I'm glad for those who have real choice in their market. Many people (like myself) are not so lucky. When U-Verse DOES finally roll out in my market, however, I will have a choice... and I will choose to stick with Charter, who has yet to institute caps (and also runs me at 30/3).
A shame to hear it. It's not any better in Norway. Most cellphone companies have a cap of 500mb/month, then it's 10kr ($2) per 50mb or something, in addition to slower speeds.
Can't be sure yet; AT&T's website is down for maintenance, most likely to attempt to answer all these questions. I tried for an hour to log in to my account to see what I could discover, but to no avail.
It was only a matter of time, really. Comcast implemented a 250GB cap a few years back, and their massive consumer base rolled over and took it like champs. AT&T U-Verse offers even higher potential for significant consumption, and of course the shoe has dropped.
I would also be remiss if I did not point out that 20 cents for 1GB is about six times the actual cost to deliver 1GB to a customer. Those figures presumes the fixed costs of deploying infrastructure, paying employees and keeping the lights on have been covered.
"But Thrax, doesn't shouldn't my activation fee and monthly payment cover that?"
Not if profiteering is your game!
We all should have expected no less from AT&T. Vehement lobbying against net neutrality, complicity with federal warrantless wiretapping, explicit support for immunity against wiretapping suits, first to abolish unlimited wireless data... this company doesn't give a shit about you. It just wants your money.
WOW is only an option if you don't mind all your traffic being hijacked, logged, and entries into the IE8 search box going to this: http://yfrog.com/h7rkwpp - they also are sniffing traffic thoroughly enough to cleanly insert HTML into webpages, so they have content visibility.
They're also transparently hijacking all DNS queries, even those to root servers, and spoofing results or blocking them depending on the site.
Of course, absolutely none of this has been disclosed to customers - the same way they handled their NebuAd deployment.
Despite all that, I still had a perfectly fine SEVEN YEAR RUN with WoW. I'll be switching back. I don't give a fuck if they hijack my DNS queries.... HEY, GUYS, HE GOES TO ICRONTIC AND GOOGLE A LOT.
All of which can be foiled with an SSH tunnel through a proxy server! Not that one should HAVE to do that.
Oh, that's absolutely mandatory. Unless DNS doesn't work and they decide to block it. And pretty good chances DNS won't work; for some unknown reason they've decided to screw up is.gd
Regardless, I'm thinking that ACD.net is looking like a better option for me right now.
Well, anybody selling DSL is just reselling AT&T. And AT&T loves to jerk their chains by impeding traffic transparently and refusing to fix problems. If your DSL goes down? Minimum 24 hours before AT&T will even look at it long enough to say "user problem."
I haven't met a telecom that DID give a shit about their customers. I have Mediacom and they have a "soft" 250GB/month bandwidth. I haven't hit the 8.3GB/day to go over it that I know of yet.
I do plan to switch companies once my contract is up, like I have with cell phones (AT&T to T-Mobile(AT&T now) to Sprint
Well, anybody selling DSL is just reselling AT&T. And AT&T loves to jerk their chains by impeding traffic transparently and refusing to fix problems. If your DSL goes down? Minimum 24 hours before AT&T will even look at it long enough to say "user problem."
Wanna back that up with some proof?
I can't find any direct confirmation or denial of that fact anywhere. I do see that ACD.net apparently owns some large chunks of it's own fiber in various places in MI including in Lansing.
Things that I care about:
[ ] Improper NXDOMAIN responses
[X] Bandwidth caps
Wrong.
[ ] Improper NXDOMAIN responses
[X] Returning Advertising Server for valid A records
[X] Redirecting HTTP(S) traffic based on URL
[X] Inspecting HTTP(S) content to perform insertion of content
[X] Bandwidth caps
I can't find any direct confirmation or denial of that fact anywhere. I do see that ACD.net apparently owns some large chunks of it's own fiber in various places in MI including in Lansing.
AT&T owns the copper, period. For anyone to NOT resell AT&T they must own pole space and run separate copper pair from their own CO to your residence. Otherwise, they are reselling AT&T. Period.
At the CO, AT&T does ATM bundling - that is, bundling multiple DSL links into a single ATM mesh and delivering that typically as L2TP to the ISP over DS3. It's not economically feasible anymore to colocate Redbacks in the CO, because AT&T no longer even has to allow it. (Thanks, FCC.)
So no matter who you get your DSL from, the transit path is this:
CPE -> Telco Owned Copper -> Telco DSLAM -> Telco ATM -> ATM Leased from Telco -> ISP Termination Point (typ. Cisco router)
Even unbundled dry-pairs? That's telco owned copper.
They also had a policy of excluding SLC+DLC from copper length for resellers, to prevent selling higher end services. (SLC/DLC for ADSL, ADSL+, ADSL2 should be measured as copper to SLC/DLC, then +3Kft. Meaning my run is not ~11,500 - it is ~7,000.)
I've worked for ISPs, Telcos, and Cable. So yeah; dealt with it all first-hand.
I'm still not seeing any proof there chief. Just because they use AT&Ts lines for the last mile, doesn't mean they're a reseller of AT&Ts service completely. The fact that they can offer speeds that AT&T can't touch suggests they're not reselling their service directly. Plus, if they're reselling AT&T's service, why do they own their own fiber?
The CLEC provisions of the Telcommunications Act of '96 enables CLECs to lease infrastructure and then do basically whatever they want with it. If they want to buy 10Gb and sell 10x1Gbit lines, they can.
just be glad they arent charging over a dollar per gigabyte like GCI does here in Alaska for its low cost low bandwidth cap plans.
But they did just lower their prices increase the speed and increase their caps now mmy 18/1 connection has 150gb cap instead of 60 or 70 and is $60 cheaper
primesuspect
Beepin n' BoopinDetroit, MI Icrontian
Comments
I would also be remiss if I did not point out that 20 cents for 1GB is about six times the actual cost to deliver 1GB to a customer. Those figures presumes the fixed costs of deploying infrastructure, paying employees and keeping the lights on have been covered.
"But Thrax, doesn't shouldn't my activation fee and monthly payment cover that?"
Not if profiteering is your game!
We all should have expected no less from AT&T. Vehement lobbying against net neutrality, complicity with federal warrantless wiretapping, explicit support for immunity against wiretapping suits, first to abolish unlimited wireless data... this company doesn't give a shit about you. It just wants your money.
They're also transparently hijacking all DNS queries, even those to root servers, and spoofing results or blocking them depending on the site.
Of course, absolutely none of this has been disclosed to customers - the same way they handled their NebuAd deployment.
Regardless, I'm thinking that ACD.net is looking like a better option for me right now.
Oh, that's absolutely mandatory. Unless DNS doesn't work and they decide to block it. And pretty good chances DNS won't work; for some unknown reason they've decided to screw up is.gd
Well, anybody selling DSL is just reselling AT&T. And AT&T loves to jerk their chains by impeding traffic transparently and refusing to fix problems. If your DSL goes down? Minimum 24 hours before AT&T will even look at it long enough to say "user problem."
I do plan to switch companies once my contract is up, like I have with cell phones (AT&T to T-Mobile(AT&T now) to Sprint
Luckily I have options in this shittowne
[ ] Improper NXDOMAIN responses
[X] Bandwidth caps
Wanna back that up with some proof?
I can't find any direct confirmation or denial of that fact anywhere. I do see that ACD.net apparently owns some large chunks of it's own fiber in various places in MI including in Lansing.
Wrong.
[ ] Improper NXDOMAIN responses
[X] Returning Advertising Server for valid A records
[X] Redirecting HTTP(S) traffic based on URL
[X] Inspecting HTTP(S) content to perform insertion of content
[X] Bandwidth caps
AT&T owns the copper, period. For anyone to NOT resell AT&T they must own pole space and run separate copper pair from their own CO to your residence. Otherwise, they are reselling AT&T. Period.
At the CO, AT&T does ATM bundling - that is, bundling multiple DSL links into a single ATM mesh and delivering that typically as L2TP to the ISP over DS3. It's not economically feasible anymore to colocate Redbacks in the CO, because AT&T no longer even has to allow it. (Thanks, FCC.)
So no matter who you get your DSL from, the transit path is this:
CPE -> Telco Owned Copper -> Telco DSLAM -> Telco ATM -> ATM Leased from Telco -> ISP Termination Point (typ. Cisco router)
Even unbundled dry-pairs? That's telco owned copper.
They also had a policy of excluding SLC+DLC from copper length for resellers, to prevent selling higher end services. (SLC/DLC for ADSL, ADSL+, ADSL2 should be measured as copper to SLC/DLC, then +3Kft. Meaning my run is not ~11,500 - it is ~7,000.)
I've worked for ISPs, Telcos, and Cable. So yeah; dealt with it all first-hand.
But they did just lower their prices increase the speed and increase their caps now mmy 18/1 connection has 150gb cap instead of 60 or 70 and is $60 cheaper