AT&T feeds metered internet to American gamblers

150GB cap?!

Wouldn't most people in Blighty just love that...

Signed, A happy person who went from UK to USA DSL internet not too long ago.

I probably shouldn't tell the people in Blighty that I actually get the advertised speed I pay for either, eh?

NZ

Here in New Zealand capped broadband is the norm due to geographic isolation and costs of providing broadband to a small population over a large area.

You generally have two options; capped broadband with speeds reducing to dial-up when you reach the cap, or capped broadband with extra charges per GB.

It seems like a reasonable choice to me.

(NB - I have ignored the fact that NZ broadband is a) stupidly expensive, b) rediculously slow and c) not available in large parts of the country for these purposes).

HD Video

So when true HD video downloads become mainstream we can see people paying extra for the privilege.

It be interesting to see how the factor in upstream v downstream bandwidth. With services like the PC only version of the iPlayer (P2P) which distribute the download across its users - will they now all start throttling their upstream bandwidth (mac user so I have no idea if you can even do that being confined to the flash <hiss> web based player) to prevent them from being charged for watching extra programming.

What about lost packets? are they insured? yakka yakka

@Jeremy

Er... I get pretty much my advertised speed, and an *actual* unlimited (i.e. NO cap) connection for a tenner on top of my Sky subscription in 'Blighty'. And as an extra added bonus, I don't have to live in America.

Re: HD Video

And why do you see a problem in that? Bandwidth costs money. As far as lost packets - the residential pricing you have anywhere in the world is for _BEST_ _EFFORT_ which is OK to lose up to a couple of percent at peak times. If you want guaranteed delivery it will cost around 10 times more to build and provide and will require that the telco owns everything end-to-end. No "install you own router", no ISPs buying wholesale intermediate products either.

This unfortunately is the nature of the Internet - it costs a hell of a lot to provide guaranteed services over it. However, as far as HD (and non-HD) video is concerned it can be delivered without guaranteed delivery. Most self-respecting media delivery frameworks compensate for lost packets and re-request them.

@ Pascal Monett

Of course if an ISP is offering 8Mb DSL then the backbone has to take X times 8Mb to carry it. I work for BT, so I know that the backbone, all fibre, can take it.

As I work for BT I have a free unlimited DSL connection that works at its advertised speed.

Sounds good

I took the time to calculate the 'cap' tiscali 'unlimited' imposes before it sends the first 'you're a naughty boy' email. It worked out, relative to what I pay, at about £0.50/GB, so, give or take a few pence it is roughly equivalent to the service offered in Reno. But where's my 150GB to start with?

BTW, Tom Richardson, you are still forking out for the crap on Sky TV ~£50pm, so is it really worth it?

Slippery slope!

October 2008, AT&T announces bandwidth limitations on a very few bandwidth hogs in a small city in the middle of nowhere with little political clout. (Been in Reno - it sucks.)

March 2009, AT&T announces that the experiment in Reno was successful (no one switched providers, mostly because there are no alternatives) and they are expanding the anti-bandwidth hog caps to other areas.

July 2009, "other areas" definition quietly changed to "nationally".

September 2009, due to ongoing expenses of providing service to bandwidth hogs, the cap is lowered nationally to 5 MB/month.

December 2009, cap lowered again to 1MB/month.

March 2010, AT&T announces price increase of 200% to cover expense of supplying bandwidth to the "bandwidth hogs" (who they now define as their entire customer base).

July 2010, AT&T announces an automatic quarterly cost-of-living-adjusted-for-inflation increase of 50% per month, per megabyte, retroactive to August 1968, and payable in full in ten days.

September 2010, AT&T announces that any AT&T customer of ANY service who is also a customer of ANY other communications supplier will have two options - triple the price or terminate their AT&T service. Reason - "inefficiencies in the market because of multiple providers" (in other words, we want to be a monopoly again).

Remember that AT&T was once a monopoly, and Uncle Sam broke it up into seven regional and unaffiliated telcos. Since then, they have been regenerating EXACTLY like the liquid metal Terminator, and now AT&T is once again a monopoly. Their business plan is (and always has been) very simple - Screw over the customer as much as you can.

The tiger does not change its stripes - AT&T was a bunch of thieving bastards before their monopoly was broken, and they have slowly reconstituted themselves as the same monopoly again, and they are still a bunch of thieving bastards.

I guess we'll just have to bust them apart all over again - and this time make sure it sticks.

My question is...

Will they be including u-verse traffic in their measured rate. If not, they are discrimating against all other traffic (which will make a lawsuit); and if they're not, then they are cutting their own throat by limiting the tv to standard and no HD (which even compressed takes a lot of bandwidth). Want to sell downloads? you'll be out of luck. want to transfer files? You'll be out of luck.

over your limit...you'll be out of luck.

wish i could at least get DSL or FIOS where I live...cable are wankers and satellite is a non-worker there..