AT&T trials bandwidth caps

Robert Hallock 5 Nov, 2008 at 10:39am ET Article published in Tech

AT&T has recently filed a brief (PDF) with the FCC indicating that select users of Reno, Nevada will be subject to bandwidth caps. Customers will be informed that they may be “subject to a certain monthly usage tier for the total amount of data they may send and receive, as well as a per gigabyte charge in the event they exceed the usage tier.”

Following in the footsteps of cable ISP Comcast, AT&T alleges that the move is to combat heavy usage from a small group of customers. “A small minority of our broadband Internet access customers consume a disproportionately large amount of the total bandwidth,” said AT&T representatives in a meeting with the FCC.

While customers would be charged by the gigabyte for exceeding the given limit, the first infraction will not result in penalties. “Only after the second time the customer exceeds the applicable monthly usage tier will the customer be subject to additional per-gigabyte charges,” AT&T told the FCC.

Customers not wishing to participate in the Reno trial are given leave to cancel AT&T service without cancellation fees. While seemingly generous, AT&T has already begun receiving criticism for this license as a majority of its users are on monthly plans not obligated by a contract.

It is expected that the largest bandwidth cap will equal that of Comcast’s largest at 250GB. Comcast’s 250GB caps went into effect nation-wide as of October 1.

Comments

5 Nov 2008 ~ 11:11am _k So where does the protest start?
5 Nov 2008 ~ 11:19am MiracleManS While I understand the argument that the average user will not use 250gb of bandwidth, I still think its a tad strange to even place that cap in the first place. If your service isn't being bogged down, what's the deal?
5 Nov 2008 ~ 2:16pm TiberiusLazarus

MiracleManS wrote:

While I understand the argument that the average user will not use 250gb of bandwidth, I still think its a tad strange to even place that cap in the first place. If your service isn't being bogged down, what's the deal?

And if you're service is being bogged down, try using some of the utter millions you are making to increase throughput.

Personally, I don't like this. Not exactly sure why yet, but it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
5 Nov 2008 ~ 2:24pm Snarkasm Possibly because when you signed your contract, you signed for unlimited download and upload at a specific rate, and now they're changing that on you?

Never mind that they NEVER FVCKING ONCE actually gave you that rate, because that's unimportant. You're now hogging their bandwidth, and they're taking it back.
5 Nov 2008 ~ 2:25pm TiberiusLazarus

Snarkasm wrote:

Possibly because when you signed your contract, you signed for unlimited download and upload at a specific rate, and now they're changing that on you?

Never mind that they NEVER FVCKING ONCE actually gave you that rate, because that's unimportant. You're now hogging their bandwidth, and they're taking it back.

...snark|rage?...

But in all seriousness, QFT.
5 Nov 2008 ~ 9:20pm NiGHTS This is a serious question: Are there any legitimate (read: legal) uses of the internet that would require anywhere near 250GB of bandwith, let alone 100GB?

...I mean if people are pissed they suddenly can't pirate more than 250GB/mo (go outside) then they really have no legs to stand on. I, too, was a bit irked when COX/Comcast originally did this, but after further thought (and monitoring a "heavy" torrent month) I'm really somewhat indifferent to it, now.
5 Nov 2008 ~ 9:36pm Snarkasm Webserving from your home? Streaming? Lots and lots of Linux ISOs?
5 Nov 2008 ~ 9:48pm TiberiusLazarus Seems it might not be that its a 250 gb cap. That's hard to reach legally as you've said. But if this is accepted does it not open the door for even more strict policies? Are we headed back towards the days of pay-per-minute or pay-per-usage?
5 Nov 2008 ~ 9:52pm Snarkasm That's a big part of it. Starts at 250, but then what if they determine nobody legally uses more than 100 GB a month? What if they do some more studies and see nobody's using 40 gigs? 20?

Right now we're paying more or equal money for less service. It's crappy for consumers.
5 Nov 2008 ~ 10:06pm NiGHTS One I just thought of would be HD streams to the home via NetFlix over the 360. Though I'm not entirely sure how much bandwidth that would accumulate if you did...say...2 movies a week?
5 Nov 2008 ~ 10:08pm Thrax About 4-6GB a week.
5 Nov 2008 ~ 10:34pm muddocktor After being on a bandwidth capped service for 5 years (HughesNet sat broadband, may you burn in hell for eternity ), I find the thought of any bandwidth cap deplorable in the extreme. Even though I use nowhere near their cap per month, the thought of a cap being put on my connection is crap. Who knows when they decide that 250 is too much and then cut it back more? And people such as I don't have the luxury of multiple broadband choices; for me it's either AT&T dsl or sat broadband, and that just isn't a question of going back to. And I have a friend in town that likes to stream movies and old shows and even broadcast tv since he doesn't even own a tv or have cable tv hooked up in his house and I am sure that he probably pushes close to that amount of usage a month. And he's not downloading illegal copies of stuff either; just does a lot of streaming video watching.