AT&T Embraces BitTorrent, Considers Usage-Based Pricing

Wired is running a story about AT&T's chief technical officer, John Donovan. He contrasts his view of BitTorrent and P2P in general against the controversial policies adopted by other ISPs. Donovan also explains why AT&T is considering usage-based pricing, citing the cost of network upgrades which only affect a small number of users. AT&T is expected to test the new pricing scheme later this year, which should give them plenty of time to see how Time Warner's customers respond to the idea. "'I don't view any of our customers, under any circumstances, as pirates -- I view them as users,' Donovan said. 'A heavy user is not a bad customer.' What he wants to do is gently encourage more efficient usage of his network, and usage-based pricing may be one of the ways that happens. Such measures may not even be necessary, as Donovan admits that users self-adjust their habits to take advantage of off-peak times. For instance, he said, BitTorrent on the company's network peaks around 4 a.m., when other traffic is at an ebb. Overall P2P traffic accounts for about 20 percent of the network's usage, Donovan said."

Been Done

[FurtiveGlancer (1274746)]

Isn't that an **AA policy? If you use BitTorrent, YOU WILL PAY!

Re:Been Done

[Yer Mum (570034)]

No, this is rather like those night usage electricity tariffs for washing machines, dishwashers, etc...

For home packages the ISP just needs to set a low peak cap during the evening and a high off-peak cap during the rest of the day (e.g. ADSL24 in the UK [adsl24.co.uk]).

Whatever protocol you use (BT, eMule, or HTTP download) doesn't interest the ISP, all they want to do is move non-interactive usage to off-peak times so that interactive usage during the evening works for everyone.

Most users will understand if things are set things out clearly at the start instead of suddenly receiving a fair usage warning e-mails when some mysterious unknown limit is hit. Indeed many P2P users may choose an ISP with this kind of peak/off-peak tariff as they know exactly what they signed up for.

Re:Pleasantly surprised

[TheSpoom (715771)]

I'm surprised at this, honestly.

Here we have a guy in charge of the biggest telecom company in the US, and he actually seems to know what he's doing. More than that, he actually wants to give his customers what they want for a fair price as opposed to being influenced by some lobbying group or external forces.

It seems so obvious but it's been so rare with companies this large recently. I don't expect it to last long (the CFO will probably figure that claiming unlimited access when it's not is still more profitable and override him) but if AT&T does this, they've seriously made me look at them in a whole new light.

Re:Been Done

[FinchWorld (845331)]

In the UK currently with demon, £17.99 for 50GB peak hours, Unlimited off peak, off peak is set as 11PM to 9AM. Downside is 12 month contract when you first sign up and customer services is based in the part of india were people take it as a challenge to speak with an accent so thick you could drown in it.

It's not *AA

[gerf (532474)]

They're trying to not spend as much on bandwidth. It's basic business: their bandwidth is a cost and they want to lower that cost.

What I don't understand is why they don't go to an individually tiered model. Your first 5 or 10GB are at their normal, or even higher, speed, (5Mb/512kb here) and the rest after that are at a fraction of that, but still high speed. Perhaps 1Mb/256kb. Those speeds alone would limit egregious down/uploaders to a more reasonable level, while still being able to operate normall

Racist

[Simonetta (207550)]

I'm assuming that every corporate executive spouting horseshit to keep himself rich is an Honorary White Male whether they are that in reality or not.

Why?

[mark_hill97 (897586)]

If users are self restricting themselves to off-peak why the need for usage based pricing at all? AT&T received federal funding to get a fiber network in as well, so far they have failed to do so.

Re:

[Artuir (1226648)]

What, you can't be arsed to even read the summary now?

We are going backwards .

[aceofspades1217 (1267996)]

Instead of trying to make internet more expansive the United States telecoms want to make it cost more. I mean jesus christ we are one of the worst developed nations when it comes to internet connectivity. In Europe you can get double our speeds for the price of dial-up. Obviously their is very little costs on simply maintaining a network yet they continue to charge and rake in profits. These telecoms have no excuse. We fork over our money so you can maintain and grow your network...use it. Upgrade the Seconds Mile and start putting more efficient internet pipes. Obviously it has gotten to a point where it is becomes almost as bad as the oil companies. Just raking in profits and not using it for anything.

Re:We are going backwards .

[Jurily (900488)]

I'm switching providers next month, my new connection will be 20M/20M, truly unlimited (already tested, thanks to my neighbor), for [4500 HUF = 28.8765 USD] a month.

And I'm not even in the developed part of Europe, either.

My current connection is 5M/1M, for [6900 HUF = 44.2773 USD].

Re:

[Adambomb (118938)]

The thought of AT&T getting a massive overage bill due to people going hog wild on their networks because the people in question are not as impacted by the resulting cost pleases me.

Greatly.

Re:We are going backwards .

[Verteiron (224042)]

Actually I think they're targeting P2Pers because P2P uses as much or more UPSTREAM bandwidth as downstream, which none of the major ISPs have designed their networks around. Cable networks are the worst about this due to how cable internet works, but all the ISPs built their networks around the idea that most users upload less than 2% of what they download. Now P2P is forcing them to realize the intended functionality of the internet, and it's becoming clear to them that their "download only" systems aren't going to cut it. So naturally they're going to do everything they can to curb upstream bandwidth. Otherwise, they might actually have to spend money upgrading their network, at which point they'll be replaced by their shareholders for failing to maximize profits.

Re:We are going backwards .

[aceofspades1217 (1267996)]

Well than upgrade the networks. Whether they like it or not the internet is becoming a more two way experience. There is nothing that anyone is going to do about it. Fighting it is obviously not going to help. People are uploading movies to youtube, uploading photos to myspace and facebook, and using webcams.

It is not only P2P that uses upstream...its everything web 2.0

Maybe we need *ISP 2.0*

Re:

[amRadioHed (463061)]

Overall, yeah our population density is low, but we've also got areas of high density such as the north-east corridor and southern California. What does the population of Wyoming and Alaska have to do with the poor service in our big cities?

Re:

[jedidiah (1196)]

All of your ranting is meaningless for one simple reason:

Telecoms are natural monopolies. They OWN whatever lines
they manage to get a right of way into your house. That means
that Telecoms aren't "capitalism" at all. They're each petty
monopolies.

If you are LUCKY, you get to pick between 2 of them.
More likely than not this whole monopoly mindset will infest
their ISP operations.

So you you might be lucky if you

Bittorrent and Usage

[stokessd (89903)]

Traditionally the best bittorrent users also seed the files they have grabbed for a long time. So under the usage model, being a good torrent person means being penalized for extra bandwidth that I'm using to seed.

Sheldon

AT&T has speed based pricing and they can't ju

[Joe The Dragon (967727)]

Right now AT&T has speed based pricing and they can't just set caps based on speed as some people are to far way to get higher speeds and why should they have to pay for more for going over the cap then if you where able to get a higher speed with a higher cap. If they have caps on dsl then give the users the max speed that the line can handle.

Not *totally* awfull

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

To a point, I don't think that's a terrible idea. What I do have a problem with is the technical difficulties behind actually doing it fairly. For example, suppose I'm sharing files with my next-door neighbor, and our packets are never going farther than the first switch we have in common. Should I be billed the same as someone streaming gigs to Tokyo? Of course not, but that's probably not technically possible to accurately track without massive hardware upgrades, and even then it sets a bad precedent of charging extra depending on destination.

I'm not sure what to think on this one. I mean, they're acknowledging that they can't offer unlimited access, which we all knew anyway but is nice to hear them actually say. And yes, P2P probably is costing them lost of money. I don't think variable pricing is the answer, though, and I don't think their customers will either.

Re:

[BiggerIsBetter (682164)]

Should I be billed the same as someone streaming gigs to Tokyo? Of course not, but that's probably not technically possible to accurately track without massive hardware upgrades, and even then it sets a bad precedent of charging extra depending on destination.

I think the precedent has already been set. Telcos have been doing this forever, with both landline and cellular calls, and some ISPs offer free/unlimited access to their FTP servers, for example. I don't think it's a stretch to say that traffic that stays on their network gets charged at a lower rate than traffic leaving their network (on the reasonable assumption that they buy their upstream bandwidth). It might be tricky to track it to the switch level, but tracking to the network gateway level should b

Re:

[gbjbaanb (229885)]

not necessarily, I assume you mean your next-door neighbour is usiong the same ISP you are, as if he's not your packets are going off way into the distance and back again.

If he is, you're still using the network as far as that switch, which is probably in their regional hub, so you're still using as much of the network as you would for anything. Sure, their peering arrangements mean they pay extra for you to send packets to Tokyo, but anyone sending packets from Tokyo to you would also pay them extra throug

Re:

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

If he is, you're still using the network as far as that switch, which is probably in their regional hub, so you're still using as much of the network as you would for anything.

Yeah, things get screwy with DSL, and I was almost hesitant to use that an an example. Just pretend that the switch is in the same city as the DSLAM, would you? :-)

Re:

[m94mni (541438)]

So, this bashism is no longer that funny?

http://bash.org/?142934 [bash.org]

docsigma2000: jesus christ man
docsigma2000: my son is sooooooo dead
c8info: Why?
docsigma2000: hes been looking at internet web sites in fucking EUROPE
docsigma2000: HE IS SURFING LONG DISTANCE
docsigma2000: our fucking phone bill is gonna be nuts
c8info: Ooh, this is bad. Surfing long distance adds an extra $69.99 to your bill per hour.
docsigma2000: ...!!!!!! FUCK FUCK FUCK
docsigma2000: is there some plan we can sign up for???
docsigma2000: cuz ther

Re:

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

Imagine if your cell phone provider decides to charge you based on the distance your call is from the tower.

They already do. Calls to their other customers are free.

Re:

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

I don't see how P2P is "costing them money". They pay the same for their infrastructure whether it's used or completely unused.

True, but they have to pay proportional amounts for traffic that leaves their network. If their current bandwidth isn't cutting it, the extra doesn't come for free.

Why all the fuss about cost. Should be cheap

[troll -1 (956834)]

According to the CIA World Factbook [wikipedia.org] there were 200+ million Internet users [wikipedia.org] in the US in 2007.

Given that the Internet was designed in large part by DARPA to be cheap and scalable. And indeed, the Internet is just a bunch of wires and switches. And given that even if every user pays just 1$/month, where the hell is all the money going?

Re:

[Richard_at_work (517087)]

Theres a significant difference between end-user cheap and military-cheap.

Here's the real problem

[camperdave (969942)]

It's not just about fat pipes, either: AT&T also wants to bring you content and applications.

I don't think that the corporation that owns/maintains the connection should be the same one that provides the content. It allows them to compete unfairly by pulling dirty, underhanded stunts. In Ontario, when Bell was forced to open up its network to other telcos, those other telcos were put on the noisy lines, while the pristine lines were kept for Bell customers. The same thing is happening to DSL providers. We saw a similar thing happen with Microsoft. They provided the OS, and the applications. By crippling the published APIs and using non-crippled private APIs, they made their apps look better than their competition's.

Give me one fat pipe, and let me choose which VOIP, IPTV, and ISP companies I wish to deal with.

Errata

[Dunbal (464142)]

"What he wants to do is gently encourage more efficient usage of his network" should be read as "he wants to maximize profits and gouge his customers as much as he can get away with without going to jail", because after all mindless and perpetual expansion of PROFIT is what communications (or any other business) is all about, isn't it?

In the beginning telcos set up "toll booths" at the content provider level, and you had to pay more depending on how much content people downloaded fr

Enough with the excuses AT&T, build FTTH !

[Brian Stretch (5304)]

I am sick and tired of the excuses and outright lies from AT&T for their kludgy FTTN U-verse network when Verizon has already proven that you can profitably build a FTTH network in America. But no, AT&T would rather milk their balky copper plant and put off the one-time expense of running fiber like they'll eventually have to do anyhow.

Every time I ask an AT&T droid about that they make wild claims of Verizon having so much trouble building their network, charging $hundreds to rewire your home, etc, etc. All I know is that my grandmother, in the middle of nowhere, can get FiOS and I, in a major university town, am stuck with U-verse.

Yes, Verizon's stock took a hit when they announced FiOS. I used the opportunity to buy shares for my IRA on the cheap. That's worked out well so far.

"A heavy user is not a bad customer"

[nurb432 (527695)]

BS. This is like saying its 'for the children' while the government takes your rights by the bucketful.

This is just a "public friendly" way for the *AA to get their way without the average Joe having a clue it happened. Make it so expensive to download that its cheaper to buy their crap at the store ( and if you actually do buy it online, you get to pay more ).

They cant stop things via technology, so they will kill it ( and most everything else online in the process ) via monetary.

And you get to pay for incoming spam to boot. Grrr

Why change plans?

[HalAtWork (926717)]

Why? If you're on AT&T then you're already using bittorrent and have an unlimited package, why would you want to transfer to something usage-based? Why would this attract people from other ISPs? Why should bittorrent even be singled out, it's just another packet on the wire. If people start downloading a ton of videos due to subscription service, will they have "plans" that spring up to help charge you more for that too?

AT&T should try to keep P2P traffic on their o

[Russ Nelson (33911)]

What AT&T should be doing is trying to keep the P2P traffic entirely on their own network. The most expensive thing any ISP can buy is generalized Internet bandwidth. And yet P2P traffic could just as well stay within their own network, as the content for any one transfer is the same everywhere.

Ease of Network upgrades vs. PC upgrades

[Bookwyrm (3535)]

Just out of curiousity, just how easy do people think it is to 'upgrade the network'? I see that brought up a lot in the comments (i.e. "AT&T should just upgrade their network" "Given Moore's Law, the network should be cheaper" etc. etc.) It certainly gives the impression that people think that a nation-wide IP network is as easy to upgrade as their personal computer as as proportionally cheap.

When I was working in telecom, network upgrades (and maintenance) could be ferociously hard. If you wanted to upgrade the link between two co-location facilities, besides the problems of running the lines, you could run into issues if you needed to upgrade your networking equipment at either end -- suddenly, you had to stock new on-site spares, make sure the technicians were prepared, deal with power, space, and cooling issues. (If you needed to replace your current router with a newer router that was physically bigger, there had to be rack space available for it. If it needed more power/cooling, that had to be available. If space/power/cooling wasn't there, *someone* had to pay for the upgrades, or you had to move to a new facility and re-home all the network connections there. Not trivial and just the man-hour costs could be huge. (And in some places, the co-locations were subject to union rules, which placed additional restrictions on work.))

(Actually, for some network facilities, the fields would refuse to go without a security escort, because they weren't going to be responsible for driving trucks full of valuable equipment into some areas and leaving them outside while they worked inside. That increased the cost noticeably.)

Most of the business plans (at the time) assumed that equipment would be paid off over a period of years, not months. People would be expensive new telecom gear and plan to pay it off over the course of three or four years so they could set their monthly rate to customers at X, rather than try to pay it off in one year by charging customers more -- the lower prices/competition may have appeared great to the customers, but once the rush of entrants into the ISP business died out and people stopped pumping money in, the equipment upgrades got stalled because business realities demanded that the providers pay off the old equipment first.

So providers had gone in with models saying they would buy equipment for their networks, charge customers X amount, and, say just for kicks, maybe 5% of that amount went to paying off equipment. Of course, every time there was an unexpected cost, or they had to lower their rates to stay competitive, less money could be used to recoup their capital expense in hardware, which meant they couldn't afford to upgrade. (Of course, at a certain point, some couldn't afford to not upgrade, either, and self-destructed.) So the 'life span' of old equipment kept going because no one could raise rates due to the competition, who also couldn't for the same reasons, and new entrants coming in with fresh capital/investments that kept the rates of the moment low. The 'rapid advances' in technology were in part due to the money being poured into the marketplace (investment of one sort or another), *not* the success of the business models. Once the party was over and the reality of the bills hit, a lot of the upgrades stalled pretty hard.

It's not that Moore's Law hasn't affected the cost of providing bandwidth, it's that people are still struggling with buried (sic) infrastructure costs from previous technology. If you feel you are paying 2004 prices for 2004 technology, network-bandwidth-wise, rather than the equivalent 2008 price/performance, it's because you probably are, because the 2004 technology is still getting paid off.

(Let's say that, oh, I could get a 48 port DSLAM for $2400, or $500 a port. So just to recoup my capex on buying that sucker, I need to make $500 per port. If I can throw $10/port a month at the hardware cost, that's 50 months, or over four years until I can justify upgrading it. It can be surprisingly

Re:Welcome America

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

People here go, "well, upgrade the network" - explain to me why they should keep upgrading the network at a frantic pace and never making enough money to recoup the infrastructure costs. Telecoms are businesses, they invest, they make their money back (with profit) then upgrade the network again. The abuse of the network which flat rate plans do simply result in unsustainable traffic growth.

Apparently your telecoms are horribly run if they can't manage to make a profit off of Internet access. In America, many (most?) ISPs are small private companies who receive no federal subsidies at all, but still turn enough profit to keep growing and offering new services.

The fact that your local companies are incapable of doing so says that 1) they're all dumb, every single one, or 2) there are market forces there that we don't have, so your whole premise is inapplicable here.

Re:

[Yer Mum (570034)]

A lot of this depends on how wholesale prices work in each country. For example, NZ may work as in the UK, where small ISPs are changed by their upstream ISP by the bandwidth they use but sell access to their home users a flat rate.

This kind of arrangement usually ends in tears; several years back in the UK a lot of modem dialup access companies folded one by one, ADSL seems a little better (if only because they have no hesitation in enforcing usage limits).

I suppose the economics of ISPs in the US is d

Re:

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

For example, NZ may work as in the UK, where small ISPs are changed by their upstream ISP by the bandwidth they use but sell access to their home users a flat rate.

That's pretty much how it works in the US, too, or at least how it was when I was in the business a few years back. It looks like our wholesale bandwidth is probably a lot cheaper than yours, which again goes back to the idea of market conditions being different everywhere.

In America, I don't think people would be willing go to metered usage when it's always been flat-rate and everything else is going the opposite direction.

Re:

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

Apparently you aren't aware that Australian/New Zealand ISPs currently pay over $200/Mbps for transit.

Didn't read the rest, huh? *pats you on the head*

Re:Welcome America

[kwark (512736)]

You must be confusing New Zealand with the reset of the world. I'm not aware of any non flat-fee adsl/cable providers over here (NL). Even the dutch Chello is (and always has been AFAIK) flat-fee.

Though there used to be some a couple of years ago, mainly for people switching from dialup to dsl thinking they wouldn't use more than 1Gb per month. Which would have been true if their surfing habits didn't adapt to the always on mode.

Re:Welcome America

[Lumpy (12016)]

Cool.

now all you website owners cant bitch when I help set up Ad blocking systems at all my friends, family and associates.

we are not paying for your advertisement to come to my screen. Either make it very tiny in bandwidth used, or get used to the fact that many many more people will be using blocking tools to eliminate your ad's.

Re:

[Timmmm (636430)]

Here's some example prices/conditions in the UK:

Bt Broadband (aol-like rip-off):
£16/mo, 5GB/mo, 8 Mb/s
£21/mo, 8GB/mo, 8 Mb/s

O2 Broadband
£7.50/mo, unlimited, 8 Mb/s

Be Broadband (now owned by O2)
£14/mo, unlimited, 8 Mb/s
£18/mo, unlimited, 24 Mb/s (this is what I have, it also has a 3 month contract and static ip which is useful)

For all the above you need to pay £11/mo line rental to BT. There are others such as Virgin, and talktalk where

Re:

[Scuzzm0nkey (1246094)]

Well, I pay USD$70 a month for "8Mbps" cable from comcast. I use the quotation marks because it'll be a cold day in hell before I actually get 8. I typically top out at 6 on a nice day, 4 most of the time. I hate comcast so much.

AT&T has $150,000/customer ***SURPLUS***

[mikelieman (35628)]

Since the Government Attorneys aren't going to hold AT&T responsible for their unlawful spying on every customer, with statutory penalties of $150,000/each, they have *plenty* of money, so shouldn't be crying poverty, should they?

The alternative is being held accountable, and liquidating AT&T to pay the damages, which would prove the point that *every* entity is held accountable TO THE LAW.

If Martha Stewart can go to prison for fibbing while NOT UNDER OATH, why the hell is AT&T getting a pass for it's crime?

Re:Welcome America

[Smauler (915644)]

It is most definately not abusing a service if you've paid for it and are within the rules. If someone sells me a 1 megabit always on connection, it is not abuse if I use it fully 24/7.

If you replace 'abuse' with 'use', your post makes a little more sense. Companies always oversell what they can deliver, and if they screw up, it's up to them to fix it.

I'd guess that in a market which is not dominated by flat rate lines, starting up a flat rate service would be a lot tougher, since you're naturally going to attract the heavy users. In a market in which nearly everyone's on flat rate, companies get all different types of customer.

Re:

[xaxa (988988)]

Your rental car costs more if you want permission to take it to Mexico.

Road tolls might be less at night (e.g. London Congestion Charge is only between 07:00 and 18:00).

Anyway, it's free market America, isn't it? If you don't like it, don't buy it!

Re:IDIOTS !! was that too hard ?

[nurb432 (527695)]

So you also want to pay per mile of road you use? No, bandwidth should be flat rate. Just like roads and air.

The ONLY reason the internet is what it is today was the switch away from that archaic pricing structure. ( think CompuServe and the old school AOL ).

This is 2008, it doesn't mean something from 5000 years ago still applies. ( i suppose you also propose we trade chickens for bandwidth? And how about offering a cow before you can get married? )

Re:

[laffer1 (701823)]

I'd like more bandwidth as much as the next guy, but I find it odd that comcast has doubled my connection recently while sending RST packets because their network can't handle traffic. Perhaps these companies should advertise and sell what their networks can handle instead of claiming rediculous speeds that they can't provide. I also think they should offer more than a few packages. Let people pick from a wider range of packages for their needs. I'm willing to pay more for more bandwidth, but at a fixed

Re:IDIOTS !! was that too hard ?

[JesseMcDonald (536341)]

So you also want to pay per mile of road you use?

You do pay for roads by the mile, more or less. Road maintenance is funded via gas taxes, so you pay more for driving more. The alternative model is toll roads, which also charge in proportion to distance traveled.

Re:

[nurb432 (527695)]

No, it doesn't 'work'. You are just stuck with it.

Re:

[jonwil (467024)]

Even in America, bandwidth isn't free.
ISPs cant go on offering "unlimited" bandwidth anymore, they really have 3 choices: 1.Tell people that they only get a certain amount of bandwidth per month (i.e. the .au model) and charge people based on that number 2.Give people "unlimited" bandwidth (with no caps) but limit their usage (blocking BitTorrent for example) so they cant actually USE the bandwidth they are given (i.e. the Comcast model) or 3.Give people totally unlimited bandwidth with no restrictions on B

Re:We have this in Australia...

[Wavebreak (1256876)]

Experience proves that this simply isn't true. ISPs in Finland (where I live), and several other countries that I have no personal experience with, provide ridiculously fast unlimited connections for very reasonable prices already and keep making a profit. I have a 100Mbit connection for 43e a month, and similar connections are getting more and more prevalent. You could also get an unlimited 3G data plan for 10e a month. Finns have a long history of heavy p2p usage as well, yet the ISPs aren't even complaining, stay in business just fine and my connection at least isn't throttled at all, *true* unlimited bandwidth. They do use QOS, but no artificial bandwidth caps or whatever, just prioritization for low-latency use. Just because your anti-competitive "free market" (we have actual competition thanks to some government regulation of the market, tell me again how your system is so much better) can't do it right doesn't mean it can't be done.