45 ms·
AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees
- bherms 16y agoI feel like this is less about ability to handle the 2% who go over the bandwidth limit and more a means to fight piracy. I would assume the 2% who go over 150/250gb/month are people sharing large amounts of media (sure people like me download tons of legal soundboard recordings from bands, etc, but probably not the majority of that 2%). By capping the bandwidth, they can effectively cripple the ability for some to share large amounts of movies/shows/music.
- amock 16y agoI think it's more about making things more difficult for services like Netflix and Hulu as well as extracting some extra revenue from their top users who don't have any other choice for internet service.
- gergles 16y agoBingo, especially since AT&T TV (which is all over IP and therefore is just as likely to 'clog the tubes' -- actually even more so since it has better QoS) is exempt. They are going to go kicking and screaming into the age of being a dumb pipe.
- tptacek 16y agoAT&T's video is significantly cheaper to provision; it's housed entirely on their own network.
- A1kmm 16y agoAT&T is a tier 1 ISP; they don't pay for traffic from outside of their network. The 'user pays for bandwidth' pricing is fundamentally more efficient, and is a good model to move to long term, provided there are sufficient controls to prevent price gauging in areas where ISP(s) act as a monopoly or duopoly (20c per GB in the US excluding the pricing for last-mile fixed costs seems like price gauging to me - but it depends on the technologies; it is probably a lot more expensive to get extra bandwidth to a cabinet than to an exchange), and the companies don't misrepresent what is on offer to consumers. However, all information flows should be treated equally; companies shouldn't be able to abuse their market power as network services providers to make their own information services cheaper than those of everyone else. It seems that the best solution would be for regulators to ensure that AT&T and other ISPs charge for bandwidth used by their own applications in the same way as they do for their competitors.
- tptacek 16y agoJust because they don't pay a rate to their peers doesn't mean that it's equally expensive to serve traffic on-net and off-net.
- Bystander 16y agoBINGO! We have a winner. If AT&T had adequately provisioned their last mile networks, instead of trying to cram 10K households in a 1K household pipe, it wouldn't matter how much bandwidth an individual used.
- bherms 16y agoGood point... I hadn't even considered IPTV and streaming services for some reason. It definitely looks like a move to protect revenue when people may be switching off services like U-Verse TV.
- tptacek 16y agoIf they were trying to keep people from turning off U-V TV, why would they set a bandwidth cap that no normal TV-watching person would approach?
- jrockway 16y agoI think anyone that has AT&T DSL could also have Speakeasy DSL. It's just that Speakeasy costs a lot more.
- jarpadat 16y agoI have a 6Mbit DSL line but I checked Speakeasy's availability for my address and no dice.
- tptacek 16y agoIt also sucks a lot more. I had Speakeasy for over 5 years; AT&T has been a dream comparatively. Slow. Friendly-but-useless customer service. Multi-day outages. Let's not forget, Speakeasy is just another BigCo. If you want to stand on your principles, go look up the ISPFH people in Chicago. They'll sell you a DSL line.
- bretpiatt 16y agoThis isn't just piracy, it is IP video streaming, it is roughly 1GB per hour for HD content. For somebody single, 150-250GB/month is plenty, for a house of 4 if everyone watches Netflix, Hulu, etc.. it isn't hard to use that up. This is about revenue protection for their U-Verse TV business. They want to control the share of wallet and they'll use the tools they have available to do that. They don't want to become "just a pipe" where you go Internet only and then pay your TV content dollars to Hulu, etc...
- tptacek 16y agoWe're a house of 4, we watch the majority of our TV via a Mac Mini, and don't come within 150GB of this limit.
- wtallis 16y agoMy household of 4 uses upwards of 100GB per month without even paying for services like Netflix. Our usage of ad-supported SD streaming sources is such that buying even one game on Steam is likely to push us over the limit. The next time Steam has a big sale, we're likely to spend several times more on downloading the games than on purchasing them.
- jarpadat 16y agoI think instead of being able to advertise "up to" speeds, ISPs should have to advertise the overall average speed you can use in a month taking into account usage caps. 150GB/month works out to .47MBit/sec sustained throughput. If AT&T had to advertise that rate instead of 6Mbit for DSL lines, they'd think twice about caps. UVerse is even worse--~1Mbit/sec instead of 24.
- thefool 16y agoThat said, burst speed is what matters if you are streaming or doing something else that is similar. The typical user has no need for sustained output unless they are torrenting things, being used as a supernode for skype, ect. I do like the idea though.
- jarpadat 16y agoIt depends on what is meant by "burst". With a 250GB cap, you can use your 24Mbit UVerse "burst" speed 3.2% of the time. I don't think it's unreasonable to look at something that is true 3% of the time and call it an unfair claim.
- gergles 16y agoI love the paper-thin justification here the most. "We have to do this because people don't want to pay for bandwidth they don't use!" OK, where's my $10 a month refund for every 50 GB I go under the limit?
- alexqgb 16y agoIn theory, what you'll get is faster transfer rates for the data you do use. In theory...
- bradleyland 16y agoBe very careful what you ask for. AT&T would be more than happy to implement a fully-tiered system like they do for cell minutes. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just pointing out that this is far from the worst case scenario.
- kin 16y agoAnyonw know if they'll introduce lower rates, much like their move with mobile data?
- gs8 16y agoIt's amazing how much has been given to ATT & Verizon to build out new fiber networks (which they still haven't finished) and now when people start using them to their potential we will be hit with overages, awesome. It won't get any better until the cities/localities remove exclusive territory rights for companies that provide phone and cable.
- Lost_BiomedE 16y agoTelecoms also fought hard to make it illegal for cities to offer ubiquitous broadband for free. It started being a small trend for cities to do this as incentive to live there, but it was quickly squashed. They also sat on DSL for over a decade until the telecom act of '96 allowed others to roll-out DSL. They finally started to market it themselves when they were forced.
- alexqgb 16y agoThis actually sounds pretty reasonable. Now I'm wondering if they'll continue being reasonable with a clear commitment to a specific speed, or - at the very least - a decent and reliable average. If so, they'll be in a position to run marketing campaigns where they start assaulting those godawful "up to" claims by demonstrating what their competitors actually average. Alternately, this really is about offering less for more. I suspect we'll know one way or the other within six months.
- georgieporgie 16y agoIf this isn't simply a way to generate more cash while still appearing price competitive to the newcomer, why not implement soft caps? I anticipate many technically disinclined people receiving very large bills as a result of running an open wireless network.
- Bystander 16y agomaybe blocking open wireless networks is one of their goals. They want to be able to maximize revenue - if a couple of thousand people have to now actually buy access, rather than riding off of their neighbors - it's a win
- oneplusone 16y agoThe idea that 2% of users using 20% of the bandwidth is hurting "normal" people is a PR move that is going to do great harm to future innovation. The way I see it those 2% of users are early adopters and a couple of years from now "normal people" will be using as much bandwidth as the current 2% does. Limiting bandwidth now hurts future innovation.
- tptacek 16y agoIsn't it a bit disingenuous to suppose that we don't know exactly what those 2% are doing?
- oneplusone 16y agoJust because people are downloading a ton of illegal content right now doesn't mean 5 years from now the average person won't be downloading it legally. This is how progress is made.
- tptacek 16y agoIt's funny, that's exactly what people said about binaries on Usenet.
- oneplusone 16y agoAnd websites like http://www.graboid.com http://www.graboid.com repackaged usenet to make is accessible to the general population. Movie studios don't seem to mind since they have a DMCA process and most content never gets one.
- tptacek 16y agoAnd Usenet died. But sure. Graboid. Whatever that is. Yay!
- adbge 16y agoAre you suggesting that average bandwidth usage isn't going to increase?
- Groxx 16y agoMy calculator tells me that, with my low-end DSL connection, I could eat that up in about 10 1/2 days. That's not too bad of a limit, but I do worry about what precedence it helps set. When I signed up, they were very clear about saying that it was unlimited*.
- ronnier 16y agoWe are having big shifts to content distribution over the internet with things like itunes, netflix, Amazon streaming movies, Apple TV, Skype, video chat, games, and software. Comcast (xfinity) and AT&T are going to do their best to cripple the internet to protect their other sources of revenue. I recently moved to Seattle and had no choice but to sign up with Comcast. I wanted to have streaming video of NHK Japan coverage open while I'm doing things around the house. I'm to worried about eating into my monthly limit to do so.
- adbge 16y ago> I'm to worried about eating into my monthly limit to do so. Depending on the area, the limit may not even be enforced. I've pretty drastically gone over the cap every month since it was implemented and have yet to receive a warning, and I've heard the same thing from other users. Of course, YMMV.
- geuis 16y agoBullshit. Nearly every broadband ISP in the US has had unlimited download and upload for the last 12+ years. When I got my first cable modem in 1997 and since then, its always been unlimited. While our access speeds have gone up, they haven't gone up in comparison to other nations. What AT&T and other providers are saying is that they haven't been investing in their backbone and regional connections, while increasing customer speeds. This is complete bullshit.
- tptacek 16y agoWhat is something legitimate that you can do with 250GB in a month (that's 83 HD movie downloads), and, when you identify it, can you also tell me why the 98% of people who pay for U-Verse should have to pay for that level of service, which they will never come close to using/ There is no such thing as a free lunch. Either the top 2% pay a noticeable premium, or everybody pays a less noticeable premium. AT&T is not a charity, it's not a public utility, and it's not a monopoly.
- adbge 16y ago> can you also tell me why the 98% of people who pay for U-Verse should have to pay for that level of service, which they will never come close to using They are now effectively paying the exact same amount for a reduced level of (potential) service. Unless you're willing to speculate that this will eventually lower costs for the 98% (doubt it, are Comcast's users better off?), there is no gain for any end user in this scenario.
- paul9290 16y agoComcast has the same thing 250GB cap and has such for 3 to 4 years. No one is blowing through 250GB watching netflix, hulu and such, which I think is the reason behind this move by AT&T.
- gergles 16y agoActually I burn up about 190GB with netflix, hulu, Xbox 360 games, OS updates, Zune pass, pandora, etc. I don't use any illegal means to acquire content and am already flirting with the cap regularly. The "bandwidth hogs" of today are the "regular users" of tomorrow. Imagine telling somebody from 10 years ago "the average internet user will be using 10 GB of bandwidth a month." Their mind would be blown.
- jrockway 16y agoI like how they claim that keeping prices the same for less bandwidth is "good for the average consumer".
- tptacek 16y agoIf the alternative is a rate hike, then it is.
- Bud 16y agoThe alternative is what we will get next, which is that everyone gets a rate hike AND these draconian overage charges go up and increase in number and complexity. If you think that this single cap will magically keep your rate down, whilst penalizing only those big bad pirates, you're dreaming. This is the same company that has a 200MB monthly cap on cell data, because its internal data says that lots of customers tend to just barely go over 200MB, thus forcing them into the 2GB tier.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- megamark16 16y agoOur family watches a lot of Netflix. My kids will watch several movies or shows throughout the day, my wife watches her shows, and we might throw a movie on in the evening after the kids have gone to bed. If the average size of a 2 hour movie on Netflix is 1.8GB (source: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2009/03/estimates-on-what-it-costs-netflixs-to-stream-movies.html http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/200...) and if we watch on average move than 2.7 movies a day, then we will almost definitely hit our 150GB limit every month. Especially considering that we use the internet for a lot of other stuff too, like video chatting with out of town family members, work related file transfers, offsite backups, etc. We don't use bittorrent, we don't download music illegally, but we will most definitely be dropping AT&T for a different service, as soon as we find one that won't cap our usage (since Comcast is the only cable provider available in our area). This is crap.
- dholowiski 16y agoFYI I'm in Canada and use Canadian Netflix. I have a 175GB cap on my cable internet (it's the biggest I could buy). This month I was sitting at about 120GB transfer with average netflix watching (several TV episodes a night and 1-2 movies a week), with about a week left. Then I acidentally left the live.twit.tv stream on for about 12 hours. I haven't checked, but I expect to either have to heavily conserve bandwidth until my next bill, or get a friendly letter from my ISP. Offsite backups like carbonite or mozy are totally out of the question obviously. I had planned on downloading MS Server 2011, but I'll have to put that off until the next billing cycle too. I also rent and buy movies and TV shows off of itunes, but I have to balance that and my netflix watching so I don't go over. Everything I do is 100% legal, yet without vigilance I could easily blow through my cap within two weeks. The phone company offers a slightly higher cap (you can get up to 250GB) but it's much slower. Welcome to life in Canada...
- dholowiski 16y agoSure enough, now that I'm home I see I've been throttled to slow DSL speeds (I pay for a 50 mbit cable connection). Go Canada!
- vomjom 16y agoI think this is fair. Bandwidth costs money, usage likely follows a power law distribution, and their fees are reasonable: AT&T: $10/50 GB = 20 cents/GB Amazon S3/EC2: 10 cents/GB It's not like we're being gouged here...
- CoffeeDregs 16y agoI agree. I'd prefer transparent pricing to whatever we have now...
- Bystander 16y agoproblem is, we're already paying for bandwidth - now they want to limit how long we can use that bandwidth.
- Bud 16y ago$10 is fully half the monthly fee for ATT DSL. So they are charging quite a bit more for data if you go over the cap. I'd be less ticked off if the rate above cap were more similar to the rate below cap, and if the cap allowed saturating your link more than 9% of the time, which is what this cap does for DSL users with a typical 6.5 Mbps download speed. To buy a connection that can actually be used 24/7 with the new price structure would cost well over $200/month. That's not cool.
- dholowiski 16y agoGlad to see US ISP's starting to take a note from Canadian (and Australian) ISP's. Next, you can look forward to unabashed packet shaping, as practiced by Rogers.