And so it begins: ATT to cap DSL/U-Verse Vol. RIP Unlimited Internet

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by Zyzz

if comcast starts this, well i dont even want to imagine.

Comcast already has a 250gb soft cap.

 

[Bert.]

if comcast starts this, well i dont even want to imagine.

 

[All Ready]

funny because i was just thinking about leaving att's dsl service before i even heard about this

i don't have cable and haven't had cable for over 2 years and i guess this is their way of 'forcing' someone like me to get cable

i will NEVER get cable no matter what

service isn't even all that good, random disconnects right in the middle of me dl'ing something

hoston heads, who has the best internet service that is uncapped?

 

[thegoat121886]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

So do you think its okay for people who use more of something to pay the same as someone who uses less? I am for tiered data plans as long as they are FAIR in pricing. Its obviously the amount of data the average user consumes daily has been increasing non stop how should ISP really respond? What is your solution for the issue that is obvious?

Let the people who have and pay for unlimited service, continue to pay for unlimited service. If someone who doesn't need that much bandwidth comes along, introduce a lower price, lower cap tier. People using too much data is obviously not the issue here, since AT&T is not gonna count U-Verse TV or their video on demand as apart of that cap. We can have unlimited data AS LONG as that data is coming from AT&T 

.  

 that

U-Verse TV is paid by your cable payment to separate items and is more expensive than their internet plan thats why you can get all you want out of it. Obviously you are upset because you are a consumer and you want the most bang for your buck but you do realize what you are asking for is quite a bit.

edit: A better question who is hitting these caps legally? I am really interesting to see if there is really someone out there who consumes 250gb a month without violating their terms of service/agreement for their service.

legally or "illegally" is not the question here. data usage is data usage. If you download a 20GB game or movie from a dev/studio's website or from a torrent, it's 20GBs any way you slice it. One hour of 1080p content with 5.1 audio streamed from Netflix servers to my PS3 is roughly around 5GB. I have 6 people in my house and we all use it on various devices. The regressive nature of this implementation is a negative factor and does not "help the consumer" at all.

 

[Bert.]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by Zyzz

if comcast starts this, well i dont even want to imagine.

Comcast already has a 250gb soft cap.

well ive never hit it i think? but 250gb is a lot right

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Let the people who have and pay for unlimited service, continue to pay for unlimited service. If someone who doesn't need that much bandwidth comes along, introduce a lower price, lower cap tier. People using too much data is obviously not the issue here, since AT&T is not gonna count U-Verse TV or their video on demand as apart of that cap. We can have unlimited data AS LONG as that data is coming from AT&T 

.  

 that

U-Verse TV is paid by your cable payment to separate items and is more expensive than their internet plan thats why you can get all you want out of it. Obviously you are upset because you are a consumer and you want the most bang for your buck but you do realize what you are asking for is quite a bit.

edit: A better question who is hitting these caps legally? I am really interesting to see if there is really someone out there who consumes 250gb a month without violating their terms of service/agreement for their service.

legally or "illegally" is not the question here. data usage is data usage. If you download a 20GB game or movie from a dev/studio's website, it's 20GBs any way you slice it. One hour of 1080p content with 5.1 audio streamed from Netflix servers to my PS3 is roughly around 5GB. I have 6 people in my house and we all use it on various devices. The regressive nature of this implementation is a negative factor and does not "help the consumer" at all.

actually legally or illegally is really the question. If people who are affected by this are violating the TOS by their ISP why should the ISP bend their backs for them? Like I said tiered data plans wont be an issue if the pricing is REASONABLE. Data is tiered in web hosting and its worked perfectly fine because the prices are competitive. This is only effecting 2% of the people who subscribe to them its not like the average user is going to be exceeding their limits. I could understand people being outraged if the limits were something unreasonable but I would say 99% of that 2% affected by this are doing something illegal anyways.

 

[kicks off]

won't be surprised when they start charging a fee for e-mails.

 

[thegoat121886]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

U-Verse TV is paid by your cable payment to separate items and is more expensive than their internet plan thats why you can get all you want out of it. Obviously you are upset because you are a consumer and you want the most bang for your buck but you do realize what you are asking for is quite a bit.

edit: A better question who is hitting these caps legally? I am really interesting to see if there is really someone out there who consumes 250gb a month without violating their terms of service/agreement for their service.

legally or "illegally" is not the question here. data usage is data usage. If you download a 20GB game or movie from a dev/studio's website, it's 20GBs any way you slice it. One hour of 1080p content with 5.1 audio streamed from Netflix servers to my PS3 is roughly around 5GB. I have 6 people in my house and we all use it on various devices. The regressive nature of this implementation is a negative factor and does not "help the consumer" at all.

actually legally or illegally is really the question. If people who are affected by this are violating the TOS by their ISP why should the ISP bend their backs for them? Like I said tiered data plans wont be an issue if the pricing is REASONABLE. Data is tiered in web hosting and its worked perfectly fine because the prices are competitive. This is only effecting 2% of the people who subscribe to them its not like the average user is going to be exceeding their limits. I could understand people being outraged if the limits were something unreasonable but I would say 99% of that 2% affected by this are doing something illegal anyways.

where is this 2% number coming from? As i said earlier in the thread, the wording sounds much like the iPhone data memo last summer. 2% my 

. You can't compare web hosting to ISP pricing because they aren't comparable at all. Many people don't have a choice in their ISP. I live in a suburban community just outside of LA, and i have about as much choice in broadband service as a 5 year old has in eating or not eating his vegetables. It's either slow 

 Verizon DSL or slow 

 Charter cable. No FIOS. No U-Verse. Some people have it even worse. Until every market lose the oligarchies (or monopolies), tiered data will not work because fair pricing will not exist.
The TOS violations argument is another beast in itself. Killing the option of unlimited data for the many over the actions of a few is not the way to go about it. This is corporate greed packaged up as a wolf in sheep's clothing. Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

legally or "illegally" is not the question here. data usage is data usage. If you download a 20GB game or movie from a dev/studio's website, it's 20GBs any way you slice it. One hour of 1080p content with 5.1 audio streamed from Netflix servers to my PS3 is roughly around 5GB. I have 6 people in my house and we all use it on various devices. The regressive nature of this implementation is a negative factor and does not "help the consumer" at all.

actually legally or illegally is really the question. If people who are affected by this are violating the TOS by their ISP why should the ISP bend their backs for them? Like I said tiered data plans wont be an issue if the pricing is REASONABLE. Data is tiered in web hosting and its worked perfectly fine because the prices are competitive. This is only effecting 2% of the people who subscribe to them its not like the average user is going to be exceeding their limits. I could understand people being outraged if the limits were something unreasonable but I would say 99% of that 2% affected by this are doing something illegal anyways.

where is this 2% number coming from? As i said earlier in the thread, the wording sounds much like the iPhone data memo last summer. 2% my 

. You can't compare web hosting to ISP pricing because they aren't comparable at all. Many people don't have a choice in their ISP. I live in a suburban community just outside of LA, and i have about as much choice in broadband service as a 5 year old has in eating or not eating his vegetables. It's either slow 

 Verizon DSL or slow 

 Charter cable. No FIOS. No U-Verse. Some people have it even worse. Until every market lose the oligarchies (or monopolies), tiered data will not work because fair pricing will not exist.

2% came from the original article in the OP. iPhone data tiered data plan may have offended some by reducing unlimited but the MAJORITY of the users dont go over 2gb not to mention it is also 5 dollars cheaper. Yes it sucks to not have the ability to get all you want but most people wont be affected by this and this will at least improve overall performance for the network quality.

 

[djprestige21]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by DJprestige21

Ehh comcast been having the 250GB for some time now. That's quite a lot actually, and I use internet frequently. I guess I don't download much movies or large files and netflix is not running 24/7

Not the point.



The point is that this is the first of many cutbacks for internet use, the battle has begun. 

So do you think its okay for people who use more of something to pay the same as someone who uses less? I am for tiered data plans as long as they are FAIR in pricing. Its obviously the amount of data the average user consumes daily has been increasing non stop how should ISP really respond? What is your solution for the issue that is obvious?

edit: Instead of blaming ISPs why not focus our efforts to use less data as possible. Lets start working on better data compression methods for video. Most streaming services already have good compression methods and I honestly believe the people who will be affected by this are those who pirate which is a violations of the TOA for most ISP so it would be odd for them to carter for people breaking their own rules.




 lol, you dumb son.

Internet isn't electricity, there is no reason to "find better methods". 

Just stop it.

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by DJprestige21

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by DJprestige21


Not the point.



The point is that this is the first of many cutbacks for internet use, the battle has begun. 

So do you think its okay for people who use more of something to pay the same as someone who uses less? I am for tiered data plans as long as they are FAIR in pricing. Its obviously the amount of data the average user consumes daily has been increasing non stop how should ISP really respond? What is your solution for the issue that is obvious?

edit: Instead of blaming ISPs why not focus our efforts to use less data as possible. Lets start working on better data compression methods for video. Most streaming services already have good compression methods and I honestly believe the people who will be affected by this are those who pirate which is a violations of the TOA for most ISP so it would be odd for them to carter for people breaking their own rules.

 lol, you dumb son.

Internet isn't electricity, there is no reason to "find better methods". 

Just stop it.

Did you even read what I said? I am talking about video compression and overall better file compression methods so data isnt being used as much.

 

[thegoat121886]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

actually legally or illegally is really the question. If people who are affected by this are violating the TOS by their ISP why should the ISP bend their backs for them? Like I said tiered data plans wont be an issue if the pricing is REASONABLE. Data is tiered in web hosting and its worked perfectly fine because the prices are competitive. This is only effecting 2% of the people who subscribe to them its not like the average user is going to be exceeding their limits. I could understand people being outraged if the limits were something unreasonable but I would say 99% of that 2% affected by this are doing something illegal anyways.

where is this 2% number coming from? As i said earlier in the thread, the wording sounds much like the iPhone data memo last summer. 2% my 

. You can't compare web hosting to ISP pricing because they aren't comparable at all. Many people don't have a choice in their ISP. I live in a suburban community just outside of LA, and i have about as much choice in broadband service as a 5 year old has in eating or not eating his vegetables. It's either slow 

 Verizon DSL or slow 

 Charter cable. No FIOS. No U-Verse. Some people have it even worse. Until every market lose the oligarchies (or monopolies), tiered data will not work because fair pricing will not exist.

2% came from the original article in the OP. iPhone data tiered data plan may have offended some by reducing unlimited but the MAJORITY of the users dont go over 2gb not to mention it is also 5 dollars cheaper. Yes it sucks to not have the ability to get all you want but most people wont be affected by this and this will at least improve overall performance for the network quality.

 i meant where is it coming from as where is AT&T getting this 2% figure from. It seems to be the popular number.  what would be an acceptable amount of users using more than 150GBs a month? 5%? 10%? 20%? We can agree to disagree, but it would serve AT&T to be honest and not lie about their intentions. The precedent this sets will only have negative consequences. I guess when web content breaks the threshold of what the current cap can handle they'll make marginal increases, raise the price and call it "fair" 

 

[usainboltisfast]

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

where is this 2% number coming from? As i said earlier in the thread, the wording sounds much like the iPhone data memo last summer. 2% my 

. You can't compare web hosting to ISP pricing because they aren't comparable at all. Many people don't have a choice in their ISP. I live in a suburban community just outside of LA, and i have about as much choice in broadband service as a 5 year old has in eating or not eating his vegetables. It's either slow 

 Verizon DSL or slow 

 Charter cable. No FIOS. No U-Verse. Some people have it even worse. Until every market lose the oligarchies (or monopolies), tiered data will not work because fair pricing will not exist.

2% came from the original article in the OP. iPhone data tiered data plan may have offended some by reducing unlimited but the MAJORITY of the users dont go over 2gb not to mention it is also 5 dollars cheaper. Yes it sucks to not have the ability to get all you want but most people wont be affected by this and this will at least improve overall performance for the network quality.

 i meant where is it coming from as where is AT&T getting this 2% figure from. It seems to be the popular number.  what would be an acceptable amount of users using more than 150GBs a month? 5%? 10%? 20%? We can agree to disagree, but it would serve AT&T to be honest and not lie about their intentions. The precedent this sets will only have negative consequences. I guess when web content breaks the threshold of what the current cap can handle they'll make marginal increases, raise the price and call it "fair" 

Do you really think that more than 2% of internet users use over 250 gb a month? Do you think people can abuse their internet connection? In your shoes what would be a solution to the issue of the exponential increase of data consumption?

 

[thegoat121886]

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

Originally Posted by thegoat121886

Originally Posted by usainboltisfast

2% came from the original article in the OP. iPhone data tiered data plan may have offended some by reducing unlimited but the MAJORITY of the users dont go over 2gb not to mention it is also 5 dollars cheaper. Yes it sucks to not have the ability to get all you want but most people wont be affected by this and this will at least improve overall performance for the network quality.

 i meant where is it coming from as where is AT&T getting this 2% figure from. It seems to be the popular number.  what would be an acceptable amount of users using more than 150GBs a month? 5%? 10%? 20%? We can agree to disagree, but it would serve AT&T to be honest and not lie about their intentions. The precedent this sets will only have negative consequences. I guess when web content breaks the threshold of what the current cap can handle they'll make marginal increases, raise the price and call it "fair" 

Do you really think that more than 2% of internet users use over 250 gb a month? Do you think people can abuse their internet connection? In your shoes what would be a solution to the issue of the exponential increase of data consumption?

1. Yes, i do believe that power users, people with home servers/home offices, people who stream HD content on the regular, and people who have dismissed cable/satellite service to adopt internet models do make up significantly more than 2% of the internet using population.
2. If you mean abuse as in using the unlimited internet that the ISP gives them, sure. what exactly is internet abuse? You can't tell people they have unlimited internet and then get mad when they actually use it

3. In a perfect world, these ISPs would get off their 

, use that R&D allotment and stop trying to put short term patches on long term issues. a better infrastructure would not only help subscribers, but increase revenue. a better product is all we ask for. Japan has done it. South Korea has done it. President Obama has called for it. Why not implement it? 

 

[thegoat121886]

dp

 

[veryanalytical85]

Are you %%%!$** kidding me?
Unbelievable

Whoever posted that article on telecommunication ownership of all the cables providing internet and cable services and such were to lead into this event was on point with the insight. 

 

[sole vintage]

Originally Posted by jretro23

time warner better not do this, but i wouldn't be surprised.

they tried it in some test areas in the Austin, Texas i believe two years ago, it didn't fair well a data cap on crappy service

 

[teeoh owens]

FCC or whoever handles this !!%@ needs to step in.