AT&T Rolls Out DSL, U-Verse Bandwidth Caps

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
If they advertise a connection speed w/ a monthly charge, they should have already figured out what the optimal speed is for a given area that there are no hogs b/c it just won't go over the cap even if used the entire month. If they are advertising and selling a speed they can't even support, well then that's like a restaurant selling you an "all you can eat" dinner and apologing 2 plates later that they're all out.

You shouldn't advertise and sell something you can't deliver.
 
[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]I still don't understand how a company can sell a product that is based on a per second speed for a month and not guarantee you that you can use that speed for every second of the month without having to pay additional fees.[/citation]

There is fundamental logic to me. And at its core, why we have have government. Our gov't should be the first ones to say to our ISP's that this only hurts everyone in the end game.
 
@JohnnyLucky I would normal say no, for many things, however, internet traffic is not expansive to handle and I don't have problems with companies making a profits, in fact I'm mostly a liberal when it comes to economics, however, these companies continue to make statements about record profits and continue to offer less of a service at a higher price. So, from a personal point, I have major issues with the way the ISP is down here in the United States, which includes payment options.
 
[citation][nom]koga73[/nom]comcast already does this... as do the phone companies... bandwidth isnt free[/citation]
No, but it is getting cheaper every year. And yet isp's keep raising their prices! Hmm, I'm sure this doesn't have anything to do with anti-competitive practices like protecting the tv business from iptv.
 
[citation][nom]edr2[/nom]I just switched back to Charter.[/citation]

Charter has bandwidth caps as well now. But at least they don't charge you for going over. You get 2 warnings and on the 3rd time they terminate your service for I think 6 months.
 
Can someone explain to me if all companies go to caps that cloud computing will take off and work well?

Also what ever happened to actually expanding your network and improving it with your profits?

I am starting to feel like it's 2001 all over again... (so I don't remember the exact date, but I had an internet connection that was metered at a very low cap)
 
I wish that service providers would actually upgrade infrastructure instead pocketing all the profits for them selves. Most in the states barely get but a fraction of the bandwidth vs those in other countries that got more modern telecommunications infrastructure. Got people on another one of my forums with connections that provide over 90mbs. Oh and actual performance is less than what most advertise. Promised 8mbs only to get 1.5 to 2mb tops -_-
 
[citation][nom]jfby[/nom]Can someone explain to me if all companies go to caps that cloud computing will take off and work well?Also what ever happened to actually expanding your network and improving it with your profits?I am starting to feel like it's 2001 all over again... (so I don't remember the exact date, but I had an internet connection that was metered at a very low cap)[/citation]

If they all impose a cap cloud won't take off and could be a death nail for some years. Such services that are bandwidth heavy will become limited to those with higher income.
 
I think it's obvious that this is a reaction to massively increased bandwidth requirements of the individual user. It used to be that the often thrown around term data hog applied to only a specific set of users. That term can now easily be applied to all of us. I constantly stream Pandora, I constantly watch Netflix, I'm constantly downloading garbage from various services, included the now nearly defunct PSN. You can't expect expanding and increasing services, unlimited bandwidth and low cost all at once, not when infrastructure was already struggling to keep up years ago. This is long, but I takes a persuasive person these days to point out the obvious. It's easy to vilify and slam major ISP's, but they are a living organism just like we are [literally if you're the government], and just like our piggish habits, they need to balance their wants with their needs and their responsibilities. They all do that to varying degrees of success. Profit is profit, but not enough is ever said about the relationship of profit, investors and the economy in this nation. Were in it together, and were all pigs.
 
How come nobody's screaming at sat providers to invest in their infrastructure? They have a harsh daily cap which no one can do anything about on a paid service. Why does it not make sense to write an article about that capping as well? Also, in rural areas you can only get sat service. No competition! I think the federal gov should look very closely at sat services to make sure they are not profiteering off of all the users that have no other choice but to enjoy their awesomely expensive network provisions at a fair price.
 
They should include roll over data since they charge for whole 150 or 250gb.
However, who cares about people.
Money hungry rats.
 
Apple gaming is aiming for streaming content exclusively... My first thought on that was there was not enough bandwidth to support that, but with this implemented, the impossible becomes... possible?
 
.For all the people who are complaining about a 250 GB, what would you feel is a reasonable cap / price for internet service? Is $10 / 50GB overage fees really that outrageous? And what is the need for that much content?
If your answer is: gaming and watching movies, then you really are spending a dangerous amount of time in front of the screen. Seek UV radiation and non-digital interaction.
 
A lot of people are confusing speed (bandwidth) with VOLUME. The speed part is what actually costs the companies more to get to your computer.

Once that first MB goes over the line though, the next 1,000,000 GB cost fractions of pennies. That's the volume part.

What they do is allow X amount of speed (bandwidth) from each central box (by subdivision or apt complex) - on the old "assumption" that not everyone connected to that central box will be online at the same time doing stuff. So they can keep "most" of the customers happy most of the time because the bandwidth isn't being maxed out. What has happened is that you get a few hogs, who use the speed to max out and slow down others on that same central box. Since more and more people are streaming, and not just from their computers, but their iFruits and iPods, even the home that uses their computer for just email and web surfing, their two kids are streaming stuff whenever they are home. Once that bandwidth of that nearest central box is maxed, everyone else slows down.

They are using this to try to "force" those few hogs to limit their usage (volume) or pay more, when they won't upgrade those central locations with more bandwidth. But yet they still keep offering more high speed connections which means you will hit your limit faster, and with most people, when you get that higher "speed" plan - you figure that now you can download and stream MORE - which would kinda make sense, and the companies are doing what they can to profit off of it - when they aren't upgrading their infrastructure to handle the additional users that connect up at the speeds they are offering.

The all-you-can-eat is a great example - except that they internet doesn't "run-out". So they want to artificially run out of "food".
 
Comcast may have a cap, but they don't charge you for it (at least for now). They simply cap your service till the next month. This is simply a way for ATT to make more money that otherwise they would do the same as comcast.

 
Checked on the Charter limits, always though there were none because I never got a notice of a change of plans nor have I ever heard from them. I tend to have at least one Netflix movie streaming daily, usually 3-4-5 episodes of a show on one PC, my kids watch Netflix all the time on a second PC or on the Wii, online gaming all the time, I work on computers at home so each one runs MS updates, downloads of anti-virus, YouTube videos and Ustream videos, hour or 2 of that. Never hit my cap aparantly. It seems to hit the cap you'd have to be downloading pirated movies and music almost non-stop.
 
[citation][nom]e-ripley[/nom]How come nobody's screaming at sat providers to invest in their infrastructure? They have a harsh daily cap which no one can do anything about on a paid service. Why does it not make sense to write an article about that capping as well? Also, in rural areas you can only get sat service. No competition! I think the federal gov should look very closely at sat services to make sure they are not profiteering off of all the users that have no other choice but to enjoy their awesomely expensive network provisions at a fair price.[/citation]

Sat providers have special problems. There are only so many satellites around and so their available bandwith is truely limited. Landline services having caps is complete bs. When was the last time anyone here encountered outside congestion while using the internet (i.e. congestion from something other than multiple devices streaming from your connection)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom