AT&T: 'Eat too much data and we'll strangle you'

It's always the

the few that spoil it for the many.

Ahh Verizon and AT&T...

the big jokes of data. AT&T switched a while ago (a year or so) from $30 unlimited to $25 for 2GB. Not to outdo them, VZW (Verizon Wireless.. who is still 40% owned by Vodaphone) then switched from $30 unlimited to $30 for 2GB towards the beginning of the month. Oh, and to top it off, even though that means you're now paying per GB for your data, they then want to charge *even more* to be able to tether using the data you've already paid for. What a joke. Thank goodness I'm already grandfathered into unlimited data, VZW has by far the best coverage in the US.

So, on the unlimited plan, VZW reserved the right to throttle the top 5% of users. In actuality, there are a few reports on howardforums of people being throttled at 9GB, but intermittently -- it seems they only throttle when the local cell site is under load, so most of the time even at 9GB they were not seeing throttling. AT&T tends to be much stricter in enforcement of their terms, so I'm sure at exactly at some number of MBs, rates will be throttled to some speed all month. Of course, the ridiculous 2GB plans are just a massive cash grab, throttling would already take care of users trying to stream videos all month, or run bittorent, or whatever.

Bee Line

There now - forward this little nasty to your representatives along with a question to the tune of: And what have you done today that helps to prevent the aggravated assault on freedom by corporate entities? Where 95% of their answers should entail: Helping the deep pockets strangle speech ... at any volume, at any cost. Don't forget to thank them for their time.

Thank you for your time.

That bloody word.

"Unlimited" is really beginning to get on my tits. Pros and sons of throttling notwithstanding.

"the few that spoil it for the many"

What kind of moron downvotes a perfectly reasonable post like that?

Let's put to one side the issue of whether unlimited should mean unlimited.

It may not be a popular concept with mickeytaking freetards, but if some form of usage cap (preferably one that acknowledges the difference between peak and off peak) helps maintain quality of service for the remaining non-mickeytaking 95% of the userbase, where is the problem?

You only have to look at the UK's history of small but disastrous numbers of migrating mickeytaking freetards who in recent years brought down 'unlimited' ISP after ISP (at least until LLU became more widely available) to see what kind of effect these morons can have on any ISP foolish enough to offer unlimited usage tariffs without expecting unlimited revenue to cover the unlimited cost of the required bandwidth.

There, that feels better. Let's watch the downvotes now. But I'd prefer a reasoned objection, if anyone can think of one.

.

Did ATT hire Bill Clinton?

I thought "Unlimited" meant, well "unlimited". Throttling sounds like a very clear case of applying a limit. Truth in advertising lawyers, ready your briefs?????.

Re: Bee Line

Give me HSDPA or give me death.

Unlimited?

un·lim·it·ed /ʌnˈlɪmɪtɪd/

[uhn-lim-i-tid]

–adjective

1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.

2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.

3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

Can Networks not speak english anymore?

Here in Australia....

...we'd love to get throttled at 9gb or so.

Man, 5gb would be awesome.

Throttling is better than hidden fees.

AT&T is implementing a 150 GB cap for DSL and 250 GB for Cable. The first two months they warn you, then after that they automatically bill you $10 per 50 GB overage pack.

unlimited

surely there is a limit to the time in the month and the bandwidth available - therefore unlimited should effectively equal that sum and should be disclosed to customers (probably averaged down to account for lower speed areas).

"the few that spoil it for the many"

It's downvoted because by definition, Unlimited means unlimited.

It doesn't mean unlimited, but (said with a mere whisper) limited under certain conditions.

That kind of logic is confined to politicians just before election day.

The customers (well 5% of them anyway) are taking _exactly_ what AT&T were offering.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Just because you chose not to, doesn't put you in any higher moral position.

"5% consume 12x more than average"

Analysis: I will generously assume that the "average" is the average of just the 95%, not including the heavy users. In fact, by definition, the "average" should include all users. Therefore the following will be an overstatement.

Network traffic = (95% * Avg) + (5% * [12*Avg]) = 155% of Avg

In other words, because 5% is such a small fraction (1 in 20), even at 12x the usage, the total is still well within the bell curve of normal distribution. There will be FAR MORE variation from one cell site to the next, or especially over time, than this relatively minor ~50% increase in the total traffic originating from such a small fraction of the users.

Conclusions:

5% is a small enough fraction that they can't really plug-up the entire network all by themselves. The numbers literally don't add up.

Their wireless network problems are therfore localized in certain locations and at certain times. They should fix those locations.

This is a money-making scam. Ripe for a lawsuit.

Not providing internet service

Sounds like they are not providing an internet service. Part of the internet is using the likes of youtube and other streaming media. If AT&T can not do that then they are not providing full internet access.

Title

Welcome to 'the cloud'.

Capacity driven "strangling" and cloudiness?

So, we are all going to put our data in the "cloud" are we? This demonstrates that there is not only a security and access case against going "cloudy", if we do the carriers are going to b*** f**k us financially as well. The carriers will charge us for putting our data up into the cloud, the cloud providers (whoever they are, Google, Apple, MS, Amazon etc) will charge us for keeping it there and the carriers will then charge us for getting it back down. The carriers are doing no more about improved capacity than they can avoid and charging us as much as they can get away with for the bandwidth they *do* condescend to provide. Unless something is done about their behaviour towards the customer the mobile cloud will be little more than a con game directed at fleecing the customer. I note that some have remarked on the obsessive heavy down-loaders (what they are downloading is fairly obvious) spoiling it for the rest of us and I have a certain degree of sympathy with that view. However, if we are "all" in the cloud then we will *all* be heavy users/abusers in comparison to today's usage model/pattern and the carriers will be laughing all the way to the bank. My tip is, stay out of the cloud in so far as you can until you are convinced that the business model makes sense for you as a *customer*.

So why do they encourage TV and movie streaming

Media streaming is a huge bandwidth hog, yet every cellphone company runs commercial after commercial extolling the ability of their phones to stream NASCAR or football games or other television programs and now one Verizon phone comes with a free 3-month subscription to Netflix. Discouragement of bandwidth use in practice, encourage bandwidth use in commercials. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Unlimited?

Well, even those of you claiming unlimited should mean just that, are actually limited by the rate of your modem.

The reality is the radio spectrum bandwidth is a scarce resource and you cannot get as much down it than a fibre optic cable. It is simply not possible to carry the whole internet over a few MHz of cellular band in competition with the voice traffic already there. It is sheer folly to believe so.

Radio spectrum should simply not be used, sold or marketed as a means of bypassing fixed lines (or WiFi connected to fixed lines) for stationary internet connections. The wireless operators that pretend/think they are operating a fibre optic ADSL service lying imbiciles and are the mobile industry's own worst enemy.

'Unlimited' means to me that I'm not going to get a nasty bill-shock at the end of the month. If I get throttled - fair enough.

Disclosure: I just came back from a business trip where I spent the time trying to convince the operator that they have to prioritize iPhones (etc) over broadband modems - the modems are consuming somewhere betwenn 10 and 50 times more resources (databytes base station power, backhaul etc) than the 1GByte a monthe average iPhone user.

Do you think it is really fair that you consume 50 times more data but only pay the same and get the same quality of service? If you do, then say goodbye to breakfast buffets and all you can eat data plans.

Biggest downloader over 3G

that I heard of is 600GByte a month.

if everyuser was like that

1. only about 100 people would be able to get on the network - and they couldn't all be in the same place at the same time as the base station has limited capacity

2. your phone bill would be US$20000 per month

someone has to pay for all these expensive base stations - big business or not.

Once you pay your monthly fee its the "Tragedy of the commons" all over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons