[Macworld]

Post your comments for AT&T testing DSL bandwidth caps here

[doglesby]

Higher caps for slower connections? That doesn't make sense. Then again, 768Mbps DSL speeds don't make sense.

[mr_rsu]

Putting a monthly bandwidth cap on a "heavy" subscriber ultimately defeating the purpose of having movies (to rent or buy to view 'em) downloaded to their desktop. It's a movie-rental market killer.
I still have no idea how much bandwidth usage I had for the past months.

[Unicron]

With an Xbox360, PS3, Wii, Netflix Roku, and two Macs at home, 20GB is not very much per month. I regularly download at least 5GB per week in game demos for my PS3 and 360.

[wardoggie]

I'm not anywhere close to being a heavy bandwidth user, but as an AT&T DSL subscriber (and a happy one at that), I will have to contact them and voice my displeasure at this trial. If it ever gets implemented, I'll have to find out if I'm grandfathered in or if I have to find a new ISP. Unfortunately, I don't know if there are any other viable choices out there.

[lkrupp]

wardoggie said:

I'm not anywhere close to being a heavy bandwidth user, but as an AT&T DSL subscriber (and a happy one at that), I will have to contact them and voice my displeasure at this trial. If it ever gets implemented, I'll have to find out if I'm grandfathered in or if I have to find a new ISP. Unfortunately, I don't know if there are any other viable choices out there.

There won't be any viable choices when every ISP turns on the bandwidth meter. I'll tell you what a bandwidth hog looks like. He's my youngest son's roomate. He keeps their at&t dsl 3meg service totally saturated 24/7 downloading anything and everything. He has already completely filled up a 1TB drive and had to go out and buy a second 1TB drive. My son says he rarely watches or uses any of the stuff he downloads. He does it because he can. My son is about to tear his hair out because he can't really use his MacBook while "Jimmy" is on a download binge, which is all of the time. He gets to check his email and maybe wait a minute for a web page to load now and then.

These are the people at&t, Comcast, and the others are after.

[Interrupt19]

DSL is already capped. If you have 768/1.5/3/6Mbps service, that's your cap. DSL is not a shared node like Cable is where an excessive user will bring down everyone's experience.
I highly doubt their backbone routers can't handle the traffic - AT&T is a major handler of global internet traffic.
What AT&T is really saying is they've been asleep at the switch for the past five years while everyone else upgraded their ISP infrastructure. Of course they need a bandwidth limit, they're stuck with copper in a fiber-optic world.
In their own words two years ago:
“Our view at this point is that we’re not going to have go ‘fiber to the home.’ We’re pleased with the bandwidth that we’re seeing over copper,” Chief Financial Officer Richard Lindner told a Credit Suisse conference."
http://news.soft32.c...twork_2978.html

[pdbreske]

Bandwidth cap. Right.
A bandwidth "cap" would but you off at the predetermined limit. This is just another way to get more money. "You've exceeded your 20GB limit, so we're going to charge you an extra $50 for the month. If you exceed your limit next month, we'll do the same again."
If they find that the limits they've imposed don't make enough extra money, they'll lower the caps until they do.

[context]

I don't know why you want to subsidize heavy users. In the end the answer is multiple tiers of service, with heavy users paying their fair share.

[wardoggie]

As far as I can tell (and I run Activity Monitor all the time), I am not subsidizing anyone except AT&T. I have 3 Mbps DSL and haven't detected any service degradation in more than a year that I've had this service. I'm actually pretty pleased with it. But consider this: As I've posted on another thread, I am looking forward to using Netflix's Watch Instantly feature. That means that, if a tiered bandwidth limit was implemented, I would have to monitor my bandwidth usage or pay more for going over a limit that wasn't there when I signed up for service. Do I get any credit for not using my fair share of bandwidth BEFORE AT&T drew up their tier structure? Or did my minimalist usage pattern enable them to support more users and grow their revenue without having to expand their infrastructure?

Now consider this: If every major ISP is going to implement tiered bandwidth pricing, they're going to compete on that as spec well as speed and price. Why would I be satisfied with somewhere between 20 to 150 GB (probably closer to the middle, since I have one of the midrange plans: $30/month) if Comcast is more than twice as fast, has higher caps and costs less than twice as much per month? They're adding another variable I would weigh when considering an ISP, whereas my current satisfaction with and personal preference for AT&T DSL is enough to keep me as a customer. Here's a quote from an Ars Technica article on Comcast's bandwidth cap policy:
bq. "Comcast insists that the 250GB cap is enough to send some 50 million e-mails, download 62,500 songs, or download 125 standard-definition movies. Okay, so if a cap is going to be enforced, 250GB isn't that bad. It beats the 60GB caps and lower caps seen elsewhere in North America and it's a nice change from the company's previous etherial and mysterious caps. Still, investing in the infrastructure necessary to alleviate the need for caps is a better option for everyone involved."
250 GB/month sounds a lot better than <150 GB/month. And if I pay twice what I pay now, I'd get another $30 GB/month with AT&T's test plan. I'd get more than 100 GB/month with Comcast before I even think about it. Looks like AT&T would be losing a customer if they implement their proposed plan.

So here's the last thing to consider (at least from me): Comcast generates a lot of revenue from cable subscriptions. AT&T is trying to break into that market. Yet more and more content is being distributed via broadband Internet. If they were ahead of the curve, they could be eating Comcast's lunch. But with the faster connection speeds and the higher bandwidth cap, it seems like Comcast is actually better positioned to transition their own customer base from cable TV to IPTV than AT&T is.

Granted, right now, it's just a test. They could still decide to raise the bandwidth tier to 250GB for every subscriber (as another poster mentioned, the real bandwidth limit is DSL's low throughput, not the volume of data a user downloads). That would make them more competitive in that respect. But a few months ago, I never would've considered Comcast as an ISP. AT&T has actually made that happen.

[NeoX]

context said:

I don't know why you want to subsidize heavy users. In the end the answer is multiple tiers of service, with heavy users paying their fair share.

Exactly what I was thinking. I am by no means a heavy user, but as someone else mentioned, the 360, PS3, Wii, iTunes, etc. are all places we can download content from. 20GB is seriously weak and I would have to move on if I was an AT&T user. Demos for the 360 and PS3 can easily go over 1GB. And what about movie rentals, they can easily go to 1GB or more with HD. Comcast in my area gives you 250GB per their terms of service, but they do not presently monitor/enforce it nor will they charge you or remove your account if you do go over, at least not yet.

AT&T is such a greedy company with all their nickel and dime tactics, give me a break AT&T. They have lower prices on HS internet then comcast now, but with this deal that is going to change really fast for any video/console gamer that uses them as an ISP.

I wish some of the FIber services being offered with 10 - 50Mbps would get some legs and spread out to the rest of the US. then we could leave this kind of garbage where it belongs, in a trash can with their customer service department! ;)

[horvatic]

If AT&T caps my bandwidth I will CANCEL MY SERVICE!!!
AT&T, are you listening? You will lose customers and not save anything, IDIOTS!

[MacTechAspen]

Interrupt19 said:

>"Our view at this point is that we're not going to have go 'fiber to the home.' We're pleased with the bandwidth that we're seeing over copper," Chief Financial Officer Richard Lindner told a Credit Suisse conference.

Fiber to the home is not the same as fiber to the curb. Do you know of any fiber to the home services? Cable companies are only going to the curb and the "last mile" is still copper. Fiber to the home is inevitable, but it isn't here yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTTH

[eatatthey]

Isn't Verizon's FIOS fiber to the home?