AT&T Caps Are A Giant Con And An Attack On Cord-Cutters (dslreports.com) 173
An anonymous reader writes: Following a report from DSLReports that ATT would be imposing usage caps on the company's U-Verse broadband customers, ATT has announced it would now be following Comcast's lead by "allowing" users to pay $30 more a month if they wanted to avoid usage caps entirely. However, ATT has taken it to a new level by "allowing" users to graciously avoid the $30 fee -- if they subscribe to DirecTV or U-Verse TV service. These data caps allow ISPs like ATT and Comcast to cash in on internet video and make cord-cutting less viable by making streaming more expensive. And now, ATT is using caps to force users to subscribe to traditional TV if they want their broadband connection to work like it used to.
FUCK ATT. (Score:4, Insightful)
FUCK AT-ATs. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
FUCK ADT.
I think they still require a POTS landline for monitoring purposes
Well, the "T" in ADT is for telegraph.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: FUCK ATAT, ATDT RULES! (Score:2)
Is that you, KETTLE?
Re:FUCK ATT. (Score:4, Informative)
This works for politics, too.
Not really, not in the US at least, where only about 180 families hold over 50% of the entire nation's wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... to vote with your wallet you need to have a wallet, and those 180 families do.
Why did you assume it's you who gets their vote to count? Remember the golden rule.
Re:FUCK ATT. (Score:5, Funny)
Not so much for politics. It's a rare politician who actually gives a damn if they get *any* contributions from the proletariat - to raise enough to matter for anything other than talking points you pretty much have to at least claim to turn your back on the few thousand people who contribute *real* money. And so long as we keep voting for those treasonous bastards for fear of someone even worse taking office the problem will only get worse.
The people hate the lizards, and the lizards rule the people. And everybody votes for them because if they didn't then the wrong lizard might win.
Re:FUCK ATT. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't imagine what North Koreans have done to deserve their government. The people seem to be the victim in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine what North Koreans have done to deserve their government. The people seem to be the victim in that case.
They were a pawn in between Russia/China and the US during the cold war. A cold war that is still fairly frosty in that part of the world. North Korea exists because China doesn't want a US-friendly, democratic country on its border. Given the way that China has been grabbing up sea territory, the US doesn't want to deal with a "Great Crimean Heist" situation either. It is a convenient buffer in between superpowers. As such, they are greatly abused by both sides. Many North Koreans resent China more t
Re: (Score:2)
No, people usually get the ISP they deserved. People usually get the government their GRANDPARENTS deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. People usually get the government that's imposed upon them. The idea that they deserve it is based on the assumption that they have a well-functioning democracy - something provably false in the presence of a first-past-the-post voting system, which necessarily devolves into, at best, a two party system, where the parties are then free to collaborate to pursue their shared interests while maintaining a facade of deep, emotionally stirring differences over which somehow neither side ever manages to mak
Re: (Score:1)
I get the government deserved by a bunch of people who are stupider than I.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in the US then you get the government a few people in swing states deserve. Whether you vote in another state doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? And how exactly do you avoid funding investment banks that have co-opted my taxdollar-backed FDIC insurance to back their gambles? At least if I were rich enough I could get an electric vehicle and solar panels (and a house to put them on) to avoid directly funding the petrochemical lobbies, but good luck buying... *anything* really, that doesn't indirectly fund them. Even the solar panels and electric car likely involve considerable petrochemical purchases in their production.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fuck 'em.
U-Verse was supposed to be capped anyway, right? Or am I the only person who remembers this?
A couple of years ago I moved, and for [reasons] I started new service at the new place. They insisted on selling me a modem for $200, instead of renting one to me at $5/mo as I was accustomed to.
Now, this would be fine, except they no longer allow U-Verse installs using customer-owned modems, so the device itself is useless to both me and anyone else.
So, now that I've switched to cable, I have a $20
Re: (Score:2)
Technically U-Verse was capped at 250GB. However I've long suspected that they never actually did the cap, either being unable to figure how to do the accounting or else too lazy. For example there was no tool available to tell you how much data you have used so far, or when there was one and it worked it would claim it didn't know.
Anyway, this current news isn't bad for me, it ups my cap to 600GB and I think I only use around 175GB a month while streaming so I get to binge watch even more now.
Re: (Score:2)
They never figured out the accounting. I suspect this has as much to do with U-Verse also being an IPTV service as anything else. Counting U-Verse Internet traffic is certainly a lot simpler without all of the television traffic (including free VOD traffic from lots of sources). I expect that this current shift (whereby TV subscribers automatically are not-capped) simply reflects the inherent difficulties of the problem.
According to my own logs, I've routinely done over 900GB a month with U-Verse, and a
Re: (Score:2)
I have Uverse TV, but Comcast internet because I qualify for their "internet essentials".
hmmm... 10/1.5 from Comcast for $10, or 15/1.5 from Uverse for $49.99. Uverse's upstream blows, the fact that I have TV without internet seems to be drivin
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck AT&T (Score:1)
I say this as an AT&T cellular customer, who is lucky enough to live in a building with its own "ISP" (the condo association itself) that provides high-speed fiber and thus unaffected by this.
Fuck AT&T
I will never use them as my ISP wherever I live if I can possibly avoid it, and guess what: I've already cut the cord.
Sianara, fuckers.
Re: (Score:3)
Is Sianara hot?
Re: (Score:2)
When the only choices are AT&T or Comcast, then what?
Not forgetting their internet service... (Score:2)
... It used to upload your local username as well as your network name to their systems.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sonic.net is doing this in San Francisco. Unfortunately, I live literally 50 feet outside the neighborhood they're running fiber to right now. I'm thinking of moving just to get out from under AT&T. I've never had to suffer through such a consumer-unfriendly ISP before. The only alternative where I live is Comcast so I'm screwed either way.
Re:Three words (Score:5, Interesting)
True story: I used to get DSL service in San Francisco from a CLEC, Earthlink, because I already hated AT&T back then.
One day, my service goes down. Modem lights blinking. I put in a repair request, and the service person tells me that she can verify there is indeed a problem with my line, and someone will take care of it. I go to work. I come home from work and there's a message on my voicemail telling me the problem has been successfully resolved. The lights on my modem are still blinking. Still no service.
I call back and say I still have no service. They say according to their systems, I do. I say I don't. They say the problem must be with my interior wiring. I say, how is there going to be a problem with the interior wiring when nothing has even moved? One day, service; the next day, none. It has to be Earthlink's problem, so could they please send someone out to take a look?
They said no. I said, what? "No. We will not roll a truck, sorry. But if you like, I could quote you a price on our satellite internet service."
It went back and forth like this over a couple more calls, them not budging, until finally I get someone at second-tier tech support. He goes, "You wouldn't happen to have a pair of alligator clips?" Flabbergasted, I said, "Um. You mean a length of phone cable with the ends stripped and a pair of alligator clips attached to the ends? Uh, yes. Yes, I do." He advised me that if I had a power outlet available, I could take my DSL modem out to the phone box on the side of the house and use the alligator clips to find my line. Depending on whether the modem loops up from the box or not, I'd know where the problem is.
So I did. I went out to the box, and sure enough, the modem looped up. And that's how I discovered where the problem was. Because the lines inside the box -- my nice little pair of wires with the Earthlink tag attached to them -- had been cut. Clearly snipped in half with wire cutters.
And that's when I remembered. A few days before my DSL went out, a new neighbor moved in upstairs. What do you do when you move into a new place? You order phone service. They had probably called AT&T to have a new line set up -- maybe even DSL -- and when the AT&T tech came out to the house, he saw my non-AT&T DSL line and he cut it, likely knowing Earthlink wouldn't do a damn thing about it and I'd be forced to switch back to AT&T. (Later, someone explained to me that AT&T's field techs are union and Earthlink's were not. I can't vouch for that but it's another theory.)
So that was my situation. Either I could go with AT&T, which I had already got fed up from dealing with for both home service and business networking. Or I could go with Earthlink, who were obviously competing in a totally hostile market and clearly didn't give a flying fuck about my business, so much so that when they told me they wouldn't repair my line, they helpfully added, "And because you've been a customer for nearly two years now, you won't have to pay any fees for early cancellation."
So I went with Comcast. Fuck DSL, fuck 'em all. And you know what? I know they suck and I've heard all the stories, but for the most part, Comcast hasn't given me any trouble ever since. It's been 10 years now, too.
Re: (Score:2)
I did DSL Support for MindSpring/Earthlink in the 1999-2001 timeframe, and in general we leased lines from the ILECs in the areas. It was always a challenge because we were basically middlemen between our customers and the ILECs, so we'd always get stuck with the phone companies saying everything was fine, and our customers saying they weren't. Some ILECs were better than others - QWEST was completely useless; BellSouth could be ok depending on specific tech and the phase of the moon; AT&T was a mixed b
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Three words (Score:4)
Ahhhh now see. I can relate a similar experience but with Comcast instead of AT&T.
My neighbors house was purchased by a new family who wasted no time cutting the cable in half with a shovel while planting new trees in their back yard. They give Comcast a ring and they roll a tech out to fix it for them.
To " fix " it, the tech removed my cable line from it's connection on the pedestal and hooked up the neighbors instead. Leaving my entire home quite dead. Internet, Alarm System, Television, etc. Didn't even bother to check to see if the connection was an active customer or not, just disconnected it. :|
Called up Comcast and told them what happened. Told them my service was out BECAUSE one of their technicians disconnected my line. They told me it would be TWO MONTHS before they could send a tech out to fix it :|
As the pedestal resides in my back yard, my solution was far more efficient. I moved the neighbors connection to their original post on the pedestal and reconnected my service back up. Then filed a Complaint on the tech for being incompetent. ( Not that it would do anything, but whatever )
Seriously though, TWO MONTHS to get a tech back out for an outage your tech caused in the first place ? WTF.
Moral of this story: It isn't just AT&T that sucks. They all do in one form or another.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just allow some other company to also run underground cables in my neighborhood and to my house?
As long as it can provide all the insurance necessary and pass authorizations that it can properly co-exist with everyone else on the poles, in many jurisdictions you can.
Now. Who's going to pay for all that capital you're about to spend several dozens to hundreds of millions on, depending your jurisdiction?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean "Who's going to pay for all that capital you're about to spend several dozens to hundreds of millions on, when Google Fiber has demonstrated that the competitors WILL cut costs and improve services in order to try and drive you out of the market?"
I certainly wouldn't loan anyone money to do this unless they've got enough cash reserve to outlast the Comcasts and AT
Re:Three words (Score:5, Insightful)
So, do you live in a place where another company is free to run a sewer line to your house so you can subscribe to their service?
Or do you think maybe the final infrastructure which comes into peoples houses shouldn't be the property of a corporation?
It's time to stop pretending that infrastructure which we've paid for, and which has rights of way on public and private property should be treated as the exclusive property of some asshole corporation like AT&T.
That's just idiotically subsidizing AT&T to remain a monopoly, while saying if people don't want monopolies they can build their own infrastructure.
Like the water, sewer, and electricity coming into your home ... the network needs to be considered part of the municipal infrastructure.
Re: (Score:1)
Why not just allow some other company to also run underground cables in my neighborhood and to my house?
Because 10 different companies running their own wires all over town is impractical and just a bad idea. The phone and cable oligopolies get huge amounts of taxpayer-financed subsidies. Force them to open up their networks and things will change over night. Prices will go down, speeds will go up and bullshit like data caps will disappear. We've already wired the entire country -- twice (first phone, then cable) -- there's no need to run more wires. Open up the networks we already have and that we have
Caps have been in place... (Score:3)
Re:Caps have been in place... (Score:5, Informative)
They charged me an extra ~$100 one month and ~$50 another. Just charged my card and left me wondering wtf happened until I called them.
Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.
You asked for this problem when you signed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Caps have been in place... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I won't give AT&T my credit card number because I don't want them just reaching in and taking money whenever they feel like it. I certainly wouldn't give them my debit card money--then the money that they take is the money I'm using to, like, buy food and pay rent.
I use my bank's billpay thing to pay AT&T every month. I'm pretty sure I can set it up to be automated, but I just log in and check it each month to make sure nothing's changed, and then I push the button. Easy, and keeps AT&T from rummaging in my bank accounts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I won't give AT&T my credit card number because I don't want them just reaching in and taking money whenever they feel like it. I certainly wouldn't give them my debit card money--then the money that they take is the money I'm using to, like, buy food and pay rent.
I use my bank's billpay thing to pay AT&T every month. I'm pretty sure I can set it up to be automated, but I just log in and check it each month to make sure nothing's changed, and then I push the button. Easy, and keeps AT&T from rummaging in my bank accounts.
I do exactly the same thing. I don't understand why companies do this to themselves. I want my customers to be my best buddies who trust me. There are ways to do that and still make a lot of money. But that requires skill. The MBAs in charge have no talent so squeezing a customer who doesn't have a choice looks like a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I won't give AT&T my credit card number because I don't want them just reaching in and taking money whenever they feel like it.
This is pretty much why I don't give Paypal direct access to my bank account no matter how much they beg for it. They have been known to 'fine' users they believe broke their ToS, and if they have your account well.. they can just reach in and take out the money. Once it's gone, you have little recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew a guy who had TV cable service. One of the big companies, but I don't remember which--and they probably all do this kind of thing. But he'd set it up from the beginning so that each month, the TV company would take their monthly bill out of his checking account. Time comes when he's moving, and he cancels his service. Which is fine, he's not under contract or anything. He cancels his service, and he brings the cable box and stuff down to the local office and hands it in.
The next month, the cable
Re: (Score:1)
A credit card they can have. There is fraud protection, charges can be reversed and most importantly they do not drain my account directly. I still have to approve every charge, just get to do it as a batch on one bill. It does default to approved but I can handle that.
Bank account or debit card, no friggin way. I refuse to use debit cards at all because the money comes directly from the account and in the case of fraud there is no vetting of purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
Paying monthly manually sucks though. Heh.
Re: (Score:2)
Never ever EVER give a company your credit card number for automated billing. NEVER EVER EVER give them your bank account information for automated billing.
You asked for this problem when you signed up.
In my case, AT&T got me when I paid my bill by check on time. They then sent a refund check to me for that amount, recharged my account, and put a late fee on top. It took a long time to figure out since the sequence of events was so nonsensical. And the AT&T finance rep swore they did not receive a payment for that month even though I had the canceled check. When I refused to pay the extra charge they closed my account for non-payment (after being told the account was going to be frozen to prevent
Re:Caps have been in place... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, if you give a company -- especially a company like AT&T -- the ability to just take your money, you deserve it.
Send me a paper bill, in the mail, and I'll pay it. If you just make shit up, I'll call you and yell.
But if you demand the right to just take money from me? Fuck you, fuck off, no way in hell I'm signing up for that bit of stupidity.
Companies like AT&T are too greed and incompetent to be trusted with that.
Paper billing surcharge (Score:2)
Send me a paper bill, in the mail, and I'll pay it.
They'd gladly do that in exchange for a $5 per month paper billing surcharge.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, this is how all the telcoms work. Keep jacking up the "base" rates and offer "discounts" for things they cannot legally require. Automated billing? Discount! TV service you don't want? Discount! Privacy? Discount!
I don't know why they don't make the rates $1 billion/mo with a 99.99% discount to get 1mbps service with a 1GB cap only with automatic checking account withdrawl and selling all your data to 3rd parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Credit cards (Score:1)
Really? Personally I *love* credit cards for bills. I can build nice updates/reports regularly to see if anything seems unusual, and if somebody has decided to charge me when they weren't supposed to, I pay one bill (the CC) regularly instead of a dozen, and it's easy enough to charge-back if somebody does screw up the billing and isn't willing to fix it.
spinning templates at once (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I meant to say "INTERNET_PROVIDER", not "CABLE_PROVIDER". I got confused because for some reason they're the same company in my area. I asked my congressperson if this made sense, and he said, "YES! ME LIKEY MONEY GOOD!"
Re: (Score:2)
This frying pan sure is hot. I mean really hot. I used to think the fire was bad, but this is intolerable. I think I'm going to jump.
Dang this fire is hot...
Re: (Score:3)
That's the only way to get offered any sort of discount service.
I was with a cable provider for years until I left for a package they didn't offer. I received a sweet sign on deal with the new company, and now the old provider is wining and dining me with the sort of offers I might've stayed for.
Re: (Score:2)
FIOS (Score:4, Interesting)
This is all definitely making me happy I'm on Verizon FIOS. It is expensive... but I get full bi-directional 75 Mbps that is rock solid and with zero caps. I've had it for almost 2 years now and I can't list even one complaint (ok, it is pricey... but you get what you pay for!)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you see that? I haven't seen anything like that and my bill certainly hasn't changed (yet!).
May 23 is the date (Score:5, Informative)
Just logged into my ATT account and this is what it says:
Starting May 23, we are increasing the U–verse Internet data allowance for many customers. After a grace period, and as our agreement provides, there's a $10 charge for each 50GB of data you use over the allowance. Want unlimited data? You can:
Bundle your U-verse Internet service with DIRECTV or U-verse TV. This gives you an
unlimited Internet data allowance ($30 value) for no additional charge.
Purchase an unlimited allowance for your Internet service for $30. This option doesn’t
require a TV bundle.
Re:May 23 is the date (Score:4, Funny)
All you people here moaning about expensive, slow crappy Internet from your monopoly provider haven't stopped to look at it from AT&T's point of view.
You know those huge subsidies they got? You know all those legal concessions they needed to prevent cities from creating publicly owned ISP's?
Do you really think all the money they needed to bribe politicians just came out of thin air?
You really do have the government you deserve, and it was sold years ago, to the likes of AT&T.
Re: (Score:2)
Time Warner is available in my area. Perhaps I'll switch. They offer faster speeds anyways, and my neighbor's connection is proof that they are, indeed, faster.
I see what you did there.
How is this not covered under fraud statues? (Score:3)
Is it because of their service "agreements"?
Is it because of "contributions" to state politicians to craft loopholes?
I'd happily give more to the EFF as this seems like something they'd take to court or lobby against, but they can't be the only ones doing it. Especially given the long and cozy relationship the major telcom companies have had in capitals. Who else can we get in contact with to voice concerns that doesn't end up labeling us as "Chicken Littles" or Boy who cried wolf"?
FCC, DO SOMETHING!! (Score:5, Insightful)
FCC, you are supposed to protect and look out for the public good rather than be beholden to the corporations. I can't imagine a more appropriate use of your authority to ban this type of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
FCC, you are supposed to protect and look out for the public good rather than be beholden to the corporations. I can't imagine a more appropriate use of your authority to ban this type of crap.
Funny thing about that. Every time the FCC tries to actually do their job, all of the pro-competition Republicans immediately sue them over it, and often win, thanks to Republican-appointed judges.
Re: (Score:1)
And Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee is the queen whore of the R's. Ironically in the state that contains the most progressive fiber city, Chattanooga.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I think this problem was created when the government encouraged the creation of cable monopolies in the first place. The answer to the problem will take time, but it is to encourage competitors (and I do not mean Comcast, Time Warner, etc).
Re: (Score:1)
Here it is [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
The link you gave merely describes the creation and purpose of the FCC. It then states that the powers of the FCC are laid out elsewhere in the law. The fact that the FCC was created to regulate wire communication does not speak to what regulations it was empowered to create.
Re: (Score:2)
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding.. yeah, you damn right they are going to purchase those things. Because their life SUCKS. All of those are all ways to escape, just for a little bit a life of poverty. Is it unwise? Yes. Is it completely asinine thing to do? Yeah. But there you have it. They didn't have the privileges that you and I had and it takes an enormous amount of discipline to get out of something like that.
So can the judgement and at least try to understand these people's lives are e
How is this a con? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems pretty clear to me, you pay $30 and get unlimited internet. Seems pretty clear and non-donnish to me.
Paying for something you are not getting would be a con.
Re: (Score:1)
Read the summary again.
Cable (as in TV, not internet) cutters have to pay $30 for unlimited data. If you also pay for spoon-fed propaganda, er, I mean, TV, then you don't have to pay any *extra* to avoid the cap.
Re: (Score:1)
And?
Re: (Score:2)
I for one am not interested in paying for someone elses service, and I have a real hard time believing that the upkeep of their network is truly costing them enough money to grab $100 a month. I also have a hard time believing that there is much of an operational price difference between 10Mb
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like fully bidirectional 200Mbps for $25/month.
What are we playing?
That's the point (Score:2)
The $30 is for just the unlimited service, no TV.
I pay somewhat more to Comcast myself than I could, just because I want only internet and no TV.
Comcast also has a cap but I've never hit that, even though I regularly stream video and download a number of multi-GB files a month for development purposes.
This is an entirely predictable development (Score:4, Insightful)
Several types of predators migrate alongside their prey. You go where the meat is.
If ATT could find a way to keep charging you for not using their wares, don't you think they would?
Re: (Score:2)
At least Frontier [dslreports.com] and Vonage [vonage.co.uk] have cancellation/termination fees baked-in to their contracts.
What "should" unlimited Internet cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
Assume 50 Mbit/sec, symmetric bandwidth, dynamic IP address, no caps on upload/download?
What would it take to actually operate this network?
If you had 100,000 customers in a given metro area, what would you need for uplink capacity at the head end? My probably-has-an-error calculation at 5% average utilization is 250 Gbit/sec, 50 Gbit/sec at 1% (my 1 day average over 3 months is .55 Mbit).
What would 50 or 250 Gbit/sec of Internet uplink capacity cost if you had to go out and source it commercially?
I hate all these caps but I'm kind of curious what exactly it would cost to operate the kind of Internet connectivity everybody really wants.
Re: (Score:1)
Mostly the answer is "it depends". At that size, you don't buy from the menu, you negotiate. But there is some publicly available information that you can use for ballpark figures. For example, the German science network (DFN, Deutsches Forschungsnetz), which is a cooperative and provides internet access at cost to universities and science institutes in Germany, has this price list [www.dfn.de] for its members. The biggest individual link you can currently get from them is 100Gbps, and that would cost you roughly 50000
Re: (Score:1)
An actual 50Mbit up/down unrestricted business line runs us about $4000/mo
But for 7 days a week and 9 hours a day during first shift the incoming link is saturated completely, and second shift still keeps it under roughly 25% utilization at least mon-fri.
Our outbound traffic is much more moderate, I'd guess around 25% during first shift and spiking to 80-90% when the video conference calls are going on.
We can upgrade to gigabit service over the same fiber and hardware we have now with a simple software conf
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where you live. I can get a 1Gbps/1Gbps for $1200/mo and $10k for the dig at my house because the fiber passes my house.
Business packages ala TWC Business Class is just home Internet with slightly faster technical service (1h on location vs 3 days) but you still pay through the nose for not-really-dedicated Internet (although they do offer it at even more exorbitant prices). If you are near a fiber (which most business ares of a city would be), you can get away with a lot cheaper options as long
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Out in the sticks" isn't too far from the truth of the situation actually.
We had to pay around $10k in construction costs to get that fiber pulled the 12 miles between the closest access junction and our location.
Before that, the only connectivity option was AT&T POTs lines that were of such poor quality they couldn't even provide PRI service for voice calls, and the lines shorted out and went down every time it rained.
Prior to me switching us to fiber, we had a wireless cisco canopy radio link at 5Mbi
Re: (Score:2)
"Assume 50 Mbit/sec, symmetric bandwidth,... at 5% average utilization is 250 Gbit/sec, 50 Gbit/sec at 1% (my 1 day average over 3 months is .55 Mbit)"
I assume that the last number was supposed to be in Mbit/s units, or 1.1% average utilization. I think an ISP is more interested in peak, not average, utilization. For example, in the evenings around 8 pm when everyone is at home, watching youtube/netflix; say two HD streams at 5 Mbit/s each makes 20% utilization at prime time. And if you are the only uncappe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100,000 users @ 50Mbps is ~10-50Gbps uplink at the colo with these providers. That will set you back ~2-10k/mo if you do not peer. Peering on your own fibers allows you to do this for practically free.
Let's see them 'tax' my OTA broadcast usage! (Score:2)
I don't understand this. (Score:4, Insightful)
What part of this is the outrage? This is just how buying things works.
When some companies had caps on "unlimited" plan, that was obvious bullshit. (I hit the cap with Comcast a couple of times, they told me that bandwidth wasn't the aspect of the service that was unlimited)
What's all the whining about here, though?
Your old contract probably expired (Score:2)
What was the duration of the contract you signed? (If there's no ETF, there's no real duration.) When it expired, Comcast signed you up for a new contract that included a monthly data transfer quota, and you indicated your agreement by continuing to receive service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But AT&T has had a cap for five years now, only they never enforced it for u-verse. The only new things are that they're finally enforcing it (maybe), and the caps are being increased at the same time. I knew there were caps in place when I first got u-verse but they were so high there was no way I was going to reach those limits, even now with streaming TV I'm not hitting them.
So really the only ones who should complain are those who had the service for more than 5 years who thought the "no cap" part
Going back to BD/DVD (Score:2)
I wouldn't have a problem going back to just DVD/Blu-Ray.
Remember this (Score:3)
Where are these arguments in Canada? (Score:2)
They should never have been allowed to buy DirecTV (Score:1)
If the FTC had even the slightest clue about how to do it's job, they would have blocked this sort of bundling as a condition of the buy-out.
Ugh att (Score:1)