@e-ripley : IF it were a matter of the increased bandwidth requirements then explain why those that subscribe to the TV content (Also sent over that same bandwidth) causing more overhead already are given 100GB, more usage per month than the strictly internet accounts (Uverse subscribers get 250GB while Broadband users get 100GB) before being charged extra -- this is really just a move to keep people from simply subscribing for the internet and then streaming HULU and Netflix instead of paying the high fees they want for the TV and on demand movie service -- and by making people pay additional fees for streaming the netflix movies making their on demand fees seem more resonable at $4 -$ per movie instead of the Flat $8 per month Net Flix subscription that now also costs you $10 per 50 GB (And believe that once these fees are accepted they'll lower that amount or raise the cost !) paid to ATT so they make money whether you subscribe to their service or stream from NetFLix etc. ! It's about the $$ not the lack of bandwidth or the cost of providing it.
- Status
Ragnar-Kon
Distinguished
- Apr 13, 2010
- 517
- 0
- 18,990
Wow... sucks to be AT&T users. I'd hit that 150gb cap easily in 2-5 days time.
Honestly though I think this might of been needed thanks to the increase in Netflix/Hulu/whatever streaming in the past few years. AT&T just can't grow their network backbone fast enough.
Sounds to me some AT&T executive decided that spending more money on the network was a bad idea. Funny thing is, I bet you those who were designing AT&T's network were saying to the execs that they needed to expand faster. Listen to your peons executives, 90% of the time they know what is better for your company than you.
Honestly though I think this might of been needed thanks to the increase in Netflix/Hulu/whatever streaming in the past few years. AT&T just can't grow their network backbone fast enough.
Sounds to me some AT&T executive decided that spending more money on the network was a bad idea. Funny thing is, I bet you those who were designing AT&T's network were saying to the execs that they needed to expand faster. Listen to your peons executives, 90% of the time they know what is better for your company than you.
Niva
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2006
- 383
- 1
- 18,785
[citation][nom]jimsocks[/nom]Big issue I have with these bandwidth monitors is accuracy. Once with on one week vacation with computer turned off. Came back and it said I used 5gb. BS.[/citation]
You should check your security settings, someone's leeching off your interwebs dude. Probably unprotected wireless router or someone actually hacked you/broke your password.
You should check your security settings, someone's leeching off your interwebs dude. Probably unprotected wireless router or someone actually hacked you/broke your password.
[citation][nom]JDFan[/nom]@e-ripley : IF it were a matter of the increased bandwidth requirements then explain why those that subscribe to the TV content (Also sent over that same bandwidth) causing more overhead already are given 100GB, more usage per month than the strictly internet accounts (Uverse subscribers get 250GB while Broadband users get 100GB) before being charged extra -- this is really just a move to keep people from simply subscribing for the internet and then streaming HULU and Netflix instead of paying the high fees they want for the TV and on demand movie service -- and by making people pay additional fees for streaming the netflix movies making their on demand fees seem more resonable at $4 -$ per movie instead of the Flat $8 per month Net Flix subscription that now also costs you $10 per 50 GB (And believe that once these fees are accepted they'll lower that amount or raise the cost !) paid to ATT so they make money whether you subscribe to their service or stream from NetFLix etc. ! It's about the $$ not the lack of bandwidth or the cost of providing it.[/citation]
agreed. it's a shame that american consumers can't pay for only what they want. i want high speed internet, netflix, and sports broadcasts... i don't care about "tv shows". oh well, i guess i'll just have to go back to cox cable...
agreed. it's a shame that american consumers can't pay for only what they want. i want high speed internet, netflix, and sports broadcasts... i don't care about "tv shows". oh well, i guess i'll just have to go back to cox cable...
[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]Lots and lots of negative comments. Definitely not a popular move by AT&T. Is there something inherently wrong with a pay for what you use plan?[/citation]
As it stands I know exactly how much my monthly charge is. There implementation could cost me quite a bit more than what I have budgetted for internet service. This is enough to make it wrong.
As it stands I know exactly how much my monthly charge is. There implementation could cost me quite a bit more than what I have budgetted for internet service. This is enough to make it wrong.
[citation][nom]fyasko[/nom]agreed. it's a shame that american consumers can't pay for only what they want. i want high speed internet, netflix, and sports broadcasts... i don't care about "tv shows". oh well, i guess i'll just have to go back to cox cable...[/citation]
Netflix gives movies via the mail along with via instant streaming. If anything it'll increase my plan to get more movies mailed and stream less.
That said I'm also taking a wait and see approach. If my streaming usage causes me to be over the limit even once, I'll be switching services. If there are no other options that are better, I'll just go to the slowest and cheapest plan instead of my $55 a month internet plan.
Netflix gives movies via the mail along with via instant streaming. If anything it'll increase my plan to get more movies mailed and stream less.
That said I'm also taking a wait and see approach. If my streaming usage causes me to be over the limit even once, I'll be switching services. If there are no other options that are better, I'll just go to the slowest and cheapest plan instead of my $55 a month internet plan.
amk-aka-Phantom
Distinguished
- Mar 10, 2011
- 3,004
- 0
- 20,860
How about VPN combo tariff internet: 100 Mbps w/ download cap 20GB, then unlimited for the rest of the month @ 10 Mbps. 18 euros/month. Speeds are indeed as claimed and there're no lags. That's the kind of Internet they get in Russia. USA internet is really starting to suck... lol. I guess, that's another reason to forget about cloud computing 
[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]Lots and lots of negative comments. Definitely not a popular move by AT&T. Is there something inherently wrong with a pay for what you use plan?[/citation]
Considering you pay plenty already with your monthly fees and cover way more than you will ever use in a month with that payment then yes, there is something wrong in the part where you pay exorbitant amounts for what you use.
But you guys have it pretty damn good if that is your worst case scenario. Us Canadians have to put up with a 60gb limit and a fee for every extra gb since forever in most rural areas. And that's using a 7mbps DSL with traffic shaping and packet sniffing etc. Bell is a crooked company.
They have the infrastructure to handle much better speeds and higher throughput, they're just holding it all back to prevent over-usage and adding caps is one way of preventing abuse. They just don't realize it but they're probably losing away more customers this way then by having peak hour slowdowns...
Considering you pay plenty already with your monthly fees and cover way more than you will ever use in a month with that payment then yes, there is something wrong in the part where you pay exorbitant amounts for what you use.
But you guys have it pretty damn good if that is your worst case scenario. Us Canadians have to put up with a 60gb limit and a fee for every extra gb since forever in most rural areas. And that's using a 7mbps DSL with traffic shaping and packet sniffing etc. Bell is a crooked company.
They have the infrastructure to handle much better speeds and higher throughput, they're just holding it all back to prevent over-usage and adding caps is one way of preventing abuse. They just don't realize it but they're probably losing away more customers this way then by having peak hour slowdowns...
johnny_2bags
Distinguished
- Jan 31, 2010
- 19
- 0
- 18,510
AT&T just keeps kicking itself, I like it a lot! My wife worked for a DSL reseller here in town, and she said their box was overloaded...... in 2007! They can keep their cap and their $hitty service (cell service included, where they also admitted their network wasn't able to handle the traffic generated by their users).
razor512
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2007
- 2,134
- 71
- 19,890
If there is another broadband providor in your area, then make sure you switch, if you do not then it is your fault that that ISP's are adding bandwidth caps.
It doesn't matter if you use all of the bandwidth or not. Because just like other resources (bandwidth is a unlimited resource, speed is limited and is why you pay more for faster speeds)
Even if you don't use all 150GB, now, will you be able to say the same a few months from now, will you still say the same a year from now?
In the words of Bill Gates a while back, No one will ever need more than 640K of RAM (Imagine if a 640K RAM cap was set)
While many users will use around 100GB, not as many are using 150GB today, but as the internet changes, so will bandwidth usage, and bandwidth caps are an attempt to make sure that you wont use those new technologies because current ISP's oversell ther service (selling more speed than is actually available)
The reason why their current method of overselling works is because services that do not benefit or need the all of the speed you are paying for are widely usedd (so the average user who uses very little will also use very little speed (they may have a 20mbit connection but may only use a average of much less than 1mbit/s). And if users wanted to use services that will actually benefit from the full speed of their connection, they would quickly go over their bandwidth cap. (PS most sites will not allow you to load a page at your full speed, (if you have a router firmware like tomato, view your real time monitor and try loading a ton of pages from tomsharsware.com, you will be lucky to even use 10% of your connection speed)
PS low bandwidth caps also open the door to denial of service attacks (a few people in a gaming clan that I joined have had it happen to them) Since the cap is based on traffic going to or from your IP addesss, a packet flood will eat away at your cap, even if your modem is off (as long as the DHCP lease on the ISP end is still going)
One member in another country had a 15GB cap, and as part of a disbute with another gamer, the user was packet flooded and not only was his cap eaten overnight, he also got overages which his ISP emailed him about (though it was too late to do anything about it)
Bandwidth caps are overall bad and are not needed or justified. Data is not a limited resource as a unlimited amount can be created from essentially nothing
Speed is a limited resources and is why you pay for what ever connection speed you get.
What ISP's want to do is charge you more for faster speeds but use caps as indirect censorship in order to prevent you from using services that will make use of the speed you are buying. Think of it as being wowed into buying a car because it is the fastest on the market but the speed limit on the road only allows you to go 30MPH (you bought it for it's speed but you cant use it without being punished)
It doesn't matter if you use all of the bandwidth or not. Because just like other resources (bandwidth is a unlimited resource, speed is limited and is why you pay more for faster speeds)
Even if you don't use all 150GB, now, will you be able to say the same a few months from now, will you still say the same a year from now?
In the words of Bill Gates a while back, No one will ever need more than 640K of RAM (Imagine if a 640K RAM cap was set)
While many users will use around 100GB, not as many are using 150GB today, but as the internet changes, so will bandwidth usage, and bandwidth caps are an attempt to make sure that you wont use those new technologies because current ISP's oversell ther service (selling more speed than is actually available)
The reason why their current method of overselling works is because services that do not benefit or need the all of the speed you are paying for are widely usedd (so the average user who uses very little will also use very little speed (they may have a 20mbit connection but may only use a average of much less than 1mbit/s). And if users wanted to use services that will actually benefit from the full speed of their connection, they would quickly go over their bandwidth cap. (PS most sites will not allow you to load a page at your full speed, (if you have a router firmware like tomato, view your real time monitor and try loading a ton of pages from tomsharsware.com, you will be lucky to even use 10% of your connection speed)
PS low bandwidth caps also open the door to denial of service attacks (a few people in a gaming clan that I joined have had it happen to them) Since the cap is based on traffic going to or from your IP addesss, a packet flood will eat away at your cap, even if your modem is off (as long as the DHCP lease on the ISP end is still going)
One member in another country had a 15GB cap, and as part of a disbute with another gamer, the user was packet flooded and not only was his cap eaten overnight, he also got overages which his ISP emailed him about (though it was too late to do anything about it)
Bandwidth caps are overall bad and are not needed or justified. Data is not a limited resource as a unlimited amount can be created from essentially nothing
Speed is a limited resources and is why you pay for what ever connection speed you get.
What ISP's want to do is charge you more for faster speeds but use caps as indirect censorship in order to prevent you from using services that will make use of the speed you are buying. Think of it as being wowed into buying a car because it is the fastest on the market but the speed limit on the road only allows you to go 30MPH (you bought it for it's speed but you cant use it without being punished)
DSL speeds are really low in U.S. Here in most European countries, VDSL2 and FTTH is deploying with speeds that goes to 100 Mbps, for price that is 2-3 times lower in comparision to the U.S.
shiroikaze
Distinguished
- Oct 1, 2009
- 20
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]Niva[/nom]You should check your security settings, someone's leeching off your interwebs dude. Probably unprotected wireless router or someone actually hacked you/broke your password.[/citation]
Actually, AT&T's usage meter really is inaccurate.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/113314
I even checked their meter against my router's meter and AT&T's meter was off by GBs.
Actually, AT&T's usage meter really is inaccurate.
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/113314
I even checked their meter against my router's meter and AT&T's meter was off by GBs.
Does anyone know if the 250 Gig limit is only calculated against raw DSL internet traffic? Basically where everything done through their Uverse service is not subject to their cap like pay per view, games, music and such? If so, maybe rather than really protecting their networks, it is more of a sly way to make a future play for forcing people to use their video on demand services and not Hulu, Vudu or Netflix as HD streaming will start eating up tons of bandwith over the coming years.
razor512
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2007
- 2,134
- 71
- 19,890
[citation][nom]shiroikaze[/nom]Actually, AT&T's usage meter really is inaccurate. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/113314I even checked their meter against my router's meter and AT&T's meter was off by GBs.[/citation]
They also count data directed to your IP but never received, random noise on the internet will count towards your cap. if someone were to packet flood you, it would count towards your cap. If you turned off your modem and someone packet flooded you, it would count towards your cap because your DHCP has not expired on the ISP's end.
They also count data directed to your IP but never received, random noise on the internet will count towards your cap. if someone were to packet flood you, it would count towards your cap. If you turned off your modem and someone packet flooded you, it would count towards your cap because your DHCP has not expired on the ISP's end.
http://i.imgur.com/O1hKD.png
I would just like to point out that I don't consider myself a heavy internet user. And most months I can stay under cap. Having said that I don't torrent much and there are just two of us that use this internet. Anyone that is NOT concerned about these caps should be. They are unrealistically low in today's modern internet society.
ok so i have a couple questions about this. i understand what the bandwidth cap is and all so no issues there. but what i have concerns about are websites like youtube and grooveshark (music streaming sites). if i am watching videos on youtube or listening to music on grooveshark, is this going towards my bandwidth cap? really this is my main concern, because we have 5 desktops, 1 laptop, 1 iPhone, and 1 Android that all use these services on a regular basis.
razor512
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2007
- 2,134
- 71
- 19,890
[citation][nom]cardsfan030[/nom]ok so i have a couple questions about this. i understand what the bandwidth cap is and all so no issues there. but what i have concerns about are websites like youtube and grooveshark (music streaming sites). if i am watching videos on youtube or listening to music on grooveshark, is this going towards my bandwidth cap? really this is my main concern, because we have 5 desktops, 1 laptop, 1 iPhone, and 1 Android that all use these services on a regular basis.[/citation]
All data goes towards your cap, including anything AT&T offers online, the only thing that wont go towards your cap is if they offered cable TV and you viewed on demand content.
I hope that you will do the right thing and switch to a different ISP.
All data goes towards your cap, including anything AT&T offers online, the only thing that wont go towards your cap is if they offered cable TV and you viewed on demand content.
I hope that you will do the right thing and switch to a different ISP.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
Hey guys, welcome to Canada. Except you guys still get 150GB for the lowest DSL plans...we get 15GB cap.
Well big business always do whatever they want with the consumers. However, wait till other BIG BUSINESSES also wake up and start complaining about this. What do you think a max cap is going to do to companies like Netflix? Hulu? Steam? Direct2Drive? Online advertising? YouTube?
Wait till people start saying they do not want to use online service in any form because it costs them? Then let's see what is going to happen with online banking, Apple Appstore and iTunes, any form of website which push video advertising to you etc etc. Wait till they all make noises and let's see how government is going to choose between the telecommunication companies or "the rest".
Wait till people start saying they do not want to use online service in any form because it costs them? Then let's see what is going to happen with online banking, Apple Appstore and iTunes, any form of website which push video advertising to you etc etc. Wait till they all make noises and let's see how government is going to choose between the telecommunication companies or "the rest".
TheKurrgan
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2008
- 220
- 0
- 18,690
5GB per day for DSL customers and 8.3 for uverse...
that comes to 60.8 K/sec continuous usage for dsl, and 101.1K/sec continuous usage for u-verse.
Realistically, this screws only the torrent seeders / 0 day dump sites, which I am sure is what the REAL AIM is.
However, for most people this cap is not an issue. However, this does mean that you can only watch 4hours of HD streaming video a day (@ netflix data rates) and not hit the cap for DSL and 7 without hitting U-Verse.
I dont find this particularly problematic, but I do agree with the fact that it is B&LLSH&T! I was already getting accustomed to the idea however, since I for one despise AT&T and all they represent, both on the wireline side of things and wireless.. I find the company to be a profane example of what unchecked monopolies do, and a complete example of a company not caring because they dont have too.
I use AT&T only when absolutely required..It is for that reason that when comcast finally upgrades my area and starts selling their stuff here at the end of the year, what little I have of AT&T will be history.
that comes to 60.8 K/sec continuous usage for dsl, and 101.1K/sec continuous usage for u-verse.
Realistically, this screws only the torrent seeders / 0 day dump sites, which I am sure is what the REAL AIM is.
However, for most people this cap is not an issue. However, this does mean that you can only watch 4hours of HD streaming video a day (@ netflix data rates) and not hit the cap for DSL and 7 without hitting U-Verse.
I dont find this particularly problematic, but I do agree with the fact that it is B&LLSH&T! I was already getting accustomed to the idea however, since I for one despise AT&T and all they represent, both on the wireline side of things and wireless.. I find the company to be a profane example of what unchecked monopolies do, and a complete example of a company not caring because they dont have too.
I use AT&T only when absolutely required..It is for that reason that when comcast finally upgrades my area and starts selling their stuff here at the end of the year, what little I have of AT&T will be history.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
Question New Build GPU help- ASRock Steel Legend OC Radeon RX 7900 GRE - Keeps turning off
- Started by bp240
- Replies: 5
-
Question How can I make my AMD GPU scale *all* resolutions to 1080p, even resolutions that are "supported" by my TV?
- Started by Sol33t303
- Replies: 7
-
News Windows 11 update brings advertisements to the start menu
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 16
-
Question PC randomly not recognizing USB devices after reboot
- Started by crasherT
- Replies: 8
-
Question Is this custom game spyware or malware?- Started by preguntonontrack
- Replies: 3
-
News Former EKWB Employees say company has racist, hostile work environment, withholds overtime pay
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 5
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram