AT&T trials bandwidth caps

Thrax

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 ... Continue reading

_k

So where does the protest start?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Snarkasm

Webserving from your home? Streaming? Lots and lots of Linux ISOs?

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?

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.

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?

Thrax

About 4-6GB a week.

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.