under active use, the connection wouldn't be downloading data all the time.

      Nothing else that is sold by the month requires that it last a month--transit passes that are good for 22 roundtrip rides immediately come to mind. It's enough for weekday commuters, but throw in some weekend trips or second destinations and you'll run out.

      All that matters is that the price is fair for the service provided.

  5. "ay, Vinnie, pop a cap on 'im" by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and a customer bites the dust. and another gone, and another gone....

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:"ay, Vinnie, pop a cap on 'im" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left AT&T back in 2011 when they instituted the caps. I'm much happier with my current ISP which doesn't have any caps, doesn't monitor/filter/throttle and allows home users to run servers.

    2. Re:"ay, Vinnie, pop a cap on 'im" by dysmal · · Score: 1

      I left AT&T back in 2011 when they instituted the caps. I'm much happier with my current ISP which doesn't have any caps, doesn't monitor/filter/throttle and allows home users to run servers.

      That's great for you... Until your current ISP follows the rest of the pack in a couple of years and does the same. What are you going to do then?

    3. Re:"ay, Vinnie, pop a cap on 'im" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's great for you... Until your current ISP follows the rest of the pack in a couple of years and does the same. What are you going to do then?

      LOL what if what if what if...

      They won't. Not concerned at all. Been with them for almost five years now and completely happy.

      Sucks to be you.

  6. I'll never understand by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why we let them do this. You know, we could pass a law and make them stop.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'll never understand by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, good luck getting that law through all the Congressmen they've bribed.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:I'll never understand by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      Internet would collapse. If every self entitled jerk who thinks that N-Mbps means they should be allowed to suck up N-Mbps 24 hours a day then there'd be no bandwidth left. AT&T always had bandwidth caps, which are now increasing (250g to 350g for me). And contracts change over time, duh. You think the $10/month from 20 years ago still applies today?

    3. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked technology doesn't get more expensive as time goes on so yeah, the $20/month I used to pay for unlimited dial-up should be what I pay today. This is especially true since in those days the ISP had to have enough modems to service their users, it wasn't necessarily 1:1 but it was much harder than it is today.

      I pay almost 4 times that today and I'm kind of being given a good deal compared to alternatives. My Internet rarely goes down but while the price of switches, routers, cabling, and connectivity gear has all gone down significantly in price, we are still paying more for it. Hell, fiber today costs less than a 1/10th what it cost 20 years ago. 10 and 40gig switches today cost what gig switches did 20 years ago. So why has the cost of service gone up almost universally for everyone?

    4. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, sounds good. You worry about your data cap, and I'll continue not giving a fuck because I have Comcast.

    5. Re:I'll never understand by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Last I checked technology doesn't get more expensive as time goes on so yeah, the $20/month I used to pay for unlimited dial-up should be what I pay today.

      No the technology doesn't get more expensive. But $20/mo for 56 kbps scales up to $17,860/mo for a 50 Mbps connection. Fortunately, technology has allowed that price to drop closer to about $2500/mo for a dedicated 50 Mbps connection. So how are you able to get a 50 Mbps connection for just $50/mo? Because you're sharing that 50 Mbps with 50 other customers, and your combined payment is enough to cover the $2500/mo cost.

      Guess what? Sharing stops working when one person hogs up all the 50 Mbps bandwidth 24/7. So what's can you do to prevent that from happening? Well how about putting in a monthly data cap? 50 Mbps * 1 month = 16.43 TB. Divide that by 50 users and you get 328.6 GB/user. And the caps that are in place are right around 300-600 GB. That's not a coincidence. It's math (the cap can be slightly higher than the actual 1/50 split because not everyone uses their entire cap every month).

    6. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all such a crock. Prices from the Tier1 providers are around $1 per month for a Mbps. The ISP selling you a dedicated $2500/mo 50 Mbps connection is paying $50 for it (probably even less depending on peering agreements, etc.). That's only if you're saturating it 100% of course, otherwise they pay less. By selling that bandwidth on to you, they're marking it up 4900%. True, the last mile is 90% of the actual work of setting up the network, end to end, but the realities of modern network equipment should make usage a non-issue over the last mile. The ISP can squeeze 100 gigabits per second over a single fiber (in many cases more). That's 2000 50 Mpbs connections. Let's say the ISP is running cable with 16 fibers. They can serve 32,000 50 Mbps connections off that, running at maximum saturation 24/7/365. That's enough to serve pretty much any individual street/neighborhood giving everyone a 50 Mpbs connection. The largest metropolitan area on Earth is Tokyo. If we assume some small percentage of the population (let's say the children under 3 years of age) of 33+ million people is sharing a connection rather than having their own, then that's 1000 of the 16 fiber cables we've speculated to give everyone that 50 Mbps saturated connection. Basically what I'm getting at here is that, without abysmally poor design or extreme underinvestment in equipment, it's very hard to build a last mile that can't provide everyone in the last mile with a full speed 100% uptime connection to the trunk.
      The next argument is that the infrastructure has to be paid for somehow. That's true. But this nonsense about how it has to be capped to save some for everyone else is garbage.

    7. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why aren't those ISPs building infrastructure?

      Right, it's because they are just pocketing the extra money from overage charges.

  7. Missing Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    AT&T doesn't impose caps on Uverse users who subscribe to their TV service. They're not starved for bandwidth it seems. They just don't want to lose revenue due to cord cutting.

    1. Re:Missing Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. They're not in the business of giving shit away.

    2. Re:Missing Information by Torodung · · Score: 1

      What if you want to use a competitor for TV, like Dish satellite, and AT&T for internet? This kind of bundling smacks of a net neutrality violation. You are allowed to use your connection fully, the Internet "fast lane," only if you subscribe to AT&T's other services? That's a crock.

    3. Re:Missing Information by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      I bet they did that because either they couldn't figure out how to differentiate between TV and non-TV traffic or doing so wasn't worth the cost and effort.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
  8. If they built out their networks properly.. by kheldan · · Score: 2

    ..then they wouldn't NEED datacaps. But it's cheaper/more profitable for them to have a shitty, overbooked network and charge people for 'overages'.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:If they built out their networks properly.. by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ..then they wouldn't NEED datacaps.

      They likely don't need data caps now. They just want you to buy their Uverse cable/phone package. And putting caps on online cable alternatives is a great way to...ahem... "encourage" you.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:If they built out their networks properly.. by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Every residential ISP network is overbooked. If it wasn't you couldn't afford it. AT&T's is more overbooked than most, because they prioritize investment in their mobile network because it's less regulated and more profitable.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:If they built out their networks properly.. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      The fiscally optimum amount of network infrastructure is not the amount where bandwidth congestion management isn't needed, but the amount where the marginal cost (MC) of expanding the network equals the marginal revenue (MR) it would bring. Or in other words, when the additional profit from expanding the network drops to zero.

      So when you say a "properly built network" doesn't need data caps, you are actually referring to an overbuilt network.

      Now that we know that a properly built network has congestion (absent any congestion management), let's discuss solutions. How about making the data caps only apply during peak usage periods? Then you can schedule your torrents to run overnight when there's plenty of spare network capacity. And for Netflix, there's a solution called NightShift.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  9. Doesn't matter by dlenmn · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've got 18 Mbps ATT DSL, and I don't think that I could hit that cap anyway given that their service is so unreliable. My connection goes down at least once almost every evening... (Granted, it usually comes back 5-10 minutes later, but still.)

    1. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Once an evening? I have a service interruption every 20 minutes.

    2. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Every 20 minutes? I have a service interruption every *@#$*!@..... *NO CARRIER*

    3. Re:Doesn't matter by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Call support and complain they will send a tech out.

      I've had to have them come out and work on the line at work 10 times or so in the last couple of years last time they switched me to a diffrent pair to the local hub now the connection is stable and we get 12mbps instead of 6mbps.
      Although we are on our 6th modem now.

      They've never charged us for any of the service calls but they do charge about $100 each for the modems when they are out of warranty.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have had ATT U-verse for at least five years now, and have actually never once had an outage.

      Oh, and caps suck! This is obviously an attack at the cord-cutters to either force people into purchasing ATT TV-Services, or pay dearly. Good thing that in the Austin area, there are a lot of other internet providers that don't force you to bundle TV along with the data plan. We already have U-Verse bundling (TV + Internet, no phone though) so I don't think the cap applies to me. If it does affect me, I'll be switching directly over to a competitor (TWC or Google or someone else).

    5. Re:Doesn't matter by operagost · · Score: 2

      Old school modem jokes really need to come from low ID guys, not ACs. A shame, really.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Doesn't matter by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I've got 18 Mbps ATT DSL, and I don't think that I could hit that cap anyway given that their service is so unreliable. My connection goes down at least once almost every evening... (Granted, it usually comes back 5-10 minutes later, but still.)

      I'm a Uverse customer who previously had DSL. I'm convinced that AT&T is doing this deliberately with DSL customers to drive them to Uverse. Uverse is significantly more reliable and for me at least it was cheaper and faster than my DSL service anyway. My DSL went down at least once a day and eventually it got so inconvenient that I moved to Uverse. I had to change TV providers though which is one of the reasons I delayed getting off DSL because I had TV from another company and I was OK with it. Of course now you'll post back that AT&T doesn't offer Uverse where you live and if that's the case, then it does suck to be you but your DSL is not ever going to get better. AT&T wants you off of it and if you insist on staying they're going to make it painful for you.

    7. Re: Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a bit sad if you think that having a low id username somehow instilled you with more authority on this site.. Probably why it's dying

    8. Re: Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know he isn't an old school user? If he knows about no carrier and modems then he probably is atleast 28. Which to me is atleast 15 years experience.

    9. Re: Doesn't matter by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      But did Netcraft confirm it?

      --
      Time to offend someone
    10. Re:Doesn't matter by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I had one outage. My data cap is actually increasing. Price has stayed the same. And it's internet only.

      Oh, my netflix subscription went up too, but that's fine with me since prices always change and they gave existing users a year at the old price anyway, but that didn't stop slashdot users from complaining about it.

    11. Re: Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How come these things aren't considered predatory practices? They offer 2 services, but are degrading the one service so you sign up for their other service. How is that even legal?

      Obviously IANAL.

    12. Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have U-Verse, the data is still over DSL (*eyeing the little green phone line coming from the wall to the U-Verse router/hub*). It makes it a PITA to move the router to another location in the house: that requires a $150 service call, so they can rewire the DSL line on the outside of the house.

      One thing I'll grant to AT&T is that when they originally setup my service (well over 5+ years ago), they rewired all the coax in my house, for free. Replaced all the coax lines with a visibly thicker/better cable and replaced all the wall jacks. I also like the HD-boxes they have, which have Ethernet ports on the rear, so it is like having a LAN in every room (where-ever you have an HD-box). It makes a much better way to connect a game console or BlueRay/Netflix player (versus relying on a crowded WiFi spectrum).

      AT&T, though, is markedly more expensive than TWC -- but I do get a better 'service' for that extra cost. For me, AT&T U-Verse is still 'worth' it. Better quality, better usability, hell even their channel numbering is better: just add 1000 to any SD channel number, and you'll find the HD equivalent for that channel.

    13. Re:Doesn't matter by myth24601 · · Score: 1

      I had a similar problem on my Uverse, the Modem thingy would reboot itself every night it seemed. I even had it replaced and it didn't stop. One day I went in and disabled IPv6 on the thing. Haven't had a problem since.

      --
      No matter where you go, there you are.
    14. Re:Doesn't matter by dlenmn · · Score: 1

      I had Uverse (i.e. DSL+TV) for until last March because they gave me a nice intro offer. It was never any more stable.

    15. Re:Doesn't matter by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Have you replaced your lines outside? I've had similar problems at every place I've lived at, and re-runing the line often fixes intermittent connection issues.

  10. Re:In case you were thinking about cutting the cor by dj245 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The helpful folks at AT&T would like to remind you that they have a great Uverse cable package too....should your HBO Now/Sling/Hulu accounts be causing you to go over their new broadband caps.

    I logged into my account, and as a Uverse internet-only customer in Houston, I am now under a cap. I'm not sure how they can unilaterally do this without revisiting the contract.

    Predictably, I have an option in my account now to "add TV to get unlimited data".

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  11. Pretty Extreme by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    Instead of capping them, AT&T could just limit their usage.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Re:In case you were thinking about cutting the cor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They are altering the deal. Pray they don't alter it any further

  13. Att uverse business by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    So are business plans still exempt? $50/mo gets 12/1mbps uverse business here without phone.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Att uverse business by tepples · · Score: 2

      Are business plans even available in residentially zoned blocks? Some ISPs don't understand telecommuting.

    2. Re:Att uverse business by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Afaik you just ask for a business plan and they happily charge you extra. But I don't know that for sure as I don't live close enough to town to get dsl.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    3. Re:Att uverse business by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      Yes, you can get a business U-verse account, even if you're in a residential area. I have no cap and 5 static IPs for my house. I pay more, of course but, I don't have to deal with problems such as data caps and dynamic IPs.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    4. Re:Att uverse business by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Don't know about AT&T but with Charter and before them Frontier with me it hasn't been a problem.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  14. More than one city supplies a home by tepples · · Score: 0

    Too much of what I do at home relies on an internet connection and AT&T is the only company that can be bothered to supply one.

    More than one entity supplies a home, including landlords located in cities that aren't beholden to AT&T.

    1. Re:More than one city supplies a home by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you have the option and market available to do that, awesome. But something like 30% of the US doesn't, last I read.

      And I bet a lot of the "choice" that the other 70% has is actually between the one cable company or DSL/satellite/dialup at 1/0th the speed or worse.

      I'd love to have a real choice personally - even the smallish regional cable company around here is full of profitmongering jerks. But I can't justify going from 25 meg service down to 1-3 meg DSL just to stick it to em in a tiny way.

    2. Re:More than one city supplies a home by Calydor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. That people unhappy with their ISP should pack up all their things and move to a different city, possibly far enough away they need to find a different job and new social circle?

      Isn't that a little bit overkill?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:More than one city supplies a home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should move solely because I hate AT&T?

    4. Re:More than one city supplies a home by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I live in a City of 100,000 and we have Comcast only. The DSL option is at 1.5m down and 256 up. barely out of dialup.

      Why? because comcast signed an agreement with the city to keep out any competition.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:More than one city supplies a home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a city of 2.7 million. I only have Comcast as an option. AT&T refused to build out u-verse in my municipality.

      Granted I get great service of 88/12Mbps but that's my only option. And I have to pay an extra $30 a month for the unlimited service I signed up for a decade ago.

    6. Re:More than one city supplies a home by tepples · · Score: 1

      No, you should move if you work from home and AT&T makes it impossible to do your job where you live.

    7. Re:More than one city supplies a home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My last city was ATT U-verse (max 1Mbps up, nope, not kidding) vs TWC (max 5 Mbps up, unless you went to $300+/month) It was actually almost worth buying a DS3 or better run at about $5K if I could have parceled it out amongst my neighbors (monthly cost of about $200/month for what I was looking at but no restrictions or caps)

    8. Re:More than one city supplies a home by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      In my apartment complex, the previous owners entered into an illegal "exclusivity contract" many years ago. All the coax cables are sliced off within an inch of the pipe in every enclosure; my guess is that was by AT&T. The new owners say it's "too expensive" to run new cables. Also, AT&T only does single-lines here, so no dual-bonded DSL. Everyone in an actual house around me can get Cox's 200mb connection, technically I'm limited to an 18MB download speeds but get 24-26 on average.

      To get around the caps, I currently have the Business DSL. I also pay $15 extra a month for my 5 static IPs, so I can host from here. But it's still a rip off at $95 a month. Thank the Gods for my Hulu/Netflix/KODI setup, so far I haven't had actual "cable TV" in almost 10 years.

    9. Re:More than one city supplies a home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The libertarian types will never once believe that regulation is the solution to this problem, which it not only is but in many geographic areas is the only solution to this problem. The problem by the way is fraud in measurements. A network doesn't wear out by being used, and bits are not a physical commodity like water that the provider has to manufacture. Networks are measured in maximum throughput over a given period of time, not total number bytes transferred to a given place. Data caps are a solution to the wrong problem. They masquerade as a solution to network congestion but the "problem" they're really solving is that of people using the Internet the way it was intended--as a communications medium that doesn't really care if what's being communicated is voice, text, images, videos, etc.

      These companies have a vested interest in people never figuring that out, and for a long time they didn't. Now though even though they still don't intellectually get it, they are starting to get it from a practical point of view and that's terrifying if your business model depends on rent seeking monopoly pricing.

    10. Re:More than one city supplies a home by tepples · · Score: 1

      In my apartment complex, the previous owners entered into an illegal "exclusivity contract" many years ago.

      How long do you plan to live there, compared to the difference between what you'd pay for Business DSL and how much it'd cost to hire a lawyer?

    11. Re:More than one city supplies a home by volmtech · · Score: 1

      The thing is it doesn't have to be that way. My niece's husband is an IT worker and has an old unlimited AT&T unlimited account. They live out in the sticks but he put the phone sim in a wireless router and has unlimited high-speed broadband. They can stream the Netflix 4k channel on their 65 in 4k set and it's beautiful, all for $70 a month. I live close to them and use Hughes satellite broadband and get 50 GB a month for $90.

  15. the elephant in the room? by nimbius · · Score: 1

    datacaps are a flagrant violation of the FCC's net neutrality legislation. why isnt anyone contesting this?

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  16. If you're not on a 1- or 2-year contract by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not sure how they can unilaterally do this without revisiting the contract.

    If you're on month-to-month service, as opposed to a 12- or 24-month commitment, the provider alters the contract by sending the new terms to you along with your bill. If you pay it without canceling service, you accept the offer of continued service.

    1. Re:If you're not on a 1- or 2-year contract by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how they can unilaterally do this without revisiting the contract.

      If you're on month-to-month service, as opposed to a 12- or 24-month commitment, the provider alters the contract by sending the new terms to you along with your bill. If you pay it without canceling service, you accept the offer of continued service.

      And if you have a commitment and they alter the terms you can not accept the change and get out of the commitment for no charge. IIRC some cell phone companies had that happen when they raised a fee a few cents and customers walked away with a phone and no cancellation fee. ART may have had a cap written into the contract, however and simply didn't enforce it.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:If you're not on a 1- or 2-year contract by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      And if you have a commitment and they alter the terms you can not accept the change and get out of the commitment for no charge. IIRC some cell phone companies had that happen when they raised a fee a few cents and customers walked away with a phone and no cancellation fee.

      To get around that, they leave the "service" price alone, and instead raise one of the "fees" (of some description or another). They claim it's not altering the contract, which only speaks to service price, they had to raise the administrative fee to cover costs.

      They seem to be getting away with it, too.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
  17. Where forced to make TV cap free as they can't not by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Where forced to make TV cap free as they can't not count IPTV data. And if they did change for tv data then comcast will have a field day with that.

  18. That's a pretty big cap though by quantizationnoise · · Score: 1

    In practice, that is a pretty high cap. I rarely hit 10% of that...

    1. Re:That's a pretty big cap though by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Once it has been there awhile I would expect that they could easily move it down, or hold the caps constant as usage goes up (4k/8k streaming, ever bigger games downloads, etc.). Getting folks used to it with large caps keeps the outrage down, while still acclimating everyone to the concept.

    2. Re:That's a pretty big cap though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try setting up a new PC and syncing 1 TB of data to Dropbox or Google Drive...

    3. Re: That's a pretty big cap though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serial Netflixers/Youtubers will kill that cap.

    4. Re:That's a pretty big cap though by allquixotic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point. The only cap policy that I think would be reasonable would be to set all the slower connections to something more generous like 600 GB and the top tier connections to 1 TB, then implement a policy to increase the caps by 15% per year (doubling time = 4.96 years). The exact year over year cap growth would have to be based on a scientific study of the per-user increase in fixed line broadband Internet yearly data consumption in the US.

      Caps should be in place to prevent abuse, not to artificially punish regular users doing a reasonable amount of work / activity. I always like the public water analogy.

      Now granted, public water is metered instead of a flat rate, but let's say hypothetically that it were flat rate.

      If you turn on all the sinks and showers in your house and just leave them on 24/7, you're going to get a call from the water provider, no matter who it is, whether you're on a flat rate plan or metered. Even if you're paying for the water on a per-volume basis, even if that makes them a significant amount of money, they'd rather you *not* use their resource to the point of exhaustion, because it impacts other customers.

      If, on the other hand, you happen to be a pool enthusiast and have a gigantic pool filling your backyard, and invite neighbors and friends over to dirty up your pool and have to frequently drain and re-fill it, you could end up using many times more water than your neighbors. But you're doing it for what is nominally a legitimate *purpose* - you aren't just running it down the drain because you can; you're doing it for entertainment/social purposes. You're also probably using water at a much slower rate than the guy who leaves all his faucets and showers on 24/7.

      If caps are low enough that the pool enthusiast can face punitive fees or risk being disconnected from the water supply, that's *broken*. The only guy they should be catching in their net is overt resource *abusers* (whether intentional or accidental; maybe they have a virus that is pegging their connection as part of a DDoS botnet).

    5. Re: That's a pretty big cap though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are setting up a new PC, wtf are you syncing 1TB of data to Dropbox for. Gtfoh.

  19. Re:In case you were thinking about cutting the cor by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1
  20. Equal capping of all traffic sources by tepples · · Score: 1

    I thought net neutrality meant no preferential treatment to a particular source of traffic. Data caps apply equally to all sources of traffic. To which provision of the legislation do you refer?

    1. Re:Equal capping of all traffic sources by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 2

      Data caps inevitably lead to "zero rating" certain services that said vendor provides. This means that some things do not count against your monthly data usage effectively penalizing you for using anything outside of their approved network which is exactly the kind of shit that the net neutrality laws were put in place to prevent.

    2. Re:Equal capping of all traffic sources by will_die · · Score: 2

      Somewhat correct on this. The placing of the cap is not against net neutrality law but the use of zero rating certain services is not inevitable.
      Also it will be up to the FCC to decide if it is allowed, such as they are doing now by asking for public comments.

    3. Re:Equal capping of all traffic sources by Khyber · · Score: 1

      That's the problem. There is a preferential treatment to source of traffic.

      How? Everything is digital over those lines, now. No analog broadcasting over wire. That means everything is a bit, a 0 or 1. AT&T places a cap on the 0s and 1s not originating from their services.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Equal capping of all traffic sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You continue to get dumber, Alex. Analog vs digital is irrelevant and everyone knows that bits are 0's and 1's. The question was about net neutrality and this has nothing to do with net neutrality. AT&T is placing caps on its service, on its own customers but in your rush to sound intelligent, you just sound dumb again.

    5. Re:Equal capping of all traffic sources by Khyber · · Score: 1

      And you have clearly demonstrated that you know jack shit.

      Good day moron. Until you can identify yourself and prove you have A. higher knowledge and B. higher certification than myself, your words are useless.

      Google hired me. I doubt they'd hire your ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Equal capping of all traffic sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy, Alex, you did Google Hangouts.. that does not make you an expert on all things networking. You like to take something you did, and blow it up to be about 100 times bigger than it actually was. Maybe in your own insecure mind, you retell the past to yourself and embellish it to the point that you believe it yourself.

      Reality is that you demonstrate your stupidity in almost every post you make. When you get called out on facts, you go to ad hominem attacks because you lack the ability to do otherwise.

      Everyone knows that you are clueless. Join the crowd, Alex.

    7. Re:Equal capping of all traffic sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn khyber... you keep getting owned.

  21. Fuck AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am so glad that I left AT&T, the mobile company, because of the same kind of bullshit that they are pulling here. It looks like the other half of their business is not much different. T-Mobile's service isn't the best, by any stretch, but at this point I'm content to continue paying [less] for their business practices.

    All of the carriers, except possibly Sprint, are raking in profits faster than they put it into the bank, while they continue to have the cartel attitude to screw the customer with fees (every time Verizon or AT&T introduces or raises a fee, then the other follows).

    Want to upgrade your device? Oh, that will be $30. Oh, you're on an enterprise account? That should be waived. Please contact customer service to have it removed, because we hope you don't and then we can keep the fee. Please, bring your own phone so we can charge you money for doing it!

    It's so frustrating because AT&T is not a capitalist company -- they are not seriously competing. Both AT&T and Verizon are at the same place that they were years ago, except with better technology doing things for them (like building penetration for AT&T). I have not seen a new area get covered by AT&T in years. The only thing they seem to do is to keep the towers running with relevant hardware (a good thing), and that's it. Then they sit on the profits and moan that they need to charge users for using the service they're paying for.

    Let's think about it: a 1 TB data limit for a 1 GB connection. I can only assume that they are using Apple math for binary values, but to be as fair as possible, you could theoretically use your data cap in 1024 seconds, or just over 17 minutes. That makes sense?

    1. Re:Fuck AT&T by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      As your bandwidth approaches infinity, presumably you have no use case where you're using 100% of your bandwidth in sustained use. Do residential users really have a normal usage case that involves downloading 1 gig of data every second? Sure, you can get a 50 gig game in 50 seconds, but do you now need to be able to get 200 games that size in one month?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Fuck AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you could theoretically use your data cap in 1024 seconds, or just over 17 minutes. That makes sense?

      We at AT&T agree, this does not make sense, you are clearly getting too much data. So we will be lowering the caps and increasing the prices so that they match our paltry and expensive wireless plans.

      we at AT&T strive to reduce the stress on your wallet...by removing the cash that is making it bulge. we hope these new plan terms will help in this regard.

    3. Re:Fuck AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Do residential users really have a normal usage case that involves downloading 1 gig of data every second?

      Cloud based HDD?

      I mean, why not?

    4. Re:Fuck AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1TB / 1Gbps == 2.222 hours.

      ISP's traffic speeds are in bits (not bytes) per second.

    5. Re:Fuck AT&T by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the 1TB data cap give the ISP a business case to bring fiber to everyone?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  22. Twentieth century by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just invest in some infrastructure and bring their customers into the twentieth century.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Twentieth century by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Because that costs more than they're going to lose in customers leaving.

    2. Re:Twentieth century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the same reason why Verizon hasn't done any infrastructure upgrades in my area since 1996... there's no law saying they have to and there aren't enough people to force them.....

  23. Hmm... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To give you guys some perspective, if you have a 20mbps connection a 600GB cap, that's approximately 60 or 70 hours, or about 3 day's worth. If you only use that connection speed during your 9-5 workday, that's still only about 8 days, or a little over a week. I understand that Slashdot and code merges don't eat that much, but any kind of streaming or video would do a connection like this in in about two or maybe three weeks if you're careful. Imagine if we had three major companies who made cars, all of which come with a driving cap of 200 miles and cost $50 for every 50 miles after. That's what we live in.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats 70 hours running your connection maxed out. If you are doing that, something is wrong. Netflix HD is a 5mbit stream. Thats 635KB/s (600,000,000KB / 635 KB/s) = 944882 s or 262 hours or 10.9 days. Thats you streaming HD 24h nonstop for 11 days. Now I get that people have kids running around with 20 tablets under each arm these days.. But whatever happened to turning of the TV and telling them to go play outside?

    2. Re:Hmm... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Nobody except filesharers use their bandwidth that way. The vast majority of users' usage is bursty, hitting the cap for a fraction of a second, then dropping to zero for several minutes. Even sustained usage like Netflix tops out at about 5 Mbps per 1080p stream. So it's meaningless to break down usage into "approximately 60 or 70 hours" unless you're a filesharer who's always maxing out their bandwidth.

      For some REAL perspective, bandwidth without caps requires a dedicated connection. An OC3 costs about $8000/mo - that's a dedicated 155 Mbps line, or about 149 Mbps of data (rest is overhead). That's how much you should be paying if you plan to sit at your max bandwidth all month. That's 49 TB/mo.

      The UVerse 45 Mbps plan is $65/mo with a 600 GB/mo cap. 600 GB/mo is 1.22% of the above 49 TB/mo. And 1.22% of $8000/mo is $97.60/mo. So AT&T is actually giving you a helluva deal for what's effectively a partial OC3 metered based on usage.

      To top it off, if you do want to sit at your max bandwidth 24/7, AT&T will remove the cap if you pay an extra $30/mo, or subscribe to a combo Internet + TV + phone package plan. This is by far the most generous Internet service I've seen, period, of any cable company, DSL company, or dedicated service company. You can get the equivalent of an OC1 (for download purposes) for just $95/month!

    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baloney. I torrent all my TV at 720p. On top of that I watch a good amount of Twitch and Youtube and my wife watches a good amount of Netflix. Over the past 6 months or so I'm ranging 350-550GB per month. If someone's capping a 600GB limit in "two or maybe three weeks" they're doing a whole lot more than a bit of streaming.

    4. Re:Hmm... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      For some REAL perspective, bandwidth without caps requires a dedicated connection.

      No one is asking for a dedicated connection, so you can drop the hyperbole. What is wanted is (a) a guaranteed and realistic minimum (dedicated) bandwidth for each user—as a percentage of the user's peak burst rate—and (b) a fair division of the remaining bandwidth between all active users. Oh, and no extra charges for unplanned overages. "The vast majority of users" as you've defined them should generally be able to achieve the advertised burst transfer rates; those who use their connection 24/7 won't be able to burst as fast but should generally get well above the minimum rate outside of peak hours. The prioritization formula should be open to the public.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    5. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your perspective is... warped. I'm oversimplifying, but at the largest scale, bandwidth costs are closer to $1 per 1Mbps, if not less.
      Otherwise Google's Gigabit services would not be profitable at $50/mo.

      Your example is like figuring out energy density requirements of a nuclear submarine based on the experience with coal-fired ones :-)

    6. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UVerse 45 Mbps plan is $65/mo with a 600 GB/mo cap. 600 GB/mo is 1.22% of the above 49 TB/mo. And 1.22% of $8000/mo is $97.60/mo. So AT&T is actually giving you a helluva deal for what's effectively a partial OC3 metered based on usage.

      To top it off, if you do want to sit at your max bandwidth 24/7, AT&T will remove the cap if you pay an extra $30/mo, or subscribe to a combo Internet + TV + phone package plan. This is by far the most generous Internet service I've seen, period, of any cable company, DSL company, or dedicated service company. You can get the equivalent of an OC1 (for download purposes) for just $95/month!

      Don't forget to pay attention to the balls. AT&T will tap you on the head when it's ready.

    7. Re:Hmm... by netsavior · · Score: 1

      we have 4 ipads, 2 TVs, 5 PCs, pretty much streaming all day. We hit our cap in 2 weeks, then fired AT&T for Time Warner.

      Congrats to AT&T, you are finally a worse option than TWC. no small feat.

    8. Re:Hmm... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      It is also less then 1 Windows reinstall if I include my Steam games.

  24. unlimited if bundled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I received this email last month.

    "You recently received an e-mail incorrectly stating that beginning on May 23, 2016, there's a $10 charge for each 50GB of data you use over your U-verse® Internet allowance amount.

    To clarify: beginning on May 23, 2016, you will automatically receive an unlimited home Internet data allowance (a $30 value) at no additional charge as a benefit of purchasing a bundle of U-verse Internet and U-verse TV services."

    1. Re:unlimited if bundled by Torodung · · Score: 1

      U-Verse TV is done over IPTV, so it's all data. They are effectively zero-rating that TV data, and uncapping your other data uses, only if you bundle products. This seems to me a violation of net neutrality. You might want to use a different TV provider.

      Or another attempt to squeeze blood from a stone that you refuse to upgrade through sound investment to modern internet standards.

    2. Re:unlimited if bundled by soramimicake · · Score: 1

      If you don't want their TV can you pay that $30 "unlimited home Internet data allowance (a $30 value)" to remove the cap?

  25. Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope that Google Fiber spreads like the plague and gives AT&T a run for their money.

    1. Re:Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      srsly, if you make ads with google network (abc), you should buy their stocks.
      by stocks, i mean stocks that give dividends.
      this way you will get "cheaper" ads onto the network (partially paid by the dividends)
      and then we will see how this round-and-round-goes-the-money will pan out in the near future (not).

      note: if you are advertising on google-network and have no stocks or getting no dividends then you
      are just working FOR google with your business. google has nothing to sell ... but YOU!

    2. Re:Google Fiber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try that again, but in English this time.

  26. AT&T says... by sconeu · · Score: 1

    "We want to continue providing a great experience for our Internet customers so weâ(TM)re giving U-verse Internet customers more choices,"

    Yeah, because so many customers have said, "We want to have our data capped for a better internet experience".

    [Disclaimer: I am (or was) a moderately satisfied UVerse customer]

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  27. How the Tech Works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I exceed my monthly limit they need to charge me for the additional data, because their equipment has to work harder/more?

    If I don't use all of my allotment or stop at the cap, is AT&T powering downing equipment to save money until my next billing cycle?

    The answer to both of these is "No."

    If they need to charge you more it's for 2 reasons (if not both), either they are greedy and have monopolistic powers or they have oversold their networks.

    I've said it plenty, these networks work on how fast data moves NOT how much.

  28. I had a similar problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Every week or so it would go out for a day.

    Finally, i got so sick of it, I called the supported number every time it happened. I played their silly ass game of plugging the computer directly to the service (they would change my password so I could just tell them I did) and of course, it would fail. They would apologize and send out a tech - while demanding that someone be home. The tech would show up a day or so later.

    Sometimes the tech wouldn't show up.

    Usually, the connection came back by the time the tech came out.

    Didn't matter. I kept calling.

    Finally, the local tech boss just gave me his card and said call him direct when the problem occurred.

    I also found out in areas such as mine where there's no competition or only one other more evil ISP (Comcast) they let their equipment basically rot.

    I don't even have that Uverse shit yet. I have a 1.5 Mbps/.25Mbps connection and paying $49/mo for it.

    It's pretty annoying to see that we're at the bottom of the industrialized World in terms of service but at the top for fees.

  29. Re:In case you were thinking about cutting the cor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure they do the typical things and include a notice in your bill of things changing and you do technically have a chance to cancel the plan with no penalty if you don't like the conditions. Just don't be surprised if you are under contract that their automated system adds the ETF to your bill and you have to call in multiple times to get it removed but lets be honest. That doesn't really matter because you either have no other options or one other option that is just as bad so you aren't likely to be canceling anyway. You just have to accept it and die a little inside.

  30. FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T don't forget to blame the FCC. It's a great opportunity!

  31. Re:In case you were thinking about cutting the cor by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    > I'm not sure how they can unilaterally do this without revisiting the contract.

    You mean what's already been in the contract since 2011? Just because they're enforcing it now doesn't mean the contract has changed.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  32. unless you're in a google fiber area by hyphnos · · Score: 3, Funny

    i received a notice modifying my terms on 18 mb uverse a few weeks ago telling me the cap was being removed... thanks google

    1. Re:unless you're in a google fiber area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you stay with shitty AT&T when you can have Google Fiber???

      I told my wife if we ever move, it would have to be to another area with GF as I ain't ever giving it up willingly.

  33. Re:In case you were thinking about cutting the cor by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    You're always been under a cap with AT&T internet, they just rarely enforced it. However now they have *increased* the cap for most people while also saying that they will enforce it. I don't really see the problem here.

  34. The verst! by dotslashdot · · Score: 1

    It's called Uverse because U vill be verse off.

  35. UWhat? by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    I don't exactly live in the sticks, just very far from any AT&T CO. The best DSL I could get form them was 1.5 (really 1.25) down. And I put up with it for a long time, because I really don't do much online. I have all the bandwith I need in the form of a good blu-ray player and 1.25 is good enough for basic-to-moderately complex web sites.

    I asked about better speeds. Repeatedly. No can do. No UVerse for me, not at any price. And having had DirecTV back in the late 90's I wasn't keen on repeating the experience.

    So when my AT&T "modem" broke last year, that was the final straw. I told them to kill not only DSL, but my landline as well. I went to Comcast for internet, since I've had them since the late 90's for TV. Much as I loathe them and their business practices, I've found their internet to be fast-ish and reliable.

    The only thing from AT&T I kept was the mobile. I've had Sprint and Verizon too, but I've had AT&T the longest, and it gives me the best overall service as far as mobile goes.

    But aside from all that, there seems to be something funny going on:

    1. Netflix just became the sole online distributor of Disney and related (Lucas, Marvel, Pixar).

    2. Comcast has elevated their internet cap to 1TB (I don't know if that applies to internet-only plans)

    3. AT&T drops UVerse for TV (yes, folks, from now own AT&T TV is ONLY DirecTV) and decides to enforce limits for internet-only users.

    Coincidence? I don't believe in that, but.. convenient convergence sure seems plausible!

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:UWhat? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I don't exactly live in the sticks, just very far from any AT&T CO. The best DSL I could get form them was 1.5 (really 1.25) down.

      The average copper local loop in the US is 4.25 km. This is higher than any other OECD country, and almost four time as long as the average length in Italy for example.

      Those people 2+ km out are never going to see data rates over 5 Mbps down, regardless of technology.

      It is possible that it is because the US adopted electronic telephone switching before other countries, and/or perhaps there were stronger forces driving Central Office consolidation. You can imagine that with 4 km local loops, one CO can serve the same area as 7 COs with 1.5 km local loops. Thus it is more efficient for telephony to have fewer central offices and longer local loops, but it turns out to be bad years later for DSL.

    2. Re:UWhat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CO distance doesn't matter for Uverse anyhow, because most connections are done at a neighborhood remote terminal with fiber to the CO. They started building those Project Lightspeed remote terminals at least ten years ago. (They built one near me before they had even coined the "Uverse" brand name.) The remote terminals are large beige boxes, usually next to a larger beige box (the breakout box) and a beige pillar (the electrical supply connection).

      My "local loop" is on the order of 200m, and as I have Uverse voice, my voice loop is entirely inside the house. If I didn't have Uverse voice, the voice loop would be spliced into voice equipment in the box, making it a mini-CO.

      Also, Uverse uses VDSL2, so it gets much higher data rates over the same copper than original ADSL. The shorter the distance, the more significant the increase. It also supports bonding a second pair if necessary to get more bandwidth. And I've noticed that AT&T has been trying to deprecate their legacy ADSL customers for the past two or three years.

  36. Other /. users believe moving is warranted by tepples · · Score: 1

    I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. That people unhappy with their ISP should pack up all their things and move to a different city

    If you work from home, and the best Internet connection available in your city makes it impossible to do your job, then Thanshin seems to believe moving is warranted, as do sglewis100, Zero__Kelvin, allquixotic, Bengie, FlyHelicopters, and several Anonymous Cowards.

    possibly far enough away they need to find a different job

    If you work from home, you can take your job with you.

    and new social circle?

    New in-person social circle, same social media social circle.

    1. Re:Other /. users believe moving is warranted by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      possibly far enough away they need to find a different job

      If you work from home, you can take your job with you.

      While more people work from home than ever, there is still a locale needed for most jobs and moving cities is not at will, unless you're willing to risk your job.

      and new social circle?

      New in-person social circle, same social media social circle.

      Well, for some of us those are one and the same, because the second one really doesn't exist.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    2. Re:Other /. users believe moving is warranted by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      If you work from home, you can take your job with you.

      New in-person social circle, same social media social circle.

      If you are single, then it is possible if you are willing to do so and have resources to go to a different city. Most people aren't in that condition especially when there are families involved. Even worse, if you have younger kids (that aren't going to college yet). Moving from one place to another will be a horror that needs a lot of preparation...

  37. Monetize! Monetize! by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

    These are OUR PIPES, and don't you forget it!

    (combining an actual quote from a broadband exec with, Road House)

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  38. What about wireless? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    $10 per 50GBytes?

    That's $0.02/MByte

    If you have the temerity to take your AT&T phone across the border to Canada, they will charge you $2.00/MByte. 100X more.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:What about wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you pay $30/mo extra or subscribe to any tier of Uverse TV, it is unlimited.

    2. Re:What about wireless? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      If you pay $30/mo extra or subscribe to any tier of Uverse TV, it is unlimited.

      If I enjoyed suffering, yes.

      I have Frontier FiOS, with a static subnet. All TV comes through the inter tubes. No caps. No Comcast, AT&T or other largely hated communications corporation. Any service with an illiterate first letter (Uverse, Xfinity etc.) is to be avoided at all costs.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:What about wireless? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      $30 buys a local prepay SIM with LTE in Canada. This is what I do.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re:What about wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again, $0.0002/MB or 0.02 cents/MB

  39. But they just removed my cap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a letter in the last week or two saying they were removing the cap on my 1GB/sec Uverse fiber account. It was 1TB/month on paper but there was no way for them to monitor or enforce it (as I was told repeatedly).

    Maybe the fact that Google is digging up everyone's yard installing fiber has something to do with it.

  40. Protect that monopoly cash cow! by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

    Nothing more than an exercise of a monopoly, protecting its cash cow--leveraging that monopoly, possibly illegally, to squeeze more money out of customers at the threat of making the services they're paying for useless.

    I can burn 150 GB just watching netflix. What a joke.

    --
    Who did what now?
  41. If your Internet is like Flint water by tepples · · Score: 1

    unless you're willing to risk your job.

    Which could be rephrased as "unless you're willing to search for jobs in the city where you want to live."

    If you see home Internet as an essential utility, and the best home Internet offer in your city is as intolerable as the leaded water in Flint, Michigan, then your city is intolerable. If your city is intolerable, than any job available only in your city is likewise intolerable.

    1. Re:If your Internet is like Flint water by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Which could be rephrased as "unless you're willing to search for jobs in the city where you want to live."

      If you see home Internet as an essential utility, and the best home Internet offer in your city is as intolerable as the leaded water in Flint, Michigan, then your city is intolerable. If your city is intolerable, than any job available only in your city is likewise intolerable.

      It's more like I lived in Seattle, and suddenly they decided to limit me to 8 glasses of water day. There's a slight difference there, you're still getting your essential utility and it is sufficient for life, but not what you're used to, want, nor what your neighbors 3 blocks over have, because they're in a different municipal service district.

      Based on your comments here and elsewhere you seem like a rootless individual with no ties and no real like for where they're living now, and thus you see everything as black and white. There's lots of things that can hold others back, such as they're not the only one that gets consideration and perhaps there are more reasons than just internet connectivity to live somewhere. Sometimes it's cheaper to rent a 200 sq ft office space with high connectivity than move.

      Oh, but we're talking about streaming users here getting capped (we'll ignore the rest of the high data usage folks for now, putting them in the illegal or unusual groups) That's a different problem that should be addressed by regulators. I regularly run TB of data through my home network. It costs me exactly zilch more than running the normal light load. (i.e., it doesn't cost them anymore to support 'x' data over 'y' data if they can support 'y' data. What does cost them more is when they sell 'y' data capacity and only have 'x' data capacity, then they need to invest in more infrastructure to support 'y' data, something almost none of them have done. AT&T is the poster child for this one with U-verse. Originally I could get 6 Mbps something like $100/month 10 years ago. As of 1 year ago, I couldn't get more than 1Mbps up at any price, including business connections, because, and I quote "We have no more slots available" meaning, I take it, that their distribution nodes were at capacity and they were, in effect, stealing channels from others to service new customers. It explains why my 3Mbps regular connections became 2Mbps and sometimes 1Mbps up over the past few years and why video conferencing went from great to problematic to broken. NOTE: AT&T hasn't advertised upload speeds for years in my area. I didn't notice the drop until the quality of various services I was using went downhill, at first sporadically, and then in a much more regular pattern.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  42. There's a Workaround by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

    Whenever I get close to the cap I just upload some really large files to roll the odometer back.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  43. Then build out more capacity by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Instead of just throwing your hands up and declaring defeat. Of course, if you're AT&T and you're making bank off selling a limited resource then that's the last thing you'd want. It's almost as if unfettered capitalism can create perverse incentives

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Then build out more capacity by Squash · · Score: 1

      Unfettered capitalism wouldn't have allowed at&t to be a regional monopoly provider in many of its service areas, essentially eliminating any competition and allowing them to do basically whatever they want. What you have instead is cronyism. Try not to mistake the two.

      --
      Squash
    2. Re: Then build out more capacity by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes cronyism is the future tense of unfettered capitalism. The one inevitably degenerates into the latter. To prevent it you need actively enforced regulations with real bite that outlaw ever giving money to a politician (for example), restrict mergers that would lead to monopolies, punish collusion and protect consumers.
      In other words to prevent capitalism from becoming cronyism it has to be fettered capitalism. Conveniently it also makes government less corrupt by removing legalized bribery so any politician who takes money can be presumed to be acting against citizens interest and jailed.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re: Then build out more capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the time, though, their idea of regulation is "who is allowed to make a profit". You can't do business under the regulations unless you just happen to already be an incumbent who abused bribery after being 'unfettered'.

  44. Re:In case you were thinking about cutting the cor by del_diablo · · Score: 1

    Whats the US contract law on the matter? All I really know is that in Scandinavia, altering the deal isn't legal. The deal basically gets refreshes, and the new terms can be denied in favor of the old.

  45. And in Colorado by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

    I have exactly one provider, CenturyLink, $60 a month for DSL 7/1 service, no cable available. CenturyLink bought the local phone company and mothballed all the work they were doing to improve service, to include laying residential fiber and now says no to any upgrades in the foreseeable future.

    Granted I live on the Eastern Plains but it just shows what competition can do to prices and service. Since the military stationed me here moving is not an option.

  46. Almost bought a house recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but i ended up cancelling the deal when i found out that AT$T was the only broadband available there.

    Shame, otherwise it was a pretty good deal.

  47. Re:In case you were thinking about cutting the cor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't really see the problem here.

    I see a local monopoly using my internet service to try and force me to buy their television service. I guess that isn't a problem for you.

  48. regressing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still part of the oligopoly , still price fixing, still stealing from the consumer, still greedy as ever, all while taxpayers front the bill of billions of dollars in subsidies to build their company. This is the same company the government broke up only 10x worse.

  49. THIS helps vs. caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus (slows you) + less security issues/complexity. Compliments firewalls (w/ layered drivers blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lightens dns load). Gets data via 10 security sites.

    Ads rob bandwidth, security (malvertising), privacy in tracking + anonymity.

    Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogtrackers) natively. Hosts != blockable by ClarityRay (vs. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slow usermode browser addons)

    Works vs. caps & HTTP PUSH ads w/ firewalls.

    Avg. webpage = big as Doom http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... & ads = 40% of that size.

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "I've seen the code & it's safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

  50. more clueless slashdot idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody except filesharers use their bandwidth that way.

    duh, people who work from home and download daily builds

  51. They will get their money no matter what by Bruha · · Score: 1

    If you notice, paying the unlimited fee raises the broadband costs beyond the TV costs in most cases. So you can cut the cord all you want, they'll maintain their profit per customer regardless.

  52. We cancelled Uverse 2 weeks ago by sdguero · · Score: 1

    It wasn't over the data cap thing (a host of other issues with their service and billing), but it was a nice coincidence. Also coincidentally, Time Warner Cable is bumping their top tier internet package from 50mbps to 300mbps in our neighborhood this month for the same price (which is cheaper than Uverse's top tier 60mbps service).

  53. I just cancelled my Service with ATT because they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are horrible, and because they never informed me of the cap (read lied). They also have such atrocious customer service that you have to schedule an entire day to deal with their phone system, another day to deal the trauma of it all.

    I won't mention the service I am replacing AT&TT with but it is not what I wanted (anyone try getting a static IP lately without getting a business account?). The state of Internet in the USA is pathetic and sad and AT&T seems to be leading the charge. I actually had a better time and more luck dealing with the DMV and would have rather been waterboarded than have to deal with AT&T again. Yes waterboarded.

    The feeling AT&T gives you is this. Imagine being sucked out to see in a really bad rip tide and having 200 life guards on duty on your beach see this happen. Now imagine you scream for help and the life guard who hears you tells you that would be more than happy to help you but first they need your social, your date of birth, billing address, and a bunch of other information. Now imagine you just want them to throw a life preserver in the water so you can swim back yourself. They ask you then what are your swimming needs, and capabilities, inform you that even though your needs are less they would like to up sell you to the jetski.

    When you agree just to get help they transfer you to the jetski department that promises that the jetski has incredible capabilities a full tank of fuel and a convenient loading stair to help you out of the water. You agree and beg them to please just give you the jetski. They then transfer you to another department that tells you need sand. When you ask for a manager the manager says that there is another department that handles jetski complaints then cold transfers you to dead air.

    You yell for help again and someone who speaks a very broken and strangely Indian sounding dialect who's name you don't quite believe is Peter, promises you that he will in fact help you and prevent you from being washed out to sea. You try to understand him but you can't so you yell to someone else for help and get the business department who wants to sell you water. You tell them you are about to drown, but they insist you need water, and that they can't help you unless you want their water. So frustrated you yell for help again, and finally you get someone to sell you a blow up life raft. You spend hours trying to get on it and get it set up but then half way through they pop it and tell you that you have been the life raft beyond the allotted time and if you want to still use the life raft you need top pay more money.

    You explain to them that you were not told the life raft had a limit and they explain that they sent fliers out to everyone six months ago and it is not their fault you didn't read their junk mail.

    So you ask for the lead life guard, someone who knows what is going on , someone that can traverse the complex chaos that is unfathomable unless you have experienced it. You get to a nice person, they try to help and they insist that you need and ACME Anvil so you can anchor yourself to the sea floor and not drift out anymore.

    After many many hours (70+) of dealing with this defunct system you finally give up and call another "Life Guard " Company (not giving out names but it rhymes with Time Warner) and find that to get a static IP you need to pay them 125 dollars more and get Business Service. After haggling for over an hour you realize that you live in the USA which was once a great country at the forefront of science and technology but now is nothing more than an Oligarchy run by companies who are more interested in profit than product and service, more interested in draining money from those of us who don't have it, for services that can be honestly said to be required in this day and age.

    They use you and throw you away and there is really nothing you can do about it. So I cancelled my Service, I kicked the shark, I drown now in mediocrity and substandard sub par Internet in a

  54. If AT&T had my home address by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I'd probably want to change my name and move to another city too.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  55. ISPs should meter only when congested by tepples · · Score: 1

    Networks are measured in maximum throughput over a given period of time, not total number bytes transferred to a given place.

    Data caps measure each user's contribution to average throughput, which is (imperfectly) correlated to each user's contribution to peak throughput.

    Data caps are a solution to the wrong problem.

    Agreed. If the problem is peak throughput, the solution is to run the meter when the network is congested, that is, when the user's packets are passing through a segment at its maximum throughput. Satellite ISPs have the right idea: run the meter only during congested hours to encourage users to move their transfers away from times of maximum demand for throughput.

    the "problem" they're really solving is that of people using the Internet the way it was intended--as a communications medium that doesn't really care if what's being communicated is voice, text, images, videos, etc.

    That or the "problem" is one of using the Internet as a real-time communications medium, as opposed to an asynchronous application where usage can be shifted away from . People download multi-gigabyte HD movies and Steam games during prime time, contributing to dropped packets at times of maximum throughput, when they could be setting the computer to download them at 0-dark-thirty and not affecting the maximum.

    1. Re:ISPs should meter only when congested by solidraven · · Score: 1

      It shouldn't matter really, your network should be able to handle peak load without negative traffic routing interactions. This is just a sad (typically American I might add) company trying to improve its substantial profit margin by screwing over customers.

    2. Re:ISPs should meter only when congested by tepples · · Score: 1

      your network should be able to handle peak load without negative traffic routing interactions.

      Allowing all subscribers to transmit at peak rate simultaneously "without negative traffic routing interactions" would require such an investment in capacity, including the purchase of land and equipment for cell towers, that most subscribers would consider the service unaffordable. For this reason, most ISPs oversell their networks under the assumption that not all subscribers will reach peak load simultaneously. Metering during congested periods is ostensibly a way to reduce peak load to the point where it can be "handle[d] without negative traffic routing interactions" as a way of delaying the need to invest in capacity. But I agree with you that metering during uncongested periods is a cash grab.

    3. Re:ISPs should meter only when congested by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Learn the difference between peak load and subscribers times promised bandwith please. Aiming for sustained peak load simply means you statistically predict how much actual load you'll get for x customers at the busiest moments and you build for that +5% or +10% based on your datasource. This isn't exactly rockey science, every self respecting engineer can do these calculations. It simply requires you continuously monitor your network status and do preventative upgrades. You know there is even management software for ISPs that'll detect bottlenecks?

  56. The problem isn't caps it's excess regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that local governments were pressured into granting monopolies in order to get commercial enterprises into there communities. The government shouldn't have ever been able to grant such a monopoly in the first place. What we have as a result of these monopolies (telephone, cable, etc) is poor service and entities that refuse to invest in there continued development or upkeep. Those of us who have two options (ie ADSL or Cable) should consider ourselves lucky. That only happened because of technological limitations at the time cable television came into existence. If that hadn't happened we'd probably all be stuck in a monopoly situation and in the real world a good percentage of the population is. Now that these companies have been around forever they've got a first mover advantage. It becomes financially unsound for new entities to get into the business. What that means is the entrenched monopolies and duopolies can undercut newcomers on price. The reason for that is because older infrastructure investment costs have long been paid off. That'll prevent a newcomer from competing because the newcomer is going to have higher costs to install there lines that have to then be paid off which increases operational costs. Unless you can seriously out compete via your infrastructure you probably don't have a chance. Even if you do (say because the competition has slow old lines) your entrenched competition will still be able to outmanoeuvre you. They've got cash in the bank where you don't. They don't have to take out a loan to cover there investment. We essentially temporarily need regulation to even the playing field. Once we have that it can end once we've got a good amount of competition within the phone/tv/internet universe.

    If you believe in competition and unregulated markets check out the Free State Project. It's all about individual liberties and freedom. The people and government should stay out of any activities where there isn't direct harm caused to other people. In other words you would be in favour of getting rid of laws banning drugs, drivers licenses, social security numbers, social security, 'think of the children' style legislation (ie public schools), taxes, marriage laws (legalizing gay marriage was good, but the government shouldn't be giving benefits to anybody- that's theft of other peoples labour), government sanctioned violence (foreign wars), borders (open the boarder, we should all be free to travel as we please), etc.

  57. Doing Something Instead of Whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there any software out there that monitors how much data you've transferred and gives you the option to transfer random data (or public torrents) until you're within some percent of your configured cap within each configured time period? I know some torrent software will let you limit its usage, but it doesn't take into account total internet usage.

    One metric for the cap sizes is a distribution of average usage. If we can bump more people towards the higher end, in theory future caps will be larger.

  58. add $30/month = unlimited by fredness · · Score: 1

    Have GigaPower in Cupertino, CA.

    We're running about 500 GBytes data/month with a 1 Gbps fiber link, its quite fast for only $70/month (though promotion discount $29/month runs out soon). Several binge watching millennials keep it pretty soaked.

    For extra $30/month they say they'll allow unlimited data, but doesn't look like any risk of needing that any time soon.

  59. Consequences by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    If you end up having to uncut the cable due to cost of overages with Netflix, Hulu, and the like, be sure you tell those services WHY you are leaving and encourage them to take the same course of action you are like complaining to the FCC and writing your congressman.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  60. If an ISP can't "build for that" by tepples · · Score: 1

    Aiming for sustained peak load simply means you statistically predict how much actual load you'll get for x customers at the busiest moments and you build for that +5% or +10% based on your datasource.

    If an ISP lacks the finances at the moment to "build for that" throughout its service area, how else should it reduce peak load?

    This isn't exactly rockey science, every self respecting engineer can do these calculations.

    Engineers say one thing. Finance says another. An executive needs to balance the two, and it may come down to ordering the engineers to come up with a solution that reduces peak load. What such solution do you recommend?

    1. Re:If an ISP can't "build for that" by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "If an ISP lacks the finances at the moment to "build for that" throughout its service area, how else should it reduce peak load?"

      So because an ISP has declined to update their networks over the last 10 years but continued to sell the service to more and more subscribers, it is now not their fault because they can't immediately pay for the bandwidth upgrades they need? bullshit. they should be fined continuously until their network is upgraded.. if hat means no profit for the next 3 years TFB. then the C-lvel execs will be fired for incompetence, which is exactly what should happen.

    2. Re:If an ISP can't "build for that" by solidraven · · Score: 1

      We both know this isn't due to lack of finances, but rather decades of mismanagement and lobying to permit such situations. The cost of the required hardware is quite minimal in the case of AT&T, it's only the will to do it that's missing. In the end its mostly the PBX end that needs upgrading if their excuse is valid, so it's not some insurmountable task. And caps don't solve this, if your network capacity is limited you lower speeds and use QoS based policies. (e.g. voip gets priority over your cat pictures.)

    3. Re:If an ISP can't "build for that" by tepples · · Score: 1

      So because an ISP has declined to update their networks over the last 10 years

      Or has attempted to do so for ten years but has been constrained by red tape that it can document.

      they should be fined continuously until their network is upgraded.. if hat means no profit for the next 3 years TFB.

      No profit for three years would result in a shareholder lawsuit. Would it be preferable to dissolve one of the major cellular carriers and sell its assets at auction to the other major carriers, resulting in yet another contraction of the U.S. cellular industry?

    4. Re:If an ISP can't "build for that" by tepples · · Score: 1

      In the end its mostly the PBX end that needs upgrading if their excuse is valid, so it's not some insurmountable task.

      No "PBX end" upgrade will keep speeds up if all subscribers run BitTorrent 24/7 over the air. There exist fundamental physical limits in how much throughput a given amount of spectrum and land for cell towers can support.

      if your network capacity is limited you lower speeds

      Cut speeds and add QoS favoring VoIP, and watch your revenue collapse as your customers flock to a competing carrier that advertises higher speeds for non-VoIP apps made possible by caps.

    5. Re:If an ISP can't "build for that" by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Yes there is, it's about DSL lines. Each subscriber has a unique twisted pair copper line to the PBX. The interference between the lines near the PBX is less of an issue these days because the cards (PBX end) got very good at canceling it out. From there on its fibre (or god forbid: microwave) for whatever network topology you use. Both are trivial to extend the capacity of, it's simply a matter of will. Or did we forget about that time a large US ISP refused to extend capacity claiming cost concerns, which proceeded in them getting laughed at in public by Level3? All they needed was an interface card of a few grand and a fibre patch cable of ten bucks. And this would have solved all netflix related congestion on their network. Before you continue your lame PR campaign for AT&T realise most of us do know network topology and what the congestion points are.

    6. Re:If an ISP can't "build for that" by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Oh and on QoS, your argument is bullshit, all it does is increase latency if implemented correctly. No one notices a few extra milliseconds loading webpages or getting mail. Speed is maintained but realtime applications are given priority treatment (aka guaranteed delivery within a reasonable delay), as traffic isn't constant you can still get through more than enough data in most cases.

    7. Re:If an ISP can't "build for that" by tepples · · Score: 1

      traffic isn't constant

      It'll become a lot closer to constant if people start running BitTorrent 24/7.

    8. Re:If an ISP can't "build for that" by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Not really, bittorent can run high latency so you can bundle and compress packets over busy links if you must. Stop thinking circuit style network about package switched networks. It's mostly a matter of strategic investments at the right points of the links, these investments aren't necessarily expensive. But companies like AT&T their actual product is asking their users to bend over while they run away with the money, not provide good connectivity. It's funny how this issue doesn't arise in countries where the local equivalent of the FCC wasn't chained and shackled by lobby groups.

  61. employ the free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why everyone is up in arms.... it's real easy. Cancel their service and go with something else. The more we (customers) cancel their service, the more they (Big Evil Corp.) have to listen. They listen or they go away. I've seen comments about "passing a law" to stop this... no law needed. Go to the provider who is not capping service.