AT&T Ditches Metered Billing Trials Without Telling

[jAckyra]

[citation][nom]JasonAkkerman[/nom]I have AT&T Uverse at home with an 18Mbps connection and it has gone down on me maybe twice in the four years I have had it. I recommend it to my friends, the service is great. I also have AT&T wireless. The only reason I have it is because the rest of my wife's family is also on it so the calls are free. Their 3G coverage is spotty at best, and when you do get it it's painfully slow . The things they do to WinMo loaded on their phones borders on sadistic(added software and configuration). I cry a little every night.[/citation]

I've been checking around for a carrier to go to from ATT for obvious reasons.
If you wife's family is mostly cellphoners then Sprint has a great unlimited mobile-mobile plan to and from ANY carrier.
Then there's Verizon where you can pick 5 or 10 pple to have unlimited calling to and from, even if they're landlines.

Just food for thought...

 

[maxh2]

Wow, I can't believe all of the people ripping into jtt283. There's nothing wrong with his viewpoint; I'm surprised at the emotional outbursts it generated.

There is NOT an unlimited supply of data! For instance, let's look at your wireless router as a simplified example. Lets say it's a wireless-G because you haven't upgraded in awhile. It's maximum bandwidth is 54 Mbps. That's 54 megabits per second. There are 2,592,000 seconds in a month, so that's 139,968,000 megabits = approximately 17 terabytes of data transfer per month possible. So no, there is not an unlimited supply of data. If you have an 18 terabyte file to transfer across your wireless network and you have less than 1 month to do it, you're going to have to buy another router.

Of course ISPs have a lot more than a linksys router or two, and bandwidth is a more useful aspect of networks to consider, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no "unlimited supply of data." As usage increases, providers must pay for more infrastructure to deliver the bandwidth the customers desire.

I still don't see why it should be OK for 2 people, one a heavy internet user and one a light internet user, to be required to pay the same amount for their usage. I'll admit that an important benefit to the one price for unlimited is that it has helped ensure that the growth of the internet isn't stifled.

 

[mr_tuel]

[citation][nom]maxh2[/nom]There is NOT an unlimited supply of data! For instance, let's look at your wireless router as a simplified example. Lets say it's a wireless-G because you haven't upgraded in awhile. It's maximum bandwidth is 54 Mbps. That's 54 megabits per second. There are 2,592,000 seconds in a month, so that's 139,968,000 megabits = approximately 17 terabytes of data transfer per month possible. So no, there is not an unlimited supply of data. If you have an 18 terabyte file to transfer across your wireless network and you have less than 1 month to do it, you're going to have to buy another router....I still don't see why it should be OK for 2 people, one a heavy internet user and one a light internet user, to be required to pay the same amount for their usage.[/citation]

I don't have a problem with tiered plans so light users get can better rates. But capping the amount of data I can can consume, especially if on a faster connection is just greedy.

In your router analogy, you just say that with the given equipment, I have a limitation as to how much I can consume within one month. Correct me if I'm wrong: but if you ignore time, the only limitation is my ability to store that data.

Maybe "unlimited" was a bad choice of words then. Either way, I don't see how capping the volume of data consumed builds better infrastructure. That would be like if the water company realized that their pipes can't supply everyone's morning shower they then limit how long your shower can be (limitation on amount of water consumed). You'd still have issues supplying water to the showers. The correct solution would be either A)to reduce to flow rate of water to peoples homes or B)to install better infrastructure. I could live with A, but I like B better. It costs money to build better pipes, but as long as any increase in rates is fair, then fine.

I don't see any reason to place limits on consumption unless there is a problem delivering the data. And there isn't unless you are on AT&T's 3G network.

 

[kal326]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]So, those of you moaning about metered billing think you should pay the same for a 64 oz. drink as someone else pays for 12 oz., or the same to fill up a 25 gallon gas tank as someone else pays to fill up a 10 gallon tank?That's absurd on its face. If the rates are too high, that's another matter; switch ISPs (if you can; but that's a separate problem), but don't complain if you pay more to use more.[/citation]

Your analogy has one huge flaw. Your comparing a sold by size item item to an unlimited provided service. Your example would like buying a fountain drink at a gas station, you pay for what ever size you fill up. Definitive size and price per size.

Internet is a service like a beverage at a restaurant. You pay one price for most fountain beverages, generally much more than a single glass could possibly cost. The catch is you get free refills, aka unlimited usage. The reason being that its more costly to keep track of the number of glass refilled and most people will pay $2+ for a drink with free refills at a restaurant. So even if they get 2 or 3 refills you are still way ahead in terms of cost versus billing per glass.

 

[JasonAkkerman]

Today I think the trolls have won.

 

[Guest]

I've never had a problem with ATT's internet and I'm very glad this program of theirs didn't go over well. With everything going digital having metered internet is stupid. However their wireless remains iffy at best.

 

[mouettus]

cool. now I'll find less and less ppl to whine with about my 30gb/month @ 60$ limit!

 

[SAL-e]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]So, those of you moaning about metered billing think you should pay the same for a 64 oz. drink as someone else pays for 12 oz., or the same to fill up a 25 gallon gas tank as someone else pays to fill up a 10 gallon tank?That's absurd on its face. If the rates are too high, that's another matter; switch ISPs (if you can; but that's a separate problem), but don't complain if you pay more to use more.[/citation]
Only problem is that AT&T and other ISP are not offering real metering plans. Their offer is you pay for 64 oz drink, but after you drink 12 oz you need to pay more for the rest of your drink. Real metering plan would be to pay $1 per 1GB for example. Then If I use 250GB this month I would pay $250, but next month if I use 10GB I should pay only $10. That is how you pay at you gas pump! So AT&T wants metering plan. Ok They should provide a real metering plan as option and most users will start using it. Then they will be back to me (the heavy user) to beg me to stay with them. Remember how did you pay for phone calls. it was per minute. Why AT&T now offers unlimited plan there?!

 

[eddieroolz]

It's too bad that ISPs in Canada won't be ditching meters soon.

 

[dEAne]

They learned that it is a mistake.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]JasonAkkerman[/nom]The things they do to WinMo loaded on their phones borders on sadistic(added software and configuration). I cry a little every night.[/citation]That's probably why MS is limiting what carriers can install on Phone 7. All that junk they throw on there is even worse than the preinstalled crap the big PC manufacturers throw on their machines.

 

[otakuwind]

I have two big complaints with the whole situation. The first off is that limiting bandwidth via pricing mechanisms can stifle the growth and development of the internet. It could definitely change the face of streaming media for years to come. significant amounts of 1080p video streamed or perhaps completely online TV (hulu on crack)?

The second is that the tiring prices don't seem fair, from what I have seen. So I'm a light user and my old plan used to be 49.99 for high speed internet access at say 10mb/s. Then on the new plan if i want I can go to a 3mb/s connection with a 20gb limit for 34.99 or a 10mb/s plan with a 60gb limit 44.99. But if I am a heavy user I go for the highest plan and get my fast speed 15mb/s or whatever. now it's 59.99 /mo with an 80gb limit and if I go over it's $1.00/GB

It seems to me what they are hoping for is for internet bandwidth to be price inelastic, so that people are just willing to pay $1.00/GB

This is punishment pricing, like getting charged for not filling the gas in a rental car.

Why should the last service cost more than the first when it's the cheapest to produce?

If I buy a can of soda it's $.99, I buy a 2-liter it's $1.69 if I go buy a box of syrup I pay $41.00 for a 5 gallon box of the syrup. that turns into 30 gallons of soda for 41 dollars plus the co2 which is nearly free.

so you are paying for the infrastructure, the fixed costs. Do you think that fast food restaurants would put up with paying $4,100 for a box of soda? No they absolutely would not.