View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: AT&T now throttling internet bandwidth in US |
|
|
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/15872.cfm
Just one month after Comcast began imposing a bandwidth cap of 250 GB on all of its subscribers, AT&T has begun testing a cap of their own, however with a much smaller limit, 150 GB.
The cap will have tiers as well depending on how fast your connection is, slower users will only get 20 GB limit while the fastest users will get the 150 GB cap.
The test, beginning in Reno, Nevada today, will "evaluate a usage-based model that could potentially help address today's trend of explosive bandwidth usage, [and] may be extended to one other market by the end of the year," said AT&T.
Anyone in Reno who uses over 150 GB per month will automatically be enrolled in the full bandwidth trial at the end of the year.
Any trial participant that exceeds the limit will be given a one-month grace period but if they do it again they will be fined $1 for every GB over they go.
Unlike Comcast however, AT&T will provide all customers with a "bandwidth measuring tool" and will also notify customers when they have hit 80 percent of their limit.
"A small group of customers are using the majority of bandwidth on our network," added AT&T. "In fact, almost 50 percent of total bandwidth is used by just five percent of customers � customers, for example, who are uploading and downloading the equivalent of more than 40,000 YouTube videos or 40 million e-mails a month. This kind of heavy usage has an impact on all of our customers." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
sojourner1

Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Location: Where meggi swim and 2 wheeled tractors go sput put chug alugg pug pug
|
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know my bandwidth is very high due to (illegally) downloading movies and TV shows. Well, I don't see any DVD's for rent, but I used to use mail rental DVD services such as Netflix at home instead of relying on torrents as DVD's offer higher video quality. I can't think of any other reason why broadband users would have such explosive bandwidth.
Of course bandwidth is how many gigabytes of data is going through a website or internet connection. The more bandwidth demanded, the more servers and satellite COM necessary to handle the excessive data traffic. If servers are inadequate to handle the load at any time, then internet speeds slow down. Often, internet providers at home don't have enough servers or have too many subscribers on one server so speed get ridiculously slow in the evenings, sometimes to a halt of waiting for a browser to load a page. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DCJames

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
It was only a matter of time before the greedy telecoms made a move to over-regulate Internet usuage. Gone are the days of freely downloading as many movies / music / games as you wanted just for the sake of having a large collection. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DCJames wrote: |
It was only a matter of time before the greedy telecoms made a move to over-regulate Internet usuage. Gone are the days of freely downloading as many movies / music / games as you wanted just for the sake of having a large collection. |
I find the cognitive dissonance between "greedy telecoms" and "downloading as many movies / music / games as you wanted just for the sake of having a large collection" amusing.
Companies trying to reduce costs in order to provide better returns for the stockholder owners? Well I never! Investing in larger networks instead of restricting the 5% of customers who use most of the bandwidth is just bad business. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
livinginkunsan

Joined: 02 Dec 2006
|
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Companies trying to reduce costs in order to provide better returns for the stockholder owners? Well I never! Investing in larger networks instead of restricting the 5% of customers who use most of the bandwidth is just bad business. |
I find it more of an issue of promising a certain service (certain speed etc), but not fulfilling the contract. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bigfeet

Joined: 29 May 2008 Location: Grrrrr.....
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
How much bandwidth would playing an hour of WoW use? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
egrog1717

Joined: 12 Mar 2008
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bigfeet wrote: |
How much bandwidth would playing an hour of WoW use? |
Not a whole lot surprisingly.. Used to do it at university on the Wifi and was never getting anywhere near my cap (less than 50gb a month or something...) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
ChinaBoy
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand why they can't just offer an "unlimited" package for a monthly fee. Fines and penalties are just ridiculous, and definitely NOT consumer-friendly. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DCJames

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OneWayTraffic wrote: |
DCJames wrote: |
It was only a matter of time before the greedy telecoms made a move to over-regulate Internet usuage. Gone are the days of freely downloading as many movies / music / games as you wanted just for the sake of having a large collection. |
I find the cognitive dissonance between "greedy telecoms" and "downloading as many movies / music / games as you wanted just for the sake of having a large collection" amusing.
Companies trying to reduce costs in order to provide better returns for the stockholder owners? Well I never! Investing in larger networks instead of restricting the 5% of customers who use most of the bandwidth is just bad business. |
Haha! "Better returns for stockholders"??? The main goal of the telecoms is to make bigger profits nothing more than that. When the tech sector of the stock market crashed in the early 2000's, the telecoms left their stockholders high and dry.
Consumers should be able to do whatever the f.uck they want with the bandwidth they buy from the ISPs. The telecoms better reduce their prices if they reduce their levels of service. I'm willing to bet these greedy telecoms won't.
Last edited by DCJames on Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Temporary
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually Telecoms haven't been improving their service. It has relatively stayed the same level or gotten worse. Telecoms haven't improved their lines, or speeds on their lines. American telecoms are really bad for that. I had a friend from telus go down to Florida after a hurricane to help restore the lines and he said the stuff they were using were over 40-50years old.
This is where the whole thing of Net Neutrality comes into play. Telecoms would love to the same to the internet as they have done with their cellphone networks. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bigfeet

Joined: 29 May 2008 Location: Grrrrr.....
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
ChinaBoy wrote: |
I don't understand why they can't just offer an "unlimited" package for a monthly fee. Fines and penalties are just ridiculous, and definitely NOT consumer-friendly. |
They're trying to milk more money from existing users. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bassexpander
Joined: 13 Sep 2007 Location: Someplace you'd rather be.
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
They can't offer unlimited because a small percentage of users are eating up most of the bandwidth. If they offered unlimited, nothing would change. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bassexpander wrote: |
They can't offer unlimited because a small percentage of users are eating up most of the bandwidth. If they offered unlimited, nothing would change. |
This is the correct point.
I worked for an ISP who had initially no download restrictions.
There was a 5% population using 60% of the bandwidth, reducing the service to other users.
Most internet users don't go above 10GB a month. So 150GB still leaves enough room to download whatever you need, at this point in time.
There is however a growing usage for ALL users. All users are increasing, gradually, their bandwidth usage, so in the long run 150GB might be insufficient. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DCJames

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Juregen wrote: |
bassexpander wrote: |
They can't offer unlimited because a small percentage of users are eating up most of the bandwidth. If they offered unlimited, nothing would change. |
This is the correct point.
I worked for an ISP who had initially no download restrictions.
There was a 5% population using 60% of the bandwidth, reducing the service to other users.
Most internet users don't go above 10GB a month. So 150GB still leaves enough room to download whatever you need, at this point in time.
There is however a growing usage for ALL users. All users are increasing, gradually, their bandwidth usage, so in the long run 150GB might be insufficient. |
These ISPs should accomodate the trend of more users needing more bandwidth.
The current trend on the Internet is moving towards more and more Video-on-demand downloads and streaming services that require more bandwidth. ISPs are going against what more and more consumers are trending towards when they limit bandwidth availability.
Do you actually think these ISPs will lower prices for their cut in levels of service (amount of bandwidth available)?????
Bandwith restrictions mean people are paying the same for less and that's just bad business and consumers should be pissed off about it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bigfeet

Joined: 29 May 2008 Location: Grrrrr.....
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
By the way, the thread's subject is wrong. They're capping usage at different price points, not throttling bandwidth. High-usage customers will need to do their own throttling or face being charged more.
This is equivalent to making the product smaller and selling it at the same price vs. keeping the size the same and bumping up the price. So going one way will make them more money directly while going the other way will let them save more money. If you can't make more money then the next best thing is to save money. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|