AT&T To Introduce Broadband Caps 538
rekenner writes "In the upcoming weeks, AT&T customers are going to start receiving notices that their broadband services are going to have a monthly cap, starting in May. DSL users will have a cap of 150 GB per month, while U-Verse users will have a more 'generous' cap of 250 GB per month. However, unlike other caps, it won't be until your third month of overage, on the life of the account, that you'll be charged an overage. Thanks, I guess."
I wonder.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why did AT&T bother to put fiber all over town for it's customers' if they don't want us to use the bandwidth? They are Ma Bell, do they really have a shortage of bandwidth?
The truth of the matter (Score:5, Interesting)
Let them know the customer is the boss! (Score:3, Interesting)
Time Warner tried this in Austin a couple years ago and it backfired on them. They lost a load of customers. I actually switched to U-verse because of it. They ended scrapping the whole idea. This is their chance to shine and announce: "no data limits" "we miss you come back and enjoy all the Internet" As far as the whole "98% of users won't be impacted by this change" BS... I'm going to call BS on that and go a little further. Even if people don't hit the cap, they like having the unlimited option available. Example: If my hard drive crashes, I have over 300GB of games to download from steam. And that's only the ones I'm currently playing!
Call them and complain (be firm but be nice). I called and got disconnected the first round after a 5 minute hold. The second time when the automated system asked why I was calling I said "I'm pissed off!" I was immediately connected to a rep! The rep said he didn't know anything about it. His supervisor said the same thing.
And if they still go through with this crap - switch. Vote with your wallet folks!
Re:And once again... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not the magnitude of the cap. It's that bandwidth - which is a momentary capacity, not a "month cycle" capacity - is being charged that way. This ain't electricity or water, where there is a certain central pool quantity to draw from. It's on or off.
What would the solution to this be? A variable cap that changes based on how busy the network is?
Add to this the fact that NONE of these dishonest fuckers in these companies give you a good way to track "usage", and it gets worse.
FTFA:
Customers will be able to check their usage with an online tool, and get notifications when they reach 65 percent, 90 percent and 100 percent of their monthly rates.
So they're absolutely providing a way to check usage. The jury's out on whether or not it's a "good" way, but seeing as you haven't used it you are in no way capable of making that judgement.
Add in the fact that they are all doing this not to "manage slowdowns" but instead to try to push people back into buying "on demand TV" and "premium cable TV packages with rental DVR" and it's clear: this is not what they say it is. This is pure greed on their part.
Now you're just making things up. It doesn't mention that anywhere in the article.
There is a finite amount of bandwidth. The options that have been presented to solve this problem are traffic shaping and capping, so please either throw your towel in with one of those or propose another idea.
Wonderful! Now I can _increase_ my usage (Score:2, Interesting)
Clarification is nice, especially in this case -- I had assumed around 30 GB/month was a reasonable amount. Now AT&T is telling me 150 GB is reasonable -- 5x more!
Furthermore, their overage rate $0.20/GB (in 50 GB chunks) is quite reasonable.
Some people will whine these are starting rates, and AT&T can change them. Certainly, but then they have to deal with their own precedents set internally. Somebody looks really bad if they have to raise alot, and they will fight.
Re:And once again... (Score:5, Interesting)
Add in the fact that they are all doing this not to "manage slowdowns" but instead to try to push people back into buying "on demand TV" and "premium cable TV packages with rental DVR" and it's clear: this is not what they say it is. This is pure greed on their part.
Now you're just making things up. It doesn't mention that anywhere in the article.
There is a finite amount of bandwidth. The options that have been presented to solve this problem are traffic shaping and capping, so please either throw your towel in with one of those or propose another idea.
Oooh ooh! Pick Me! I know!
Another option would be to have more options!
Since ATT is only able to provide service because they have used publicly owned throughways and have been given permission to sell me service, we could allow more people to provide service!
We could allow co-ops and startups to lease/buy/build lines and improve our networks!
Heck, we could even use that bandwidth that they took from TV providers (remember that?) and use it for broadband wireless with open networks like they said was going to happen!
It seems there are a lot of options besides bandwidth capping, traffic shaping, and anti-competitive practices. We just don't use them.
As a sidenote, HR 607 would take the D-Block of frequencies and instead give them to emergency response/public safety people. Sounds good right? Well, they don't need it, and it keeps it away from what it was taken for (which helps these same ISPs) and proposes to take away the 70cm band from Ham radio operators - which would really impair public safety in the event of a true emergency.