AT&T To Cap DSL Internet Data Usage At 150GB

Zarathustra[H];1037203491 said:
Unfortunately I am stuck with the supplied Verizon FiOS, router. Due to the way they implemented MOCA on it, I lose certain TV functionality if I switch to a non Verizon supplied router.
Click to expand...
Heh, you don't have to switch routers, you can use a second one in-line.

unled1tj.jpg
 
Unknown-One said:
Heh, you don't have to switch routers, you can use a second one in-line.

unled1tj.jpg
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that, but I thought there may be complications (and possible slow downs) by using two NAT routers in a row.

Maybe this can be minimized by putting the non FiOS router in the DMZ of the FiOS router?

It would certainly be interesting if I could find a router with the following:
  • 300+kbps 802.11N wireless
  • 5+ Gigabit LAN Ethernet ports
  • Full DDWRT support.

You know of any like this? :p
 
I dumped att uverse internet as soon as i found out about capping. I went with a comcast business line. I get 50 meg per second and pay 60 bucks per month. Worth every penny.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037204082 said:
It would certainly be interesting if I could find a router with the following:
  • 300+kbps 802.11N wireless
  • 5+ Gigabit LAN Ethernet ports
  • Full DDWRT support.

You know of any like this? :p
Click to expand...

Hmm. The Linksys E3000 is pretty close to what I'm looking for. I might consider this even though I swore I'd never get another linksys product.

Downside is internal only antenna prevents updating id range provides troublesome.
 
nobody_here said:
You are responsible for you own bandwidth usage.
Click to expand...
Sure, but they are responsible for telling me how much I've consumed. Imagine if your cell phone company didn't allow you to track how many minutes and/oror texts you've used (assumiing you don't have unlimited for both or either). Outrage, right? Same analogy applies here.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037204082 said:
I was thinking about that, but I thought there may be complications (and possible slow downs) by using two NAT routers in a row.

Maybe this can be minimized by putting the non FiOS router in the DMZ of the FiOS router?

It would certainly be interesting if I could find a router with the following:
  • 300+kbps 802.11N wireless
  • 5+ Gigabit LAN Ethernet ports
  • Full DDWRT support.

You know of any like this? :p
Click to expand...

This is how it works on U-Verse. I just tossed my router in the DMZ of the U-verse router and disabled its wireless.

This is the router I use, love it:

Netgear WNDR3700
 
leezard said:
They arent imposing it yet, thats why it says


The U-verse data measurement report is currently under construction. When completed, you will be notified if your usage exceeds the allowance. Until that time, U-verse customers should not be concerned about their usage patterns for billing purposes.
Click to expand...
That link now kind of works in the sense I can see the current month's usage data. However, the historical data is still way off. I says I used no bandwidth in Jan. and Feb. and about 4 GB in Mar., which are way off.

Khanmots said:
I called in yesterday to cancel my fios TV service and when asked why said I was doing it partially because I wasn't watching it that much anymore and partially out of protest of them implementing bandwidth caps.

They talked me into staying with 6 months of $25 off a month and 6 months of $10 off a month after that. I may still cancel in a few months (planning on going the htpc/netflix/hulu/whatever route instead once I actually get a htpc setup), but for now that sucked me in.

Thought y'all might be interested in saving a few bucks if you're thinking of bailing on TV like I am.
Click to expand...
Do you mean U-Verse or is Verizon FiOS also implementing a BW cap? :confused:
 
beowulf7 said:
That link now kind of works in the sense I can see the current month's usage data. However, the historical data is still way off. I says I used no bandwidth in Jan. and Feb. and about 4 GB in Mar., which are way off.


Do you mean U-Verse or is Verizon FiOS also implementing a BW cap? :confused:
Click to expand...

I mean U-Verse. And evidently I shouldn't be posting before noon :p
 
beowulf7 said:
Sure, but they are responsible for telling me how much I've consumed. Imagine if your cell phone company didn't allow you to track how many minutes and/oror texts you've used (assumiing you don't have unlimited for both or either). Outrage, right? Same analogy applies here.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. If you leave your electricity on all day/all night that would be your problem, Edison would just hand you a bill and your usage. I think any way you look at it these caps are ridiculous, but your comparison isn't a good one.
 
Would everyone be happy if the ISPs switched away from tiers and caps and instead made you pay by how much you use? Like electricity or gasoline?

All this pissing and moaning about you're paying good money and getting a cap... who's really getting screwed is the granny and grandpa who pay the same monthly rates as the leet haxor pirate but all they do check email.
 
TWC just started offering 50/5 service in my area. I think I'll drop AT&T and go (back) to cable.
 
Team Obi Juan said:
Would everyone be happy if the ISPs switched away from tiers and caps and instead made you pay by how much you use? Like electricity or gasoline?
Click to expand...

I'd kind of be ok with that but I'm probably one of a minority. The problem is that internet has been sold to us for so long as "unlimited" that people have it ingrained that that's how it should be. It'd be like a city trying to change thier trash pickup to charging by the pound instead of a set monthly fee... imagine the outrage!
 
Team Obi Juan said:
Would everyone be happy if the ISPs switched away from tiers and caps and instead made you pay by how much you use? Like electricity or gasoline?
Click to expand...
Sure, if it was reasonably priced and their definition of reasonable prices and quality was monitored and decided by the same government oversight that handles power and water monopolies.
 
fattypants said:
Sure, if it was reasonably priced and their definition of reasonable prices and quality was monitored and decided by the same government oversight that handles power and water monopolies.
Click to expand...

Oh boy.....so you would have bandwidth handled like other commodities ....that's scary...checking the price of a megabyte weekly.
 
nobody_here said:
Oh boy.....so you would have bandwidth handled like other commodities ....that's scary...checking the price of a megabyte weekly.
Click to expand...

You check the price of electricity, water, or gas weekly?

Have the government regulation directed at open access to the infrastructure by ISPs and the growth of that infrastructure and I competition would give us competitive prices. If AT&T was actually having to compete with Verizion FIOS they wouldn't be implementing these caps. However we instead grant local "regulated" monopolies so that UVERSE and FIOS aren't directly competing and we get this crap instead.

I dream of the day that if all ISPs are too evil the market's open for someone to start thier small company ISP up and have equal access to the infrastructure. Only way for that to really happen though will be for the infrstructure itself to be seperately owned from the ISPs.
 
Khanmots said:
I mean U-Verse. And evidently I shouldn't be posting before noon :p
Click to expand...
I hear you. For me, posts like that happen after midnight. :eek:
TheWeazmeister said:
Yes and no. If you leave your electricity on all day/all night that would be your problem, Edison would just hand you a bill and your usage. I think any way you look at it these caps are ridiculous, but your comparison isn't a good one.
Click to expand...
Your analogy isn't very accurate either b/c with the electric bill, you know in advance what your per-kWhr. rate will be. So even though it's almost impossible to get an accurate and real-time reading on your electricity consumption (with the exception of Smart Meters, I suppose), at least you know you pay per usage.

With AT&T, customers had unlimited usage. Then a cap was imposed, but AT&T still can't accurately tell customers what they've used. It makes me wonder how they know (accurately) what I've used if they can provide a damn tool for me to find that info.
 
I contacted AT&T's Retention Dept. about my rising Internet bill. I spoke to a woman who seemed to give a crap. She said I'd be eligible to go back to the $25/mo. Elite DSL promo, good for 12 mos., no contract (same M2M billing). Before I get too excited, I'll have to wait for my next bill to make sure she went through w/ it as opposed to just telling me she would. If so, and if AT&T gets their damn metering working (I haven't checked in the past week or so), then I'll just live w/ the cap unless I get close to 150 GB/mo.
 
TWC recently upped the bandwidth in my area due to u-verse. I am now getting 35down/2 up with TWC for $29 a month and really happy about it :p. I was previously 20down/500k up.
 
Team Obi Juan said:
Would everyone be happy if the ISPs switched away from tiers and caps and instead made you pay by how much you use? Like electricity or gasoline?

All this pissing and moaning about you're paying good money and getting a cap... who's really getting screwed is the granny and grandpa who pay the same monthly rates as the leet haxor pirate but all they do check email.
Click to expand...



I get a dedicated 100mbit server for $120 per month, and it comes with 2 TB of bandwidth, no restrictions.

This comes out to $12 per 200gb, or just 6 cents per gig.

Before my current dsl promo, i was paying $20 a month, and I've only once reached 200gb (and that was when I was actively trying to hit 200gb mark to see if I could exceed the 150gb cap).

so, knowing that BANDWIDTH IS DIRT CHEAP (despite what ATT would like you to believe)........ yeah, I'd rather pay per MB, because my 150GB would come out to just $9.


But imagine what would happen if everyone were on pay-as-u-go. The customer actually wins.
The average user who only uses 17gb per month would only pay $1.02 per month for bandwidth.

obviously, ATT can't sustain a business with people just paying $1 per month. So it charges everyone the same rate.
And that $25/month rate collected from everyone should MORE THAN cover the 2% bandwidth hogs.

for the sake of calculation, ATT has 15 Million broadband subscribers.
2% = 300,000
The average user leeches 17gb.
the average BW hog leeches 300gb.
total average consumption (including BW hogs) per user = 22.7 GB.

So, ATT is saying that it is unable to sustain an average of 23 GB per person per month.

you smell that fucking bullshit?


conclusion, as everyone knows, is that ATT is a cheap greedy bitch who is too cheap to spend on infrastructure, and greedy enough to come up with any stupid reason to put more money in its pocket.
 
dr.kevin said:
I get a dedicated 100mbit server for $120 per month, and it comes with 2 TB of bandwidth, no restrictions.

This comes out to $12 per 200gb, or just 6 cents per gig.

Before my current dsl promo, i was paying $20 a month, and I've only once reached 200gb (and that was when I was actively trying to hit 200gb mark to see if I could exceed the 150gb cap).

so, knowing that BANDWIDTH IS DIRT CHEAP (despite what ATT would like you to believe)........ yeah, I'd rather pay per MB, because my 150GB would come out to just $9.


But imagine what would happen if everyone were on pay-as-u-go. The customer actually wins.
The average user who only uses 17gb per month would only pay $1.02 per month for bandwidth.

obviously, ATT can't sustain a business with people just paying $1 per month. So it charges everyone the same rate.
And that $25/month rate collected from everyone should MORE THAN cover the 2% bandwidth hogs.

for the sake of calculation, ATT has 15 Million broadband subscribers.
2% = 300,000
The average user leeches 17gb.
the average BW hog leeches 300gb.
total average consumption (including BW hogs) per user = 22.7 GB.

So, ATT is saying that it is unable to sustain an average of 23 GB per person per month.

you smell that fucking bullshit?


conclusion, as everyone knows, is that ATT is a cheap greedy bitch who is too cheap to spend on infrastructure, and greedy enough to come up with any stupid reason to put more money in its pocket.
Click to expand...

I like this guy.
 
jordan12 said:
I dumped att uverse internet as soon as i found out about capping. I went with a comcast business line. I get 50 meg per second and pay 60 bucks per month. Worth every penny.
Click to expand...

Whew, that is nice. I don't think I ever saw that deal. Is that some promo, exclusive to some people, etc? :confused:
 
dr.kevin said:
I get a dedicated 100mbit server for $120 per month, and it comes with 2 TB of bandwidth, no restrictions.

This comes out to $12 per 200gb, or just 6 cents per gig.

Before my current dsl promo, i was paying $20 a month, and I've only once reached 200gb (and that was when I was actively trying to hit 200gb mark to see if I could exceed the 150gb cap).

so, knowing that BANDWIDTH IS DIRT CHEAP (despite what ATT would like you to believe)........ yeah, I'd rather pay per MB, because my 150GB would come out to just $9.


But imagine what would happen if everyone were on pay-as-u-go. The customer actually wins.
The average user who only uses 17gb per month would only pay $1.02 per month for bandwidth.

obviously, ATT can't sustain a business with people just paying $1 per month. So it charges everyone the same rate.
And that $25/month rate collected from everyone should MORE THAN cover the 2% bandwidth hogs.

for the sake of calculation, ATT has 15 Million broadband subscribers.
2% = 300,000
The average user leeches 17gb.
the average BW hog leeches 300gb.
total average consumption (including BW hogs) per user = 22.7 GB.

So, ATT is saying that it is unable to sustain an average of 23 GB per person per month.

you smell that fucking bullshit?


conclusion, as everyone knows, is that ATT is a cheap greedy bitch who is too cheap to spend on infrastructure, and greedy enough to come up with any stupid reason to put more money in its pocket.
Click to expand...

Flawless victory.

This is not pissing and moaning Team Obi Juan, it's just that simpletons *cough* are either too stupid or too lazy to really grind it and figure out how absurd this bullshit really is.
 
There should be one meter in every house/apt that shows all your utility usages in dollars and cents up to the minute / realtime.
 
Chas said:
Great. So long as I don't use it like anything but a 56K modem, I'm fine.

150GB = 5GB/day = 208~MB/hour = 57KB/Sec

I really wanna know how the fuck this is going to "win over more customers".

Maybe in some stupid suit's drug-addled hallucinations?
Click to expand...

*Cricket Sound* 56.6K modems were 'Kilo-baud' modems were transfered kilo 'bits'. ->56.6 modems usually translated into about 4.8kB/sec. So 57KB/sec would be like running 13 56.6k modems in parallel.

It seems like its actually a pretty decent speed if you weren't using it 24/7 compared to some other providers. Using Shaw Cable plans in Canada, customers are limited to 60GB to 100GB depending on how 'extreme' their internet service plan they choose is. Yes, 100GB cap is called Shaw 'extreme' internet. Irony, much? I'd switch for 150GB cap if there was ANY other competitor in my region.

150GB seems more healthy. I mean, most healthy-people should probably limit computer use to 12 hours a day which is 114KB/sec and that's enough to steam reasonable quality tv while downloading a movie every 4-5 hours. Better than my internet connection where you are forced to choose between one or the other.
 
dr.kevin said:
I get a dedicated 100mbit server for $120 per month, and it comes with 2 TB of bandwidth, no restrictions.

This comes out to $12 per 200gb, or just 6 cents per gig.
Click to expand...
If you were AT&T, you'd be selling that bandwidth for $40 x 20 5-Mbit connections.

Your $120 would become $800.

What's funny is the company with the server is making a PROFIT off you, even at that price. How AT&T gets away with it, I'll never know.
 
dr.kevin said:
I get a dedicated 100mbit server for $120 per month, and it comes with 2 TB of bandwidth, no restrictions.

This comes out to $12 per 200gb, or just 6 cents per gig.

Before my current dsl promo, i was paying $20 a month, and I've only once reached 200gb (and that was when I was actively trying to hit 200gb mark to see if I could exceed the 150gb cap).

so, knowing that BANDWIDTH IS DIRT CHEAP (despite what ATT would like you to believe)........ yeah, I'd rather pay per MB, because my 150GB would come out to just $9.


But imagine what would happen if everyone were on pay-as-u-go. The customer actually wins.
The average user who only uses 17gb per month would only pay $1.02 per month for bandwidth.

obviously, ATT can't sustain a business with people just paying $1 per month. So it charges everyone the same rate.
And that $25/month rate collected from everyone should MORE THAN cover the 2% bandwidth hogs.

for the sake of calculation, ATT has 15 Million broadband subscribers.
2% = 300,000
The average user leeches 17gb.
the average BW hog leeches 300gb.
total average consumption (including BW hogs) per user = 22.7 GB.

So, ATT is saying that it is unable to sustain an average of 23 GB per person per month.

you smell that fucking bullshit?


conclusion, as everyone knows, is that ATT is a cheap greedy bitch who is too cheap to spend on infrastructure, and greedy enough to come up with any stupid reason to put more money in its pocket.
Click to expand...

WINNING! You've been drinking adonis blood or something, you warlock.
 
nobody_here said:
Plenty of ISP's do it. One flat fee per month for network access and you agree to the ToS by using it. A simple statement of acceptable use is all that's needed. There's no reason to itemize a service like this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you used 800 GB this month. Pay up. What's that, you want proof? No need for that, just trust us.

good luck with that one bro.
 
canna said:
Yeah, you used 800 GB this month. Pay up. What's that, you want proof? No need for that, just trust us.

good luck with that one bro.
Click to expand...

When they start charging you per byte for data then they are required to have a dependable way to measure it. While they are giving you only a high end cap, there's no requirement on their end to show you what you did. If they do it it is just something they are trying to have to strengthen their position. But from a billing perspective you will pay period. No matter what it says. If they say you went over you will pay. That's why I am saying you need to monitor your own.
 
nobody_here said:
But from a billing perspective you will pay period. No matter what it says. If they say you went over you will pay. That's why I am saying you need to monitor your own.
Click to expand...

You've never gotten an electricity bill and noticed it was too high? If you have - you just shrugged and paid up even though you knew you shouldn't have had to pay that much?

If you haven't yet, though - I guaran-motherfuckin-tee that you will be singing a different tune when it does happen eventually. But yeah, if it HAS happened and you DID pay up with no questions asked - well then, I feel sorry for you.
 
I'm catching up on an old e-newsletter of SANS NewsBites from a couple months ago. What struck me in this bit is that Comcast claims that their median monthly data usage is 2-3 GB/mo. I know that's median and not mean (avg.), but still, that seems way too low. I guess AT&T's would be similar, then. :confused:

SANS said:
AT&T to Impose Data Caps for Broadband Customers (March 14, 2011) AT&T has announced that it will cap data use for its broadband customers. DSL Customers will have a monthly limit of 150GB; customers who have AT&T's U-Verse broadband will have a monthly limit of 250GB.
Customers who exceed their limit in three or more months will be charged US $10 for every additional 50GB. The policy will take effect on May 2. Customers will be notified as their usage approaches 65 percent, 90 percent and 100 percent of their limit. Comcast placed usage limits on broadband users in 2008, limiting customers to 250GB a month. Comcast says the median monthly data use is between 2GB and 3 GB of data.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20042839-266.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/03/atts-bandwidth-caps-a-bad-deal-for-whom.html
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/03/att-dsl-cap/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/222039/atandts_uverse_and_dsl_data_caps_good_deal_bad_precedent.html
Click to expand...
 
this sucks for att user's, i was going to get U-Verse when it hit, where i live but now, i dont see that happending,

I will just stay with my Cap Free Local Cable Company and be happy
 
Gulkor said:
this sucks for att user's, i was going to get U-Verse when it hit, where i live but now, i dont see that happending,

I will just stay with my Cap Free Local Cable Company and be happy
Click to expand...
Well, you're lucky, because you were probably never going to get U-Verse service anyways, since At&t thinks that 50 - 65% U-Verse rollout is a good enough point to stop.
 
I just want to add a minor update, my billing cycle end on 9/20/2011 and on that day I receive my 90% usage warning. I was like ok, I should be safe. and boom.. today i got hit with a email say that I ma overusage and say I am over by 70 gig. I find that very hard to believe...
 
canna said:
Yeah, you used 800 GB this month. Pay up. What's that, you want proof? No need for that, just trust us.

good luck with that one bro.
Click to expand...

Speaking of. I'm TIRED of not being able to see my total data usage. If I can be charged for going over my limit, I for damn sure better be able to see how close I am. I talked to a representative and they said that they can't tell me how much I've used, but if I go over the cap they'll let me know. It's so fucking backwards it's mindboggling. I'm thinking there has to be a custom firmware or something out there for home routers that track such things, but the statistics should still be easily viewable from your account with your ISP.
 
i pay $160NZD a month for 60gb @5.4mbps (i rarely if ever manage to hit that sort of speed though. typical download speed for a torrent with 3000+ seeds and under 200 leeches is about 200-300k/s)

and you think you guys have it hard.
fortunately i am moving to aus in a month. 1.1tb for $150 @24mbps :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top