Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Heavy AT&T DSL users could see additional fees

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

June 13, 2008, 5:20 PM

A spokesperson for AT&T says the company is mulling an additional charge atop the standard monthly rate for those who use a large amount of bandwidth.

About five percent of AT&T's DSL user base consumes about half of the total bandwidth, and the top one percent of high-consumers use essentially a fifth of total bandwidth, according to AT&T spokesperson Michael Coe. It is this small segment of the market that AT&T is considering slapping with an additional fee.

Coe told reporters on Thursday that his company has not come to a decision on how to proceed, but called usage-based pricing "inevitable."

Usage is only surging, with the amount of bandwidth used doubling every 18 months.

At least one other cable provider is already testing such a plan, with Time Warner Cable charging users for excess bandwidth used over their allowance. Every gigabyte over the limit customers go costs them an additional dollar. This plan is being tested currently in Beaumont, Texas.

Instead of charges, Comcast has opted to throttle heavy users during peak periods. Tests of this approach to the problem are ongoing in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania and Warrenton, Virginia.

Caps on downloads could put a crimp on the burgeoning digital media market. Services like Vudu and iTunes depend on the capability to transfer large amounts of data easily in order to make their services viable. If users were to be limited from transferring significant amounts of data, these services could be directly affected.

Add a Comment (117 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By foxfyre

edited Jun 17, 2008 - 2:39 PM

Such gnashing of teeth, whining and teenaged angst from the entitled crowd.

"I paid my $14 and I want everything at the fastest speeds. Give it to me or I will lay on the floor and kick scream!" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

And with any luck they will hold their breath as well.

Regulating service on the basis of usage volume. Such a radical concept! LOL!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 18, 2008 - 8:55 AM

Give it to me or I will lay on the floor and kick scream

Yep, that about covers it.

Heh..

Score: 0

By unistyle

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 5:38 PM

Calling something unlimited should be just that. If it's not unlimited, then don't call it that. Pretty simple if you ask me. That's my only real problem with the whole thing and I'm sure others feel the same way. Companies can't mislabel foods fat-free or calorie free if they aren't, cable companies and phone companies shouldn't be able to call something unlimited if it clearly isn't. Sure that's a bad example, but I can't think of anything better cause I'm in a big hurry and running late. It's intentionally misleading to customers, and it is wrong.

Score: 0

By skimore

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 4:45 PM

wow you pay $14?? that would be nice.. I have no problems with them changing and maybe wanting to make money.. My problem is the use of the term "UNlimited".. Call it 20G , 30G and 40G service not "unlimited".. I have the top tier of TWC's service for $55 a month.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 3:29 PM

WTF? Where did you find $14 high speed internet?

"Where an AT&T Service account, service or feature description specifies limits on bandwidth, disk utilization, simultaneous connections, and/or aggregate data download or upload, use in excess of those limits is not permitted without an appropriate change in account type or status and may incur additional charges for such usage.

Bandwidth, disk utilization, simultaneous connections, and aggregate data downloads/uploads will be computed or determined by AT&T from time to time in developing its product and service offerings. In the event AT&T determines that an account is exceeding the relevant bandwidth, disk utilization, aggregate data download/upload limits, simultaneous connections, or reasonable session times, the account owner will generally be notified by E-mail. If the excess use continues after such notification, the owner may be requested to upgrade the type of account or to modify the activity creating the excess use, or the account may be terminated.

If excessive bandwidth, disk space utilization, simultaneous connections, aggregate data download or upload, or session length is determined to adversely affect AT&T's ability to provide service, immediate action may be taken. The account owner may be notified by e-mail as soon as practical thereafter."

http://www.att.net/csbel...gal/att.htm&leg=aup

There's no specification of bandwidth other than the data rate on their DSL page:

http://www.bellsouth.com...gr4-b_JMCFQi1IgodkxL6Vg

A change in terms while OK'ed in the license agreement is a SIGNIFICANT change to the license. Every AT&T user has the right to complain about it. If tried, I suspect it could (and probably would) be found illegal as it is so different that it could be argued to be a completely new agreement.

Sorry, regulating is fine as long as it's an agreed rate at time of sale.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jun 17, 2008 - 3:57 PM

"WTF? Where did you find $14 high speed Internet?"

With AT&T. Obviously, being the astute consumer you are, you don't take advantage of their online specials.

Thanks for posting the TOS! Try reading them.
"use in excess of those limits is not permitted without an appropriate change in account type or status and MAY INCUR ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR SUCH USAGE."

If you don't like it, don't agree to it! DUH!

Obviously you missed my sarcasm just as you lack the ability to read for meaning.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 18, 2008 - 12:43 AM

Your sarcasm is just stupidity.

I'm not an AT&T customer. I have no issue with their EULA myself.

Thanks.

Score: 0

By fatray

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 1:12 PM

I guess this mean the other 95% get a rebate for not using a lot of bandwidth?

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 2:12 PM

Nope. It means they are getting exactly what they are paying for according to the TOS contract.

Score: 0

By Program86

edited Jun 16, 2008 - 2:41 PM

Time to boycott AT&T! (along with those Comcast retards)

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 4:54 PM

Super idea. Hey, let's boycott the internet altogether. You start!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 5:34 PM

*laughs*

That was awesome.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 16, 2008 - 1:03 PM

Some of you get it, most of you don't...

This *may* piss of a grand, whopping total of 5% of their users.

These are the users consuming the majority of their resources.

One can only imagine the joy they would share if each and every one of these users got pissed off enough to jumped ship.

:)

If you want "unlimited", get a business service. Otherwise, expect "unlimited" to refer only to what it refers to in the ToS: Availability of the connection*.

I know...no-one reads the ToS. That in no way means they aren't subject to it.

*Availability not guaranteed. ;)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 1:48 PM

I just want a mesh.

I'm in the burbs, and there are 12 wifis I'm picking up from my office.

Why in the world can't we mesh them all and share bandwidth outside of ISPs?

Just need points out to the net here and there, shortest path and all that.

Imagine:

5Mb? no no, my peer access is 248Mb. Sure, my download from microsoft was throttled to 2Mb, but my ubuntu torrent? I had the ISO finished in 45 seconds.

:-D

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 18, 2008 - 9:06 AM

The ideal is great, the reality is that those "net point here and there" costs money.

Who's going to pay for that?

...obviously not you, right?

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 18, 2008 - 2:34 PM

See below where I say "I'll give up some of my bandwidth for it".

;-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 18, 2008 - 3:22 PM

Not understanding where you'd get 248mb out of "some of your bandwidth".

You don't honestly think the mesh won't be absolutely drowned out by entitled "pirates", do you?

Damn idealists... ;)

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 19, 2008 - 12:51 AM

meh, QOS.

248MB is 802.11n, that "could" be a peer connection, the feed out to the internet would ride on the shortest path.

Some of my bandwidth would be my ISP connection.

Score: 0

By skimore

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 2:23 PM

I get it.. These numbers are very low to me. Between NBC.com and NetFlix I take about 40G on that alone...

Here is what TWC is doing:

In that trial, new customers can buy plans with a 5-gigabyte cap, a 20-gigabyte cap or a 40-gigabyte cap. Prices for those plans range from $30 to $50. Above the cap, customers pay $1 a gigabyte. Plans with higher caps come with faster service.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 5:32 PM

I get it.. These numbers are very low to me.

Welcome to the top 5%. Want a cookie?

I download 20GB a month from a single service. From others, it varies, but I might very well be in that top tier. I also realize I am paying the exact same amount as the guy living next door who only checks his email. This does not seem fair to either of us. Does it seem fair to you? Honestly?

Regarding TWC:

This is a test. If the numbers are too low (they start losing customers) they will rework it, perhaps to higher limits (those proposed by Comcast, perhaps?).

Plans with higher caps come with faster service.

So you can download the higher amount in the same time it takes the lower tier to download their amount (or close to it). It's called bandwidth management.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 8:16 AM

think I do a whopping 2-5GB/mo

Score: 0

By skimore

edited Jun 16, 2008 - 2:27 PM

from people in the biz..

Google:
“As soon as you put serious uncertainty as to cost on the table, people’s feeling of freedom to predict cost dries up and so does innovation and trying new applications,” Vint Cerf, the chief Internet evangelist for Google who is often called the “father of the Internet,” said in an e-mail message.

Cisco:
As the technology company Cisco put it in a recent report, “today’s ‘bandwidth hog’ is tomorrow’s average user.”

“We hate it,” said a senior executive at a major media company, who requested anonymity because his company, like all broadcasters, must play nice with the same cable operators that are imposing the limits. Now that some television shows are viewed millions of times online, the executive said, any impediment would hurt the advertising model for online video streaming.

hxxp://biz.yahoo.com/nytimes/080614/1194785259060.html?.v=3

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 5:33 PM

Google:
“As soon as you put serious uncertainty as to cost on the table, people’s feeling of freedom to predict cost dries up and so does innovation and trying new applications,” Vint Cerf, the chief Internet evangelist for Google who is often called the “father of the Internet,” said in an e-mail message.


One wonders why they have made no outcry regarding Cell phones....

Cisco:
As the technology company Cisco put it in a recent report, “today’s ‘bandwidth hog’ is tomorrow’s average user.”

Apparently assuming today's caps are tomorrow's caps? How...enlightened.

Both Google and Cisco are serving their own self interests, which is to be expected. So are TWC and AT&T. :)

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 10:48 AM

ATT users must join forces and sue the company. As someone already said, throttling the connection or paying more for the service is ridiculous. If you paid for 6mb/s that is what you have the right to use. If the company speculates with how much you might use it is its problem, not yours.
Next step will sell you per byte, as Ausies pay, again, ridiculous...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 1:48 PM

If you paid for 6mb/s that is what you have the right to use.

Terms and conditions may apply. :)

You were guaranteed nothing.

I'm not defending them, though I am sure it looks like it, I am merely facing reality. They've done nothing to be sued for.

Ya'll may not like the advertising, but they always state or print terms and conditions may apply.

Aside from the fact that 6mb/sec was never actually guaranteed either...as that would be laughable (not all sites can *deliver* 6mb/sec).

The words they use are "up to" 6mb/sec. :)

Score: 0

By dvferret

edited Jun 16, 2008 - 2:08 PM

I pay for thier top notch service and never once has it been "up to" what they claim. Its a dirty trick to pay more.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 2:13 PM

What's the speed of this "top notch" service?

Are you sure that the places you are downloading from simply are not capable of achieving it (or are limiting the connection themselves)?

I currently have 10mbit. The only thing keeping me from going for the 50mbit plan is the fact that maybe 30% of the services I download from can even give me the 10. I can only imagine how low that percentage would be @ 50mbit.

That said, I was @ 6mbit, paid $5 more a month and now have 10. Even though many services are still giving me 5mbit speeds, it's worth it.

If the upgrade isn't worth it for ya, why are you still paying for it?

Score: 0

By skimore

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 2:35 PM

You might not get it.. These companies are doing this for one reason.. Stop people from using services that competes with offered services.. IE: netflix vs. VOD, Vontage or skype vs phone service...

These guy's are NOT ISP's they are TV, Phone, and internet providers. They DO NOT WANT TO BE A ISP and ONLY provide internet..
Which is what they might become if they lose this fight.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 5:27 PM

Well, you got the "one reason" right, but missed it on the actual reason.

They couldn't care less what they are providing. They want those who use the most of their resources, regardless of what type, to pay the most money.

...and that's what it boils down to. Money.

And all of the whining in the world isn't going to make them stop unless they've actually broken a law.

...and last I checked, not giving customers every little thing they *want*, isn't against the law. ;)

(See my previous posts in this topic regarding what customers "want" vs. what was actually offered.)

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

edited Jun 16, 2008 - 10:12 AM

People in general dont get/pay for the fastest connections just for s***s and giggles. Selling something you cant actually provide seems to be normal in the DSL business, when people then actually USE what they got advertised and payed for then you get punished. I havent seen any ISP putting up a sign that says "ran out of bandwidth". They simply squeeze in every single one they can sell to and sort them out later. Its like selling bus tickets to 40 people when the bus can only handle 20.

Looking at AT&T site i would not call 35 bucks a month for 6Mbps/768Kbps expensive. Its dirty cheap if you ask me. I guess you get what you pay for.

Score: 0

By charlespaugh

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 5:49 PM

America owns the backbone of the internet, yet Americans receive the most expensive, slowest, and most poorly managed internet service providers in the world. I don't quite understand it. For AT&T to say that metered internet service is inevitable is ONLY true if consumers allow it to happen.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 11:51 PM

Aaaah no. Australia is a LONG way behind the US in value for Internet access. There's no such thing as unlimited over here - at all. My carrier's best plan has a cap of 30GB for $99/month - which in USD is about $95/month. You wanna tell me your plans suck that much?

Oh, and I forgot to mention, that 30GB INCLUDES uploads.

Score: 0

By kashin

edited Jun 15, 2008 - 8:56 PM

Only Americans believe they "own the backbone of the internet". In fact, America is quite far behind as far as connection speeds and backbones go. They were years behind other countries in broadband penetration. Just off the top of my head, Japan, Finland, most of Europe are light years ahead of America. The main problem in America is the fact that every internet provider wants to squeeze as much profit out of the same old equipment they can without spending a dime on upgrading anything. In other countries the internet companies actually SPEND some of their profits on upgrading their networks instead of whining about high usage and jacking up monthly fees and enforcing bandwidth caps.

First match on Google: http://www.yugatech.com/...eads-in-internet-speeds/

"The chart below shows Japan’s internet speed is about 30 times faster than the US, with a few other countries in between"

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 2:10 PM

This @sshole is fixated with America.

Genius, the issue of normalized Internet access speds in America is averaged over a landmass just a 'few' times larger than Japan or any other pissant country you want to compare it to. Finland? Yeah, right.

The faact is, America is essentially TOTALLY wired! Whereas the places you cite don't even come close. In fact, if it weren't for the advent of cell/wireless/satellite coverage, most of the places you cite still wouldn't have phones or even electricity.

This guy is the embodiment of a very seriously dysfunctional jealous dweep, preoccupied with that which he lacks and blaming the US for everything he wants but can;t have.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

LOL!

Score: 0

By Kahuna

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 1:47 AM

While I agree that the wording of of ownership of the internet I will defend the US infrastructure.
The main reason why the US bandwidth is not up to par with many other countries has to do with population density. With the exception of some of the big cities most folks are not stacked on one another making it very difficult and expensive to push data.

Score: 0

By Jim

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 4:29 PM

Completely Retarded.

When all I had was a 56k dialup I used getright to use all my bandwidth every moment I wasn't at the computer, because I was paying for that bandwidth and I was raised to waste not what not. These days I can't find enough use of the bandwidth I'm paying for, but its mine, bought and paid for damn it.

These company's have taken for granted that most users don't use all the bandwidth they pay for, and have been making out nicely for years because of it. They should have been stuffing this cause of extra profits into improving their service to keep up with demand and the rest of the world, not into their pockets.

Score: 0

By 3312033

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 4:26 PM

THIS IS SOME SERIOUS s*** WELL I CAN CERTAINLY SEE ASIA TAKING OVER AMERICA 100+MBITS AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IN 5 YEARS MORE THAN 50% WILL BE USING THEIR CONNECTION FULLY SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN ...... ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IF YOU SAY UNLIMITED WELL UNLIMTED IS WHAT YOU GET, WHERE THE HELL IS FAIR UH SERIOUS THEY NEVER SAID UM LATER ON YOU WILL GET CHARGED SOMEONE SHOULD SUE THESE IDIOTS AND ONLY IN AMERICA

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 1:49 PM

PEOPLE WILL LISTEN TO YOU IF YOU USE CAPS!

*laughing*

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 4:59 AM

This is laughable. Many nations are pushing forward for 100mbits+ connection and now the best nation in the world are pushing backward. It is so sad to seeing this country is going in all the wrong direction.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 8:36 AM

It is indeed. In many more ways than internet speed it is laughable to put the US on the same level as other '1st world' countries.

Score: 0

By nn123654

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 10:14 AM

"now the BEST nation"

Hence the problem with the US, too much nationalism.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 1:53 PM

Best nation, best team, best class, best company...

Yeah... Screw him for being patriotic or proud of his country.

Sorry we're not all liberal cry-babies blaming all of our woes on the government.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 4:54 PM

Patriotism for some, Religion for others is simply a means to control the sheep. And controlling their sheep the US does well...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 5:23 PM

So being proud of ones accomplishments or the accomplishments of a group is now "a means to control sheep"?

Seems you're as much a tool of the "anti-establishment" crowd as he is of the patriotic crowd. :)

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 5:53 PM

Most patriotism stems from a random event being born in certain space-time coordinates. From there on it's conditioning in most cases. Often - as you well know - it leads to strong feelings of entitlement and superiority without actually having accomplished anything...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 6:34 PM

Often - as you well know - it leads to strong feelings of entitlement and superiority without actually having accomplished anything...

NEWSFLASH: People are a product of their environment!

Wow. You bowled me over with that one.

But seriously, how does that = cause of the problems in the US? Or equate to patriotism being a bad thing in general?

Not a whit.

The poster I replied to made some asinine remark suggesting a relation between patriotism and 'the problem with the US' because someone exhibited national pride;

...as though all of us hating the US would somehow erase poverty, addiction and crime.

It was an asinine statement, and I pointed that out. I don't see why this is an issue with you...

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 8:28 PM

You're so full of sh*t your eyes should be brown. We are largely products of nature and not nurture. Studies of twins separated at birth have shown that they are almost incredibly alike.

You are the product of your genetic makeup. In your case it has resulted in monomania. You may also have a severe case of autonomic lability.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 8:55 AM

Sorry, let me rephrase that for those not able to keep up:

People are a product of their environment.

An individual is the product of his/her genetic code.

*laughs*

Could you people derail this topic any more?

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 7:56 AM

You know, you don't get far with toolie by being so harsh. All the defensive mechanisms will kick in.

These studies (largely US led of separating orphaned id twins) are quite revealing but cultural conditioning and propaganda is what drives societies as a whole.

Ooops - forgot this is a tech blog...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 11:33 AM

I wouldn't call them defensive mechanisms. More like returning the favor.

They flame me, I return the favor. ;)

Score: 0

By DabooDaboo

edited Jun 15, 2008 - 2:07 AM

This should put the movie downloading services like the Amazon, Netflix, and the Xboxlive out of profit. Now let's subscribe to the AT&T U-Verse or else read a book. You might want to conserve your talk time on the phone too. You know, it might cost extra for the yak yak yak.

Score: 0

By mdhawthorne

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 8:50 PM

Gollleeee!!! This is the BEST plan I've ever seen to get people to go back to using snail mail! This is one of the best examples of greed and avarice I have seen the ISPs come up with. This is ridiculous. Don't push too hard, we (the users) just might push back and I don't think the ISPs would like the results. We don't need you as much as you need us. I guess I'll have to dust off my old BBS software.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 2:02 PM

*laughing*

Don't push too hard, we (the users) just might push back and I don't think the ISPs would like the results. We don't need you as much as you need us.

*laughing*

What a hoot!

Funniest damn thing I've read all day. I can see it now;

An army of entitled, self-absorbed tweens descending on AT&T HQ. Dwindling ever-faster in number as they get bored, stop to text their BFF, or run to the nearest cafe to check their MySpace accounts....

Oh man....that's gonna brighten my entire day. Thank you!

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 7:03 PM

oooh Starbucks.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 17, 2008 - 8:55 AM

*laughs*

Er...

LOL.

Score: 0

By fewt

edited Jun 17, 2008 - 1:01 PM

huh? Whah?! I missed the AT&T Massacre?

shaking fist NOOOOO CURSE YOU EVIL GRANDE MOCHA! /shaking fist

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 9:59 AM

I wonder how they would deal with a wide meshed network of generic 802.11. That would be hella cool, especially with routing back out through non-metered ISPs. I'd give up some of my bandwidth to support it.

Hmm.

Metered ISP? What Metered ISP?

There's enough WIFI out there now that all we need is a reason.

Score: 0

By flibberyGiveIt

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 2:05 PM

Have the reason, need the affordable product

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 3:54 PM

Meh, all we need is new firmware or configurations on our routers.

Score: 0

By PostDeals

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 8:33 PM

So now you want to limit what we can use? What are we PAYING the ridicilous fees for? I barely used 3 GB a month mostly email and web browsing but still you can't charge just because I FULLY utilize what I am paying for.

Score: 0

By The_dude_in_the_back

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 7:25 PM

What frustrates me most about this is that for years ISPs have been making a ton of profits from the internet, but very few of them (verizon maybe is an exception) actually invested in upgrading the infrastructure necessary to handle what people were predicting 10 years ago, would be the inevitable band width crunch. So if the ISPs are allowed to charge by the MB for usage, what motivation will there be for them to spend money upgrading the nation's data networks? Remember, their entry into this market was relatively low cost as the initial cost of the network deployment was funded by the universities and government agencies that started this thing.

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 6:07 PM

Verizon is my DSL provider and I'm not likely to see FIOS for several years. The last time I checked, Fort Wayne, Indiana is the only place it's currently available in my area.

There's nothing new about raw capitalism. Microsoft springs to mind.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 6:02 PM

I guess having DSL with limited download and upload speeds, like 1.5m/384k, really doesn't limit the actual amount of data coming and going through your connection.

Somehow, I just thought DSL was different. Because you are buying a limited speed package from the start, then the 1.5m/384k or 768k/128k (for example) would already act as your limiter.

I also thought the only type of connection you had to worry about was Cable Internet, because that bandwidth is shared and you don't want one or two people showing down the whole neighborhood.

Looks like I was wrong. :(

Score: 0

By RWW

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 5:00 PM

We are living in a country where the government spent a lot of our tax money on studies of how to tax sunlight for solar several years back. With the government and big business working together they won't rest until they have regulated and stifled the net to death.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 2:38 PM

They dam well better change their advertising from "unlimited" high speed internet then. thats all I got to say.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 2:07 PM

Unlimited refers to the availability of the connection (as opposed to an on-demand connection like dial-up).

That is all.

They don't need to change a thing. All of their advertising is "up to" or subject to terms (ToS) and (network) conditions.

Of course people are pissed off. They only hear what they *want* to hear. They never hear the "up to". They never *read* the terms, and they ignore the conditions.

Still not the ISP's fault. :)

I know..it's fun being maligned and full of noble rage. ...but in this case, it's pointless (but highly entertaining).

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

edited Jun 15, 2008 - 4:27 AM

They won't. It'll be unlimited subject to the 'fair use' policy.

Or, the unlimited will apply to the amount of time the internet connection can be used a month.

Score: 0

By giwo

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 1:17 PM

Sure am glad we let these retards re-form their monopoly.

Thanks Washington!

Score: 0

By condofar

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 2:04 PM

When they broke up AT & T, I always said their motto was "AT & T, we'll be a monopoly again". Years later, we're closer than ever.

Score: 0

By tigreseis

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 1:55 PM

Look at the definition of monopoly, moron.

Score: 0

By bousozoku

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 6:14 PM

AT&T became Northwestern Bell (Qwest), PacBell, Southwestern Bell (SBC), BellSouth, BellAtlantic, Nynex, Ameritech, Cincinnati Bell

SBC bought PacBell and Ameritech. SBC joined BellSouth to create Cingular. Later SBC bought remnants of the original AT&T and merged with BellSouth to create the new AT&T.

BellAtlantic bought Nynex and PrimeCo and became Verizon. Verizon bought General Telephone.

Verizon + the new AT&T > the original AT&T - Bell Labs, etc.

So, it's in 2 companies instead of 1. I suppose that's much better than a monopoly, though.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 5:04 AM

Maybe you are the moron. 20+ years ago, the government break up AT&T (Ma Bell) into 15 or so smaller company. Fast forward 20 years after the breakk up, guess what we have? Verizon on the East, AT&T on the West.

Score: 0

By tigreseis

posted Jun 15, 2008 - 8:37 PM

Yo, Moron, a monopoly, by definition, means the exclusive possession or control of something. So your very comment precludes a monopoly. That being said, there are many small telephone companies still operating around the country. Verizon and AT&T maybe the biggest but there are many others. I use one here.

Score: 0

By netrace

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 7:25 AM

Yo Moron, the context in which you use the word, "maybe," in your previous post is incorrect. It should actually say, "may be."

Score: 0

By iusenet

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 12:59 PM

Well you guys in the USA are being screwed over big time! ..... sorry.

Take Germany for an example, 16MB downloads for $45,00 Flat rate. I can easily managed to download over a Terabyte of none file sharing data a month.

It is possible with the right business model and infrastructure.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 1:02 PM

yes, you are right and there isn't any money left over for vasaline!

Score: 0

By ingram091

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 2:38 PM

lol How true... lol

Score: 0

By korda2052

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 12:20 PM

I'll chime in with what most of you all are not seeing that has been running the same scams for a long time and that is satellite. HughesNet and Wildblue hide behind the fair use act and have been screwing their customers from day 1. While DSL and cable are beginning to see the same problems it has been going on with satellite for YEARS! Since I, and many others out from the grid, have no options but satellite or 56K Hughestnet and Wildblue run a big con game. Here's the Hughesnet service I got. It cost me $600.00 to install their satellite (I got back a whole $200.00 with rebates). It costs 70 bucks a month for their service! Once you are set up they state that if you go beyond 300 MEGS a day they will throttle you down to less than 56K (try 3kbs) for about 12-18 hours before you can go back to your daily limit. They use the Fair Use Act stating everyone should have a fair chance at using the bandwith. The truth to the matter is, and it has been discussed by many professionals, that the fact they can get more subscribers in using 300 Megs a day than providing better service to their customers. More customers, more money and the most minimal amount of service they can provide to make as much profit as they can. Sadly our entire nation has a very large pay more get less attitude in the business world. The same attitude can be said for nearly everything in the market. Cars that don't last long, electronics that break right after the warranty, cheap Indian customer support, etc. There is no solution to the problem until government is not swayed by lobbyists and back room deals cease from happening which means.....never in our lifetimes!!!!

Score: 0

By charlespaugh

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 12:11 PM

Again, like with the high price of gas, like with airlines charging to check baggage, WHERE IS CONGRESS? Oh yeah, they get bribed by these industries NOT to protect the American consumer.

Score: 0

By tigreseis

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 1:16 PM

Moron. You think regulation solves every problem? I have lived in a socialist European country where most everything is regulated. You talk about bad service. There is no incentive. You don't even know the details of this plan. Is it a constitutional right to the internet now? If you don't like this go somewhere else. What can congress do about gas? And baggage? I suppose that if toothbrush manufacturers got together to reduce the number of bristles, you would want congress to step in there too.

Score: 0

By bousozoku

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 8:42 PM

There is no incentive for good service in the U.S.A. either. They present something, you pay or you don't and they don't really care whether you like it or not.

If someone smaller offers something better, they attempt to squash them, usually with the help of the government.

Congress seems to spend a lot of time working on things that don't matter, so it would be nice if they earned their automatic pay increases, once in a while, rather than siding with big business.

Score: 0

By tdaniels

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 11:58 AM

The marketing model for years has been to tout the download speed of the
Internet connection with the understanding that the service was unlimited.

Now that consumers have found ways to actually use what was offered the
providers are whining about it.

What they did of course was assume that they could get away with building less
infrastructure than was necessary to actually support the simultaneous use of
the promised download speeds by any significant precentage of customers in a
given area. Does anyone remember busy signals when trying to access the Internet
by dial-up? This is the same scenario.

It is time for the providers to stop deceiving the consumers. Rather than offer
"unlimited" access at speeds they can't actually support, I'd prefer that they
provide guaranteed speeds that I can use 24x7 if I want. For example 512kbps,
1mbps, 2mbps etc. I'd know what I was getting and I wouldn't have to worry about
exceeding any quotas.

I don't have a problem paying my fair share as I use every available bit of my
bandwidth on a 24x7 basis. Most internet users really don't need much more than
512kbps-1mbps speed. Why should they pay the same as me?

Set lower prices for lower speed accounts and higher prices for fatter pipes.
This has been the business model for most commercial internet access for years.

Metering usage and charging for overages will cause billing complexity and
headaches for users who already have a hard time figuring out how many minutes
they have left on their cell phones this billing cycle.

Metering usage will also stifle innovation. People are just beginning to
realize they can access home web cams from work to keep an eye on the kids,
share their family photos with relatives from a home server or download rental
movies rather than driving to the store.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 11:11 AM

I thought that since DSL is an independent connection for each customer, you'd never run into that "hogging bandwidth" thing you get with cable.

Score: 0

By unistyle

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 9:31 AM

Someone please explain to me why it is ethical for a company like this to sell a speed that they cannot really support? If I'm paying for 10mbit, then i want 10mbit whenever i want for as long as i want. If the company can't support 10mbit over a month even under extreme usage.. then DON'T SELL IT AS SUCH! They have been lying about speeds for a long time, and it really pisses me off that their first reaction to fix the issue is to charge the people who use the full speed extra fees.. don't correct the plans, don't tell the truth about your service, no honesty.. just charge fees to the people who use your service to the fullest, that's the right thing to do. Who the hell do these people think they are? How is it legal to continue to sell a product that they cannot produce? All they would have to do is lower the advertised speeds to remain honest to what they can handle, but they won't cause that would make their service look dated.

Score: 0

By tigreseis

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 1:28 PM

Hey, Moron, they are not talking about the "speed" per se. The issue is with the quantity of downloads. They are producing what they are saying. I pay for 1.5mbps and that is what I rate at. The issue is how much I download. If they want to give me 5gb/month and charge me for more than that, that is their right. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Either way, stop making idiotic ignorant statements.

Score: 0

By unistyle

edited Jun 16, 2008 - 6:56 PM

I don't know where to start with you.. maybe you shouldn't be running around calling people morons when you yourself are having trouble grasping simple concepts and ideas.

Higher speeds = higher throughput.

If they were able to handle the higher speed and support it, they wouldn't have to limit total throughput per month and charge fees, since you would naturally be capped by your speed. A 5mbps connection at 100% can only download half the amount of data a 10mbps connection can in the same amount of time (one month). So, let me make this very very easy for you to understand. If they cannot support a 10mbit connections max throughput for an entire month then they should be selling what they can support, which may be 5mbit.. If they can't support that, then stop calling the connection 'unlimited', cause it clearly is not.

Of course I know it is their right. It is their network, their service. I said that it isn't ethical.. maybe you should really concentrate on the reading part of reading a post next time.

Making idiotic ignorant statements? Just so you know, in case no one has told you yet, you are 'that guy'. Please respond, I would love to argue this or anything else with someone of your IQ, it makes me feel special.

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 8:40 AM

He should read the North Carolina Equine Paradox. It explains why so many people like him exist.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Jun 13, 2008 - 11:04 PM

It's pretty funny to see some people here getting outraged about this article. I'm all too familiar with the tactic AT&T is trying to pull here. Years ago I had cable internet through Cogeco and they advertised "unlimited bandwidth". This was great for a few years, but as their user base grew, it started to become a problem. They were faced with the same situation as AT&T, where about 5% of the heaviest users were using half or more of their total bandwidth. They had the choice of either doing massive upgrades that would cost millions (or tens of millions) or screw that 5% of ther user base. I'll let you guess which one they opted to do.

You can get angry at AT&T all you want, but the simple fact is that they're a big corporation looking to make as much profit as possible, while spending as little money as possible. If they had it their way, they would immediately drop that top 5% and only allow subscribers who don't download hundreds of gigabytes a month.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

edited Jun 14, 2008 - 12:33 AM

I guess I'll chime in here that this is, was, and always will be the way capitalism works, and is designed to work. You can certainly go with another carrier. You can even move to a country with cheaper bandwidth (and higher taxes.) Or you can take it and pay the fee.

I personally think the amount of money I spend on bandwidth is worth it at almost any cost. It helps pays my salary, the faster it is the more time I save, and my company saves. I can't publish what the business I work for pays for bandwidth, but it is a lot more than Comcast's monthly, and it is 20/20 Mbps. Unlimited. When I seed linux torrents I get full speeds and feel like I'm helping the community (I've seeded 50 gigs before over a long weekend.)

So it is all well worth it. And when fiber comes to my hood, I will dump comcast for it, because speed is king!

Score: 0

By tigreseis

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 1:30 PM

Thanks for the sane comment. People think they have a right to just about everything and much of it should be for free.

Score: 0

By bousozoku

posted Jun 13, 2008 - 9:21 PM

As bad as BellSouth/AT&T was around Orlando, I think that they should drop their charges, not add to them, especially when they're still higher than previous SBC areas.

Score: 0

By gawd21

posted Jun 13, 2008 - 9:12 PM

I am so glad that I just dropped them and went to Insightbb.

Score: 0

By nexgenmax

edited Jun 13, 2008 - 9:19 PM

I would agree that this is preposterous! It's all about business. If we use our paid bandwidth to the max, their hardware couldn't take the abuse. Is this their solution for the issue? They don't even give us any credit if the internet were down for 8 hours. Consumers understand that sometime s**t happens, but this is not going to solve their issues.

If they can't provide a service with signed up for, then don't bother to offer the package then change the rules later.

Companies in US are boasting themselves about their company and everything else. Compared to Europe, US internet companies are nothing. I went to Europe in 1986; their home standard internet connection was cable.

This got to stop. Most of the giant companies are just plain greedy. Our regulations just messed up big time to allow giant companies to have the upper hands on many things. This company will be choking consumers with fee after fee for their issues. Are they thinking with this fee they will be able to attract more customers? Less customers meaning they don't have any bandwidth issues? Here's a simple analogy. I'm planning to play a game with higher quality, but my old computer hardware can't support it. What would I do? Upgrade! Solve the issue not just patching it with fee.

Economy already hit bad enough, now this? Guess what they're going to drop from their list of main necessity?

Score: 0

By skimore

posted Jun 13, 2008 - 8:55 PM

These internet companies are wanting a fight.
People that use alot of youTube, Netflix and other services watching tv shows etc.. Might get a huge bill.

Bandwidth used is doubling... As Bandwidth gets faster more HIGH bandwidth products and services are coming about.

As TV moves to IPTV will this happen in 5 years with TV.. I forget and leave my IPTV on for a week while on a trip and I get a huge surchange because it was on?? Someone hacks my Slingbox and I get a huge bill.

Unlimited = terms to be changed at will...

Note to ATT.. we are in a recession that has really yet to start. Most people are having problems putting gas in the tank and food on the table.. If cable OR internet goes up people will cancel and put ears up and look for anything cheaper to do it. All these costs should be going down not up.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 16, 2008 - 6:38 PM

Unlimited = terms to be changed at will...

= Someone who didn't pay attention to detail or read the ToS.

All this whining about n9ot getting what they paid for proves is that they don't fully understand what they are paying for. Hardly the provider's fault if the means exist for the customer to understand (Terms and Conditions).

As for leaving your IPTV on... Why on Earth would your poor judgment be AT&T's fault???

Score: 0

By Annoyed

edited Jun 13, 2008 - 8:47 PM

From reading around the internet I gather that the current "median" real time download speed in the US is 1.9mbps, in Canada it's 7mbps, in France it's 17mbps, 45mbps in South Korea, and 61mbps in Japan. Anyone care to dispute that?

Now I ask you. Which country invented the internet? What progress has been made in the last decade towards bringing fiber to every building location? What percentages of total profits are being invested into infrastructure improvements?

Someday some bright mind will figure out how to use quantum entanglement to bring very high speed internet "hubs" directly to PC's, instantaneously and without wires. I hope I live to see such an event, because I really want to see the rip off artists go bankrupt from lack of usage. Always remember who takes unfair advantage, and don't forgive just because time passes.

Score: 0

By tigreseis

posted Jun 14, 2008 - 1:33 PM

You should change your name to Moron from annoyed. You forgot to mention the huge size difference between the countries you mentioned. The only one close to the US is Canada, but there population is not spread out like it is here.