It looks like AT&T gets to join the ISPs that cap downloads - starts May 2011.

I've been spreading the word about this to anyone I know with AT&T since I found out, and no one is pleased. I don't do cable TV, so I heavily depend on Netflix for my cable fix. I would order more DVDs, though recent moves by Netflix show they'd prefer customers move away from DVD dependency. If trends continue, don't expect a move to a new ISP will help anyone avoid this, as it's more likely your new provider will be ":twoguns:bustin' caps:twoguns:" at some point, too.
 
[quote name='confoosious']that's where you vote with your wallet.[/QUOTE]
Problem is that a lot of people don't have much choice when it comes to internet service. And as more ISPs start doing this, there will be even less choice.
 
[quote name='CaliSmokeDogg']I would order more DVDs, though recent moves by Netflix show they'd prefer customers move away from DVD dependency. [/QUOTE]

That's completely out of their hands.

1. Most people mainly rent new releases, studios aren't giving new releases to streaming services anytime soon. Some even delay the discs for 28 days now.

2. Broadband still isn't widespread enough, they'd lose a ton of customers who can't get fast enough internet to go streaming only even if the selection of mainstream newer releases improves in the future.

I think Netflix will always offer disc rentals as long as movie discs are being made. They may up prices on that more over time while keeping streaming cheaper, but disc rentals will be around.
 
[quote name='Number83']I wonder what a 4 hour session of playing World of Warcraft equates to in terms of downloads.[/QUOTE]


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090308130251AAfqbER

If this is valid, it's 1-5 kb per second.

Assuming 5 that's 300kb per minute, so 1.2 mb per hour, thus 4.8mb per four hours. And again, probably lower than that if the link is right since it ranges 1-5kb per second.

Online gaming (not counting downloading demos, patches etc.) uses a tiny amount of data as it's just sending information--all the graphics etc. are stored on your machine the online data is just info on what's happening.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090308130251AAfqbER

If this is valid, it's 1-5 kb per second.

Assuming 5 that's 300kb per minute, so 1.2 mb per hour, thus 4.8mb per four hours. And again, probably lower than that if the link is right since it ranges 1-5kb per second.

Online gaming (not counting downloading demos, patches etc.) uses a tiny amount of data as it's just sending information--all the graphics etc. are stored on your machine the online data is just info on what's happening.[/QUOTE]


Sweet...Thanks for that. I was always curious.
 
The cap sounds reasonable and at this point if your ISP isn't aleady doing it they're probably about to.

At least they're relatively up front about the caps, not so much with the throttling !
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's completely out of their hands.

1. Most people mainly rent new releases, studios aren't giving new releases to streaming services anytime soon. Some even delay the discs for 28 days now.

2. Broadband still isn't widespread enough, they'd lose a ton of customers who can't get fast enough internet to go streaming only even if the selection of mainstream newer releases improves in the future.

I think Netflix will always offer disc rentals as long as movie discs are being made. They may up prices on that more over time while keeping streaming cheaper, but disc rentals will be around.[/QUOTE]

I remember reading about the New Release delays way back when, but it never bothered me because if I really wanted to watch the movie, I'd have seen it at a theater; otherwise, I'll wait.

I agree that the availability of broadband will deter companies like Netflix from phasing out DVD rentals for the foreseeable future as well, although it's nice to have a variety of programming to watch instantly instead of waiting for the mail to arrive. But it I have to make due with snail-mail at some point, so be it.
 
This is some bullshit, but like you guys have said, it only limits for big families and piraters.

Face it, we don't know how good we've had it in terms of the Internet. It's still pretty new. It's still the wild west. As time goes on, the media companies will have more control over it, give us fewer choices, and charge us more money. It's happened with every form of media throughout the years, and it's coming for the Internet too - it's just a matter of time. This is just the start of it.
 
Comcast has been doing this for a while. I have Tomato firmware on my router so i can track all usage that goes through it.

A couple months ago i had to stop watching netflix b/c i was up to 245GB with a few days left, but other than that one case im usually at the 100-150 range.
 
[quote name='2DMention']This is some bullshit, but like you guys have said, it only limits for big families and piraters.[/QUOTE]

I don't pirate, nor do I have other people using the internet unless someone comes over with a laptop (and I often say, hey if it's a large file just download at my place and you'll finish it in a quarter of the time so long as it's not illegal). While I don't know my exact statistics, I'd say I could easily break that 250GB mark and likely do pretty frequently. I do torrent fairly heavily (legally) and seed a bunch of stuff such as linux distributions or patches/updates. With my 3Mbit/sec upload speed, that can amount to over 5GB a night easily. Plus since I'm fairly heavy on Netflix on PC & 360, that adds at least 850MB/hr (SD) or 1.5GB/hr (HD) and I like having stuff on in the background playing (I'm not a music listener). Plus I host game servers for friends on occasion and ventrilo/team speak. On top of that I also run an FTP server on my computer for friends and relatives and use my home computer to download ISOs for work and transfer multiple large files from client servers to my home PC and then bring them to work because I live 5 minutes from where I work and my home connection is a lot faster than work (I work IT). Oh and lets not forget my backups I do to the cloud and digital games I own.

I've been cringing since I heard this Sunday and switching to Charter is my only option and I absolutely fucking hate them. Though I may have the option of Verizon but I've had terrible experience with them here too. This effects me pretty heavily and quite frankly I'm pretty god damned pissed about it.
 
[quote name='Draekon']I don't pirate, nor do I have other people using the internet unless someone comes over with a laptop (and I often say, hey if it's a large file just download at my place and you'll finish it in a quarter of the time so long as it's not illegal). While I don't know my exact statistics, I'd say I could easily break that 250GB mark and likely do pretty frequently. I do torrent fairly heavily (legally) and seed a bunch of stuff such as linux distributions or patches/updates. With my 3Mbit/sec upload speed, that can amount to over 5GB a night easily. Plus since I'm fairly heavy on Netflix on PC & 360, that adds at least 850MB/hr (SD) or 1.5GB/hr (HD) and I like having stuff on in the background playing (I'm not a music listener). Plus I host game servers for friends on occasion and ventrilo/team speak. On top of that I also run an FTP server on my computer for friends and relatives and use my home computer to download ISOs for work and transfer multiple large files from client servers to my home PC and then bring them to work because I live 5 minutes from where I work and my home connection is a lot faster than work (I work IT). Oh and lets not forget my backups I do to the cloud and digital games I own.

I've been cringing since I heard this Sunday and switching to Charter is my only option and I absolutely fucking hate them. Though I may have the option of Verizon but I've had terrible experience with them here too. This effects me pretty heavily and quite frankly I'm pretty god damned pissed about it.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure Charter is already capping their customers. My brother has Charter and he only looked into it after I told him about the AT&T capping that's about to happen.
 
[quote name='CaliSmokeDogg']I'm pretty sure Charter is already capping their customers. My brother has Charter and he only looked into it after I told him about the AT&T capping that's about to happen.[/QUOTE]

I hadn't heard about Charter capping yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were soon to follow. I guess I may need to buy a router I can flash some firmware on and use it to monitor all the wired devices bandwidth. I'm sure there are days where I use next to no bandwidth and others when I probably use upwards of 50GB between upload and download.

I'm sure AT&T won't give me jack for statistic monitoring outside of some shitty e-mail sent to my SBC e-mail that I never open. Even then it'll probably only say "You've used up 50% of your allowed bandwidth this month!" Which is absolutely worthless to me.

EDIT: Yep, looks like Charters cap is 250GB for those with 15Mbit+ connections.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='2DMention']This is some bullshit, but like you guys have said, it only limits for big families and piraters.

Face it, we don't know how good we've had it in terms of the Internet. It's still pretty new. It's still the wild west. As time goes on, the media companies will have more control over it, give us fewer choices, and charge us more money. It's happened with every form of media throughout the years, and it's coming for the Internet too - it's just a matter of time. This is just the start of it.[/QUOTE]
We really haven't had it that good, maybe in terms of not being capped, but as far as speeds go, the U.S. has lagged behind plenty of other countries.
 
Son of a bitch, this is going to fuck over my dad and I.

  • We play games online everyday.
  • stream HD content through Netflix, YouTube, Hulu, and even more SD content from other sites.
  • Download games through Steam, and PSN.
  • Download MP3s through Amazon and iTunes.
  • Store and Download data from the Cloud.
  • and my dad works at home which requires him to transfer data back and fourth.

If this is the digital age, then why the fuck am I being limited to 150GB per month?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='FroMann']If this is the digital age, then why the fuck am I being limited to 150GB per month?[/QUOTE]

Capitalism.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Capitalism.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

Actually this is the opposite of capitalism. Cable/phone/utility companies are government monitored and restricted monopolies that have been basically allowed to do pretty much whatever they want anymore. And any type of control that state utilites commisions have been excerising as of late has been detremental to consumers.
 
According to Netflix, their HD stream averages at about 4,800Kb/sec (per Netflix blog). For you non technical people, that's 600KB/sec = ~35.5MB/min = ~2.1GB/hour. Now according to Nielsen the average 2+ person household watches over 4 hours of tv a day while the average household watches over 8 hours a day, and this is back in '08-09. See the problem?

I couldn't find what SD streams average, but if we gave a conservative estimate of half on SD you're looking at roughly ~1GB/hr. If 50% of your watching time is devoted to Netflix, then we're already looking at ~60GB/month for your average 2+ person household and ~120GB/month for the average household. And that's assuming you're watching everything in SD.

I don't think it's out of the question to contest bandwidth caps, especially as more and more content is being offered. The current caps are shockingly low, even for the average consumer.

And as has been mentioned, you can't just pick up your ball and go play for another team. The broadband market is often an oligopoly with a choice between 1-2 providers where you're really just choosing between the lesser of a few evils. My guess is that instead of reinvesting back into their infrastructure to offer a bigger pipeline, telecos are instead imposing simple caps and trying to skirt the issue for as long as possible.
 
It's basically just delaying the inevitable. Rather than increasing their capacity they'd rather just cap people and solve the problem that way. They don't have to spend the money to increase capacity and they get extra revenue from overage fees, win-win for them.
 
[quote name='BlueLobstah']According to Netflix, their HD stream averages at about 4,800Kb/sec (per Netflix blog). For you non technical people, that's 600KB/sec = ~35.5MB/min = ~2.1GB/hour. Now according to Nielsen the average 2+ person household watches over 4 hours of tv a day while the average household watches over 8 hours a day, and this is back in '08-09. See the problem?

I couldn't find what SD streams average, but if we gave a conservative estimate of half on SD you're looking at roughly ~1GB/hr. If 50% of your watching time is devoted to Netflix, then we're already looking at ~60GB/month for your average 2+ person household and ~120GB/month for the average household. And that's assuming you're watching everything in SD.[/QUOTE]

I used a 2008 netflix blog to get my stats from my post. It makes sense if the HD streaming bit rate has been upped since then. With 3800 bit rate, that's roughly 1.5GB/hr. Their SD should clock in around 850MB/hr and I doubt it has changed since then, but could be as high as 1GB/hr.

Since I can stream video and sound to my TV from my PC, I could easily record stats I suppose.
 
Well the issue there is that most people aren't scrapping TV and going to netflix.

They'll watch 4-8 hours of TV and just watch a movie or show on Netflix here or there. My TV is on ESPN for hours every day for sports and highlights, I'm lucky to stream something on Netflix a couple times a week. And maybe watch 1 or 2 disc movies from them or my collection.

But yeah, it could be an issue for people who's sole source of TV use is streaming video. But I don't think that's many people yet as people mostly watch new shows as they air, live sports etc. and streaming selection is pretty limited for current shows and movies etc. at the moment.

But in any case, the internet providers aren't going to make it easy on the streaming services--particularly the ones that also offer TV service--as streaming will be competition for them as content selection improves. But maybe some ISPs that don't offer TV will offer no cap plans as competition as time goes on.
 
Pre-emptive strike against Netflix and their plan to eliminate disc-based service in order to focus primarily on streaming.
 
[quote name='shieryda']Pre-emptive strike against Netflix and their plan to eliminate disc-based service in order to focus primarily on streaming.[/QUOTE]

Again, as I posted earlier, Netflix is YEARs away from being able to do that. Too much of the country doesn't have broad band access to do that, and there selection is no where near the disc selection as studios won't give them newer releases.

It's a preemptive strike to get people to not cancel cable and watch their shows and movies through all the streaming options--including Hulu and other sites that have new shows up right after they air, along with getting back at Netflix since the cable companies lost the net neutrality ruling and can't charge netflix for Bandwith now.

Don't get me wrong. I long for a day when streaming selection on Netflix equals the disc selection so we can watch whatever we want with out having to wait for a disc in the mail.

But that's not happening anytime soon with Broadband coverage still being poor/non-existent in rural areas and with studios not wanting to give new releases as it kills sales (why by the dvd/BR if you can stream it any time you want?).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But yeah, it could be an issue for people who's sole source of TV use is streaming video.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about sole source, but probably 90% of our TV use (that is, other then video games) is streaming from Netflix. Fortunately we aren't capped yet here on Verizon DSL. Probably going to switch to FiOS and am wondering when they are going to bring down the hammer....
 
Well, I finally got the official notice from AT&T about the caps. I wanted to check out their monitoring web page to see how they plan on keeping track of usage, but it is only currently available to Uverse users. Anyone gone to check it out? What did you think about it?
 
[quote name='CaliSmokeDogg']Well, I finally got the official notice from AT&T about the caps. I wanted to check out their monitoring web page to see how they plan on keeping track of usage, but it is only currently available to Uverse users. Anyone gone to check it out? What did you think about it?[/QUOTE]


You aren't missing much at the moment:

The U-verse data measurement report is currently under construction. When completed, you will be notified if your usage exceeds the allowance. Until that time, U-verse customers should not be concerned about their usage patterns for billing purposes.

To learn more about how to manage your usage, please visit www.att.com/internet-usage
Click to expand...


That link made me :rofl: pretty hard.
 
[quote name='CaliSmokeDogg']Well, I finally got the official notice from AT&T about the caps. I wanted to check out their monitoring web page to see how they plan on keeping track of usage, but it is only currently available to Uverse users. Anyone gone to check it out? What did you think about it?[/QUOTE]I don't have my notification yet, though I logged into my account page to check it out.

Once you log into your UVerse account page, there's a link at the top that says "Usage And Recent Activity". When I clicked on it, this is what was there:
[quote name='UVerse Usage And Recent Activity page']U-verse Internet Usage and Activity Detail

Account Owner: (name)
Account Number: (account #)

(View Account Profile link)

My U-verse Internet

AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet Max Plus

Usage as of April 16, 2011.
Next billing cycle starts: April 27, 2011

U-verse Internet Usage and Activity Detail

Note: Your internet plan provides you with unlimited usage. There are no usage details to display.[/quote]

I assume that either on April 27th or May 1st will show the usage changing to the 250GB cap, though I'm not sure which day it'll be. I'll check on April 27th and May 1st to see when it changes.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, as I posted earlier, Netflix is YEARs away from being able to do that. Too much of the country doesn't have broad band access to do that, and there selection is no where near the disc selection as studios won't give them newer releases.

It's a preemptive strike to get people to not cancel cable and watch their shows and movies through all the streaming options--including Hulu and other sites that have new shows up right after they air, along with getting back at Netflix since the cable companies lost the net neutrality ruling and can't charge netflix for Bandwith now.

Don't get me wrong. I long for a day when streaming selection on Netflix equals the disc selection so we can watch whatever we want with out having to wait for a disc in the mail.

But that's not happening anytime soon with Broadband coverage still being poor/non-existent in rural areas and with studios not wanting to give new releases as it kills sales (why by the dvd/BR if you can stream it any time you want?).[/QUOTE]

When and if I move, I plan on going with Qwest 7M DSL, which will be more than enough for me. I will do more heavy streaming since I won't have Satellite (I only watch one thing as it is a week anyway - American Pickers).
 
I am sorry for all you people who do get capped. It's a very bad buisness practice. Then again I have reason to believe Verizon capped my DSL. When we got it we got about 190 kb/sec download speeds. Now we get 125 kb/sec.

Also this is the best internet we can get.
 
One of Warren Buffet's 10 habits is "Re-invest in your business" and the teleco's aren't doing that - they're doing the opposite and charging customers who use more bandwidth.

Something will come up eventually and bite them in the ass.
 
[quote name='2DMention']Something will come up eventually and bite them in the ass.[/QUOTE]

Not if customers roll over and let those charges stick. If they get up and walk away, then they'll have to change.

Thing is, as people note here, they're reluctant to change ISPs because it's time consuming and somewhat of a PITA. As long as people play lazy and complacent, companies will find new ways to fuck you.

I left Clear after 3 months because they throttled speed BAAAAAAD. Shit was like a 56K modem at peak times. They got over me a bit because they had a cancellation fee - as I reminded them, such a fee makes me less likely to ever try their service again in the future, as they're making me pay out of pocket because their service was poor.

Three weeks ago I canceled all my bank accounts because I saw a $12 *monthly* fee in one account I use sparingly. I inquired about it and they said it needed this much activity or they'd charge $12 every month for the account. So I immediately went to the bank and closed my accounts, pointing out that I just saw their quarterly financial statements had them profiting to the tune of $54 Billion, a 67% increase over the same quarter in 2010. I told them I wasn't going to put up with that kind of exploitative treatment, they could take a hike, and now I'm happily with a credit union.

It is a pain to change, but companies get away with fucking people because people are too uninformed or too lazy.

AT&T is another (cell) company I'll leave the day my contract ends. Which, lamentably, is in november 2012. Sigh.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not if customers roll over and let those charges stick. If they get up and walk away, then they'll have to change.

Thing is, as people note here, they're reluctant to change ISPs because it's time consuming and somewhat of a PITA. As long as people play lazy and complacent, companies will find new ways to fuck you.

I left Clear after 3 months because they throttled speed BAAAAAAD. Shit was like a 56K modem at peak times. They got over me a bit because they had a cancellation fee - as I reminded them, such a fee makes me less likely to ever try their service again in the future, as they're making me pay out of pocket because their service was poor.

Three weeks ago I canceled all my bank accounts because I saw a $12 *monthly* fee in one account I use sparingly. I inquired about it and they said it needed this much activity or they'd charge $12 every month for the account. So I immediately went to the bank and closed my accounts, pointing out that I just saw their quarterly financial statements had them profiting to the tune of $54 Billion, a 67% increase over the same quarter in 2010. I told them I wasn't going to put up with that kind of exploitative treatment, they could take a hike, and now I'm happily with a credit union.

It is a pain to change, but companies get away with fucking people because people are too uninformed or too lazy.

AT&T is another (cell) company I'll leave the day my contract ends. Which, lamentably, is in november 2012. Sigh.[/QUOTE]Out here, there are two options for Internet, AT&T and Charter. Even with the caps, AT&T is leaps and bounds more reliable than Charter, since I can count far more often the times I've had issues with cable TV service versus the number of times I've had issues with my DSL service and UVerse service.

If there ends up being another option out there that's without caps and on the level of reliability I get from AT&T, I'll jump ship to them without an issue.

For now, since the bandwidth monitoring page isn't up and working yet, the caps don't count, so they're saying on the main page for the monitoring. Hopefully that'll take a few days weeks months to get up and running.

myke, I would have fought Clear to death to have them waive their ETF because it sounds like they weren't living up to their end of the contract, which is something you can terminate over without penalty.
 
My other choice is Comcast, which I switched last year because of their cap to ATT. Switching was the easy part, took less than half a day.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']myke, I would have fought Clear to death to have them waive their ETF because it sounds like they weren't living up to their end of the contract, which is something you can terminate over without penalty.[/QUOTE]

dang. i live for those kinds of fights - I last got a $250 credit from AT&T after my iPhone was stolen.

But this was like $35-40. Not much, but it's the aggravation I could cause and not the reward that I live for. I'm sure you find that hard to believe.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Not if customers roll over and let those charges stick. If they get up and walk away, then they'll have to change.

Thing is, as people note here, they're reluctant to change ISPs because it's time consuming and somewhat of a PITA. As long as people play lazy and complacent, companies will find new ways to fuck you.

I left Clear after 3 months because they throttled speed BAAAAAAD. Shit was like a 56K modem at peak times. They got over me a bit because they had a cancellation fee - as I reminded them, such a fee makes me less likely to ever try their service again in the future, as they're making me pay out of pocket because their service was poor.

Three weeks ago I canceled all my bank accounts because I saw a $12 *monthly* fee in one account I use sparingly. I inquired about it and they said it needed this much activity or they'd charge $12 every month for the account. So I immediately went to the bank and closed my accounts, pointing out that I just saw their quarterly financial statements had them profiting to the tune of $54 Billion, a 67% increase over the same quarter in 2010. I told them I wasn't going to put up with that kind of exploitative treatment, they could take a hike, and now I'm happily with a credit union.

It is a pain to change, but companies get away with fucking people because people are too uninformed or too lazy.

AT&T is another (cell) company I'll leave the day my contract ends. Which, lamentably, is in november 2012. Sigh.[/QUOTE]
My only other choice (at least that I'm aware of) is Comcast, and I'm sure you know they already cap monthly use too. So I'm kind of up a creek here.
 
When I move next month, my choices are Comcast and Qwest.

I want to avoid comcast because it's more expensive and the speed is 12M, which I don't need.

I think I might stick with Qwest, it's 7M, but that's all I need and it's $15/month cheaper.

I have no interest in cable either.
 
My statement just came today. I'll have to check to see if mentions the cap. I don't remember seeing a letter about it in March.
 
[quote name='shrike4242']Out here, there are two options for Internet, AT&T and Charter. Even with the caps, AT&T is leaps and bounds more reliable than Charter, since I can count far more often the times I've had issues with cable TV service versus the number of times I've had issues with my DSL service and UVerse service.

If there ends up being another option out there that's without caps and on the level of reliability I get from AT&T, I'll jump ship to them without an issue.

For now, since the bandwidth monitoring page isn't up and working yet, the caps don't count, so they're saying on the main page for the monitoring. Hopefully that'll take a few days weeks months to get up and running.[/QUOTE]

Sad that AT&T and Charter are our only choices. Verizon is in the general area, but doesn't offer service where I live and the service they offer is crap. A friend of mine had them out in the boonies and their service was pretty terrible.

And it's pretty pathetic they can't even meet their own deadline to monitor user traffic. Though I'm with you on hoping it takes forever. What's even more pathetic is once they have it in, their F.A.Q. states that it takes 1-4 days for data to hit the counter. I kind of want to whore out my bandwidth on useless shit non-stop one month and then bitch to them, but I doubt they'd let up on the extra cost.




I also have to wonder, what the fuck is the point of a 24mbit/sec tier when they limit it to the same as a 3mbit/sec tier in U-Verse. Why am I paying more to be just as limited as someone paying less?
 
Out here, the only choices are AT&T and AT&T. Comcast doesn't have lines out here, and there's no 3G coverage within a mile of my house.
 
Two weeks in and nothing yet on either usage monitoring link.

Hopefully it'll take them the months I hope it will to get my bandwidth monitoring up and running.
 
I checked online the other day. The message I received was that AT&T can't monitor the usage of every customer. To estimate your usage, use some tool they put together.

Go fuck yourselves then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top