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

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
In an effort to win over more customers, AT&T will cap DSL data usage at 150GB. Did I say "win?" I meant "piss off."

AT&T said Sunday that it would begin to cap DSL data usage for its customers and begin to implement charges for anyone who goes over the limit. The Dallas telecommunications giant said that customers who went over a limit of 150 gigabytes of data a month three times.
 
DSL sucks nuff said. I have fiber optic dsl at business due to consistant connection blah blah blah requirements and it is no more than 6mbs come freaking on..my midgrade server of charter is already 16mbs.
 
DSL sucks nuff said. I have fiber optic dsl service at my dad's accounting firm due to corporate wanting to "great quality" connection and it is no more than 6mbs at the fastest service come freaking on..my midgrade service at charter is already 16mbs for home use.

DSL is a joke now, i really hate dsl and how its associated with. DSL feels like the 56k days and it still uses a phone line so it can be considered in the same breath.

ATT is putting a cap on everything, at least my "unlimited" service on my iphone is pretty much unlimited i go over 5-9 gbs a month with no charge as of yet.
 
My choices are AT&T DSL, Charter or UVerse. I hate Charter and they will never see another penny from me. I do not need TV and with the Uverse it requires a TV package.. so I am left with 6mb DSL. I only pay 19.99 a month for it though, so not that bad. I wonder how much heavy Netflix usage amounts to a month..
 
There are places (like where I live) where DSL is our ONLY option (I don't even consider Dialup)

At least my ISP has no caps/restrictions (yet, *knock on wood*) but they do spend most of their time not working properly, giving me .69 Mb instead of the 6.0 Mb I pay for.
 
DSL is a joke now, i really hate dsl and how its associated with. DSL feels like the 56k days and it still uses a phone line so it can be considered in the same breath.

ATT is putting a cap on everything, at least my "unlimited" service on my iphone is pretty much unlimited i go over 5-9 gbs a month with no charge as of yet.

While overall bandwidth of cable is higher, DSL won't spike in latency and bandwidth as much which provides a more consistent and latency-free connection.

I was going to get AT&T in a month when I move, but this 150GB cap is even lower than my other option (comcrap), so I'm swinging back to cable, although I despise cable internet.
 
You remember when Time Warner tried to pull this crap in Austin and it back fired on them? I switched to U-Verse because they were considering doing this. It never happened (to the best of my knowledge). I also heard they lost a huge chunk of customers. Looks like they might be getting them back now.

With Steam, streaming movies, and a plethora of other things using more and more bandwidth, now is not the time to start imposing data caps. They'll be hearing from me... and I hope you too!
 
So really, what happens when people use Netflix and similar services to stream HD content regularly?

What worries me most is this opens the gates for the other ISP's to follow suit.
 
While overall bandwidth of cable is higher, DSL won't spike in latency and bandwidth as much which provides a more consistent and latency-free connection.

I was going to get AT&T in a month when I move, but this 150GB cap is even lower than my other option (comcrap), so I'm swinging back to cable, although I despise cable internet.

while that may be true on paper, i've been using cable from different ISP's in two different states at three different address in the last 10 years and i have never had a problem caused by any spiking ......DSL on the other hand, when i used it at my parents house acted exactly as you describe, it was slow, fast, slow.........never consistent, but on it's fastest day it was dog slow compared to my always fast cable connections
 
My choices are AT&T DSL, Charter or UVerse. I hate Charter and they will never see another penny from me. I do not need TV and with the Uverse it requires a TV package.. so I am left with 6mb DSL. I only pay 19.99 a month for it though, so not that bad. I wonder how much heavy Netflix usage amounts to a month..

Depends upon if your shows are in HD or not. If they are, and you watch more than one movie a day, or if you watch a movie and do any other downloading (like nerd downloading, not joe shmoe downloading) then you will EASILY go past this limit.

Like if you watch 2 HD movies from netflix a day, for a 30 day month, you are already looking at about 180GB in download......and that is if you do not have ANY other internet traffic....
 
I have AT&T Dsl, looks like I might have to switch to errr...

The only wired broadband companies in my area are Comcast and AT&T.
 
So really, what happens when people use Netflix and similar services to stream HD content regularly?

What worries me most is this opens the gates for the other ISP's to follow suit.

AT&T and Comcast have a vested interest in limiting people from watching HD content from Netflix and other similar services. Both AT&T and Comcast are in the internet and cable/dish TV business. If they allowed unlimited caps on internet, who would need Dish/cable tv?
 
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?
 
@nobody_here

Good point / question. Some guy on engadget did the numbers for 720hd content for a family of four using the national average usage and came up with 400gb monthly. I think. I might have those numbers wrong, I just woke up, but yeah. Not enough. The point being, the 250gig cap is too small.

Also, as several people have already pointed out, it does not cost ATT any more money if they gave people 250gig or 500gig. They are simply raping people for more money.

My friend in Topeka is on the phone now canceling his ATT account and moving to Cox
 
AT&T and Comcast have a vested interest in limiting people from watching HD content from Netflix and other similar services. Both AT&T and Comcast are in the internet and cable/dish TV business. If they allowed unlimited caps on internet, who would need Dish/cable tv?

the question was more rhetorical, i know their business

they better watch out though, all it would take is for one large ISP to come to the front with unlimited service, a company not tied to traditional broadcast TV, and it would be the death of all those "have-beens'" like ATT and Comcast

So what happens now, Netflix has to cut a deal with the carriers to allow Netflix traffic above the cap but in return will get raped in fees which they will pass along to us
 
I switched to a charter 25 meg connection after getting tired of att's crap speeds, high price, bandwidth caps (which has been around 150 meg for a long time, they're just making it official now), and constant connection issues. I couldn't be happier. I've still got a cap, but it's 500 gig; which isn't too difficult to stay under even under pretty heavy bandwidth usage.

The only problem I've had with charter internet is the bi monthly call trying to offer me other cable services; which I don't want.
 
I have the 6 meg dsl with ATT and if I had any other decent options I would have left months ago. The only other provider is Mediacom cable where I live and my buddy that has it had 2 full days of 75k service. I've had three tickets opened with ATT in the last six months because they've oversubscribed in my area and I get about 1 meg during peak hours because their gear can't handle the usage. So, this doesn't surprise me at all because ATT is the worst company I have ever dealt with, but without any real competition in this country for service providers what choice do we have?
 
are there going to be any caps on uverse?
If not they are trying to get everyone to update.
of course knowing this pos company as soon as they get you to change over they will cap that as well.
You don't need streaming movies when you can pay a ton for uverse and not get them.
That will probably be their next ad
 
they better watch out though, all it would take is for one large ISP to come to the front with unlimited service, a company not tied to traditional broadcast TV, and it would be the death of all those "have-beens'" like ATT and Comcast

QFT. This is the trending issue I see here. The telecom and cable companies are losing money because their traditional business model has been replaced by the internet, so now they are going to charge us for bandwidth usage to keep themselves afloat. I understand it really, just don't like it.
 
honestly, if someone is going over 150GB per month, they're 'hogging the road' just like someone driving a 4 lane wide supertruck down an interstate. they should be removed for the sake of all other customers.

If ISPs were to build their infrastructure to give every customer full speed and fully unlimited connections, they'd have to charge about $2000 per month for the connection. If you want to download 150GB of data per month, get a business connection with that capacity. (On a side note, I have a Hulu account, a Netflix account, download Linux ISOs for work, and play WoW on a regular basis, and I barely use 12GB per month, on rare occasions, I get up to 15GB. going over 150GB per month is just totally ridiculous.)
 
I don't even use anywhere near that much. I have an 18mbit down/1.5mbit up connection with Suddenlink, the highest residential plan I could get, and their statistics page for customers on the same plan says that most of their customers having this plan use around 66GB/mo. I was only using 15GB/mo. : o
 
Why the cap? Yeah, looks like they gonna win
wink.gif
 
The only way this 250GB cap could be fair is if they raise it a certain amount each year. I mean in 5 10 20 years we will be using more bandwidth than today. They will keep the cap at 250GB even though network technology and basic usage levels will change drastically. It's bullshit cell phone plans all over again.
 
honestly, if someone is going over 150GB per month, they're 'hogging the road' just like someone driving a 4 lane wide supertruck down an interstate. they should be removed for the sake of all other customers.

If ISPs were to build their infrastructure to give every customer full speed and fully unlimited connections, they'd have to charge about $2000 per month for the connection. If you want to download 150GB of data per month, get a business connection with that capacity. (On a side note, I have a Hulu account, a Netflix account, download Linux ISOs for work, and play WoW on a regular basis, and I barely use 12GB per month, on rare occasions, I get up to 15GB. going over 150GB per month is just totally ridiculous.)

Just because you don't use your internet much doesn't mean it's alright to cap it for everyone. Especially if we signed up when they advertised unlimited data and there aren't any other options.

I'm still on time warner cable (which has been excellent) and I used over a terabyte of bandwidth last month. They advertise unlimited still and i'm getting my moneys worth.

Using 12-15GB is extremely low... I used over 10GB on my iPhone via 3G last month even... I'm glad I still have the unlimited package from ATT and that they haven't capped me.

Remember what forum you are on after all. People here are [H]ard when it comes to almost anything.
 
QFT. This is the trending issue I see here. The telecom and cable companies are losing money because their traditional business model has been replaced by the internet, so now they are going to charge us for bandwidth usage to keep themselves afloat. I understand it really, just don't like it.

You don't even realize how wrong you are.

1. They have 150-200 customers serviced through each node at connection speeds of 7-20Mb/s
2. Typically, DSL providers have one 150MB connection per node, costing them about $3000 per month per node
3. They count on customers to fill in each others' gaps to make traffic more even. sometimes there are high traffic times, which slow down service somewhat under the customers' high speeds. This is normal.
4. it just takes 7 customers abusing their connections at constant full speed to cripple the speeds of the other 143-193 other customers
5. they also have to pay people to maintain their infrastructure, which costs them about $2000 per month per node

To provide every customer with 20Mb/s all the time, they would have to connect nodes/segments/central offices with 1500Mb/s to the internet, which would cost about $30,000 per month, plug at least triple the maintenance costs, for a total of about $36,000 per month. divide that among the 150 customers on a node, and you get a break even point of $240 per month. Add customer service costs and advertising costs, and we'd be paying about $300 per month for that level of internet service.

Quite frankly, I'd rather stick with the $60 per month I'm paying now and have other jerks run into data caps.
 
While overall bandwidth of cable is higher, DSL won't spike in latency and bandwidth as much which provides a more consistent and latency-free connection.

Please stop spreading this crap.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24773296-Speed-Problem-AT-T-DSL-speed-drops-every-night

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25418391-DSL-speed-has-dropped-by-half-since-yesterday-1-31-2011-

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r24...ase-post-here-if-your-speed-is-dropping-in-th

DSL is just as shared as any other broadband solution. The difference is ATT has not been doing capacity upgrades on their standard DSL service causing them to be massively oversold in many parts of the country. Comcast on the other hand has been updgrading the hell out of their stuff.
 
I am going to buck the trend here. Let's say the ISP has 100Mbps to divide among 100 customers. Each gets 1 Mbps and is charged $10 a month. You want faster connections? They are giving you better speeds when the bandwidth is available. So, 100 customers, 10 Mbps intermittently, and still $10 a month.

They always oversell, just like airlines, as it is less cost-effective not to. If you want more than 1 Mbps continuous, then you need to pay more than $10 per month. If you are not willing to do that, then what ISP wants you? Why should they care about the 2%?

150/250 GB sounds pretty good to me, at least it isn't 5 GB like the phone plans. At least TRY and see it from the other side every now and then. :rolleyes:

And DSL is a more stable connection usually. Since Cable shares with other customers and TV channels, the network just is not built point-to-point. There are just many more network issues to contend with.
 
My choices are AT&T DSL, Charter or UVerse. I hate Charter and they will never see another penny from me. I do not need TV and with the Uverse it requires a TV package.. so I am left with 6mb DSL. I only pay 19.99 a month for it though, so not that bad. I wonder how much heavy Netflix usage amounts to a month..

I'm in the same boat here. The only OTHER option in my town (with a college of 16,000 students - it's not necessarily a "small" town) is Time freakin' Warner. I had them. They were OK, but over saturated in our area. I'm getting better speeds with AT&T at 6 Mbps (usually, I pulling closer to 6.2 -6.4) than I EVER did with Time Warner. And for $20, it ain't horrible considering the price... yet.

If these new caps go into affect, even downloading a new Linux distro is going to be a .5%+ to .75%+ of the usage (the "+" is the overhead to transmit the actual file) in a single session. At least it's 150 GB and not 150 Gb.

They claim this is to target the top 2% of users who slow everyone else's connection down. I have a hard time believing this will only affect 2%. They'll also notify us when we hit 60%, 90% and 100% of usage. This will help to monitor yourself, but it won't make up for the sucky plans.
 
DSL is a single channel connection to the DSLAM, from there it is combined with some other link, such as a T1, T3, or fiber. It is shared as much as ANYTHING is on the internet, but not like cable. Cable has a loop. Your entire neighborhood can run off of one channel and one subnet, and one idiot can plug his router in backwards and knock everyone on his loop off. And I am not just saying, this actually happens here. Although, they are taking steps to correct the subnet issue.

The DOCSIS 3 upgrade is being rolled out here, but the cable loops are too big. DOCSIS 3 requires no more than 4 nodes, we have 10 currently.
 
U-Verse does not require and internet subscription. I pay $68/month for 25/3 from U-verse with no TV. And my guess is well under 1% of people use more than 150GB a month.
 
Man, I'm glad I have Cox business right about now.

May 2nd - caps for U-Verse and DSL... what a joke. Way to throw the consumer backwards in the scheme of technology. You know it's bad when the choices are: evil company or more evil company (fill in the names as you see fit).
 
Back
Top